N2EY wrote:

btw, it's been exactly five years since Len said he was going for
Extra right
out of the box.

(check Google - it's hilarious)

I don't know if "hilarious" was the right adjective, Jim.

I think "pitiful" is more like it.

I am sure that you, like I, have seen people with NO experience in
ANY discipline of radio communication, take a week or two of study and
walk away from a VE session with a CSCE in hand for a new license.

Pity that, then, that a person with Lennie's alleged education and
experience hasn't been able to accomplish it in five YEARS, let alone
weeks.

He said maybe he'd make it, maybe he wouldn't. He hasn't made it.
Yet.

Oh, I don't thing there was ever ANY doubt as to Lennie's
inability to take and pass an Amateur examination.

Perhaps we should all clap our hands about that. ;-) ;-) ;-)
Absolutely.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Excellent post, Len.


"Lenof21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way:

Unfortunately, it does NOT.

Yes it does! ;-)

All it points out is that you are using
this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject
instead of focussing on amateur radio policy.

I think you don't like the fact that it does relate.

In the end, Who cares?

Len obviously cares a lot.

It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to
talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria
wants
to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about
sphinctors,
then "it's all good, man".

I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This
is
an
unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he
just
isn't.

I like the little side trips. It allows us to
get to know each other better.


I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It
allows
us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a
reality
check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows
for
getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few
cases.

Astute observation, Kim! :-)

The "getting to know each other better" phrase is part of the 'standard
boilerplate' of PC phrasing done to make the writer appear like they
know much more than they do, yet tolerate all others in some
curious fashion of the nobility. [i.e., they are "better" because they
tolerate the "inferiors" :-) ]

For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest
playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or
inciting "a riot" so to speak! I know I can get certain people going in
a
heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look
pretty
darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously...

Heh heh heh. The beauty of computer-modem communications
have been demonstrated time and time again since ARPANET
evolved to allow messaging, thus creating the original USENET
(acronym for 'university network').

Isolated by time and space, anyone can "let their hair down" and
feel free to vent all their frustrations, spleens, and (sometimes)
waste-management organs on others. They can do so in the
apparent "safety" of the time and space isolation provided by the
computer-modem linkage. None of it is real-time communications.

The examples are ripe/rife in this newsgroup when it comes to
highly-polarized issues. :-)

In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of
humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so...

Those few of us who had been a part of the "social" Bulletin
Board Systems (as I had beginning 20 years ago) learned very
quickly that the computer personna of some individuals was
quite different from the in-person one.

Computer-modem communications is only slightly less devoid of
the very impersonal radiotelegraphy contact that offers none of
the sensory clues of in-person acquaintenceship...no sight, sound,
or anything else about the other person. With the computer-modem
linkage one gets to see the other's ability to put words together (in
varying degreees of coherency), some slight picturing of education
experience.

What everyone can get is much of the slanted propagandizing of
various organizations and groups, parroted phrasing repeated by
some others as if they were the blessed sayings of the divine.
That is carried over to all forms of beliefs from hobbies to politics.
Some of the Believers can get Outraged at any negativisms of the
Belief System they have bought (or been psychologically
purchased) into and seem to want to Fight To The Death about it.
Computer-modem communications allows them to express their
Compleat Anger quickly...and so the infamous Flame Wars begin.

The unfortunate side of the coin is that the same technology that
allows widespread textual communications also allows storage
of all the communiques for a long time, reproduction of content
possible (in many cases) by anyone with access. Those that
dared to speak their mind "in public" should remember that their
words - en toto - are still out there and could be retrieved for some
"moot court" proceedings by Outraged "barracks lawyers" in a
newsgroup. Such is a many-edged sword waiting to be drawn by
anyone...it can cut every which way and results only in more
useless energy-expenditure by all concerned.

Anyone with some experience, practice, and observation of the
various human beans roaming the planet can do "button-
pressing" of others. Those who are pressed may escalate their
frustrations and anger into kiloton explosive rages. Those can
smoolder for years and erupt into conflagrations of righteous fire
(with brimstone) at any moment. Examples abound in this
newsgroup as well as many others.

The curiosity (to me) is the steadfast Righteousness of some in
their Beliefs, specifically in a hobby activity done (supposedly) for
individual enjoyment and general recreation. The Believers MUST
triumph their Causes or (apparently) die trying to do so. Sort of
a Masada falling/failing again and again and again. :-)

Given enough exposure over years of messaging by Believers
(and "heretics"), one gets a glimpse of the Believers' states of mind
no longer fettered by in-person facades or necessities of social or
employment-hierarchy behavior. Unafraid of direct face-to-face
confrontation (and possible physical retribution), they can Vent.
Perhaps it is a catharsis to vent. Such is difficult to do in-person
without danger of direct harm. Messaging by computer lets us
look behind the in-person behavioral mask...but only somewhat.
Their reaction to comments in opposition to them tells us more.
Adding different catalysts lets us see even more reactions. Given
time their personal dossier almost writes itself. :-)

So...I'd say we DO have a means to see inside others' thinking
(or lack of it) which is not quite possible in-person. On the other
hand, we have no body language responses nor tone of voice nor
facial expressions present on in-person encounters.

One thing for su The common Territorial Imperative will lead many
to Claim Turf for themselves and "buddies." They "own" what goes
on and what should go on...even if they have no separate authority
to do so. They tenaciously hold fast to their Turf (especially the
Beliefs therein) since it is "theirs." :-)



Posted on 17 Jan 05

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Kim"
writes:


I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows
us to get to know each other better"


That was Mike, KB3EIA


Lil 'ol me!


may need just a little bit of a reality
check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for
getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few
cases.

For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest
playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or
inciting "a riot" so to speak! I know I can get certain people going in a
heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look pretty
darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously...

In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of
humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so...

Kim W5TIT


I agree in some ways, Kim, and disagree in others. And it's not a new
phenomenon - it goes back at least to the days of the landline telegraph
operators.

I've met more than a few folks "in person" after first encountering them
online, or on the air. In some cases, the personality you meet on line or
on air is very much the same as the one you meet in person. In others,
the personalities are very different. There's really no 100% sure way to
know ahead of time. The person who is a real %^&# online may be
very nice in person, and vice versa.

Although most of the time, you can still find the person out.


But I have found that it's usually the case that the online or onair
personality
isn't *that* much different. There are exceptions, of course, but if a person
acts like a complete @#$% online, there's a very good chance you won't
like their "in person" personality either.

It they didn't have those particular thoughts and feelings, they
wouldn't write them.

Just IMHO

It is not only MHO, it is a fact.

Much can be learned by those who sit back , watch, and listen.

I think Kim might be thinking that I am acting the chat-room romantic.
(correct me if I'm wrong, Kim)

But our writing tells much about us. When we purposely set out to
decieve, we are eventually outed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Kim"
writes:

I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It
allows us to get to know each other better"

That was Mike, KB3EIA

Lil 'ol me!

may need just a little bit of a reality
check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows for
getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few
cases.

For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest
playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or
inciting "a riot" so to speak! I know I can get certain people going in a
heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look
pretty darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously...

In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of
humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so...

Kim W5TIT

I agree in some ways, Kim, and disagree in others. And it's not a new
phenomenon - it goes back at least to the days of the landline telegraph
operators.

I've met more than a few folks "in person" after first encountering them
online, or on the air. In some cases, the personality you meet on line or
on air is very much the same as the one you meet in person. In others,
the personalities are very different. There's really no 100% sure way to
know ahead of time. The person who is a real %^&# online may be
very nice in person, and vice versa.

Although most of the time, you can still find the person out.

If you wait long enough, their patterns become clear.

But I have found that it's usually the case that the online or onair
personality
isn't *that* much different. There are exceptions, of course, but if a
person
acts like a complete @#$% online, there's a very good chance you won't
like their "in person" personality either.

It they didn't have those particular thoughts and feelings, they
wouldn't write them.

Just IMHO

It is not only MHO, it is a fact.

Much can be learned by those who sit back , watch, and listen.

I think Kim might be thinking that I am acting the chat-room romantic.
(correct me if I'm wrong, Kim)

But our writing tells much about us. When we purposely set out to
decieve, we are eventually outed.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: What does it say about a
person whose online personality appears to be different from their
"in person" one? Which is an act, and which is real? And why bother
with the deception?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:


But I have found that it's usually the case that the online or onair
personality
isn't *that* much different. There are exceptions, of course, but if a
person
acts like a complete @#$% online, there's a very good chance you won't
like their "in person" personality either.

It they didn't have those particular thoughts and feelings, they
wouldn't write them.

Just IMHO

It is not only MHO, it is a fact.


Having come from one line of great debaters (when I was in school) you'd be
hard pressed to "know" the real Kim coming out of a debate arena--and I
consider this newsgroup as a great arena for debate. And, my--IMHO--6th
Grade teacher went about enhancing our debating abilities by making us take
an opposing point of view from one we'd rather have taken. So, I learned to
play Devil's Advocate and have--in my adult life--been known to appear to be
thinking along the lines of one way but what I was actually doing was
testing the convictions of another's beliefs. I actually (for real) enjoy
that very much--for real.

So, I have written things here that are quite, quite different from how I
really feel. Why? Testing the waters, bringing out the worst and/or best
in someone, etc. The one thing I have never lied about is that I never lie.
(GRIN)


Much can be learned by those who sit back , watch, and listen.

I think Kim might be thinking that I am acting the chat-room romantic.
(correct me if I'm wrong, Kim)


Don't know that you need correcting, Mike, in fact I haven't thought much
about your acting (uh, no pun intended).


But our writing tells much about us. When we purposely set out to
decieve, we are eventually outed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -



Hmmmm, isn't that rather psychotic of you, Mike. OOoops, I mean, er,
analytical...LMAO!!!!

Kim W5TIT

Kim wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:



But I have found that it's usually the case that the online or onair
personality
isn't *that* much different. There are exceptions, of course, but if a

person

acts like a complete @#$% online, there's a very good chance you won't
like their "in person" personality either.

It they didn't have those particular thoughts and feelings, they
wouldn't write them.


Just IMHO

It is not only MHO, it is a fact.



Having come from one line of great debaters (when I was in school) you'd be
hard pressed to "know" the real Kim coming out of a debate arena--and I
consider this newsgroup as a great arena for debate. And, my--IMHO--6th
Grade teacher went about enhancing our debating abilities by making us take
an opposing point of view from one we'd rather have taken. So, I learned to
play Devil's Advocate and have--in my adult life--been known to appear to be
thinking along the lines of one way but what I was actually doing was
testing the convictions of another's beliefs. I actually (for real) enjoy
that very much--for real.

So, I have written things here that are quite, quite different from how I
really feel. Why? Testing the waters, bringing out the worst and/or best
in someone, etc. The one thing I have never lied about is that I never lie.
(GRIN)


Much can be learned by those who sit back , watch, and listen.

I think Kim might be thinking that I am acting the chat-room romantic.
(correct me if I'm wrong, Kim)



Don't know that you need correcting, Mike, in fact I haven't thought much
about your acting (uh, no pun intended).


But our writing tells much about us. When we purposely set out to
decieve, we are eventually outed.


73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -




Hmmmm, isn't that rather psychotic of you, Mike. OOoops, I mean, er,
analytical...LMAO!!!!

Hah! It is possible, I suppose! Am I as I post, or am I a weirdo? Or
does the way I post indicate that I AM a weirdo? I've posted enough in
this newsgroup that an observer should be able to tell a lot about my
actual personality. Granted, I don't try to hide it or blast people for
stress relief, so I should be easy.

- Mike KB3EIA -