![]() |
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07 Dave Heil wrote: wrote: snip Seig Heil!!! :-) Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's rule. "attempt"? Hardly! snip Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether Godwin's impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not. The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis" or references to them, has lost the argument. That the discussion continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument. I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Jim - for a minute there, I was afraid that you hadn't accomplished anything useful there! So it wasn't an "attempt" but a success. Was it? Not really - the discussion will continue. Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument. Oh. OK then. That matters a lot. Glad you agree! Guess that makes you 'right', then. Yes, it does. Len was 'wrong', and you were 'right'. Yep. Feel better now? Sure. How about you? But it just had to be done, didn't it? No, it didn't. But I did it anyway. Of course you did. You had to! Nope. I chose to. The choice, Sir, was not yours to make - you simply could not resist doing so. I chose to respond. Other times I choose not to. Len posts far more than I respond. I suggest that you responded because you had to respond. That claim is incorrect. I chose to respond. You couldn't help yourself! What's to help? Do you believe in free will, Leo? Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior? There are several folks here whose 'slurs' and language are much worse than this example Yes, Len has done worse.... Is that what I said? Don't think so! It's a valid interpretation. Not at all - you are in error. That claim is incorrect... (a reference to the bumbling and comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes") The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1 Godwin invoked. For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1. I see. You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all? Nope. With good reason. Heh heh. Yep. - always has been, always will be. That claim is incorrect. Usenet is not eternal. It's not my job to run around and point that out all day every day. You have avoided the question. Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior? Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role. And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len". In other words, you won't answer the question. That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject. That's a contradiction. You just answered the question. "I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer. Thanks! In short, I have no answer to your (rhetorical) question. Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no opinion one way or the other. Seek elsewhere. Why? You answered the question. Thanks again. It's not my job to point that out to each and every participant on this group Jim - is it yours? Why? Your argument seems to be that since Len will probably exhibit his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior anyway, there's no point in pointing out when he is, indeed, exhibiting his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior. Is that about right? Nope. You have avoided the question. See how that works? Apparently, you do. You have a long history of avoiding any question that you don't like - or didn't ask. Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't answer mine? Perhaps you have a valid point, since if what Len seeks is attention, pointing out his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior gives him that attention. (73 de Jim etc. sig missing again) Not missing - omitted. In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe! None of the above. Not true. That claim is incorrect. Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? Not at all. The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting between operators". In the context of amateur radio, this means between amateur radio operators. In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious! Most people don't know the original meaning. In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever you say. Did *you* know the original meaning? It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to someone who is not an amateur radio operator. Which I am. And have stated many times before. And your callsign is? Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained earlier. Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio operator, perhaps not. Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002. Maybe... You can state almost anything here, but as long as you remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt. LOL! Anony-mousie? That's a Len term. Yep. You may not like the guy much, but you seem to be learning from him! I've learned some things from Len. For example, I used to think that he might be capable of a reasonable discussion on amateur radio policy issues, even with those who disagree with him. I learned I was wrong about that... Good for you. Poor memory? Google 'er up..... I know what you claimed. But there's no independent evidence. You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence of that either! Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult? But don't worry - I believe you! :) Thanks! 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) |
Leo wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07 Dave Heil wrote: wrote: snip Seig Heil!!! :-) Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's rule. "attempt"? Hardly! snip Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether Godwin's impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not. The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis" or references to them, has lost the argument. That the discussion continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument. I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Jim - for a minute there, I was afraid that you hadn't accomplished anything useful there! But it just had to be done, didn't it? No, it didn't. But I did it anyway. Of course you did. You had to! Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior? There are several folks here whose 'slurs' and language are much worse than this example (a reference to the bumbling and comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes") - always has been, always will be. It's not my job to run around and point that out all day every day. It's not my job to point that out to each and every participant on this group Jim - is it yours? Why? You are correct there Leo. Jim is perfectly capable of not responding to anything Len posts. We all are. I'm not sure that I'd agree, Mike. Jim seems to feel compelled to respond to anything and everything regarding Len. From early morning to late at night, 7 days a week, he wages his futile war on the newsgroup. That's easily disproved, Leo. Just look at how many posts Len makes that I don't respond to. Then look at how many I make that he responds to. Also look at the tone and content of the responses. Just a suggerstion. Doesn't look like a choice - more like an obcession. By whom? Not me... And of course, Len knows quite well that all he has to do is put in a reference to the Nazi's, and it will get a response. Sets the hook quite regularly, he does! Irresistible bait apparently. Right you are, Mike. One of the most important things I learned from being a parent - if you let the kids know where the buttons are, they can't push 'em! ?? If you let kids know where the buttons are, they'll push 'em constantly. Speaking of "buttons", it's clear that Len has the most "buttons" of all. All anyone has to do is hit his big button (disagree with him on the code-test issue) and then Len will respond in a very predictable, negative, attacking, insulting way to almost anything the person posts. If someone who has hit Len's Big Button dares to point out a mistake (even a minor one) in one of Len's posts (such as the in-service date of a particular Soviet aircraft, or the legality of US hams operating with expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses...well, the results are all there in Google. Not pretty, either. For example, some time back I posted info about a new War Museum in Canada. (I don't recall the exact correct name of the museum right now). I pointed out that some of the windows spell out a message in Morse Code. Len, of course, went ballistic in one of his typical tirades. You'd think I'd said something truly awful by pointing out the windows. I don't know why he reacts that way - it's just what he does. But don't ask Len what JT65 is... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Leo wrote:
How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't. Dave K8MN |
From: Leo on Sun 19 Jun 2005 16:51
On 19 Jun 2005 12:29:05 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Jun 19, 11:26 am On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:42 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07 Most sincere good wishes on this Father's Day (in here it looks more like 'boxing day' but without any Brit connotations), Thanks much, Len - you too! And don't forget, every day is Boxing Day in here...... Ain't that the truth! :-) Again I'm reminded of a science fiction movie..."Logan's Run" when Logan and Jessica were on the run looking for Sanctuary and encounterd "Box" in the freezer... :-) "Box" froze everything. Seafood, runners, etc. Like the archaic rules about even older regulations. Gotta keep it all FROZEN in the freezer. Nobody gets away. No thawing of anything. All cold. Beep, beep, brrrr, brrrr. Logan and Jessica got away. "Box" got disassembled. Tsk. |
From: Mike Coslo on Jun 19, 9:32 pm
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jun 19, 11:13 am wrote: Bingo! We cannot control Len's behavior here. Isn't that so...so..."horrid" (as Dee once put it)? :-) Not at all! I enjoy most of your posts. Tsk, tsk, Michael. The "horrid-ness" wasn't about a particular person, it was about NOT HAVING CONTROL OVER WHO POSTS!!! :-) The PCTA desperately want to hang onto "control" of content in here, negating any of that heretic talk of (shudder) removing the code test! PCTA want everything in here just like ARRL approves, like this is just "Newington South." Everybody be nice-nice to morsemen, etc. We can however, control our own. See? CONTROL! :-) I don't know about your mail reader, but mine has a couple levels of filtering. I can filter by name, or the easy way is to simply hit "k" at the subject line. I never see that subject again. K Not in the text body, but the subject line.. 8^) 'K Working station ON the moon is partly "lunatic" thing... Coslo reach "edge of space" yet? The project is moving along. We've had a major change in the payload and recovery strategy. Consult with Bert Rutan's Scaled Composites yet? They make it to "edge of space," win Big Money. No hot air, all hot shots in aero things. Above all, let's all do our best to ENTERTAIN MIKEY! Thank you, I appreciate that. Yer doin' okay. I don't work for scale, Mikey. Wait til you get BILL! :-( Contact AFTRA for details. |
From: bb on Jun 19, 7:05 pm
wrote: See? It's absurdly simply to toss in just a line, no bait, and I gonna get all kinds of bites. Most will be undersized but I just toss 'em back in... :-) And hope they grow up. There's not that much hope in the world, Brian! :-( Happy back-to-work-on-Monday, everyone... |
|
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07 Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Seig Heil!!! :-) Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument. Oh. OK then. That matters a lot. Glad you agree! Guess that makes you 'right', then. Yes, it does. That's important! Len was 'wrong', and you were 'right'. Yep. That's important! Feel better now? Sure. How about you? Just fine, thanks! Glad you're feeling better! I was pretty good before. How about you? The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1 Godwin invoked. For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1. I see. You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all? Nope. With good reason. I'm sure that we'd all love to hear your good reason for resurrecting the work history of the long departed Fuhrer back there, Jim - please share! It shows that the word "feldwebel", when it was used in connection with a specific person, has Godwin connections. You of course realize that there is a school of thought that invocation of Godwin's Law can be interpreted to include any such reference to that - um - Teutonic regime of the 1930's and 1940's? Especially the Big Guy himself? Oh sure - but the classic interpretation is that Godwin only applies when someone refers to another in such terms. Which I have not done. That school of thought reminds me of the episode of "Blackadder III" in which two characters are superstitious about the name of a particular play by Shakespeare - supposedly, saying the name brings bad luck. They refer to it as "the Scottish play", and if someone says the actual name, they have to do an elaborate ritual to excise the evil spirits. Of course Blackadder says the name of the play for them at every opportunity. Oh - I forgot - you said you use another interpretation of that rule....... The correct one.. Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role. And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len". How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. Len can do no wrong by you. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Heh. "Those who ain't with me are agin' me....!" - what movie was that from again??? Not a movie - a good description of Len's newsgroup behaviour, though! In other words, you won't answer the question. That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject. That's a contradiction. You just answered the question. "I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer. Thanks! Actually, it is neither an answer nor a refusal to answer. It is nothing at all. No, it's a valid answer. Look at the way opinion polls are usually structured - they often have a six-choice scale, to be applied to each statement: Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree (no opinion) Disagree Strongly disagree No answer Often the last is implied - if the respondent doesn't choose any of the first five choices, the sixth is applied. In short, I have no answer to your (rhetorical) question. Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no opinion one way or the other. Heh heh. Which is a valid answer. Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't answer mine? Well, that's a bit childish, but it is Fathers' Day, so I'll help you out a bit here. Because you should! Why? Why should you let the behaviour of others negatively influence yours? It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided. If Johnny jumped in the mud, would you jump in the mud? Not a valid analogy. Try this one: A neighbor is always asking to borrow your tools, but won't lend you any of his. If you get a tool back, it's dirty, broken or both. Meanwhile he keeps his tools in perfect condition. Should you keep lending him your tools? In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe! None of the above. Not true. That claim is incorrect. I don't think so! If you know the answer, why ask the question? Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? Not at all. The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting between operators". In the context of amateur radio, this means between amateur radio operators. In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious! Most people don't know the original meaning. In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever you say. Did *you* know the original meaning? I did indeed - it's not exactly a secret.....didn't I quote you something from the "92 code" a while back? You probably got the quote from me! It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to someone who is not an amateur radio operator. Which I am. And have stated many times before. And your callsign is? Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained earlier. Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio operator, perhaps not. Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002. Maybe... There you go again - not believing! :) Perhaps I should tap my shoes together and say "there's no place like Ontario"... Poor memory? Google 'er up..... I know what you claimed. But there's no independent evidence. You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence of that either! Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult? Of course not! Heh heh. Simply an illustration that, in the absence of conclusive and irrefutable proof, one has no other means to ascertain whether another individual is misrepresenting themselves other than the evidence that they present in their posts over a period of time. So far, we haven't seen much of anything posted that would support your claims of post-grad education - no thesis references, no detailed insight which would require that level of training, no written expressions of advanced theoretical knowledge. All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway. A few moderately complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a long shot. In short - your word is all we have. That applies to you as well. I can include "u" in certain words - doesn't make me Canadian... One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can. Anyone can. We call it "reasonable doubt"... But to choose to doubt someone simply because they no longer appear to agree with you or support your views - doesn't seem particularly brainy, now does it? Nope - but that's not what I'm doing. 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com