On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

Some time back an anonymous poster calling himself "Leo" appeared
here. Claimed he was a ham in Canada. You considered him "legitimate".

Hmmm - probably because I am! ......

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

Some time back an anonymous poster calling himself "Leo" appeared
here. Claimed he was a ham in Canada. You considered him "legitimate".

Hmmm - probably because I am! ......

And why should "Arf! Arf!" be treated any differently?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

Some time back an anonymous poster calling himself "Leo" appeared
here. Claimed he was a ham in Canada. You considered him "legitimate".

Hmmm - probably because I am! ......

And why should "Arf! Arf!" be treated any differently?

Perhaps you could enlighten us on that, Jim......as I recall, you
yourself argued the other side of this point back in November, when I
was not agreeing with you (back in the 'Near Space Science'
thread).....your exact words we

Didn't get past me. Leo sez he's a VE3. But no call, no last name, no
positive
ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe he is, maybe he ain't.

Hmmm - let's see here....I wasn't agreeing with you, so perhaps I am
not legitimate. Yet here you make a case for Arf! Arf!'s existance
because he does agree with you.

That's a puzzle, alright - wish I could help you answer it!

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

Some time back an anonymous poster calling himself "Leo"
appeared
here. Claimed he was a ham in Canada. You considered
him "legitimate".

Hmmm - probably because I am! ......

And why should "Arf! Arf!" be treated any differently?

Perhaps you could enlighten us on that, Jim......

OK

as I recall, you
yourself argued the other side of this point back in
November, when I
was not agreeing with you (back in the 'Near Space Science'
thread).....your exact words we

Didn't get past me. Leo sez he's a VE3. But no call, no last
name, no positive
ID, no website, no outside confirmation. Maybe he is, maybe
he ain't.

What part of that is not accurate, Leo? Maybe you are who you
say you are, and maybe you aren't. Maybe "Arf!" is who he says
he is - or maybe he ain't.

Hmmm - let's see here....I wasn't agreeing with you, so perhaps I am not legitimate.

Not at all. Your lack of verifiable ID means there's room for
doubt. Same for "Arf" or any other anonymous poster.

Yet here you make a case for Arf! Arf!'s existance
because he does agree with you.

There's as much reason to doubt his claims as there is to doubt
yours, Leo. And as little!

Please note that Len insists on calling "Arf!" names and comparing
him to Nigerian bank scammers, but does not do the same for
those who agree with him.

In addition, Len has posted here under a variety of screen names
(like "averyfine" and "averyfineman") often without any real ID.

If you want to remain anonymous, that's fine with me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 1 Jun 2005 15:39:42 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

snip

If you want to remain anonymous, that's fine with me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

With all due respect, Sir, I do not feel obligated in the least to
seek or accept your permission to do so.

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On 1 Jun 2005 15:39:42 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

snip

If you want to remain anonymous, that's fine with me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

With all due respect, Sir, I do not feel obligated in the
least to seek or accept your permission to do so.

It's not about permission, Leo.

It's about the idea that I'm not going to make a big deal about
your "real"identity. Nor am I going to judge the content of
your posts by whether or not you reveal that identity, or whether or
not you agree with me.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 1 Jun 2005 15:39:42 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

snip

What part of that is not accurate, Leo? Maybe you are who you
say you are, and maybe you aren't. Maybe "Arf!" is who he says
he is - or maybe he ain't.

Perhaps!


Hmmm - let's see here....I wasn't agreeing with you, so perhaps I am not legitimate.

Not at all. Your lack of verifiable ID means there's room for
doubt. Same for "Arf" or any other anonymous poster.

You seem to place a great deal of value on 'verifiability', Jim.

Heh. Just because someone's callbook ID is verifiable doesn't mean
that much else is. Take you, for example - other than what's in the
QRZ database, how much do we know about you? Just what you have
stated in your posts - that's all. Is what you say true ? Maybe -
maybe not. Unless someone is willing to put in the effort, time and
expense to research an individual's claims, they can be neither proven
nor disproven.

I suggest that, in a public forum such as this, an individual's
behaviour is a far better indicator of who they are than something as
silly as a callbook listing. Forget claims of education, heroic feats
and braggodocio - just read what the individual writes, and you'll see
the real person shine through. (for example, what were you doing when
you questioned my 'legitimacy' in this thread, Jim - picking yet
another fight with Len? Hmmm - that happens a lot, doesn't it??)

Whether "Arf!" or anyone else here is 'legitimate' or not is quite
immaterial! Why people are here, and how they behave while in here,
is of much greater importance.

And, of course, whether you believe that another poster is
'legitimate' or not is of no importance at all.


Yet here you make a case for Arf! Arf!'s existance
because he does agree with you.

There's as much reason to doubt his claims as there is to doubt
yours, Leo. And as little!

Please note that Len insists on calling "Arf!" names and comparing
him to Nigerian bank scammers, but does not do the same for
those who agree with him.

Not necessarily. I have not always agreed with Len's points either -
nor he with mine - neither do I belittle his (considerable)
accomplishments and experience or deliberately pick fights with him to
bolster my own ego. (ahem).

Maybe that's why civil discourse is possible between us? Duh.....

Some on the group seem to have a pathological need to pick fights with
others, though - are you suggesting that the target of these attacks
should not return fire? (That wouldn't be much fun, would it?)


In addition, Len has posted here under a variety of screen names
(like "averyfine" and "averyfineman") often without any real ID.

I had no problem figuring out who the author of those posts were - did
you? Get the humor? Avery Fineman...A Very Fine Man...heh heh.

snip

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On 1 Jun 2005 15:39:42 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

snip

What part of that is not accurate, Leo? Maybe you are who you
say you are, and maybe you aren't. Maybe "Arf!" is who he says
he is - or maybe he ain't.

Perhaps!


Hmmm - let's see here....I wasn't agreeing with you, so
perhaps I am not legitimate.

Not at all. Your lack of verifiable ID means there's room for
doubt. Same for "Arf" or any other anonymous poster.

You seem to place a great deal of value on 'verifiability',
Jim.

I put some value on it.

If a person really believes in what they say, why shouldn't they
give their "real" identity?

Heh. Just because someone's callbook ID is verifiable doesn't mean that much else is. Take you, for example - other than
what's in the QRZ database, how much do we know about you?
Just what you have
stated in your posts - that's all.

Actually some people here know a lot more. There's private email,
my website (which you found), and articles I've written in amateur
radio magazines. I've also met at least one other rrapper in person,
and had QSOs with several others on the ham bands. In
fact, I had QSOs with at least two other regulars here long before
I ever heard of rrap.

Is what you say true ?

Yes.

Maybe -
maybe not. Unless someone is willing to put in the effort,
time and
expense to research an individual's claims, they can be neither
proven nor disproven.

Some claims are easily disproven, though. For example, here in
the USA, amateur radio licenses have a normal term of 10 years.
If a license is not renewed before the end of its term, the
amateur loses all operating privileges. However, there is a two-year
grace period during which a ham can apply for renewal without
retesting.

This is all explained clearly in Part 97 (FCC rules for the ARS.

Len Anderson claimed that the FCC does not use the word "expired"
to describe licenses that are in the grace period. Part 97 clearly
shows that FCC does indeed use the words "expire" and "expired" for
that purpose. So Len's claim is easily disproven.

I suggest that, in a public forum such as this, an individual's
behaviour is a far better indicator of who they are than
something as silly as a callbook listing.

Why is a callbook listing "silly"?

I agree with you that someone's behaviour is a better indicator,
though.


Forget claims of education, heroic feats
and braggodocio - just read what the individual writes,
and you'll see
the real person shine through. (for example, what were you
doing when
you questioned my 'legitimacy' in this thread, Jim - picking yet
another fight with Len?

No.

Look back at the actual discussion, and you'll see it was about
the possibility that you and Len were one and the same person.
W3RV said it was not possible and I said it was.

How is that trying to pick a fight?

Hmmm - that happens a lot, doesn't it??)

Actually, Len seems to want to pick fights with anyone who
disagrees with him on Morse Code testing - or a variety of
other subjects.

Whether "Arf!" or anyone else here is 'legitimate' or not is
quite immaterial!

I agree! Tell it to Len, though.

Why people are here, and how they behave while in here,
is of much greater importance.

And, of course, whether you believe that another poster is
'legitimate' or not is of no importance at all.

Yet here you make a case for Arf! Arf!'s existance
because he does agree with you.

There's as much reason to doubt his claims as there is to doubt
yours, Leo. And as little!

Please note that Len insists on calling "Arf!" names and
comparing
him to Nigerian bank scammers, but does not do the same for
those who agree with him.

Not necessarily. I have not always agreed with Len's points
either -
nor he with mine - neither do I belittle his (considerable)
accomplishments and experience or deliberately pick fights with him to bolster my own ego. (ahem).

You mean like the way he makes fun of my name, education, age,
license class, homebrew equipment, radio operating skills....

Maybe that's why civil discourse is possible between us?
Duh.....

Or maybe it's because you haven't disagreed with him on any
of his trigger issues.

Or maybe you and he are one and the same. Or maybe you're a
friend of his, doing a version good cop/bad cop.

Some of your phrases sound a lot like Len. That doesn't prove
a thing, of course.

Some on the group seem to have a pathological need to pick
fights with
others, though - are you suggesting that the target of these
attacks
should not return fire? (That wouldn't be much fun, would it?)

Let's see... Len calls me names even though I don't call him
anyhting except "Len" or "Mr. Anderson" or "Len Anderson".

Len tells me and others here to shut up and/or go away - but I don't
tell anyone to do either.

Who is picking a fight with whom?

In addition, Len has posted here under a variety of screen
names
(like "averyfine" and "averyfineman") often without any real
ID.

I had no problem figuring out who the author of those posts
were - did you?

At first. But that's not the point.

Get the humor? Avery Fineman...A Very Fine Man...heh heh.

Doesn't seem funny to me.

Here's a simple, direct question:

Do you think Len's little piece on the "Tomb of the Unknown Solder" is
funny? Or is it an insult to the Unknowns? Or is
it something else?



73 de Jim, N2EY

On 2 Jun 2005 17:21:36 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 1 Jun 2005 15:39:42 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Arf! Arf! wrote:

snip

Here's a simple, direct question:

Do you think Len's little piece on the "Tomb of the Unknown Solder" is
funny? Or is it an insult to the Unknowns? Or is
it something else?

Personally, I saw it for the humorous parody that it was intended to
be - not 'laugh out loud' funny, but humourous (and rather witty!)
nevertheless.

I understand that some may find that particular subject to be one that
should not be parodied - but, considering the obvious pride that the
author has in both his own military service and the service of others,
I would strongly doubt that any disrespect whatsoever was intended to
those whose ultimate sacrifice is honoured by the Tomb of the Unknown
Soldier.

My $.02 .




73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

From: Leo on Jun 2, 6:40 pm

On 1 Jun 2005 15:39:42 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:37:45 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 31 May 2005 02:06:42 -0700, wrote:

etc.

What part of that is not accurate, Leo? Maybe you are who you
say you are, and maybe you aren't. Maybe "Arf!" is who he says
he is - or maybe he ain't.

Perhaps!


Hmmm - let's see here....I wasn't agreeing with you, so perhaps
I am not legitimate.

Not at all. Your lack of verifiable ID means there's room for
doubt. Same for "Arf" or any other anonymous poster.

You seem to place a great deal of value on 'verifiability', Jim.

Heh. Just because someone's callbook ID is verifiable doesn't mean
that much else is. Take you, for example - other than what's in the
QRZ database, how much do we know about you? Just what you have
stated in your posts - that's all. Is what you say true ? Maybe -
maybe not. Unless someone is willing to put in the effort, time and
expense to research an individual's claims, they can be neither proven
nor disproven.

I disagree in part, as far as this newsgroup is concerned:
Certain individuals in here (curiously coincidental on
their attitudes favoring morse code testing!) are allowed
free rein on whatever they CLAIM. Others, challenging that
attitude are rained on...lately insofar as national
patriotism is concerned.

That is the manifest of the PCTA Extra Double Standard
bearers.

I suggest that, in a public forum such as this, an individual's
behaviour is a far better indicator of who they are than something as
silly as a callbook listing. Forget claims of education, heroic feats
and braggodocio - just read what the individual writes, and you'll see
the real person shine through. (for example, what were you doing when
you questioned my 'legitimacy' in this thread, Jim - picking yet
another fight with Len? Hmmm - that happens a lot, doesn't it??)

I can almost read the responses to that before he writes
them... :-)

Whether "Arf!" or anyone else here is 'legitimate' or not is quite
immaterial! Why people are here, and how they behave while in here,
is of much greater importance.

Ahem...this is NOT allowed in the PCTA Extra Double
Standard handbook. :-)

And, of course, whether you believe that another poster is
'legitimate' or not is of no importance at all.

Oy gevalt! That will raise the Hue and Cry! :-)


Please note that Len insists on calling "Arf!" names and comparing
him to Nigerian bank scammers, but does not do the same for
those who agree with him.

"Nigerian?" Did I say specifically "Nigerian?" :-)


Not necessarily. I have not always agreed with Len's points either -
nor he with mine - neither do I belittle his (considerable)
accomplishments and experience or deliberately pick fights with him to
bolster my own ego. (ahem).

Maybe that's why civil discourse is possible between us? Duh.....

Another U.S. Extra used to pull out some phrase about
"gentlemen" and discourse in here. That Extra seems
to have dropped such phraseology when others have posted
items about national patriotism in here...after he has
repeat-posted old works written by others. sigh

Some on the group seem to have a pathological need to pick fights with
others, though - are you suggesting that the target of these attacks
should not return fire? (That wouldn't be much fun, would it?)

Bill Cosby used to have a comedy routine many years ago
about the Revolutionary War. It started out with a
"Referee" explaining to the "player captains" what the
"game rules" were. [naturally one-sided, the Redcoats
had to march in straight lines in the open while the
Revolutionaries could hide behind trees and rocks, firing
at will] If one was an American, that was very funny.

That was definitely NOT funny to a nationalistic Britisher
at a social gathering in the Hollywood Hills. I could see
the Brit's point of view, but others seemed not to. The
hostess sensed nastiness brewing and intervened by changing
the subject to a party activity, etc. Crisis averted.

Bill Cosby went on to become a beloved comedian in American
TV. Yet the subject matter [our Revolutionary War] was not
a trivial thing when it was fought; England never really
forgave the upstart Colonies for that and the War of 1812
had to repeat the whole process nearly 4 decades later.
England didn't win that war either.

A very remote parallel sort-of exists in here, the PCTA
bravely "fighting" to keep their royal RULE alive, yet are
slowly losing. The much-touted near-Byzantine CLASS
structure of U.S. amateur radio has not been decimated, it
has been cut in HALF. [Roman Legions were never that
severe with their "disciplinary" measures of decimation]
Further, to add insult to their "injury," the beloved
Title/Rank/Status of "20 WPM Tested" was reduced to a
"mere" 5 WPM. [their cold, dead reasoning refuses to
let their mental fingers release their code keys...tsk]
Their "Empire" is falling and they curse the evil "sloth"
in revenge; George Lucas couldn't make a film on this
epic due to too many "Annakin" manmiquins abounding.
[see "Revenge of the Sloth" who want only the "easy way
to get a license...etc, etc, ad nauseum]

In addition, Len has posted here under a variety of screen names
(like "averyfine" and "averyfineman") often without any real ID.

I had no problem figuring out who the author of those posts were - did
you? Get the humor? Avery Fineman...A Very Fine Man...heh heh.

Anal-retentive morsemen have a "sense of humor" limited to
laughing at those they try to humiliate. Tsk.

My REAL Identity has never changed. It is still the same as
my byline in Ham Radio Magazine, as is my postal address.
A "screen name" or "handle" on a computer-modem provider site
is dependent on the standards that provider establishes. There
is NO "real ID" possible through nearly all computer-modem
service providers. The exception is the "forwarding alias"
provided by some sites such as the IEEE and ARRL both have
for their members. As an IEEE member since 1973, my real
identity is definitely known to them and has been for 35 years.
I could not fake any "forwarding alias" through them due to
their own controls to insure honesty; I could only choose what
to use as an "alias" name. I had that capability since over
three years ago but never got around to using it.

"Avery Fineman," "LenOver21" were all handles I used in BBS
computer-modem communications 20 years ago. "No CW Test"
was a new one chosen just for this newsgroup 5 years ago.
That was dropped due to the late (?) W0EX perverting that to
"No CW Testicles" in his replies. Strangely, there was NO
objection to that rather obvious male anatomy term but there
was much ado about breasts and the alleged "pornographic"
callsign of Kim, W5TIT.

When I first joined AOL, their rules permitted screen names
of a maximum of 8 characters. Since AOL membership is a few
millions and that they do not allow identical names, having
a set of common real names makes it difficult to choose a
desired screen name without possessing a personal, federally-
authorized, official merit badge callsign of the U.S. amateur
radio corps. Since my life is NOT ruled by any hobby, the
choice was either to use an old handle or improvise with a
bit of humor. [humor is hard to come by in this oh-so-very
serious gathering of beagles] AOL rules were relaxed later
to all members' relief...and also increased to a maximum of
SEVEN screen names per subscription! [all the same subscriber
and billed to the subscriber] His Most Honorable Royal
Highness of Morseman Hall has that same option.

Leo, if you happen to chance upon an AOL screen name of
"Juan Mortime" in the future, that will be me. [pronounce
it to get the pun - mightier than the sword] No doubt that
is, somewhere, already OUTRAGING and INSULTING (!) Spanish
speakers for "unpatriotically defacing Latin customs"
everywhere. Sigh. I have more names plus another Internet
provider. Everywhere one goes we find the anal-retentive
with figurative USB connectors jammed up their I/O ports.

If someone wants to actually discuss something with me, fine.
I've done that for 20 years without insulting anyone...
except those USB-in-the-I/O-port folks. Others who think
they can shoot verbal nasties at me with impugnity will get
much more "return fire" than they expected. Screum.

Best of springtime to you up in the north lands, Leo.