Christy D wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:40:05 -0700, bb wrote:


Christy D wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:05 GMT, Kim wrote:
[102 lines snipped]

The correctness of the original opinion is directly proportional to
the length of the attempted rebuttal.

inversely proportional?

No. The longer the rebuttal attempt, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct. Hence the direct proportionality.

Len will be pleased to here that.

bb wrote:
Christy D wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:40:05 -0700, bb wrote:


Christy D wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:05 GMT, Kim wrote:
[102 lines snipped]

The correctness of the original opinion is directly proportional to
the length of the attempted rebuttal.

inversely proportional?

No. The longer the rebuttal attempt, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct. Hence the direct proportionality.

Len will be pleased to here that.

"Len will be pleased to here that."...?!?!

(Since you seem to enjoy busting me for typos....)

I don't think you were paying attention, Brain...(Like THAT'S
new...)

Re-read what was written...Lennie will NOT be pleased...(Like
THAT'S new either!!!)

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
Christy D wrote:
On 31 May 2005 15:40:05 -0700, bb wrote:


Christy D wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:05 GMT, Kim wrote:
[102 lines snipped]

The correctness of the original opinion is directly proportional to
the length of the attempted rebuttal.

inversely proportional?

No. The longer the rebuttal attempt, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct. Hence the direct proportionality.

Len will be pleased to here that.

"Len will be pleased to here that."...?!?!

(Since you seem to enjoy busting me for typos....)

Only when it's obvious that you're hallucinating.

I don't think you were paying attention, Brain...(Like THAT'S
new...)

Such baseless accusations (lies) you're always making.

Re-read what was written...Lennie will NOT be pleased...(Like
THAT'S new either!!!)

Steve, K4YZ

Pull your head out and re-read it yourself. You won't be pleased.

Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

Len has long replies. Sometimes really, really long replies. Do you
want to argue that, too?

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Len will be pleased to here that.

"Len will be pleased to here that."...?!?!

(Since you seem to enjoy busting me for typos....)

Only when it's obvious that you're hallucinating.

Who's hallucinating?

You can't seem to get through your own fantasies, Brain...

I don't think you were paying attention, Brain...(Like THAT'S
new...)

Such baseless accusations (lies) you're always making.

It's not baseless.

IE: Unlicesed Devices, ARES, MARS, Lawful Operating from Foreign
Soil, etc.

You've been proven wrong on every single one.

Re-read what was written...Lennie will NOT be pleased...(Like
THAT'S new either!!!)

Steve, K4YZ

Pull your head out and re-read it yourself. You won't be pleased.

Nothing to re-read. Yuo got it wrong. Now you've gotten it wrong
twice.

Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

Uh huh.

I say Lennie's an idiot.

Lennie takes six paragraphs to tell us how he knows everything and
how his years at ADA make him ultimately qulified to be an idiot.

I retort and call Lennie a BIG idiot.

He comes back with 12 paragraphs. Proves Christy's Law that my
original assertion (he's an idiot) was correct.

Christy's Law. It works

Len has long replies. Sometimes really, really long replies. Do you
want to argue that, too?

What's to argue? Lennie uses his verbostiy to hide his failings
and inadequacies. It's legend.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Len will be pleased to here that.

"Len will be pleased to here that."...?!?!

(Since you seem to enjoy busting me for typos....)

Only when it's obvious that you're hallucinating.

Who's hallucinating?

You can't seem to get through your own fantasies, Brain...

Any fantasy of mine cannot influence your ability to string together a
sentence.

I don't think you were paying attention, Brain...(Like THAT'S
new...)

Such baseless accusations (lies) you're always making.

It's not baseless.

IE: Unlicesed Devices, ARES, MARS, Lawful Operating from Foreign
Soil, etc.

You've been proven wrong on every single one.

Yet we're talking about What Christy has written, and you've been shown
to be wrong. Again.

Re-read what was written...Lennie will NOT be pleased...(Like
THAT'S new either!!!)

Steve, K4YZ

Pull your head out and re-read it yourself. You won't be pleased.

Nothing to re-read. Yuo got it wrong. Now you've gotten it wrong
twice.

I asked for clarification. Christy gave it. You're wrong.

Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

Uh huh.

I say Lennie's an idiot.

It's not about you. It's about what Christy said that would please
Len.

Too bad for you.

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

You can't seem to get through your own fantasies, Brain...

Any fantasy of mine cannot influence your ability to string together a
sentence.

Why would I want to "string together a sentence" based on any
fantasy of yours, Brain?

You're a discredited liar. I have no desire to emulate that.

I don't think you were paying attention, Brain...(Like THAT'S
new...)

Such baseless accusations (lies) you're always making.

It's not baseless.

IE: Unlicesed Devices, ARES, MARS, Lawful Operating from Foreign
Soil, etc.

You've been proven wrong on every single one.

Yet we're talking about What Christy has written, and you've been shown
to be wrong. Again.

Nope.

Re-read what was written...Lennie will NOT be pleased...(Like
THAT'S new either!!!)

Steve, K4YZ

Pull your head out and re-read it yourself. You won't be pleased.

Nothing to re-read. Yuo got it wrong. Now you've gotten it wrong
twice.

I asked for clarification. Christy gave it. You're wrong.

No, I'm not.

Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

Uh huh.

I say Lennie's an idiot.

It's not about you. It's about what Christy said that would please
Len.

Too bad for you.

Too bad I was right?

Why?

QUOTE:

On 31 May 2005 15:40:05 -0700, bb wrote:

Christy D wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:05 GMT, Kim wrote:
[102 lines snipped]

The correctness of the original opinion is directly proportional to
the length of the attempted rebuttal.

inversely proportional?

No. The longer the rebuttal attempt, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct. Hence the direct proportionality.

UNQUOTE

Sorry, Brain...You've screwed the pooch...Again...

Steve, K4YZ

From: bb on Jun 2, 6:27 pm

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
Christy D wrote:


Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

"Christy," singing like a New Minstrel, might belong to that
irritated group that gets tired tracing out more than 50
words with their finger... :-)


Len has long replies. Sometimes really, really long replies. Do you
want to argue that, too?

The Avenging Angle of Dearth will ARGUE-FIGHT-INSULT anything
I write in here. :-)

wrote:
From: bb on Jun 2, 6:27 pm

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:

Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

"Christy," singing like a New Minstrel, might belong to that
irritated group that gets tired tracing out more than 50
words with their finger... :-)

Who's to say?

Len has long replies. Sometimes really, really long replies. Do you
want to argue that, too?

The Avenging Angle of Dearth will ARGUE-FIGHT-INSULT anything
I write in here. :-)



I tire of Steve's incessant lying. I tire of his peers always giving
him a pass on his tirades. They're all a pretty useless assembly of
Extras.

From: "bb" on Fri 3 Jun 2005 03:51

wrote:
From: bb on Jun 2, 6:27 pm

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:

Christy said that the longer the reply, the more likely it is that the
original opinion was correct.

"Christy," singing like a New Minstrel, might belong to that
irritated group that gets tired tracing out more than 50
words with their finger... :-)

Who's to say?

I know...:-) But, we have the solitary tomb sentinel busy
"guarding" the territory for ANY opinions other than his own.

We are stuck with the Avenging Angle of Dearth. Ho hum.

Eventually the "pop" will be an artery and he will become
the usual vegetable garden typical to stroke victims. We
will be able to see that while we are still alive. :-)

That is going to put a damper on his Class A behavior and
incessant machismo attitude of always "being right" (in his
own mind). His stress is building. Tsk.

Len has long replies. Sometimes really, really long replies. Do you
want to argue that, too?

The Avenging Angle of Dearth will ARGUE-FIGHT-INSULT anything
I write in here. :-)

I tire of Steve's incessant lying. I tire of his peers always giving
him a pass on his tirades. They're all a pretty useless assembly of
Extras.

Understand fully. They aren't ever going to be role models
of anything they way they act and posture in here.

Many years ago at a division of a national corporation there
was a long-time Amateur Extra near retirement age. He was a
good sort, knew his stuff, never tried to put his hobby into
the forefront as a Lifestyle. He also had a mischevious
sense of humor and was quite tolerant of younger staff getting
way too overworked over their hobby discussions. When he
found a couple of radio amateurs engaged in a heated argument
he would listen a minute or so, then casually interrupt with
"Say, did you know that ham is the butchered meat of swine?"

The arguers would be momentarily stunned. He would grin
slightly and amble away, the grin growing. He had the right
balance of priorities. He retired and showed up at some L.A.
Council meetings since. Lost track of him. I've never
forgotten that (correct) statement he made more than once.
:-)