|
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Phil Kane wrote: On 15 Jun 2005 17:01:18 -0700, wrote: [sni] My class of 33 at Penn (1976, Moore School of Electrical Engineering) graduated 3 women - all specializing in computers. I don't think Towne School graduated any female engineers that year. Of course that's ancient history compared to today's ratios, but it shows a starting point almost 30 years ago. I will add some anecdotal comments to that. At my school we graduated approx 200 engineers and about 10% were women. [snip] If I have it right you spent most of your career with the FCC, another huge entity. Is it possible that women in engineering tend to gravitate in large numbers to major entities where fair employment practices are actually practiced and you've gotten involved with more of them than I've ever managed to meet? Perhaps not so much "gravitate" as in "are forced by circumstances"? All of which is and has been changing. But it takes a long time for such trends to make their way through the workforce. Keep in mind that the majority of engineering jobs are at major entities in major cities. Thus they will be more apt to be statistically representative. In small companies and/or rural areas the numbers are going to be skewed. I've worked at several companies where I was the only female engineer out of a staff of from 5 to 10 engineers. I've been in engineering for 30 years. I've seen virtually no discrimination in this field as this country remains chronically short of engineers. Oh there are spots in the country where it is difficult to find a job and sometimes the economy slumps but that does not mean engineers are not needed but that the companies make do with a short handed staff (been there done that). Instead I believe that women are more prone than men to select jobs more on the perceived desireability of the job location. They are more prone to select the office jobs rather than the plant jobs, thus placing themselves at the headquarters and technical offices rather than the factories out in the boonies and so on. Also there is a difference in what defines a desireable location. A higher percentage of the men will look at a facility in a rural location and say "now I can go fishing more often." There's probably a whole raft of reasons having nothing to do with discrimination that contribute to the disparity. |
From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Please continue to praise the military morse ops, , especially those of the USN. The USN is NOT a branch of the military you were in. Indeed, you weren't in ANY branch of the military. You "served in other ways." The Amateur Radio Service is not something in which you are a participant. Perhaps you served in other ways. game, set, match! Amateur radio newsgrouping IS a GAME to Kolonel Klunk. The only thing SET is Klunk's way of thinking (inflexible). There's no MATCH except the lighted one always carried by Klunk to start another Flame War in here. Other than that, "Game, Set, Match" are the titles of a later trilogy by novelist Len Deighton based on a fictional British intelligence service. [not Deighton's best work] I'll just put the PCTAs of the newsgroup in the category of "no one can join amateur radio unless they are already IN it..." oxymoronic "brotherhood" of self-righteous radio poseurs "serving their country" through a HOBBY. Go out and corner the market on helium for your "reach to the fringes of outer space," Michael. That's better than the megacubic feet of Hot Air vented by this "patriot" who behaves like a miscast stereotype of a Kommandant in a half-hour TV sitcom about POWs during WW2. Seig Heil!!! :-) |
|
John Smith wrote:
Dee: Michael's own words: "There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, ..." What does that mean--they are being held out by the old farts? The women too want no-code? Just what is the reason he was claiming? "He" wasn't claiming anything at that point beyond that women are a relative minority in Amateur radio. If you want to join in a reasoned discussion about the paucity of women in the technical fields, and some of the reasons why, we can do that. But putting words in my mouth isn't a good way to get a reasoned discussion going. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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. Yeah, those jerks always invoke Godwin when someone is compared to the Nazi's. 8^) I mean like, he was just sayin'! - Mike KB3EIA - |
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! Len used the following phrases in reference to K8MN: From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07 "Kolonel Klunk" "Klunk's way of thinking" "the lighted one always carried by Klunk "That's better than the megacubic feet of Hot Air vented by this "patriot" who behaves like a miscast stereotype of a Kommandant in a half-hour TV sitcom about POWs during WW2." "Seig Heil!!! :-)" If that isn't a clear Godwin example, nothing is. Or do you think the one smiley makes all of Len's verbiage somehow acceptable behavior? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: Leo on Jun 18, 2:51 pm
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07 Dave Heil wrote: wrote: :-) Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's rule. Jimmie allus "invokes" Godwin...or parenting. So predictable. Jimmie do parenting schtick again, no say how many he parent. Big mystery. Tune in tomorrow for another chapter in the slope opera, "As The Stomach Churns." Get ready for rumble. |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:33:20 -0400, Mike Coslo
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. Yeah, those jerks always invoke Godwin when someone is compared to the Nazi's. 8^) That's right - every time! Does absolutely no good, but it just has to be done, I suppose..... I think the comparison in question was to the bumbling TV 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes", not the 'real' ones - but hey, Godwin must be appeased... And as usual, the OC was right there as predicted! :) - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
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. But it just had to be done, didn't it? No, it didn't. But I did it anyway. Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior? |
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? (73 de Jim etc. sig missing again) 73, Leo |
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. 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. 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.... (a reference to the bumbling and comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes") The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1 - 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? 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? 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. The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting between operators". In the context of amateur radio, this means between amateur radio operators. It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to someone who is not an amateur radio operator. 73, Leo |
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. 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. Stalemate. Looks like everyone is getting exactly what they want. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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. 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. 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! (a reference to the bumbling and comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes") The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1 Godwin invoked. - 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. 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. 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! Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? 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! 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. Poor memory? Google 'er up..... 73, Leo (73 de Jim omitted apparently intentionally - boo hoo :) ) 73, Leo. |
|
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. Doesn't look like a choice - more like an obcession. 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! Stalemate. Looks like everyone is getting exactly what they want. Or as Mick Jagger says - you can't always get what you want - you get what you need! - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
Leo wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:02:42 -0400, Mike Coslo 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. Doesn't look like a choice - more like an obcession. Jim manages to respond to my comments only after someone else has. That way he doesn't have to respond directly. WRT Len, that's a completely different matter. It still cracks me up that Jim said of Han's restructuring proposal, that a "Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to CW use!" Hi! 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! Stalemate. Looks like everyone is getting exactly what they want. Or as Mick Jagger says - you can't always get what you want - you get what you need! All this looks more like a Megadeath mosh pit. ;^) |
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Phil Kane wrote: On 15 Jun 2005 17:01:18 -0700, wrote: [sni] My class of 33 at Penn (1976, Moore School of Electrical Engineering) graduated 3 women - all specializing in computers. I don't think Towne School graduated any female engineers that year. Of course that's ancient history compared to today's ratios, but it shows a starting point almost 30 years ago. I will add some anecdotal comments to that. At my school we graduated approx 200 engineers and about 10% were women. [snip] If I have it right you spent most of your career with the FCC, another huge entity. Is it possible that women in engineering tend to gravitate in large numbers to major entities where fair employment practices are actually practiced and you've gotten involved with more of them than I've ever managed to meet? Perhaps not so much "gravitate" as in "are forced by circumstances"? All of which is and has been changing. But it takes a long time for such trends to make their way through the workforce. Keep in mind that the majority of engineering jobs are at major entities in major cities. Thus they will be more apt to be statistically representative. In small companies and/or rural areas the numbers are going to be skewed. Phila. and it's surrounding five-county region is a huge and technology-diverse Gotham City with hundreds of small engineering-based employers and the numbers are *really* skewed - in the direction of the very small number of woman engineers I run into where I work. I've worked at several companies where I was the only female engineer out of a staff of from 5 to 10 engineers. Can't imagine any such thing around here . . As an example go back to when I popped out of Drexel which in 1963 was the biggest private undergrad engineering school on the planet. Probably still is. There were 87 ME grads, 89 EE grads and significant numbers of civil, chemical and metallurgical engineers plus the physics and chemistry majors. Maybe 400 all told. There was ONE, uno, singular woman in the whole bunch and she was chem major. I haven't seen any huge shift since then either, one female engineer out of ten in a small organization where I've been are still true oddities. I've been in engineering for 30 years. I've seen virtually no discrimination in this field as this country remains chronically short of engineers. Oh there are spots in the country where it is difficult to find a job and sometimes the economy slumps but that does not mean engineers are not needed but that the companies make do with a short handed staff (been there done that). .. . . Tell me . . ! I think you've brought up an important side issue. My experience strongly indicates that many in the general public consider engineering a lousy biz to get into as far as employment stability is concerened. They're right, and it's gotten much worse over the years. I'd have a hard time today recommending engineering to a kid male or female considering career options. Instead I believe that women are more prone than men to select jobs more on the perceived desireability of the job location. They are more prone to select the office jobs rather than the plant jobs, thus placing themselves at the headquarters and technical offices rather than the factories out in the boonies and so on. I think you just hit the nail on the head Dee, the skew is in my court. I work in areas women simply don't get into. Schlepping around neighborhood machine shops for a living like I have is obviously not "woman's work" for any number of valid reasons which go 'way beyond the fact that they happen to be engineers. So of course woman engineers are scarce the way I see the engineering biz. Also there is a difference in what defines a desireable location. A higher percentage of the men will look at a facility in a rural location and say "now I can go fishing more often." I'd like to be there when some lady engineer/ham lusts for a nice quiet antenna location out in the boonies and is married to some city boy . . .. There's probably a whole raft of reasons having nothing to do with discrimination that contribute to the disparity. Indeed: The code has been cracked. w3rv |
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. 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. 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. (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. - 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. In other words, you won't answer the question. 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? 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. 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. 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? You can state almost anything here, but as long as you remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt. Poor memory? Google 'er up..... I know what you claimed. But there's no independent evidence. |
From: Leo on Sun 19 Jun 2005 11:08
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!!! :-) 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. Heh heh heh. The "Seig Heil" is, etymologically speaking, a SALUTE...as in the speaker meaning "we salute you." :-) What is interesting is the reverse psychology to The Big Lie technique of the late 1930s' national socialist partei changed that to be some kind of sole honorific to Adolf Hitler. The major cause of the reverse psychology was a rather good (technically speaking) totally-slanted "documentary" done by a German gal with the given name of "Leni." :-) :-) 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 mentioned a trilogy by novelist Len Deighton the other day. Here's another trilogy by the same author, same characters, etc: "Hook, Line, Sinker." :-) I may have to market my bait. Sounds like its a money-maker! It appears to be irresistable! 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! Had you two been turned around on that, Jimmie would DEMAND you SHOW THE QUOTE!!!! :-) Jimmie thinks he be barrister in the Queen's Bench. His wig is on crooked... (a reference to the bumbling and comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes") The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1 Godwin invoked. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie not know that the title of "fuhrer" (with an emphasis on the second syllable, not the first) is an old, old European military title of French origin. It means a grade that is usually in between the underofficer (NCO) and "commissioned" officer...vaguely like the USA warrant officer...and means simply "leader." It's use got remarkably altered from origin to later times, much the same as the word "ham" went from its original "bad, sloppy, non-professional" radio operation to glorious noble champion of all radio, the amateur. - always has been, always will be. That claim is incorrect. Usenet is not eternal. [only Jimmie 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. I hear he gets paid quite a bit in that job. 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. Jimmie do dat a lot. Mucho so when he totally ****ed off. :-) 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. [K4YZ use "PUTZ," "coward," "dishonor" etc and dat be okay] [anyting use by PCTA okay...anyting by NCTA be "immature ethnic-slur, Godwin-invoking, jackass behavior" if not praise PCTA and morsemanship......:-) ] (73 de Jim etc. sig missing again) Not missing - omitted. In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe! Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? Jimmie need to "put a lid on it..." :-) 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! Jimmie try to be cross between Miss Manners and Sister Nun of the Above. Jimmie get as far as "cross." Tsk. Origin of "73" (as well as "88") was among COMMERCIAL telegraphers of the 1800s. Just a shorthand by them to cut time in standard ending salutations common to written comms of that era. 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. Poor memory? Google 'er up..... Tsk, tsk. Jimmie, representative of the "amateur community," dons his barrister wig and robes and proclaims "appropriate" and "inappropriate" behaviour (especially with his "you") by "all hams." Looks impressive but is dum**** behavior by self-proclaimed, self-righteous ruler-spank by Sister Nun of the Above. 73, Leo (73 de Jim omitted apparently intentionally - boo hoo :) ) 73, Leo. Heeheeheeheeheeheeheehee......... |
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: [snip] Also there is a difference in what defines a desireable location. A higher percentage of the men will look at a facility in a rural location and say "now I can go fishing more often." I'd like to be there when some lady engineer/ham lusts for a nice quiet antenna location out in the boonies and is married to some city boy . . Well I'm a lady engineer/ham who lusts for a nice, quiet antenna farm in the country and am married to a city boy. However, he's also a ham and happens to like the quietness of the rural areas. But the work is in the cities. Oh there's some engineering jobs in rural areas and I used to take those. But then when the company cuts back, you are automatically slated to move when you find a new position as it sure isn't going to be in that rural area where you worked at the only firm using engineers. Moving every 5 years or so got old fast. There's probably a whole raft of reasons having nothing to do with discrimination that contribute to the disparity. Indeed: The code has been cracked. w3rv That is my opinion too. There's another factor that crops up. Women do not like to just arbitrarily change jobs in search of higher pay or a promotion. They prefer stability. So they seek out and stay with those firms that seem to fit that bill. There's been some sort of study that I read somewhere on that. The end result is that they rise up the wage scale and promotion scale more slowly. The men who get ahead rapidly are usually those who make judicious job changes every 5 years or so in the early years of their careers. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
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)? :-) We can however, control our own. NOT ACCORDING TO JIMMIE. He say before he cannot control K4YZ! Jimmie be judge of ALL! 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 That being said, I have mixed feelings on the filtering. I use it to get rid of the lunatic fringe topics, but little else. NCTA be "lunatic fringe?" K Working station ON the moon is partly "lunatic" thing... Coslo reach "edge of space" yet? I don't filter people like Len though, as I look forward to his postings. They are entertaining. "There's no business like show business, like no business I know..." [Los Angeles be entertainment capital of the world, big business] So if the people who find his postings offensive quit getting into p*****g contests with him by filtering him out or just ignoring him, I'll have lost that bit of fun. The self-righteous shall always be with us, God bless their pointy lil heads. Above all, let's all do our best to ENTERTAIN MIKEY! All in here must honor the PCTA Extras. They are the Elite amateurs. Hail! Ave Imperator! |
From: Mike Coslo on Jun 19, 11:02 am
Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote: 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. You can't resist! :-) 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. I'm beginning to draft a business plan on that, might go COMMERCIAL! Stalemate. Looks like everyone is getting exactly what they want. My wife and I took delivery of a new car Friday. WE GOT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED. Got a 10 percent discount beyond the trade-in value. Paid cash, too. :-) 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... :-) |
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 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. Doesn't look like a choice - more like an obcession. The same way with that warm, wonderful Extra, K4YZ... :-) 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! Real hams don't have buttons...just code keys and rotary knobs and switches, lots and lots of them... :-) Jimmie and Stebie and Davie all try to manufacture as many "buttons" as they can. Tsk, tsk, they find that those "buttons" don't connect to any of my circuits, don't do anything. :-) But, they hang in there, wearing out their pudgy lil fingers, pushing, pushing, pushing. Parallel-connected triodes in "push-push" connection, running unneutralized and breaking into oscillation at the least disturbance! Tsk, tsk. Stalemate. Looks like everyone is getting exactly what they want. Or as Mick Jagger says - you can't always get what you want - you get what you need! A Rolling Stone gathers no Carrie Moss. [Megalips Mick was too busy with others...] 73, Leo Most sincere good wishes on this Father's Day (in here it looks more like 'boxing day' but without any Brit connotations), |
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. Guess that makes you 'right', then. Len was 'wrong', and you were 'right'. Feel better now? 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. You couldn't help yourself! 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. (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? Heh heh. - 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. In other words, you won't answer the question. That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject. In short, I have no answer to your (rhetorical) question. Seek elsewhere. 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. 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. 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. 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. Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002. 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. You may not like the guy much, but you seem to be learning from him! 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! But don't worry - I believe you! :) (73 de Jim etc...sig left out again for apparently no known reason - boo hoo again) 73, Leo |
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 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. Doesn't look like a choice - more like an obcession. The same way with that warm, wonderful Extra, K4YZ... :-) 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! Real hams don't have buttons...just code keys and rotary knobs and switches, lots and lots of them... :-) Jimmie and Stebie and Davie all try to manufacture as many "buttons" as they can. Tsk, tsk, they find that those "buttons" don't connect to any of my circuits, don't do anything. :-) But, they hang in there, wearing out their pudgy lil fingers, pushing, pushing, pushing. Parallel-connected triodes in "push-push" connection, running unneutralized and breaking into oscillation at the least disturbance! Tsk, tsk. Stalemate. Looks like everyone is getting exactly what they want. Or as Mick Jagger says - you can't always get what you want - you get what you need! A Rolling Stone gathers no Carrie Moss. [Megalips Mick was too busy with others...] 73, Leo 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...... 73, Leo |
|
Leo wrote: On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote: 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. Jim has begun the free-fall from grace. |
|
|
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 |
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: 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. 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! 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. ....so you seem to believe. You couldn't help yourself! What's to help? Yourself. Said so right there in that sentence! :) Do you believe in free will, Leo? I do indeed. Seen any lately? 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... Hey, it was my statement - I get to be the judge of that! That claim is incorrect (still). :) (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. 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! 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 - I forgot - you said you use another interpretation of that rule....... 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". How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. Heh. "Those who ain't with me are agin' me....!" - what movie was that from again??? 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. But, as long as you're happy with that - you're welcome - for nothing! 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. Seek elsewhere. Why? You answered the question. Thanks again. Heh. 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? Well, that's a bit childish, but it is Fathers' Day, so I'll help you out a bit here. Because you should! Why should you let the behaviour of others negatively influence yours? If Johnny jumped in the mud, would you jump in the mud? Jeez. Kids these days! 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. I don't think so! 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? 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! :) 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... You appear to have learned a few more tricks than that! Woof! 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? Of course not! 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. A few moderately complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a long shot. In short - your word is all we have. One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can. Anyone can. 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? You see where reasonable doubt might creep in - right? But don't worry - I believe you! :) Thanks! No problem! 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) Thanks! 73, Leo |
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 01:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com