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 Fri 3 Jun 2005 18:45

On 2 Jun 2005 17:21:36 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 1 Jun 2005 15:39:42 -0700, wrote:

etc.

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.

Actually, it is a sharp and pointed piece of satiric sarcasm
that is unmistakably aimed at our Last Action Hero (seven
times) in here. :-)

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.

There's a very simple ceremony done in the U.S. military,
or at least was, and I'm not sure of other branches
besides Army. It is called "Retreat" and done at the
beginning of sundown, coincident with lowering the Flag.
Most times it is done simply by a group accompanying the
Flag handlers. Sometimes it has a simple dedication to an
individual or individuals. One "stands a Retreat" out of
respect, to honor all that went before. Anyone who "stands
a Retreat" will understand. Others, especially those never
having served, will dismiss it as simply lowering the flag,
just another excuse by the military for some kind of ceremony.
They cannot feel the ceremony within. They are not a Part
of it.

There's another curious-to-non-military-persons custom or
rather attitude which pertains to Unit Recognition. Navy
personnel express that by a pride in "their" ship. Other
branches will identify with their Unit or work identity.
It is sometimes referred to (technically) as Unit
Cohesiveness or (familiarly) as Teamwork or perhaps just
inwardly as Pride in what one does.

In my case I had that sense of Unit with the Signal
Battalion I was assigned to. I had no choice in which
unit, yet grew to feel a part of it, of identifying it as
"my" battalion. I took pride in doing my assigned work.
I learned of the unit's origin, how it changed over time,
saw how it kept changing while I was there...and kept
track of it even long after my Honorable Discharge was
given me in 1960.

What I find truly abhorrent, distasteful, disrespectful,
and quite sickening is the charges of "dishonor" leveled
by a hateful little emotional loose cannon in here done
for no other reason than he hates some people and cannot
hold back his rage and anger. What adds to the abhorrence,
distaste, and disrespect is the self-perceived NON-serving
veteran who wants to "chide" others for their "mistakes"
about the U.S. military when they are (supposedly) U.S.
citizens. Their whole reason for their "charges" are
based on nothing but trying to "win" some argument over a
subject...using those rather obvious false charges which
have NO relationship to the subject.

Simple summation: Jimmie be too uptight and anal; he needs
to get laid.

My $.02 .

...and now mine...plus shipping charges...Jimmie gets bill.

This has departed from "amateur radio" subjects but, given,
the overall anal-retentive attitude in here of trying to
tie together military forces with a HOBBY involving radio
(which is NO tie at all), I felt it had to be said.

We can now resume the usual PCTA Extra Double Standard
banner waving long in progress. The Morsebirds are
twittering in full song...

wrote:
From: Leo on Fri 3 Jun 2005 18:45

What I find truly abhorrent, distasteful, disrespectful,
and quite sickening is the charges of "dishonor" leveled
by a hateful little emotional loose cannon in here done
for no other reason than he hates some people and cannot
hold back his rage and anger.

You ARE dishonorable, Lennie.

Over the course of 3 years or so you've repeated these stories
about Soldiers you didn' know who died in combat before yo were even
inducted in such a way as to associate YOUR lame rear-area,
non-combatant radio mechanic duty with them for your own
glorification..

That was disgusting enough.

Now you've tried to score your self-proclaimed "newsgroup
messaging points" with this purile "parody" of the Tomb of the
Unknowns.

I just can't manifest language intense enough to describe how vile
I find THAT without using profanity in a public forum

Lastly, you do so while insulting the participants in an avocation
for which you have utter disgust, have blatantly lied about, and have
no intention what-so-ever of being the least bit helpful for.

"Scumbag" pretty well sums it up.

In short, "we" don't really care what YOU find "abhorrent,
distasteful and disrespectable"...because you ARE 'abhorrent,
distasteful and disrespectful'.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

You ARE dishonorable, Lennie.

Over the course of 3 years or so you've repeated these stories
about Soldiers you didn' know who died in combat before yo were even
inducted in such a way as to associate YOUR lame rear-area,
non-combatant radio mechanic duty with them for your own
glorification..

That was disgusting enough.

Now you've tried to score your self-proclaimed "newsgroup
messaging points" with this purile "parody" of the Tomb of the
Unknowns.

I just can't manifest language intense enough to describe how vile
I find THAT without using profanity in a public forum

Lastly, you do so while insulting the participants in an avocation
for which you have utter disgust, have blatantly lied about, and have
no intention what-so-ever of being the least bit helpful for.

"Scumbag" pretty well sums it up.

In short, "we" don't really care what YOU find "abhorrent,
distasteful and disrespectable"...because you ARE 'abhorrent,
distasteful and disrespectful'.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ


Wow! You pretty much put the icing on Lennie's cake, Steve.
Of course it goes without saying that Lennie will HAVE to post a three
chapter response.

You know Len. Never say in one sentence that which he can better say in 18
paragraphs.
Bets are on that Len will post a novel in response, though none of us will
read it.

K4YZ wrote:

In short, "we" don't really care what YOU find "abhorrent,
distasteful and disrespectable"...because you ARE 'abhorrent,
distasteful and disrespectful'.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ


Don't know why anyone pays *any* attention to lennieboy, he isn't a ham,
too dumb/lazy to become one so he has no skin in the game. What he has
to say is of no revelence at all. Just ignore him completely and maybe
he will eventually go away.