|
A Special Reply to a Private E-Mail Threat
Hello Everyone,
In the thread about " Selling 52 Simplex Radios", the following comments were made by Mike Coslo, "Rabbi Phil" and myself: QUOTE: Michael Coslo wrote: Rabbi Phil wrote: My friend Lennie Schwartz owns a radio store and was stuck with close to a hundred 52 simplex radios he could not sell. As his Rabbi & chief Sanhedrin, Lennie asked me for advice. Now Lennie has three gorgeous college-age daughters, so I had Lennie get them some cute little outfits, tight tops and tight short-shorts, similar to what the Hooters girls wear. We had the following message boldly printed on the butt end of the shorts and across the bust area of the tops: "I MONITOR 52 SIMPLEX" In less that 24 hours, Lennie sold all his 52 simplex radios at five times the original asking price and had to order more. Every male ham of any age swamped Lennie's radio store and demanded a 52 simplex radio. NOTE FOR HANS: It is not the message that is so important, as how you communicate the message. The only thing worse than being witty is not being witty. Come on, you can do better! 8^) Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! UNQUOTE: So...later this morning I received a private e-mail from one of RRAP'S regular posters. I have snipped the person's name, call sign and e mail headers since the letter was sent in private e-mail. However the e-mail made some very damning comments and a not-so-subtle threat. QUOTE: In rrap Steve Robeson wrote: Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! 73 Steve, K4YZ Burghardt Amateur Center is not in NY. It's a family business which was established by Stan Burghardt, W0IT (SK) 68 years ago in a small South Dakota town. A few years ago one of Stan's long-time employees, Jim Smith W0MJY, purchased the business from Stan and became the second owner. It remains a family owned business, and the lady you mention is Jim's daughter, Michele, KC0MYV, a wholesome midwesterner who is very active in running the "business side" of the store. Often she is pictured standing alongside her dad in their QST ads, never in my knowledge in a provocative sweater. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. UNQUOTE Here's my response to this "letter", made in a very public forum so that the correspondant can't make any other assinine insinuations or out-of-context editorializing: (1) I stand corrected on the South Dakota -vs- New York. My bust. (2) I am sure the young lady is very good at what she does, and is every bit the "wholesome" person you report. I NEVER said anything to the contrary. You are welcome to cite the part of the post wherein I said differently, but you and I both know it's not there. (3) The young lady's character and wholesomeness notwithstanding, THEY obviously had NO PROBLEM in posing her in a tight sweater, profile, in order to attract some male attention to thier ads. "Rabbi Phil" commented about someone else "selling radios" with pictures of pretty women. I pointed out that another Amateur dealer had been doing the same thing, and obviously it worked. Pictures of pretty women sell everything from soft drinks to firearms to high speed automobiles. Amateur Radio is no different. No problem. Now, Dear Anonymous Writer (anonymous HERE...since you and I both know who you are)...You can go RIGHT AHEAD and forward ANYthing you like to ANY one you like. Tell them about "how trashy" the item was, if you want, but it IS archived right ehre in Google. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ |
When I asked the respondent where his/her self righteousness was
after the attacks on my daughet, this was the response I got and my reply: (QUOTE: HEADERS AGAIN SNIPPED FOR PRIVACY OF RESPONDENT) The shots against your daughter are low-life, as was the one you made about Jim Smith and his daughter. There were no "shots", (Name Deleted), ...The point was that a pretty face was able to sell radios. There are others in QST, CQ, etc. If you see anything more sinister than that, I submit that YOU have a very serious problem. But the difference is that you are present on rrap to defend your family while the Smith family is not represented on rrap against your "Musta beem selling SOMEthing!" insinuations. I reiterate the above. You are the one with a problem, (Anonymous Writer). You're looking for evil in everything you see. I could quote Genesis in RRAP and you'd portray me as the evil landlord. Having said that, I must credit you with having the nads not to hide your attack behind an anonymous email address. There was no attack. You are still challenged to cite an "attack". There was only (YOU) looking for a fight. At least you kept this one private. Bravo. UNQUOTE: I think there's some real significant mental issues with someone who finds some sinister evil in commenting that pretty faces sell radios (an "attack", as (s/he) called it), as opposed to those who defile the memory of a dead child. But...ya pays your money and you takes your choice. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote:
I think there's some real significant mental issues with someone who finds some sinister evil in commenting that pretty faces sell radios (an "attack", as (s/he) called it), as opposed to those who defile the memory of a dead child. But...ya pays your money and you takes your choice. After asking the respondant to cite, publically and/or privately where the alleged "attack" was made, the party closed by telling me they wouldn't talk with me anymore and blocked e mail. Guess it didn't matter that they started the exchange. Some folks just don't like to have thier wisdom challenged. Or maybe they were too embarrassed when they realized they had jumped the gun on thier own accusations. Of course the issue wasn't addressed, nor were questions posed answered. I didn't really expect as much, but considering the respondant, I HAD hoped for better. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Chubby Nursie,
I've been valiantly trying to follow this one-sided thread about threats made on you by some anonymous person (or maybe not) in some private(?) email exchange (how do you exchange emails with someone anonymous?). I've come to the conclusion that a) you're making it up, or b) you're corresponding with a phantom who is invisible to the rest of us here on rrap, or c) you've found a miraculous way of exchanging email with anonymous senders If the answer is a) then shame on you. If the answer is b) then seek mental counseling If the answer is c) then consult a patent attorney because you've a gold mine on your hands. 73, M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
Mel A. Nomah wrote: Chubby Nursie, I've been valiantly trying to follow this one-sided thread about threats made on you by some anonymous person (or maybe not) in some private(?) email exchange (how do you exchange emails with someone anonymous?). I've come to the conclusion that Ironic that YOU would say that, eh...?!?! Comeout from behind your veil, oh cowardly anonymous one. Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
Mel A. Nomah wrote:
Chubby Nursie, I've been valiantly trying to follow this one-sided thread about threats made on you by some anonymous person (or maybe not) in some private(?) email exchange (how do you exchange emails with someone anonymous?). I've come to the conclusion that a) you're making it up, or b) you're corresponding with a phantom who is invisible to the rest of us here on rrap, or c) you've found a miraculous way of exchanging email with anonymous senders If the answer is a) then shame on you. If the answer is b) then seek mental counseling If the answer is c) then consult a patent attorney because you've a gold mine on your hands. 73, M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire The other poster is real, Mel. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... : : The other poster is real, Mel. : : - Mike KB3EIA - Hmmmmmm...... then my usenet link is broken, because all I see are posts from K4YZ directed at Anonymous, and nothing from "the other poster". Maybe my usenet link is screening out Anonymous. Guess that's probably a good thing! Thanks. M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
K4YZ wrote: Hello Everyone, In the thread about " Selling 52 Simplex Radios", the following comments were made by Mike Coslo, "Rabbi Phil" and myself: QUOTE: Michael Coslo wrote: Rabbi Phil wrote: My friend Lennie Schwartz owns a radio store and was stuck with close to a hundred 52 simplex radios he could not sell. As his Rabbi & chief Sanhedrin, Lennie asked me for advice. Now Lennie has three gorgeous college-age daughters, so I had Lennie get them some cute little outfits, tight tops and tight short-shorts, similar to what the Hooters girls wear. We had the following message boldly printed on the butt end of the shorts and across the bust area of the tops: "I MONITOR 52 SIMPLEX" In less that 24 hours, Lennie sold all his 52 simplex radios at five times the original asking price and had to order more. Every male ham of any age swamped Lennie's radio store and demanded a 52 simplex radio. NOTE FOR HANS: It is not the message that is so important, as how you communicate the message. The only thing worse than being witty is not being witty. Come on, you can do better! 8^) Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! But not radios, huh??? UNQUOTE: So...later this morning I received a private e-mail from one of RRAP'S regular posters. I have snipped the person's name, call sign and e mail headers since the letter was sent in private e-mail. However the e-mail made some very damning comments and a not-so-subtle threat. QUOTE: In rrap Steve Robeson wrote: Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! 73 Steve, K4YZ Burghardt Amateur Center is not in NY. It's a family business which was established by Stan Burghardt, W0IT (SK) 68 years ago in a small South Dakota town. A few years ago one of Stan's long-time employees, Jim Smith W0MJY, purchased the business from Stan and became the second owner. It remains a family owned business, and the lady you mention is Jim's daughter, Michele, KC0MYV, a wholesome midwesterner who is very active in running the "business side" of the store. Often she is pictured standing alongside her dad in their QST ads, never in my knowledge in a provocative sweater. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. Not really, but it is true to Steve's style. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. Unlikely. UNQUOTE Here's my response to this "letter", made in a very public forum so that the correspondant can't make any other assinine insinuations or out-of-context editorializing: (1) I stand corrected on the South Dakota -vs- New York. My bust. (2) I am sure the young lady is very good at what she does, and is every bit the "wholesome" person you report. I NEVER said anything to the contrary. You are welcome to cite the part of the post wherein I said differently, but you and I both know it's not there. (3) The young lady's character and wholesomeness notwithstanding, THEY obviously had NO PROBLEM in posing her in a tight sweater, profile, in order to attract some male attention to thier ads. "Rabbi Phil" commented about someone else "selling radios" with pictures of pretty women. I pointed out that another Amateur dealer had been doing the same thing, and obviously it worked. Pictures of pretty women sell everything from soft drinks to firearms to high speed automobiles. Amateur Radio is no different. No problem. Now, Dear Anonymous Writer (anonymous HERE...since you and I both know who you are)...You can go RIGHT AHEAD and forward ANYthing you like to ANY one you like. Tell them about "how trashy" the item was, if you want, but it IS archived right ehre in Google. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo. If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant. He's always the victim. Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100% disability hearing. |
Mike Coslo wrote: Mel A. Nomah wrote: Chubby Nursie, I've been valiantly trying to follow this one-sided thread about threats made on you by some anonymous person (or maybe not) in some private(?) email exchange (how do you exchange emails with someone anonymous?). I've come to the conclusion that a) you're making it up, or b) you're corresponding with a phantom who is invisible to the rest of us here on rrap, or c) you've found a miraculous way of exchanging email with anonymous senders If the answer is a) then shame on you. If the answer is b) then seek mental counseling If the answer is c) then consult a patent attorney because you've a gold mine on your hands. 73, M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire The other poster is real, Mel. - Mike KB3EIA - Do you and Robeson share an e-mail account? |
bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Mel A. Nomah wrote: Chubby Nursie, I've been valiantly trying to follow this one-sided thread about threats made on you by some anonymous person (or maybe not) in some private(?) email exchange (how do you exchange emails with someone anonymous?). I've come to the conclusion that a) you're making it up, or b) you're corresponding with a phantom who is invisible to the rest of us here on rrap, or c) you've found a miraculous way of exchanging email with anonymous senders If the answer is a) then shame on you. If the answer is b) then seek mental counseling If the answer is c) then consult a patent attorney because you've a gold mine on your hands. 73, M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire The other poster is real, Mel. - Mike KB3EIA - Do you and Robeson share an e-mail account? Nope. but the person involved emailed me also. And since it was private email, I won't divulge the name. As for the content of Steve's post, a person can either take it to mean that an attractive person used in an advertisement is a successful tactic ala "must be selling something", or that an attractive person in an advertisement is selling sex. I chose to read it as being a successful tactic, because most ads with attractive people are selling other things. Too bad, that. Otherwise I might have a career as a supermodel......... ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote: Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! But not radios, huh??? Only radios. You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track, race to evil conclusions minds. Bad thing to have. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. Not really, but it is true to Steve's style. What style? I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. Unlikely. Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was expressed. The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't one. The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no other reason than it WAS me making the comments. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo. The "innuendo" was the respondants. If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant. What's to "call", Brain? He's always the victim. Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese. Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100% disability hearing. And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never substantiate. Steve, K4YZ |
Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Do you and Robeson share an e-mail account? Nope. but the person involved emailed me also. And since it was private email, I won't divulge the name. As for the content of Steve's post, a person can either take it to mean that an attractive person used in an advertisement is a successful tactic ala "must be selling something", or that an attractive person in an advertisement is selling sex. I chose to read it as being a successful tactic, because most ads with attractive people are selling other things. But that requires a patient, mature mind, Mike...Not one ready to jump to conclusions or always scratching for a fight. Too bad, that. Otherwise I might have a career as a supermodel......... ;^) You and me both, Brother...You and me both!...! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Who is it?
Brain or Brian? "there goes Brain with yet another lie..." You really should get this right. If you don't, that oddball 'Not Roger' miscreant will take you to task. Of course nobody gives a healthy hoot what 'Not Roger' has to say. The guy is a Bottom Feeder who ranks in the lower world of Nowhere. Poor 'Not Roger' has been thrashing about in his own self-made cesspool version of Purgatory for most of his adult life. -- "The funny thing is, you don't know your fat ass from a whole in the ground, ****-for-brains." Roger Wiseman "K4YZ" wrote in message ups.com... bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! But not radios, huh??? Only radios. You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track, race to evil conclusions minds. Bad thing to have. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. Not really, but it is true to Steve's style. What style? I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. Unlikely. Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was expressed. The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't one. The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no other reason than it WAS me making the comments. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo. The "innuendo" was the respondants. If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant. What's to "call", Brain? He's always the victim. Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese. Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100% disability hearing. And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never substantiate. Steve, K4YZ |
It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this "private"
real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike but doesn't have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the embarassing position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who threatened them. Strangerer and strangerer! M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! But not radios, huh??? Only radios. Obviously "something" that radio sellers sell is radios. So why make such an obvious statement? You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track, race to evil conclusions minds. Bad thing to have. And so you try to make others the deviants. Isn't working. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. Not really, but it is true to Steve's style. What style? True enough in the usual sense. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. Unlikely. Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was expressed. The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't one. The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no other reason than it WAS me making the comments. I see no attack. (S)he asked you to apologize for an off comment. I certainly have no problem with that person forwarding your comments to the young lady and her father whether you apologize or not. You made your comments in a public forum, right? Maybe you'd like to have 30 minutes at the Dayton Hamvention banquet to explain yourself, your view of how people are always misunderstanding what you say, and why you are the victim. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo. The "innuendo" was the respondants. If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant. What's to "call", Brain? He's always the victim. Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese. I am no victim of yours. You would have to matter for that to happen, and you just don't matter. You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100% disability hearing. And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never substantiate. Steve, K4YZ So you're not disabled? |
Mel A. Nomah wrote: It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this "private" real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike but doesn't have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the embarassing position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who threatened them. Strangerer and strangerer! M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire Strangereer indeed. You know, Mel, if that real but anonymous person had suggested in his/her quasi-"private" email with CC's to Mike and who knows else, that brick would fly through windows, tires would be slashed, and wives terrorized, I could see Steve Robeson/K4YZ characterizing the email as a threat. But the person merely indicated that Steve's publicly made inuendo would reach the person to whom he made the comments about. I see no threat. I see Robeson posturing and pretending to be a victim himself. At best he's merely a #1 jerk who may have once worn a marine uniform. At worst he needs to seek counseling. |
Mel A. Nomah wrote:
It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this "private" real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike No one threatened me, Mel. I was just cc'd in the reply the person made to Steve. but doesn't have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the embarassing position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who threatened them. Strangerer and strangerer! And how! M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire I do like that quote........ - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mel A. Nomah wrote: It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this "private" real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike but doesn't have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the embarassing position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who threatened them. Neither of us were vicitimized. The person making the "threats" didn't have the "stuff" to make the threat he claimed he would. And if s/he carried out the intended threat, s/he would have looked sillier than the quotes s/he was claiming to be inappropriate. And if you had paid attention to previous posts, YOU would know that we know exactly who the third person is. The comments were discussed here since they related to an on-going post. Just as I expected, no one perceived the same "impropriety" that the un-named author did. Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! But not radios, huh??? Only radios. Obviously "something" that radio sellers sell is radios. So why make such an obvious statement? You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track, race to evil conclusions minds. Bad thing to have. And so you try to make others the deviants. Isn't working. I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. Not really, but it is true to Steve's style. What style? True enough in the usual sense. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. Unlikely. Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was expressed. The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't one. The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no other reason than it WAS me making the comments. I see no attack. (S)he asked you to apologize for an off comment. I certainly have no problem with that person forwarding your comments to the young lady and her father whether you apologize or not. You made your comments in a public forum, right? I did. And why would I apologize for an "attack" that didn't occur? Maybe you'd like to have 30 minutes at the Dayton Hamvention banquet to explain yourself, your view of how people are always misunderstanding what you say, and why you are the victim. (1) I am not a victim (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. And what would you care anyway? You said you had other plans much too important to atttend Dayton. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo. The "innuendo" was the respondants. If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant. What's to "call", Brain? He's always the victim. Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese. I am no victim of yours. I didn't say you were. I said that my failure to BE victimized irritates (grates your cheese) you. You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't matter. Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for over 85% of YOUR posts. You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100% disability hearing. And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never substantiate. Steve, K4YZ So you're not disabled? I didn't say I wasn't...However YOU claimed that I "rehearsed for (my) 100% disability hearing". I have NEVER participated in ANY hearing for ANY degree of disability. And I am certainly NOT "100%" disabled. Try again, Brian... Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote: Strangereer indeed. You know, Mel, if that real but anonymous person had suggested in his/her quasi-"private" email with CC's to Mike and who knows else, that brick would fly through windows, tires would be slashed, and wives terrorized, I could see Steve Robeson/K4YZ characterizing the email as a threat. Glad you brought that up, Brian. You've claimed that I have made such threats. I have asked you over and over to quote the posts wherein I allegedly made such threats, but all you do is continue to make the insinuation. Of course you and I both know the threats were never made...I just enjoy rubbing your nose in your frequent retelling of already disposven lies. But the person merely indicated that Steve's publicly made inuendo would reach the person to whom he made the comments about. The statement was made that this was an "attack", and characterised as such. The respondant was asked to demonstrate where the "attack" was. S/he did not...COULD not, since one was not made. I see no threat. Claiming to be ready to tell third parties that they were "attacked" in a public forum when no auch attack occured could be a threat...However no such "attack" was ever made. I see Robeson posturing and pretending to be a victim himself. I'm not a victim. I refuse to be one. That's why YOU can't get away with your misrepresentations about Amateur Radio. I AM a licensed Amateur, and such misrepresentations necessarilly include me. I refuse to allow you to lie about me. At best he's merely a #1 jerk who may have once worn a marine uniform. "May have"...?!?! At worst he needs to seek counseling. Still waiting for you to ante up those healthcare licenses or certifications, Brian. Try again. Steve, K4YZ |
"K4YZ" wrote in message ps.com... : : And if you had paid attention to previous posts, YOU would know : that we know exactly who the third person is. : Sorry, I missed that, and going back over the thread history I now see that you have identified the anonymous person who privately threatened you. Which raises the question as to why you and Mike (I'm still confused as to how Mike is involved) didn't just reply to her (him?) instead of bore us here with your one-sided diatribe. I thought the fact that she (he?) has blocked your email must be the reason you need to use this medium to communicate, but on examination that block seems after the fact. Maybe you just needed to vent. On the other hand, I still haven't ruled out the notion that she (he?) is a phantom and you're just staging an entertainment for us here. 73, M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: Strangereer indeed. You know, Mel, if that real but anonymous person had suggested in his/her quasi-"private" email with CC's to Mike and who knows else, that brick would fly through windows, tires would be slashed, and wives terrorized, I could see Steve Robeson/K4YZ characterizing the email as a threat. Glad you brought that up, Brian. Doesn't make me happy or sad. It's just a fact that you posted just those scenarios. Maybe you thought you were giving some "friendly advice." You've claimed that I have made such threats. If you view someone saying that they were going to forward your comments to the very person that you made the comments about as a "THREAT," I can only wonder how you might have reacted had that person suggested that you might have your tires slashed, windows broken, and wife terrorized (by other people, of course) all because your shot off your big mouth? Claiming to be ready to tell third parties that they were "attacked" in a public forum when no auch attack occured could be a threat...However no such "attack" was ever made. So how is Jim? As it is only Mike stands with you. I wonder when he will fade away, too. I see Robeson posturing and pretending to be a victim himself. I'm not a victim. I refuse to be one. Bully for you (however misguided you may be). That's why YOU can't get away with your misrepresentations about Amateur Radio. I AM a licensed Amateur, and such misrepresentations necessarilly include me. And I am a licensed amateur. My comments especially included you. I refuse to allow you to lie about me. That could only work if I were lying. |
K4YZ wrote: Mel A. Nomah wrote: It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this "private" real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike but doesn't have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the embarassing position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who threatened them. Neither of us were vicitimized. Because the gunny stood tall! Or at least he sucked that gut in. The person making the "threats" didn't have the "stuff" to make the threat he claimed he would. How do you know this? And if s/he carried out the intended threat, s/he would have looked sillier than the quotes s/he was claiming to be inappropriate. You continue to look sillier and sillier. And if you had paid attention to previous posts, YOU would know that we know exactly who the third person is. The comments were discussed here since they related to an on-going post. Just as I expected, no one perceived the same "impropriety" that the un-named author did. I did, and I said so. So your above statement is knowingly false. |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! But not radios, huh??? Only radios. Obviously "something" that radio sellers sell is radios. So why make such an obvious statement? You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track, race to evil conclusions minds. Bad thing to have. And so you try to make others the deviants. Isn't working. I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. Not really, but it is true to Steve's style. What style? True enough in the usual sense. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. Unlikely. Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was expressed. The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't one. The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no other reason than it WAS me making the comments. I see no attack. (S)he asked you to apologize for an off comment. I certainly have no problem with that person forwarding your comments to the young lady and her father whether you apologize or not. You made your comments in a public forum, right? I did. And why would I apologize for an "attack" that didn't occur? Maybe you'd like to have 30 minutes at the Dayton Hamvention banquet to explain yourself, your view of how people are always misunderstanding what you say, and why you are the victim. (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? And what would you care anyway? You said you had other plans much too important to atttend Dayton. You sound like a man who needs to clear his conscience. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo. The "innuendo" was the respondants. If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant. What's to "call", Brain? He's always the victim. Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese. I am no victim of yours. I didn't say you were. I said that my failure to BE victimized irritates (grates your cheese) you. Not at all. I have no intention of making you a victim, and I want no responsibility for your actions. You handily do the victim routine all by yourself (see mirror). You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't matter. Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for over 85% of YOUR posts. What's your track record? You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? The one you exhibit daily on rrap. |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. You're in denial, Brian...No problem...WE see it...You still haev a ways to go to get better. (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! I imagine you hear a lot of laughter, Brian....and not all of it from kids playing in the yard or the "laugh track" on your favorite sitcom. (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? There's no lying involved, Brian, other than your attempt to redirect the specific comments being made. Nice try. Very transparent. Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nope. I am no victim of yours. I didn't say you were. I said that my failure to BE victimized irritates (grates your cheese) you. Not at all. I have no intention of making you a victim, and I want no responsibility for your actions. You handily do the victim routine all by yourself (see mirror). You still say you're holding up a mirror, yet all the foolish assertions are still yours and still unanswered. You try to redirect, and I refuse to allow you. No problem. You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't matter. Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for over 85% of YOUR posts. What's your track record? Oh, I make no "warranty" about what and how I post. I quite readily acknowledge that I am quite ready to stand toe-to-toe with those who are obviously lying, misrepresenting Amateur Radio, or inisist on acting foolishly in public. Thankfully that sub-group of ner-do-wells is fairly narrow. You. Lennie. Todd. Mark Morgan. The fairly few number of anonymous cowards who haven't got the guts or strength of conviction to stand behind thier already lame game. You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? The one you exhibit daily on rrap. You've not yet defined or identified any "emotional defect", Brian. That comes from a lack of understanding of the words you're using and from a lack of training/education in any healthcare related discipline from which to draw the requisite knowledge from. Try again. Steve, K4YZ |
From: "bb" on Mon, Apr 4 2005 4:25 pm:
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: etc., etc., etc.... I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. Heh. He can't see his own reflection... :-) [...sort of a supernatural thing there...] (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! Nursie is NEVER at fault...ALWAYS someone else's fault! :-) (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nursie NEVER lie! :-) I haven't posted in this newsgroup for (about) 2 weeks. Stevie da wonder ham is still angry, resentful, and otherwise unglued about no one respecting his Dill Instructor attitude for the past six years or so...:-) "Temper fry?" Whoeee...temper be roasted to a crisp! And what would you care anyway? You said you had other plans much too important to atttend Dayton. You sound like a man who needs to clear his conscience. First he has to HAVE a conscience... :-) Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese. I am no victim of yours. I didn't say you were. I said that my failure to BE victimized irritates (grates your cheese) you. Not at all. I have no intention of making you a victim, and I want no responsibility for your actions. You handily do the victim routine all by yourself (see mirror). The Avenging Angle is purely responsible for his own actions...but, as noted, he can't see that in the non-reflection (of himself) so, ergo, he is NOT accountable for anything... :-) It's ALWAYS "everyone else's fault!" :-) Stebie has NO accreditation in accounting, by the way. Without credentialed expertise in accounting, he cannot account for it. :-) You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? The one you exhibit daily on rrap. 1. He CAN'T see that... 2. Stebie is ALWAYS right, anyone disagreeing with him is ALWAYS wrong... 3. This whole newsgroup seems to be all about Hero Stebie Fighting The Forces of Evil... :-) The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. It's turned into an sort of professional wrestler arena of the old B&W TV days where everything is about everyone doing battle with everyone else on personalities... :-) |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. You're in denial, Brian...No problem...WE see it... Who? You and you anonymous "attacker?" (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! I imagine you hear a lot of laughter, Brian.... That's how hams laugh. and not all of it from kids playing in the yard or the "laugh track" on your favorite sitcom. I'm not big on sitcoms. You provide enough comic relief for me. (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? There's no lying involved, Brian, other than your attempt to redirect the specific comments being made. Nice try. Very transparent. No dodge, plymouth, nor chrysler. You lied. Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nope. Show it. I am no victim of yours. I didn't say you were. I said that my failure to BE victimized irritates (grates your cheese) you. Not at all. I have no intention of making you a victim, and I want no responsibility for your actions. You handily do the victim routine all by yourself (see mirror). You still say you're holding up a mirror, yet all the foolish assertions are still yours and still unanswered. You try to redirect, and I refuse to allow you. No problem. Big problem(s). You lied. You lied four times. You lied about your inuendo, you lied when you characterized the anon e-mailer as and "attacker," you lied about all of it not being a problem for anyone except your anonymous "attacker," and then you lied about Len's involvement in this thread. I wonder how many lies you'll tell tomorrow? You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't matter. Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for over 85% of YOUR posts. What's your track record? Oh, I make no "warranty" about what and how I post. You couldn't honor the warranty when it comes due. I quite readily acknowledge that I am quite ready to stand toe-to-toe with those who are obviously lying, misrepresenting Amateur Radio, or inisist on acting foolishly in public. Toe to toe? Welp, you got called on your inuendo, you got called on characterizing the anon e-mailer as an "attacker," you got called on your lying, and now the mirror is being help up for you to see yourself as the liar that you are. Thankfully that sub-group of ner-do-wells is fairly narrow. You. Lennie. Todd. Mark Morgan. The fairly few number of anonymous cowards who haven't got the guts or strength of conviction to stand behind thier already lame game. "Thier" lame game? Look, you're the one playing off-duty COP on rrap. You've shot off your mouth once too often and someone is now trying to get back at you with vile comments about your daughter. You shot off your mouth again about a young woman in an amateur radio advertisement, and some anonymous rrapper called you on it. You stand alone. No one supports your latest gaffe. You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? The one you exhibit daily on rrap. You've not yet defined or identified any "emotional defect", Brian. That comes from a lack of understanding of the words you're using and from a lack of training/education in any healthcare related discipline from which to draw the requisite knowledge from. Try again. Nope. I don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize a nutcase. |
wrote: From: "bb" on Mon, Apr 4 2005 4:25 pm: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: etc., etc., etc.... I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. Heh. He can't see his own reflection... :-) [...sort of a supernatural thing there...] American Wereham in London. (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! Nursie is NEVER at fault...ALWAYS someone else's fault! :-) He'll say I "made" him do (whatever). (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nursie NEVER lie! :-) I haven't posted in this newsgroup for (about) 2 weeks. It's making him crazy. He has no access to you. He's cold turkey and using me as methadone. Stevie da wonder ham is still angry, resentful, and otherwise unglued about no one respecting his Dill Instructor attitude for the past six years or so...:-) "Temper fry?" Whoeee...temper be roasted to a crisp! Newly recruited marines are sometimes discharged for non-adaptability to military life. Steve should be put back in the Corps for non-adaptability to civilian life. Let them deal with his lies, assinine assertions, impossible delusions, and generally disrespectful attitude. And what would you care anyway? You said you had other plans much too important to atttend Dayton. You sound like a man who needs to clear his conscience. First he has to HAVE a conscience... :-) Ooooh. I wanted to make a "brain" comment sooo badly... Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese. I am no victim of yours. I didn't say you were. I said that my failure to BE victimized irritates (grates your cheese) you. Not at all. I have no intention of making you a victim, and I want no responsibility for your actions. You handily do the victim routine all by yourself (see mirror). The Avenging Angle is purely responsible for his own actions... Everyone else recognizes that. but, as noted, he can't see that in the non-reflection (of himself) so, ergo, he is NOT accountable for anything... :-) It's ALWAYS "everyone else's fault!" :-) "Brain made me do it!" Stebie has NO accreditation in accounting, by the way. Without credentialed expertise in accounting, he cannot account for it. :-) Everyone must have "Wallpaper." You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? The one you exhibit daily on rrap. 1. He CAN'T see that... 2. Stebie is ALWAYS right, anyone disagreeing with him is ALWAYS wrong... 3. This whole newsgroup seems to be all about Hero Stebie Fighting The Forces of Evil... :-) Only the evil genius played a trick on Steve. Steve is the forces of evil. The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. It's turned into an sort of professional wrestler arena of the old B&W TV days where everything is about everyone doing battle with everyone else on personalities... :-) WWF is still about personalities (if any of them had a personality). Steve has one and it's defective. |
bb wrote:
wrote: From: "bb" on Mon, Apr 4 2005 4:25 pm: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: etc., etc., etc.... I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. Heh. He can't see his own reflection... :-) [...sort of a supernatural thing there...] American Wereham in London. (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! Nursie is NEVER at fault...ALWAYS someone else's fault! :-) He'll say I "made" him do (whatever). (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nursie NEVER lie! :-) I haven't posted in this newsgroup for (about) 2 weeks. It's making him crazy. He has no access to you. He's cold turkey and using me as methadone. Stevie da wonder ham is still angry, resentful, and otherwise unglued about no one respecting his Dill Instructor attitude for the past six years or so...:-) "Temper fry?" Whoeee...temper be roasted to a crisp! Newly recruited marines are sometimes discharged for non-adaptability to military life. Steve should be put back in the Corps for non-adaptability to civilian life. Let them deal with his lies, assinine assertions, impossible delusions, and generally disrespectful attitude. Don't you ever feel silly playing Len's game after his numerous posts in which he inevitably claims that he is here only to engage in civil debate over the removal of morse code testing, accuses others of engaging in personal attacks and denigration and then proceeds to do that of which he accuses others? Dave K8MN |
wrote: The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. Whoooooooa! There's a major rhetoric change on the part of Lennie the Lame! Up until recently this forum been solely about the "Morse Code Test Debate"...Or so he's claimed... Finally get tired of getting your head bashed in over and over with FACTS to the contrary, Oh Spiteful One...?!?! Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. You're in denial, Brian...No problem...WE see it... Who? You and you anonymous "attacker?" (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! I imagine you hear a lot of laughter, Brian.... That's how hams laugh. Strange...When I laugh it sounds more like "hahaha". and not all of it from kids playing in the yard or the "laugh track" on your favorite sitcom. I'm not big on sitcoms. You provide enough comic relief for me. The sad part, Brian, is that the laugh's on you. You just can't or won't see it. There's no lying involved, Brian, other than your attempt to redirect the specific comments being made. Nice try. Very transparent. No dodge, plymouth, nor chrysler. You lied. Cute. Still doesn't change anything. And no, I did not lie. Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nope. Show it. It's in this thread chain, Brian. Help yourself. You try to redirect, and I refuse to allow you. No problem. Big problem(s). You lied. You lied four times. You lied about your inuendo...(SNIP) There was no "innuendo". There was YOU trying to make something out of something else said. (UNSNIP)...you lied when you characterized the anon e-mailer as and "attacker,"...(SNIP) I didn't say he made an attack, Brian. I said he made a threat to forward my other comments to the family of the young lady whose picture we were discussing. The word "attack" was the other correspondants, not mine. (UNSNIP)...you lied about all of it not being a problem for anyone except your anonymous "attacker," and then you lied about Len's involvement in this thread. I didn't say Lennie was involved in the thread. Re-read what was written originally, Brian! Seems you and the anonymous lying coward have the same reading and comprehension deficits, Brian. I wonder how many lies you'll tell tomorrow? None...So far, you've not shown where I lied at all, Brian. You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't matter. Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for over 85% of YOUR posts. What's your track record? Oh, I make no "warranty" about what and how I post. You couldn't honor the warranty when it comes due. There being none, there is none to honor. I quite readily acknowledge that I am quite ready to stand toe-to-toe with those who are obviously lying, misrepresenting Amateur Radio, or inisist on acting foolishly in public. Toe to toe? Yep. Welp, you got called on your inuendo, you got called on characterizing the anon e-mailer as an "attacker," you got called on your lying, and now the mirror is being help up for you to see yourself as the liar that you are. I didn't make any innuendo. You injected your own opinion. I didn't call the e mailer an "attacker". Here are all of my comments from March 31st, the date of my original post. For brevity, I have snipped everyone else's comments, however you can easily cross-check the other thread to see that I have not "edited" my own words, even for typos: QUOTE: Hello Everyone, In the thread about " Selling 52 Simplex Radios", the following comments were made by Mike Coslo, "Rabbi Phil" and myself: QUOTE: Michael Coslo wrote: Rabbi Phil wrote: K4YZ wrote: (SNIPPAGE HERE) Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! UNQUOTE: So...later this morning I received a private e-mail from one of RRAP'S regular posters. I have snipped the person's name, call sign and e mail headers since the letter was sent in private e-mail. However the e-mail made some very damning comments and a not-so-subtle threat. QUOTE: In rrap Steve Robeson wrote: Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! 73 Steve, K4YZ Burghardt Amateur Center is not in NY. It's a family business which was established by Stan Burghardt, W0IT (SK) 68 years ago in a small South Dakota town. A few years ago one of Stan's long-time employees, Jim Smith W0MJY, purchased the business from Stan and became the second owner. It remains a family owned business, and the lady you mention is Jim's daughter, Michele, KC0MYV, a wholesome midwesterner who is very active in running the "business side" of the store. Often she is pictured standing alongside her dad in their QST ads, never in my knowledge in a provocative sweater. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. UNQUOTE Here's my response to this "letter", made in a very public forum so that the correspondant can't make any other assinine insinuations or out-of-context editorializing: (1) I stand corrected on the South Dakota -vs- New York. My bust. (2) I am sure the young lady is very good at what she does, and is every bit the "wholesome" person you report. I NEVER said anything to the contrary. You are welcome to cite the part of the post wherein I said differently, but you and I both know it's not there. (3) The young lady's character and wholesomeness notwithstanding, THEY obviously had NO PROBLEM in posing her in a tight sweater, profile, in order to attract some male attention to thier ads. "Rabbi Phil" commented about someone else "selling radios" with pictures of pretty women. I pointed out that another Amateur dealer had been doing the same thing, and obviously it worked. Pictures of pretty women sell everything from soft drinks to firearms to high speed automobiles. Amateur Radio is no different. No problem. Now, Dear Anonymous Writer (anonymous HERE...since you and I both know who you are)...You can go RIGHT AHEAD and forward ANYthing you like to ANY one you like. Tell them about "how trashy" the item was, if you want, but it IS archived right ehre in Google. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ UNQUOTE OK, Brain...YOU show US wherein I called the anonymous correspondant an "attacker". Matter of fact, go back to the original thread and go through any of the posts I made and find one where I called the correspondant an "attacker". Thankfully that sub-group of ner-do-wells is fairly narrow. You. Lennie. Todd. Mark Morgan. The fairly few number of anonymous cowards who haven't got the guts or strength of conviction to stand behind thier already lame game. "Thier" lame game? Look, you're the one playing off-duty COP on rrap. What "cop"...?!?! The only thing I have "arrested" is the promulgation of further lies, mistruths and assinine assertions by you, Lennie and Todd. So far, while not 100% effective, it's worked. You've shot off your mouth once too often and someone is now trying to get back at you with vile comments about your daughter. They are vile and speak to the character of the "author". He'll get his eventually. And you never acknowledge my thanks to you. You shot off your mouth again about a young woman in an amateur radio advertisement, and some anonymous rrapper called you on it. There was no "shooting" off of anyone's mouth. There was a comment about how effective the presence of a pretty woman in an Amateur Radio advertisment helps to sell Amateur Radio equipment. Unless you know something I don't know about it, "sex" is a multi-billion dollar selling tool. I can't drive the few minutes to work without passing a half dozen biilborads that have beautiful women and handsome men hawking some goods on it... You stand alone. No one supports your latest gaffe. So far, Mike Coslo made a statement that very celarly said that the statement could be read as such. He was correct. And so far, neither you, any of the anonymous lying cowards, the original correspondant or Lennie have disproven otherwise. You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? The one you exhibit daily on rrap. You've not yet defined or identified any "emotional defect", Brian. That comes from a lack of understanding of the words you're using and from a lack of training/education in any healthcare related discipline from which to draw the requisite knowledge from. Try again. Nope. I don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize a nutcase. But it would help. So far you've made countless accusations of mental defect, but have yet to prove a one. On the OTHER hand, YOU have made COUNTLESS assertions and misrepresentations that you can't or won't substantiate, your LATEST being the one that ARES can't/won't respond to any "major" emergency due to alleged age, infirmity or previous obligations of the members. Someone here HAS some issues to deal with Brian...But it's not me. Now...THIS post asks you to explain several of YOUR "gaffes", and provides SPECIFIC quotes that DISPROVE your silly allegations. So how are you going to climb out from under THIS one, Brian? Disappear for another couple weeks and hope we forget about YOUR lying? Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. You're in denial, Brian...No problem...WE see it... Who? You and you anonymous "attacker?" (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! I imagine you hear a lot of laughter, Brian.... That's how hams laugh. Strange...When I laugh it sounds more like "hahaha". So why do you type, "Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !!!" and not all of it from kids playing in the yard or the "laugh track" on your favorite sitcom. I'm not big on sitcoms. You provide enough comic relief for me. The sad part, Brian, is that the laugh's on you. You just can't or won't see it. You're only partly correct. I don't see it because it isn't there. You're the lone lost patrol on rrap. You're an Army of one. There's no lying involved, Brian, other than your attempt to redirect the specific comments being made. Nice try. Very transparent. No dodge, plymouth, nor chrysler. You lied. Cute. Still doesn't change anything. And no, I did not lie. That makes lie #5. Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nope. Show it. It's in this thread chain, Brian. Help yourself. So you're taking the fifth? You try to redirect, and I refuse to allow you. No problem. Big problem(s). You lied. You lied four times. You lied about your inuendo...(SNIP) There was no "innuendo". There was YOU trying to make something out of something else said. Sorry Steve, anyone with more than half their brain tied behind their back would see your inuendo. How's Jim? (UNSNIP)...you lied when you characterized the anon e-mailer as and "attacker,"...(SNIP) I didn't say he made an attack, Brian. You characterized him/her as an "attacker." I'm curious how you define an "attacker?" Perhaps an attacker is a person who makes attacks??? Seven hostile attacks??? I said he made a threat to forward my other comments to the family of the young lady whose picture we were discussing. The word "attack" was the other correspondants, not mine. So you define as a threat someone who passes your comment on to the person you made the comments about? You're pretty weak in the knees on this one. (UNSNIP)...you lied about all of it not being a problem for anyone except your anonymous "attacker," and then you lied about Len's involvement in this thread. I didn't say Lennie was involved in the thread. Re-read what was written originally, Brian! "Len" Seems you and the anonymous lying coward have the same reading and comprehension deficits, Brian. So how is Jim? I wonder how many lies you'll tell tomorrow? None...So far, you've not shown where I lied at all, Brian. One so far. See above. You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't matter. Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for over 85% of YOUR posts. What's your track record? Oh, I make no "warranty" about what and how I post. You couldn't honor the warranty when it comes due. There being none, there is none to honor. Then you are honorless. But we knew that already. I quite readily acknowledge that I am quite ready to stand toe-to-toe with those who are obviously lying, misrepresenting Amateur Radio, or inisist on acting foolishly in public. Toe to toe? Yep. Sounds like a fight. Welp, you got called on your inuendo, you got called on characterizing the anon e-mailer as an "attacker," you got called on your lying, and now the mirror is being help up for you to see yourself as the liar that you are. I didn't make any innuendo. You did. You injected your own opinion. Opinions are not allowed, Oh Master Gunny? I didn't call the e mailer an "attacker". You repeated it often enough. Here are all of my comments from March 31st, the date of my original post. For brevity, I have snipped everyone else's comments, however you can easily cross-check the other thread to see that I have not "edited" my own words, even for typos: QUOTE: Hello Everyone, In the thread about " Selling 52 Simplex Radios", the following comments were made by Mike Coslo, "Rabbi Phil" and myself: QUOTE: Michael Coslo wrote: Rabbi Phil wrote: K4YZ wrote: (SNIPPAGE HERE) Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! UNQUOTE: So...later this morning I received a private e-mail from one of RRAP'S regular posters. I have snipped the person's name, call sign and e mail headers since the letter was sent in private e-mail. However the e-mail made some very damning comments and a not-so-subtle threat. "not-so-subtle threat???" And you said "I didn't call the e mailer an "attacker"." I guess people who make threats aren't attackers. QUOTE: In rrap Steve Robeson wrote: Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! 73 Steve, K4YZ Burghardt Amateur Center is not in NY. It's a family business which was established by Stan Burghardt, W0IT (SK) 68 years ago in a small South Dakota town. A few years ago one of Stan's long-time employees, Jim Smith W0MJY, purchased the business from Stan and became the second owner. It remains a family owned business, and the lady you mention is Jim's daughter, Michele, KC0MYV, a wholesome midwesterner who is very active in running the "business side" of the store. Often she is pictured standing alongside her dad in their QST ads, never in my knowledge in a provocative sweater. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. UNQUOTE He's wrong. I've seen you make substantially greater threats on rrap. Here's my response to this "letter", made in a very public forum so that the correspondant can't make any other assinine insinuations or out-of-context editorializing: (1) I stand corrected on the South Dakota -vs- New York. My bust. I chalked that up to an honest mistake, not one of your four (4) lies. (2) I am sure the young lady is very good at what she does, and is every bit the "wholesome" person you report. I NEVER said anything to the contrary. You are welcome to cite the part of the post wherein I said differently, but you and I both know it's not there. That's what makes it inuendo. If you had meant that she was actually selling radios rather than "SOMEthing" else in a tight sweater, you would have typed a five letter word (radio) without capitalization rather than a 9-letter codeword implying "SOMEthing" else in that tight sweater. (3) The young lady's character and wholesomeness notwithstanding, "character and wholesomeness notwithstanding???" Is there any question about her character and wholesomeness???" Your an idiot. THEY obviously had NO PROBLEM in posing her in a tight sweater, profile, in order to attract some male attention to thier ads. "Rabbi Phil" commented about someone else "selling radios" with pictures of pretty women. I pointed out that another Amateur dealer had been doing the same thing, and obviously it worked. Pictures of pretty women sell everything from soft drinks to firearms to high speed automobiles. Amateur Radio is no different. No problem. Idiot. Why don't you put up a picture of your "wholesome" spouse instead of that guy in a tight Air Force flight suit to register more hits...? Now, Dear Anonymous Writer (anonymous HERE...since you and I both know who you are)...You can go RIGHT AHEAD and forward ANYthing you like to ANY one you like. Tell them about "how trashy" the item was, if you want, but it IS archived right ehre in Google. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ UNQUOTE OK, Brain...YOU show US wherein I called the anonymous correspondant an "attacker". Matter of fact, go back to the original thread and go through any of the posts I made and find one where I called the correspondant an "attacker". Thankfully that sub-group of ner-do-wells is fairly narrow. You. Lennie. Todd. Mark Morgan. The fairly few number of anonymous cowards who haven't got the guts or strength of conviction to stand behind thier already lame game. "Thier" lame game? Look, you're the one playing off-duty COP on rrap. What "cop"...?!?! The only thing I have "arrested" is the promulgation of further lies, mistruths and assinine assertions by you, Lennie and Todd. So far, while not 100% effective, it's worked. You've created more lies in the past few days than the opinions that you try to "correct." Nurse, heal thyself. You've shot off your mouth once too often and someone is now trying to get back at you with vile comments about your daughter. They are vile and speak to the character of the "author". He'll get his eventually. And you never acknowledge my thanks to you. I didn't make my comment for you. I made them for your daughter. You shot off your mouth again about a young woman in an amateur radio advertisement, and some anonymous rrapper called you on it. There was no "shooting" off of anyone's mouth. There was a comment about how effective the presence of a pretty woman in an Amateur Radio advertisment helps to sell Amateur Radio equipment. Indeed. Unless you know something I don't know about it, "sex" is a multi-billion dollar selling tool. I can't drive the few minutes to work without passing a half dozen biilborads that have beautiful women and handsome men hawking some goods on it... "SOMEthing" You stand alone. No one supports your latest gaffe. So far, Mike Coslo made a statement that very celarly said that the statement could be read as such. He was correct. "could be..." And so far, neither you, any of the anonymous lying cowards, the original correspondant or Lennie have disproven otherwise. I know the difference between a "radio" and "SOMEthing in a tight sweater." And so do you. You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself. What emotional defect, Brian? The one you exhibit daily on rrap. You've not yet defined or identified any "emotional defect", Brian. That comes from a lack of understanding of the words you're using and from a lack of training/education in any healthcare related discipline from which to draw the requisite knowledge from. Try again. Nope. I don't have to be a psychiatrist to recognize a nutcase. But it would help. So far you've made countless accusations of mental defect, but have yet to prove a one. One day you'll be picked up and everyone will nod "we suspected, but what's a person to do?" On the OTHER hand, YOU have made COUNTLESS assertions and misrepresentations that you can't or won't substantiate, your LATEST being the one that ARES can't/won't respond to any "major" emergency due to alleged age, infirmity or previous obligations of the members. We're focusing on your problems here. Don't try the old dodge, plymouth, and chrysler routine. Someone here HAS some issues to deal with Brian...But it's not me. Of course you don't. You're unable to take that very first step because you're in denial. Now...THIS post asks you to explain several of YOUR "gaffes", and provides SPECIFIC quotes that DISPROVE your silly allegations. Oh, geez, some old man having to pull two shifts and complaining that he has to pull two shifts? Hang me high because a tired old man complains about two shifts! So how are you going to climb out from under THIS one, Brian? Disappear for another couple weeks and hope we forget about YOUR lying? Steve, K4YZ Me climb out??? Hi, hi! This must be the place where you would type, "BWHA ha ha ha ha ha ha................................................ .................................................. ..............................................!" You made the inuendo, you made another four lies to cover it, and today you produce yet another lie -as- predicted. Too bad for you. |
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: wrote: From: "bb" on Mon, Apr 4 2005 4:25 pm: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: etc., etc., etc.... I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. Heh. He can't see his own reflection... :-) [...sort of a supernatural thing there...] American Wereham in London. (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! Nursie is NEVER at fault...ALWAYS someone else's fault! :-) He'll say I "made" him do (whatever). (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nursie NEVER lie! :-) I haven't posted in this newsgroup for (about) 2 weeks. It's making him crazy. He has no access to you. He's cold turkey and using me as methadone. Stevie da wonder ham is still angry, resentful, and otherwise unglued about no one respecting his Dill Instructor attitude for the past six years or so...:-) "Temper fry?" Whoeee...temper be roasted to a crisp! Newly recruited marines are sometimes discharged for non-adaptability to military life. Steve should be put back in the Corps for non-adaptability to civilian life. Let them deal with his lies, assinine assertions, impossible delusions, and generally disrespectful attitude. Don't you ever feel silly playing Len's game after his numerous posts in which he inevitably claims that he is here only to engage in civil debate over the removal of morse code testing, accuses others of engaging in personal attacks and denigration and then proceeds to do that of which he accuses others? Dave K8MN Len isn't involved!!! Len is not engaged in K4YZs attack on the YL in South Dakota (or New York or wherever she may happen to be). Len is not engaged in K4YZs attack on the supposed anon e-mailer. Len is not involved in my comments to, and my opinions about Steve. Now don't you feel silly backing up K4YZ on his latest gaffe, just so you can comment on someone who isn't involved??? Go monitor the cluster or something that you have some very small amount of expertise in. |
K4YZ wrote: wrote: The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. Whoooooooa! There's a major rhetoric change on the part of Lennie the Lame! How much more uninformed could a "person" be? Len has been saying this for years. Up until recently this forum been solely about the "Morse Code Test Debate"...Or so he's claimed... He's said its been about bad celestial calculations and seven completely undocumentated hostile actions. It's supposed to be about Morse Code. Finally get tired of getting your head bashed in over and over with FACTS to the contrary, Oh Spiteful One...?!?! You're the one with the bloody scalp. Nurse, heal thyself. Putz. Penis envy or just penis inuendo and infatuation? |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. You're in denial, Brian...No problem...WE see it... Who? You and you anonymous "attacker?" (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! I imagine you hear a lot of laughter, Brian.... That's how hams laugh. Strange...When I laugh it sounds more like "hahaha". So why do you type, "Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah !!!" and not all of it from kids playing in the yard or the "laugh track" on your favorite sitcom. I'm not big on sitcoms. You provide enough comic relief for me. The sad part, Brian, is that the laugh's on you. You just can't or won't see it. You're only partly correct. I don't see it because it isn't there. Sure it is. You're the lone lost patrol on rrap. You're an Army of one. Perhaps...but then the number of real idiots is only a few. It doesn't take that much to rein them in. There's no lying involved, Brian, other than your attempt to redirect the specific comments being made. Nice try. Very transparent. No dodge, plymouth, nor chrysler. You lied. Cute. Still doesn't change anything. And no, I did not lie. That makes lie #5. You've not provided 1 through 4 yet, Brain. Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nope. Show it. It's in this thread chain, Brian. Help yourself. So you're taking the fifth? Nope. QUOTE HEADER ONLY: Apr 5, 12:16 pm hide options Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy From: - Find messages by this author Date: 5 Apr 2005 12:16:41 -0700 Local: Tues, Apr 5 2005 12:16 pm Subject: A Special Reply to a Private E-Mail Threat Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse From: "bb" on Mon, Apr 4 2005 4:25 pm: UNQUOTE: You try to redirect, and I refuse to allow you. No problem. Big problem(s). You lied. You lied four times. You lied about your inuendo...(SNIP) There was no "innuendo". There was YOU trying to make something out of something else said. Sorry Steve, anyone with more than half their brain tied behind their back would see your inuendo. How's Jim? What inuendo, and which Jim? There's at least four that post in here on a semi-regular basis. Also, I kow at least two "Jim's" at work and a couple each in CAP and the local Amateur Radio club. (UNSNIP)...you lied when you characterized the anon e-mailer as and "attacker,"...(SNIP) I didn't say he made an attack, Brian. You characterized him/her as an "attacker." Ahhhhhhhhhhhh...Now I CHARACTERIZED them as an "attacker"....Nice way to try and get around yet another comprehension/attetnion gaffe, eh, Brian? I'm curious how you define an "attacker?" Why? The issue here is not what I consider an "attacker"...It's about you substantiating claims you've made. Perhaps an attacker is a person who makes attacks??? Seven hostile attacks??? I guess you were trying to say something there, Brian...but it got lost in the silliness. I said he made a threat to forward my other comments to the family of the young lady whose picture we were discussing. The word "attack" was the other correspondants, not mine. So you define as a threat someone who passes your comment on to the person you made the comments about? In to context in which the respondant was making such claims, yes. You're pretty weak in the knees on this one. Nope. (UNSNIP)...you lied about all of it not being a problem for anyone except your anonymous "attacker," and then you lied about Len's involvement in this thread. I didn't say Lennie was involved in the thread. Re-read what was written originally, Brian! "Len" Lennie. And you STILL haven't acknowledged the original statements, Brian. Seems you and the anonymous lying coward have the same reading and comprehension deficits, Brian. So how is Jim? Which Jim? Why should I know? What does "Jim" have to do with your refusal to substantiate an obvioulsy flawed assertion? I wonder how many lies you'll tell tomorrow? None...So far, you've not shown where I lied at all, Brian. One so far. See above. Still zero, Brian. You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't matter. Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for over 85% of YOUR posts. What's your track record? Oh, I make no "warranty" about what and how I post. You couldn't honor the warranty when it comes due. There being none, there is none to honor. Then you are honorless. But we knew that already. Again...How can one "honor" something that is not in place? I quite readily acknowledge that I am quite ready to stand toe-to-toe with those who are obviously lying, misrepresenting Amateur Radio, or inisist on acting foolishly in public. Toe to toe? Yep. Sounds like a fight. It would be if there was a capable "opponent". You do not qualify. Welp, you got called on your inuendo, you got called on characterizing the anon e-mailer as an "attacker," you got called on your lying, and now the mirror is being help up for you to see yourself as the liar that you are. I didn't make any innuendo. You did. Your opinion. YOU editorialized on my comments. The context you took it in was not what was stated or intended. You injected your own opinion. Opinions are not allowed, Oh Master Gunny? I wasn't a Master Gunny...And sure, opinon is allowed...as long as you remember what is opinion and what is fact. And the FACTS are that my comments were neitehr stated with the intent or objective that you and the respondant were implying. I didn't call the e mailer an "attacker". You repeated it often enough. I didn't repeat ANYthing, Brian. I have YET to call the other party an "attcaker". Everyone reading this KNOWS that YOU are lying, Brian...Becasue they can go back and read the thread and see that you are yourself lying. Here are all of my comments from March 31st, the date of my original post. For brevity, I have snipped everyone else's comments, however you can easily cross-check the other thread to see that I have not "edited" my own words, even for typos: QUOTE: Hello Everyone, In the thread about " Selling 52 Simplex Radios", the following comments were made by Mike Coslo, "Rabbi Phil" and myself: QUOTE: Michael Coslo wrote: Rabbi Phil wrote: K4YZ wrote: (SNIPPAGE HERE) Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! UNQUOTE: So...later this morning I received a private e-mail from one of RRAP'S regular posters. I have snipped the person's name, call sign and e mail headers since the letter was sent in private e-mail. However the e-mail made some very damning comments and a not-so-subtle threat. "not-so-subtle threat???" Yep. And you said "I didn't call the e mailer an "attacker"." I didn't. Please find ONE sentence under my screen name wherein I have called the third party an I guess people who make threats aren't attackers. No attack occured. QUOTE: In rrap Steve Robeson wrote: Burghardt in NY has had that young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem selling SOMEthing! 73 Steve, K4YZ Burghardt Amateur Center is not in NY. It's a family business which was established by Stan Burghardt, W0IT (SK) 68 years ago in a small South Dakota town. A few years ago one of Stan's long-time employees, Jim Smith W0MJY, purchased the business from Stan and became the second owner. It remains a family owned business, and the lady you mention is Jim's daughter, Michele, KC0MYV, a wholesome midwesterner who is very active in running the "business side" of the store. Often she is pictured standing alongside her dad in their QST ads, never in my knowledge in a provocative sweater. The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever seen on rrap. I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments to Michele and Jim. UNQUOTE He's wrong. I've seen you make substantially greater threats on rrap. Such as...?!?! Here's my response to this "letter", made in a very public forum so that the correspondant can't make any other assinine insinuations or out-of-context editorializing: (1) I stand corrected on the South Dakota -vs- New York. My bust. I chalked that up to an honest mistake, not one of your four (4) lies. You've still not provided a SINGLE lie, let alone four, Brian. (2) I am sure the young lady is very good at what she does, and is every bit the "wholesome" person you report. I NEVER said anything to the contrary. You are welcome to cite the part of the post wherein I said differently, but you and I both know it's not there. That's what makes it inuendo. If you had meant that she was actually selling radios rather than "SOMEthing" else in a tight sweater, you would have typed a five letter word (radio) without capitalization rather than a 9-letter codeword implying "SOMEthing" else in that tight sweater. That's your interpretation, Brian, but one already disporven. (3) The young lady's character and wholesomeness notwithstanding, "character and wholesomeness notwithstanding???" Is there any question about her character and wholesomeness???" Your an idiot. Nope. You are out-of-context, Brian...Nice try. THEY obviously had NO PROBLEM in posing her in a tight sweater, profile, in order to attract some male attention to thier ads. "Rabbi Phil" commented about someone else "selling radios" with pictures of pretty women. I pointed out that another Amateur dealer had been doing the same thing, and obviously it worked. Pictures of pretty women sell everything from soft drinks to firearms to high speed automobiles. Amateur Radio is no different. No problem. Idiot. Why don't you put up a picture of your "wholesome" spouse instead of that guy in a tight Air Force flight suit to register more hits...? Register more hits on what? I am not selling anything. And if you're refering to me about the flight suit, it's not tight. Matter of fact, it's a bit too baggy. Now, Dear Anonymous Writer (anonymous HERE...since you and I both know who you are)...You can go RIGHT AHEAD and forward ANYthing you like to ANY one you like. Tell them about "how trashy" the item was, if you want, but it IS archived right ehre in Google. You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do that people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off thier backs. This is one of those moments. Have a nice day. Steve, K4YZ UNQUOTE OK, Brain...YOU show US wherein I called the anonymous correspondant an "attacker". Matter of fact, go back to the original thread and go through any of the posts I made and find one where I called the correspondant an "attacker". Thankfully that sub-group of ner-do-wells is fairly narrow. You. Lennie. Todd. Mark Morgan. The fairly few number of anonymous cowards who haven't got the guts or strength of conviction to stand behind thier already lame game. "Thier" lame game? Look, you're the one playing off-duty COP on rrap. What "cop"...?!?! The only thing I have "arrested" is the promulgation of further lies, mistruths and assinine assertions by you, Lennie and Todd. So far, while not 100% effective, it's worked. You've created more lies in the past few days than the opinions that you try to "correct." Nurse, heal thyself. Heal myself of what? You've shot off your mouth once too often and someone is now trying to get back at you with vile comments about your daughter. They are vile and speak to the character of the "author". He'll get his eventually. And you never acknowledge my thanks to you. I didn't make my comment for you. I made them for your daughter. My daughter doesn't need your help, Brian. But it WAS me that uttered the gratuity. Guess that it was too much to expect you to acknowledge it. You shot off your mouth again about a young woman in an amateur radio advertisement, and some anonymous rrapper called you on it. There was no "shooting" off of anyone's mouth. There was a comment about how effective the presence of a pretty woman in an Amateur Radio advertisment helps to sell Amateur Radio equipment. Indeed. Absolutely indeed. Unless you know something I don't know about it, "sex" is a multi-billion dollar selling tool. I can't drive the few minutes to work without passing a half dozen biilborads that have beautiful women and handsome men hawking some goods on it... "SOMEthing" Lot's of things. Deodorant. Cars. Trips to Aruba. Tupperware. You stand alone. No one supports your latest gaffe. So far, Mike Coslo made a statement that very celarly said that the statement could be read as such. He was correct. "could be..." Yep. YOUR statement was that I "stand alone". You were AGAIN proven wrong. Sucks to be you. And so far, neither you, any of the anonymous lying cowards, the original correspondant or Lennie have disproven otherwise. I know the difference between a "radio" and "SOMEthing in a tight sweater." And so do you. I know that full figured women in tight fitting sweaters get my attention and draw it to billboards, TV ads, and even print ads in QST...Just like I said before. But it would help. So far you've made countless accusations of mental defect, but have yet to prove a one. One day you'll be picked up and everyone will nod "we suspected, but what's a person to do?" And you still have not told us what YOUR professional credentials are to make such an assessment. I, on the otherhand, have two decades of experience from which to make an informed opinion. On the OTHER hand, YOU have made COUNTLESS assertions and misrepresentations that you can't or won't substantiate, your LATEST being the one that ARES can't/won't respond to any "major" emergency due to alleged age, infirmity or previous obligations of the members. We're focusing on your problems here. Don't try the old dodge, plymouth, and chrysler routine. The issue here was YOUR opinion of what YOU thought I said...Not what was ACTUALLY said or the Someone here HAS some issues to deal with Brian...But it's not me. Of course you don't. You're unable to take that very first step because you're in denial. There's nothing to deny other than it's great fun rubbing your nose in your own mistruths and aborted efforts to redirect attention away from your other on-going efforts to "dodge" the questions posed to you vis-a-vis ARES and it's supposed inability to respond to emergencies. Now...THIS post asks you to explain several of YOUR "gaffes", and provides SPECIFIC quotes that DISPROVE your silly allegations. Oh, geez, some old man having to pull two shifts and complaining that he has to pull two shifts? I didn't see him complaining...That was yet another BillyBeeper insertion of opinion. Hang me high because a tired old man complains about two shifts! I would if I could, but I still don't see where a "tired old man" was complainng of ANYthing...I do, however, see YOU trying to avoid the questions put to you. So how are you going to climb out from under THIS one, Brian? Disappear for another couple weeks and hope we forget about YOUR lying? Steve, K4YZ Me climb out??? Hi, hi! Yes. You. This must be the place where you would type, "BWHA ha ha ha ha ha ha................................................ .................................................. ..............................................!" You made the inuendo, you made another four lies to cover it, and today you produce yet another lie -as- predicted. Too bad for you. You claim I've lied five times. You've not provided a single one of them. Now...what were they? Steve, K4YZ |
bb wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: bb wrote: wrote: From: "bb" on Mon, Apr 4 2005 4:25 pm: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: etc., etc., etc.... I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing. You misunderstand. A mirror is being held up for you. Heh. He can't see his own reflection... :-) [...sort of a supernatural thing there...] American Wereham in London. (1) I am not a victim "(1.a.) I REFUSE to be a victim." Hi, hi! Nursie is NEVER at fault...ALWAYS someone else's fault! :-) He'll say I "made" him do (whatever). (2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur. Hmmmm? In another post you said that no one other than the mystery e-mailer saw any impropriety in your comments. So which time were you lying? Then or now? Now you say that other than me, Len, and that mystery e-mailer... But I don't see Len posting on this subject. So are you making yet another lie? Nursie NEVER lie! :-) I haven't posted in this newsgroup for (about) 2 weeks. It's making him crazy. He has no access to you. He's cold turkey and using me as methadone. Stevie da wonder ham is still angry, resentful, and otherwise unglued about no one respecting his Dill Instructor attitude for the past six years or so...:-) "Temper fry?" Whoeee...temper be roasted to a crisp! Newly recruited marines are sometimes discharged for non-adaptability to military life. Steve should be put back in the Corps for non-adaptability to civilian life. Let them deal with his lies, assinine assertions, impossible delusions, and generally disrespectful attitude. Don't you ever feel silly playing Len's game after his numerous posts in which he inevitably claims that he is here only to engage in civil debate over the removal of morse code testing, accuses others of engaging in personal attacks and denigration and then proceeds to do that of which he accuses others? Dave K8MN Len isn't involved!!! Who wrote what was attributed to him? Len is not engaged in K4YZs attack on the YL in South Dakota (or New York or wherever she may happen to be). Attack? I've seen no attack by Steve on any YL. Len is not engaged in K4YZs attack on the supposed anon e-mailer. He isn't? Len is not involved in my comments to, and my opinions about Steve. You're right. You're involved in Len's comments about Steve. You know that what Len is doing is not part of any civil debate over the morse code issue. You know that Len's comments are personal attacks and denigration of Steve--the kind he likes to squawk about in others. Now don't you feel silly backing up K4YZ on his latest gaffe, just so you can comment on someone who isn't involved??? You become more strange with each newsgroup post. Go monitor the cluster or something that you have some very small amount of expertise in. I have some very small expertise in automotive repair. Dave K8MN |
From: "bb" on Wed, Apr 6 2005 8:38 pm
K4YZ wrote: wrote: The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. Whoooooooa! There's a major rhetoric change on the part of Lennie the Lame! How much more uninformed could a "person" be? Len has been saying this for years. Quite true. However, Robeson is in the constant aggravated antagonistic mode and therefore makes up lies about what other people have written. Up until recently this forum been solely about the "Morse Code Test Debate"...Or so he's claimed... He's said its been about bad celestial calculations and seven completely undocumentated hostile actions. It's supposed to be about Morse Code. This newsgroup was originally opened to take the morse code test discussion/argument out of rec.radio.amateur.misc to revlieve the crowding there. According to Paul's often-stated welcome message text, it is concerned with all topics of amateur radio POLICY. Unfortunately, that's not the de facto situation with message topics...which have ranged widely from the (usual) bragging and self-glorification of individuals to U.S. national politics and political figures to choo-choo trains and other items in-between. Finally get tired of getting your head bashed in over and over with FACTS to the contrary, Oh Spiteful One...?!?! You're the one with the bloody scalp. Nurse, heal thyself. In order to bandage himself, he has to look into a mirror. That's difficult if he can't see his reflection. :-) Putz. Penis envy or just penis inuendo and infatuation? It's just ENVY on Robeson's part because he's never been IN electronics engineering in any way (a short- term job as a purchasing agent doesn't qualify for electronics engineering). He never got into military communications handling despite having that vaunted amateur radio license before first joining. He never got to be any kind of military pilot despite having a private pilot's ticket before joining. [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] He bitterly resents ANYONE talking against him, as witness this latest barrage of antagonistic postings against others. He holds a terrible grudge on others from a long time ago (Heil suffers from the same malady) and doesn't mind venting in here, courtesy be damned (on his part). Not being Jewish or even claimed closeness with any Yiddisher, he picks up what he thinks is a cutesy "cuss word" (putz) and tries to use it as a semi- perjorative. So few know the meaning of that Yiddish expression (including himself), that he thinks he can get away with it. What is curious is that Robeson cries/whines/bitches about "civility" and use of "nasty" words, yet uses them himself and is most uncivil in his remarks. See the "complaint" he alleges he made to Google about Todd (who has received far too many nastygrams for a non-amateur-policy subject). Robeson "shoots from the lip" about other things far too often. The old "MARS IS ham radio" subject was (perhaps) the prime one. Now we have the total confusion between "Peter Jennings" the ABC TV news anchor and another of the same name who is an amateur radio licensee...all couched in some sort of emotional "message of support" for a cancer victim. Robeson often (far too often) DEMANDS "cites" for someone stating anything against him which was patently obvious to other readers of this newsgroup. He fakes "outrage" that others would do such a thing to HIM! :-) On the other hand, as the compleat hypocrite, he tells rather bad, unreferencible LIES about others. Not a problem to Robeson, but a problem to others since they don't care that much about Robeson's "outrage." That "outrage" is NOT a part of amateur radio policy and, as a result, has helped (greatly) to turn this newsgroup into a petty internecine personalily warfare blog. There's NO real impetus for anyone to discuss amateur radio policy in here...EXCEPT that everything should be concerned with an absolute adherence to the Status Quo. Anyone expressing any other viewpoint is ganged-up on, shouted down, and denigrated...for the simple reason of disagreeing with the cherished Status Quo. Ergo, there's no possible room in here to discuss issues. There's no hope of discussing any pros or cons of the morse code test since the Status Quo maintains an absolute "necessity" to forever keep the code test. All the Status Quists took that test, therefore all others MUST do so. :-) retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
wrote: From: "bb" on Wed, Apr 6 2005 8:38 pm K4YZ wrote: wrote: The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. Whoooooooa! There's a major rhetoric change on the part of Lennie the Lame! How much more uninformed could a "person" be? Len has been saying this for years. Quite true. However, Robeson is in the constant aggravated antagonistic mode and therefore makes up lies about what other people have written. Up until recently this forum been solely about the "Morse Code Test Debate"...Or so he's claimed... He's said its been about bad celestial calculations and seven completely undocumentated hostile actions. It's supposed to be about Morse Code. This newsgroup was originally opened to take the morse code test discussion/argument out of rec.radio.amateur.misc to revlieve the crowding there. According to Paul's often-stated welcome message text, it is concerned with all topics of amateur radio POLICY. Unfortunately, that's not the de facto situation with message topics...which have ranged widely from the (usual) bragging and self-glorification of individuals to U.S. national politics and political figures to choo-choo trains and other items in-between. Finally get tired of getting your head bashed in over and over with FACTS to the contrary, Oh Spiteful One...?!?! You're the one with the bloody scalp. Nurse, heal thyself. In order to bandage himself, he has to look into a mirror. That's difficult if he can't see his reflection. :-) Putz. Penis envy or just penis inuendo and infatuation? It's just ENVY on Robeson's part because he's never been IN electronics engineering in any way (a short- term job as a purchasing agent doesn't qualify for electronics engineering). He never got into military communications handling despite having that vaunted amateur radio license before first joining. He never got to be any kind of military pilot despite having a private pilot's ticket before joining. [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] He bitterly resents ANYONE talking against him, as witness this latest barrage of antagonistic postings against others. He holds a terrible grudge on others from a long time ago (Heil suffers from the same malady) and doesn't mind venting in here, courtesy be damned (on his part). Not being Jewish or even claimed closeness with any Yiddisher, he picks up what he thinks is a cutesy "cuss word" (putz) and tries to use it as a semi- perjorative. So few know the meaning of that Yiddish expression (including himself), that he thinks he can get away with it. What is curious is that Robeson cries/whines/bitches about "civility" and use of "nasty" words, yet uses them himself and is most uncivil in his remarks. See the "complaint" he alleges he made to Google about Todd (who has received far too many nastygrams for a non-amateur-policy subject). Robeson "shoots from the lip" about other things far too often. The old "MARS IS ham radio" subject was (perhaps) the prime one. Now we have the total confusion between "Peter Jennings" the ABC TV news anchor and another of the same name who is an amateur radio licensee...all couched in some sort of emotional "message of support" for a cancer victim. Robeson often (far too often) DEMANDS "cites" for someone stating anything against him which was patently obvious to other readers of this newsgroup. He fakes "outrage" that others would do such a thing to HIM! :-) On the other hand, as the compleat hypocrite, he tells rather bad, unreferencible LIES about others. Not a problem to Robeson, but a problem to others since they don't care that much about Robeson's "outrage." That "outrage" is NOT a part of amateur radio policy and, as a result, has helped (greatly) to turn this newsgroup into a petty internecine personalily warfare blog. There's NO real impetus for anyone to discuss amateur radio policy in here...EXCEPT that everything should be concerned with an absolute adherence to the Status Quo. Anyone expressing any other viewpoint is ganged-up on, shouted down, and denigrated...for the simple reason of disagreeing with the cherished Status Quo. Ergo, there's no possible room in here to discuss issues. There's no hope of discussing any pros or cons of the morse code test since the Status Quo maintains an absolute "necessity" to forever keep the code test. All the Status Quists took that test, therefore all others MUST do so. :-) retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Where's the career Air Force sergeant when you need him? You still alive Larry? I hope none of Toads toucans got him! |
wrote: From: "bb" on Wed, Apr 6 2005 8:38 pm K4YZ wrote: wrote: The original intent of this newsgroup was to discuss amateur radio policy. Whoooooooa! There's a major rhetoric change on the part of Lennie the Lame! How much more uninformed could a "person" be? Len has been saying this for years. No, Brian..."Lennie" has been saying that this forum was solely for the discussion of the Morse Code Test exam issue only. On numerous occassions. Archived in Google. Quite true. However, Robeson is in the constant aggravated antagonistic mode and therefore makes up lies about what other people have written. What "lies", Lennie...?!?! You don't tell the truth. Up until recently this forum been solely about the "Morse Code Test Debate"...Or so he's claimed... He's said its been about bad celestial calculations and seven completely undocumentated hostile actions. It's supposed to be about Morse Code. This newsgroup was originally opened to take the morse code test discussion/argument out of rec.radio.amateur.misc to revlieve the crowding there. According to Paul's often-stated welcome message text, it is concerned with all topics of amateur radio POLICY. Yep. But that's not been YOUR contention. Unfortunately, that's not the de facto situation with message topics...which have ranged widely from the (usual) bragging and self-glorification of individuals to U.S. national politics and political figures to choo-choo trains and other items in-between. Finally get tired of getting your head bashed in over and over with FACTS to the contrary, Oh Spiteful One...?!?! You're the one with the bloody scalp. Nurse, heal thyself. In order to bandage himself, he has to look into a mirror. That's difficult if he can't see his reflection. My reflection is fine, and I can even look myself in the eyes and not have any misgivings about the true nature of my character. You and Brian, on the otherhand, are chronic liars. Documented. Proven. Putz. Penis envy or just penis inuendo and infatuation? It's just ENVY on Robeson's part because he's never been IN electronics engineering in any way (a short- term job as a purchasing agent doesn't qualify for electronics engineering). And like any choice in life...it was just that. You, on the otherhand, seem to think that "electronic engineering" was the do-all and end-all of life. Maybe for YOU, but many of us found more things to do in our lives. Furthermore, there's no evidence, empirical or otherwise, that you were ever of any impact on "electronics engineering" yourself. You've been asked repeatedly to show us SOME project that came to fruition under your supervision, but so far all we've been treated to is your litany of jobs and a few long-forgotten articles in a long-defunct magazine. Never once has any of THOSE "papers" been cited as part and parcel of any other project. Your name does not appear on ANY "professional" papers as author or co-author that I've been able to find. You've been asked to provide them. You haven't. He never got into military communications handling despite having that vaunted amateur radio license before first joining. Wrong. He never got to be any kind of military pilot despite having a private pilot's ticket before joining. I'm curious as to how having an PPSEL ticket (48 hours in a Cessna 150 at that point) had to do with being a military aviator, Lennie. You've made that statement before and I've asked you before as to what it "means". Still no answer. [we still don't know the When and Where of those claimed "seven hostile actions"...] Only because I know it chaps your hide that you can't swish your swagger stick around demanding to know and not get what you want. He bitterly resents ANYONE talking against him, as witness this latest barrage of antagonistic postings against others. He holds a terrible grudge on others from a long time ago (Heil suffers from the same malady) and doesn't mind venting in here, courtesy be damned (on his part). There's no "grudge", Lennie. You lie, you deceive and you misrepresent Amateur Radio. It takes precious little effort to undermine your efforts to do so, so I do. Make's ya mad, but that's YOUR issue to deal with! Not being Jewish or even claimed closeness with any Yiddisher, he picks up what he thinks is a cutesy "cuss word" (putz) and tries to use it as a semi- perjorative. So few know the meaning of that Yiddish expression (including himself), that he thinks he can get away with it. It's not about "getting away" with anything, Lennie. You really ARE a putz. It really is THAT simple. Big snip of usual Lennesque diversion to... There's NO real impetus for anyone to discuss amateur radio policy in here...EXCEPT that everything should be concerned with an absolute adherence to the Status Quo. Nope. No "absolute adherence to status quo". Again, you make misrepresentations that anyone who cares to research from this forum will know is not true. MOST of the lack of "impetus" is the presence of foul mouth idiots like Todd, his anonymous lying friends, and persons such as yourself who are NOT licensed Amateurs and who DON'T have any experience from which to make informed opinions yet insist they have some greater knowing of what Amateur Radio is and how it should "run". retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person And prime time putz. Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com