|
|
Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: Snippage 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) Therein lies the heart of the issue. There are some in here who respond all out of proportion to others missives. We have them on both sides of the Morse/no Morse issue. Yep. Jim, you are obviously not one of them. I hope not! But it can get a bit odd to point out (in a nice way) that someone has clearly misunderstood something in Part 97, or has a couple of relevant facts wrong, and then be set upon as if I had desecrated a national monument. Or to be blamed for what someone else has posted. (KH2D, a PCTA Extra named Jim, has obviously offended Len, so he takes it out on me, a PCTA Extra named Jim...) Or to be quoted as writing things I did not write. (N0IMD's misquotes of what I wrote about the code test and its incentives for code use). At least for me, when someone gets too abusive, I just don't bother to reply. Yep - in some cases I simply stop reading what they write. Does that mean they "win"? Only as much as anyone wins one of these protracted whizzin' contests in here. The question comes down to whether or not one should allow an error of fact (not opinion) to go uncorrected, or to allow a misquote to go unanswered, or to engage in a multiround series of posts correcting the error of fact or the misquote. It's all entertainment. 8^) ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!?! (from "Gladiator") 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote:
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. Oh. I see. I was wondering, because - well, there are a couple of errors with your statement . Let's have a look: 1. "The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1". Well, no. According to several historical references, our friend Adolf never achieved a rank higher than the equivalent of Lance Corporal by the end of WW I. Several translation facilities available on the Web (see below) translate "Feldwebel" to "Sergeant". This was a rank senior to his. 2. "It shows that the word "Feldwebel", when it was used in connection with a specific person, has Godwin connections." Well, no. Even if Mr. Hitler had indeed held that rank in the German (Bavarian, actually) Army during WW I, that was before the creation of the Nazi party in 1920. Bu that time, he had left that rank and entered politics. All you would have proven was his rank in the Army during WW I - just like thousands of other soldiers - none of whom attained the level of notoriety that Adolf did. Not exactly Godwin invokable stuff at all! A few references for you: FELDWEBEL http://odge.info/german-english/Feldwebel+%7Bm%7D.html http://www.silentwall.com/LuftwaffePortraits9.html http://babelfish.altavista.com/ ADOLF http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler/warone.htm NAZI PARTY http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...ziorigins.html And, if one of your electives at good ol' Dreidel U was 20th Century World History, you should give them a call and see if you can still get your money back! 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. I see...we'll deal with that next! 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.. Well, no. Part of it - but not all. The intent of Godwin's Law was to provide an upper limit for the length of a Usenet thread - he theorized that, eventually, someone would make reference to the Nazis, and that would be that. End of thread. I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred to the Nazis. Mr. Godwin would disagree - if the thread continues, then the invocation of his law has failed. You can't use the 'correct' version if you don't use it all! :) 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. Well, no. That just ain't so Google back a couple of years ago, and you'll see that Len and I haven't always been at peace...... :) Len has done no wrong to me - giving me no reason to do any wrong to him. Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy! 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! A pretty accurate description of your behaviour too, sadly enough. 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. Oh - I see - it was an opinion poll and not a question. Sorry then - I thought is was a question! :) If thaat's true, though - "no answer" is a valid answer - it's right there on your list. But, you said that I had to have an answer, and that 'no answer' was not an answer. Waaaah! I'll pick that one then. No answer. 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. Heh heh is never a valid answer! :) Heh heh. 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? Because I said so! Now go outside and play! 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? Actually, my analogy was right on the money. exactly two variables (jump / not jump) just like your option regarding the question (answer / don't answer). Yours has a few more variables. In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." 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? .....now that's one question that you really should have an answer to, Jim - that's something you do quite frequently? Or was that another rhetorical question? Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? Not at all. Well, impolite at least....nah, I'll stick with lid-like. 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! Well, no. I got it on the Net - from this site: http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html As I recall, it was late last year, when you first began questioning whether I was really me :) I sent you ""134, Leo" instead of 73 - a literal Internet-era translation of which would be "Who is at the key(board)? 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"... Well, if you think it would help........if you want a VE3 or VA3 licence, you'll need to come here for sure - but I'd try and find a more efficient method of transportation. That one only worked once - in 1939 :) (thinking to self: say, was that an attempt to insult me? nah, couldn't have been!) LOL! 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. ....Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can. Anyone can. We call it "reasonable doubt"... Reasonable is judgemental - we just call it "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. Not correct. Again. 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) 73, Leo (nothing condescending in my sig! heh heh) |
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: 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. Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive" was incorrect. Appreciate the help! With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of the word. Thanks anyway, though! Dave K8MN 73, Leo |
Leo wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote: 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. Oh. I see. I was wondering, because - well, there are a couple of errors with your statement . Let's have a look: 1. "The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1". Well, no. According to several historical references, our friend Adolf never achieved a rank higher than the equivalent of Lance Corporal by the end of WW I. Several translation facilities available on the Web (see below) translate "Feldwebel" to "Sergeant". This was a rank senior to his. Other references refer to him as "feldwebel" as in "feldwebel schikelgruber. However, it appears that, in fact, he never actually held that rank. So it comes down to whether the original writer of the sentence "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" knew those facts or not. 2. "It shows that the word "Feldwebel", when it was used in connection with a specific person, has Godwin connections." Well, no. Even if Mr. Hitler had indeed held that rank in the German (Bavarian, actually) Army during WW I, that was before the creation of the Nazi party in 1920. Bu that time, he had left that rank and entered politics. Not at all. Some people are still addressed by their rank long after their military service is done, such as "Captain" Peacock and "General" Sarnoff. All you would have proven was his rank in the Army during WW I - just like thousands of other soldiers - none of whom attained the level of notoriety that Adolf did. Not exactly Godwin invokable stuff at all! A few references for you: FELDWEBEL http://odge.info/german-english/Feldwebel+%7Bm%7D.html http://www.silentwall.com/LuftwaffePortraits9.html http://babelfish.altavista.com/ ADOLF http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler/warone.htm NAZI PARTY http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...ziorigins.html And, if one of your electives at good ol' Dreidel U was 20th Century World History, you should give them a call and see if you can still get your money back! Dreidel U? Where's that? I didn't take any 20th Century World History courses. 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. I see...we'll deal with that next! 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.. Well, no. Well, yes. Part of it - but not all. The intent of Godwin's Law was to provide an upper limit for the length of a Usenet thread - he theorized that, eventually, someone would make reference to the Nazis, and that would be that. End of thread. That may have been the original intent, but it doesn't usually work that way. I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred to the Nazis. And I did. Mr. Godwin would disagree - if the thread continues, then the invocation of his law has failed. Do you know Mr. Godwin? You can't use the 'correct' version if you don't use it all! :) 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. Well, no. That just ain't so Google back a couple of years ago, and you'll see that Len and I haven't always been at peace...... :) Len has done no wrong to me Not "to" you - "by" you. Different thing entirely. - giving me no reason to do any wrong to him. Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it. All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test, defend that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his postings. Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len? Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy! Nope. 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! A pretty accurate description of your behaviour too, sadly enough. That claim is incorrect. Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of issues, including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and K2UNK, for example. 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. Oh - I see - it was an opinion poll and not a question. Sorry then - I thought is was a question! :) It's a question. If thaat's true, though - "no answer" is a valid answer - it's right there on your list. But, you said that I had to have an answer, and that 'no answer' was not an answer. Waaaah! I'll pick that one then. No answer. 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. Heh heh is never a valid answer! :) Heh heh. 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? Because I said so! Now go outside and play! Hehheh 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? Actually, my analogy was right on the money. exactly two variables (jump / not jump) just like your option regarding the question (answer / don't answer). Yours has a few more variables. The number of variables is irrelevant in this case. In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. Nope. The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no). Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You didn't fully understand the analogy. After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. 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? ....now that's one question that you really should have an answer to, Jim - that's something you do quite frequently? Or was that another rhetorical question? Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? Not at all. Well, impolite at least....nah, I'll stick with lid-like. 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! Well, no. I got it on the Net - from this site: http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html As I recall, it was late last year, when you first began questioning whether I was really me :) I sent you ""134, Leo" instead of 73 - a literal Internet-era translation of which would be "Who is at the key(board)? 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"... Well, if you think it would help........if you want a VE3 or VA3 licence, you'll need to come here for sure - but I'd try and find a more efficient method of transportation. That one only worked once - in 1939 :) (thinking to self: say, was that an attempt to insult me? nah, couldn't have been!) LOL! 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. ...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location. Easy to do. One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can. Anyone can. We call it "reasonable doubt"... Reasonable is judgemental - we just call it "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. Not correct. Again. Your claim is incorrect. 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) 73, Leo (nothing condescending in my sig! heh heh) 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) |
Leo wrote:
With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of the word. I disagree! I am simply persistent. I offer strong opposition to some of the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others. Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me). Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can renew and modify their licenses without retesting)? I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic, and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO. You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence in getting something right. 73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY |
Leo wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: 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. Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive" was incorrect. Appreciate the help! You're welcome. I spotted it the first time you used it but didn't comment on it then. With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of the word. I don't see evidence of any *pursuit* of Len by Jim, much less "relentless pursuit". Dave K8MN |
|
From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm
On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of the word. I disagree! There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem! Just 11 more steps to go! Antabuse might be quicker...? :-) I am simply persistent. Or persistently simple. Time will tell! :) Obsessively persistent? :-) I offer strong opposition to some of the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others. Oh, that's nice. How's that working out for you? Changed anybody's mind lately? :-) [with all that "parenting" he implies he's had you'd think he changed SOMETHING at one time...] Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me). You don't really believe that, do you? You're not the entertainer - you're the entertainment! He pokes and prods, and you sing and dance - been that way for 8 long years now. "Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer. Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can renew and modify their licenses without retesting)? I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing your buttons.....for fun.....y'think? Nahhhhhh..... :-) Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too, didn't you? :) ? I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic, and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO. You can only control your own postings. You may also refute and argue points. That is not obsesssive. To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL! Nahhhhhh..... :-) You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence in getting something right. In a way, yes. I asked you several times if being correct was important to you. You replied that it was. I asked if being correct was very important to you. You replied that it was. I confirmed this again, and you agreed that it was very important to you. So, I spent about 20 minutes on Google and provided you with the correct info and a few references for you to read. That's what you said that you wanted - and that's what I provided. Obsessive? No. Persistent? Not really - it wasn't a lot of work - and I knew the correct answers before Googling the references - so I wouldn't say persistent exactly. However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways back there or something..... I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!" [that kind of says it all...maybe...] Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ] Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and everyone else always "wrong!" 73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo (is it just me, or is there a diss aimed at me again in ol' Jim's sig above? heh heh) Heh heh heh heh heh..... |
Len:
Don't know about you, but this bunch is driving me to drink... let's go have a beer! evil-grin John wrote in message ups.com... From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of the word. I disagree! There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem! Just 11 more steps to go! Antabuse might be quicker...? :-) I am simply persistent. Or persistently simple. Time will tell! :) Obsessively persistent? :-) I offer strong opposition to some of the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others. Oh, that's nice. How's that working out for you? Changed anybody's mind lately? :-) [with all that "parenting" he implies he's had you'd think he changed SOMETHING at one time...] Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me). You don't really believe that, do you? You're not the entertainer - you're the entertainment! He pokes and prods, and you sing and dance - been that way for 8 long years now. "Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer. Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can renew and modify their licenses without retesting)? I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing your buttons.....for fun.....y'think? Nahhhhhh..... :-) Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too, didn't you? :) ? I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic, and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO. You can only control your own postings. You may also refute and argue points. That is not obsesssive. To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL! Nahhhhhh..... :-) You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence in getting something right. In a way, yes. I asked you several times if being correct was important to you. You replied that it was. I asked if being correct was very important to you. You replied that it was. I confirmed this again, and you agreed that it was very important to you. So, I spent about 20 minutes on Google and provided you with the correct info and a few references for you to read. That's what you said that you wanted - and that's what I provided. Obsessive? No. Persistent? Not really - it wasn't a lot of work - and I knew the correct answers before Googling the references - so I wouldn't say persistent exactly. However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways back there or something..... I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!" [that kind of says it all...maybe...] Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ] Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and everyone else always "wrong!" 73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo (is it just me, or is there a diss aimed at me again in ol' Jim's sig above? heh heh) Heh heh heh heh heh..... |
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:43:40 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: Leo wrote: On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: 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. Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive" was incorrect. Appreciate the help! You're welcome. I spotted it the first time you used it but didn't comment on it then. Yeah, I should have caught it myself - didn't seem right when I wrote it, but too lazy to look it up, I guess! With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of the word. I don't see evidence of any *pursuit* of Len by Jim, much less "relentless pursuit". Not sure I can agree with you on that point, Dave. It's been going on for years on a pretty frequent basis - see my reply to Jim elsewhere in this thread.... Dave K8MN 73, Leo |
On 21 Jun 2005 17:02:04 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of the word. I disagree! There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem! Just 11 more steps to go! Antabuse might be quicker...? :-) Hmmm - I wonder if there's a Usenet version of that! :) I am simply persistent. Or persistently simple. Time will tell! :) Obsessively persistent? :-) That works too! I offer strong opposition to some of the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others. Oh, that's nice. How's that working out for you? Changed anybody's mind lately? :-) [with all that "parenting" he implies he's had you'd think he changed SOMETHING at one time...] Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me). You don't really believe that, do you? You're not the entertainer - you're the entertainment! He pokes and prods, and you sing and dance - been that way for 8 long years now. "Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer. Heh - I remember those commercials - good rewrite! Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can renew and modify their licenses without retesting)? I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing your buttons.....for fun.....y'think? Nahhhhhh..... :-) Nahhhh - you're right. I didn't think so either! :) Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too, didn't you? :) ? It's from another reply in this thread - made more sense back there, I reckon! I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic, and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO. You can only control your own postings. You may also refute and argue points. That is not obsesssive. To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL! Nahhhhhh..... :-) Not even a teensy bit? :) You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence in getting something right. In a way, yes. I asked you several times if being correct was important to you. You replied that it was. I asked if being correct was very important to you. You replied that it was. I confirmed this again, and you agreed that it was very important to you. So, I spent about 20 minutes on Google and provided you with the correct info and a few references for you to read. That's what you said that you wanted - and that's what I provided. Obsessive? No. Persistent? Not really - it wasn't a lot of work - and I knew the correct answers before Googling the references - so I wouldn't say persistent exactly. However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways back there or something..... I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!" [that kind of says it all...maybe...] Something pretty compelling drives this sort of behaviour - that's probably the seed, all right! Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ] Ouch! :) Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and everyone else always "wrong!" That pretty much sums up my experience over the last twenty years online as well - unlike in real life arguements - things are very black-or-white in the newsgroups.....with little compromise. Didn't seem quite as bad on the BBS systems, though - Usenet really seems to bring out the big egos. YMMV, of course! I find it continually amazing what people will argue over - or how passionate they'll get over the most simple and unimportant issue. I'm sure that there's a group somewhere on Usenet where death threats are exchanged over whether rotary dial phones are superior to TouchTone phones... :) Can you imagine if real-life arguements played out like some of the ones in this little alternate reality? Somebody would end up doing some time for assault...or worse... But here, in Fantasyland (not the one near you - this one...heh heh), everyone feels safe and secure, so the inhibitions drop. Look at the folks wrassling with some tool in another thread here for the last few days, for example - if that 'discussion' took place in a bar, he'd probably be waking up in Emergency somewhere early tomorrow morning. But, because it's here, and that possibility doesn't exist, it's no holds barred. Even the most bookish guy is Tyson when he's on here.....ding ding! Funny thing is - people are trying to convince the guy that he's wrong, or heartless, or insensitive, or cruel - duh, it's obviously intentional trolling, but somehow, that got missed by several otherwise savvy folks..... Guess some peoples' radar doesn't work when the face-to-face interpersonal aspect is isolated from the conversation. I will probably never fully understand the psychology of this..... But, I suppose, as Barnum said..."There's a sucker born every minute." Hey - maybe that's the psychology of this! :) :) :) 73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo (is it just me, or is there a diss aimed at me again in ol' Jim's sig above? heh heh) Heh heh heh heh heh..... He's doing it - I know he is..... and he knows that I know he's doing it too :) Oh well - that's enough bashing at this for now....have a great evening, Len! 73, Leo PS - before the Usenet police come to correct me on that Barnum quote (it's controversial whether he actually said it or not...), here's a reference: http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/P.-T.-Barnum/1/ |
From: Leo on Jun 21, 11:51 pm
On 21 Jun 2005 17:02:04 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem! Just 11 more steps to go! Antabuse might be quicker...? :-) Hmmm - I wonder if there's a Usenet version of that! :) Hardly, ARPA's original USENET was the start of it all! I saw it begin, clickety-clacking on a Model 33 wasting lots of paper (that a corporation bought). Pages of sound and fury signifying nothing much. Incurable mental disease infecting all terminals! I am simply persistent. Or persistently simple. Time will tell! :) Obsessively persistent? :-) That works too! OK. "Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer. Heh - I remember those commercials - good rewrite! Alka-Seltzer would cure one headache, then induce millions to have more with that commercial! It should still be in the collection of famous commercials over at the Television Academy on Lankershim Blvd in North Hollywood. Haven't been there for a while... I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing your buttons.....for fun.....y'think? Nahhhhhh..... :-) Nahhhh - you're right. I didn't think so either! :) nodding in agreement Nudge, nudge, wink, wink... Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too, didn't you? :) ? It's from another reply in this thread - made more sense back there, I reckon! Got it! :-) Didn't see the previous post until this download arrived in my mail box from Google. [Oy veh, I wasn't wearing my yarmulke...] To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL! Nahhhhhh..... :-) Not even a teensy bit? :) Not for a boneheadedly stubborn true morse Believer fedayin! I liken it to an excrutiatingly slow "suicide bomber" act. Only thing is, only the "bomber" will destruct. It's like that Opel (?) TV ad that was circulating around the net, the one demonstrating the "great German engineering!" Funny! However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways back there or something..... I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!" [that kind of says it all...maybe...] Something pretty compelling drives this sort of behaviour - that's probably the seed, all right! "R U Siriusly" speaking (I'm a fan of Brewster Rockit, Space Guy), it's the time-space insulation of the simplex communications via computer-modem medium. Nearly everyone beginning that sort of comms takes every word on the screen at face value...at first. Some figure out that they can actually say ANYTHING they want in a message (especially with no moderator there to censor them) and they go bananas. They can say anything without fear of reprisal. It's amazing the false courage these mighty message warriors display! :-) Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ] Ouch! :) The pun is mightier than the sword? :-) "When puns are outlawed, only outlaws will have puns!" etc. Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and everyone else always "wrong!" That pretty much sums up my experience over the last twenty years online as well - unlike in real life arguements - things are very black-or-white in the newsgroups.....with little compromise. Didn't seem quite as bad on the BBS systems, though - Usenet really seems to bring out the big egos. YMMV, of course! No moderator present. All can drop their social conventions and BE "all that they can (imagine) be." War heroes, sex kittens, "doctors" (with PhDs from a correspondence "college"), all kinds of better-than-everyone-else! :-) As a co-sysop on a "social" BBS, actually a couple of them, there was a chance to meet the real person in-person and find out some were really what they said they were while others were totally unlike their screen personna or just total flake faux pas-sers. Lots of stories on that subject in this ultimate geographical collection of really-real hams (in entertainment industry). :-) I find it continually amazing what people will argue over - or how passionate they'll get over the most simple and unimportant issue. I'm sure that there's a group somewhere on Usenet where death threats are exchanged over whether rotary dial phones are superior to TouchTone phones... :) Can you imagine if real-life arguements played out like some of the ones in this little alternate reality? Somebody would end up doing some time for assault...or worse... Actually I was once quite close to a real-life argument going on live. Was along one side of a mini-mall in Burbank, CA, that had the local HRO outlet (now moved to the other side). Two hams (apparently) were into the finger-in-the-chest sort of fight foreplay when I passed close to them with some finished dry-cleaning (neatly wrapped). Not wanting to go through the dry-clean cycle again, I avoided the heating-up situation. A third (ham?) guy came out and spoke to both and I drove off to home without seeing any fracas. Something about "sub-bands" and individual license classes seemed to be the main thesis of the testosterone-adrenaline-pumping exchange. Once, on a social BBS, a group of "avenger" males decided to "change the mind" of a womanizing schmuck. They did and said schmuck later departed for other sites of conquest. Younger type males, one a reservist (military) helo driver. Heard from him what went down. Not pretty. But here, in Fantasyland (not the one near you - this one...heh heh), everyone feels safe and secure, so the inhibitions drop. Look at the folks wrassling with some tool in another thread here for the last few days, for example - if that 'discussion' took place in a bar, he'd probably be waking up in Emergency somewhere early tomorrow morning. But, because it's here, and that possibility doesn't exist, it's no holds barred. Even the most bookish guy is Tyson when he's on here.....ding ding! It's like a real macho tuffy sauntering into a bar and announcing "he'll lick any man in the joint!" All the patrons smile in his direction. Doesn't realize he walked into a gay bar... Funny thing is - people are trying to convince the guy that he's wrong, or heartless, or insensitive, or cruel - duh, it's obviously intentional trolling, but somehow, that got missed by several otherwise savvy folks..... Guess some peoples' radar doesn't work when the face-to-face interpersonal aspect is isolated from the conversation. I liken it to morse code mode communications. Monotonic arrhythmic tone bursts representing words and phrases. NO tone of voice clues, no real emotion, no body language clue, just the beeping. The beeper could be male, female, or some unknown species...no way to tell for sure. Some hams say they "make lifelong friends this way." OK for them, but that's a bit like buying a used car sight unseen. I will probably never fully understand the psychology of this..... Ah, but the field observation can be totally fascinating! :-) But, I suppose, as Barnum said..."There's a sucker born every minute." Er, you weren't IN that bar I mentioned, were you? He's doing it - I know he is..... and he knows that I know he's doing it too :) Tsk, tsk. :-) Oh well - that's enough bashing at this for now....have a great evening, Len! Thank you and you too. Re-runs on the tube now that summer ist a cumin' in, and HBO hasn't got anything tonight that we haven't seen. :-( |
From: John Smith on Jun 21, 10:08 pm
Len: Don't know about you, but this bunch is driving me to drink... let's go have a beer! evil-grin John wrote in message oups.com... Thanks for the invite, John, but I already have a date with a gal from East McKeesport to go out to the junkyard and watch the cars rust...gonna be an exciting evening! :-) Well, it's either than or watch my hard disk defrag. Either one is more exciting than this "discussion" about late leaders of a national socialist partei or the Pennsylvanians are always right, no matter what! Epoxy is curing in the workshop. Maybe I'll go in there and watch it set up instead... |
Len:
That girl you are taking out, does she have a sister with most of her teeth still? If so, I got a bottle of vodka and some orange juice--we could make it four-some!!! Gawd, been awhile since I have seen cars rust up close! Any still have some backseats in 'em? grin John wrote in message oups.com... From: John Smith on Jun 21, 10:08 pm Len: Don't know about you, but this bunch is driving me to drink... let's go have a beer! evil-grin John wrote in message roups.com... Thanks for the invite, John, but I already have a date with a gal from East McKeesport to go out to the junkyard and watch the cars rust...gonna be an exciting evening! :-) Well, it's either than or watch my hard disk defrag. Either one is more exciting than this "discussion" about late leaders of a national socialist partei or the Pennsylvanians are always right, no matter what! Epoxy is curing in the workshop. Maybe I'll go in there and watch it set up instead... |
Leo wrote: On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote: 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. Oh. I see. I was wondering, because - well, there are a couple of errors with your statement . Let's have a look: 1. "The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1". Well, no. According to several historical references, our friend Adolf never achieved a rank higher than the equivalent of Lance Corporal by the end of WW I. Several translation facilities available on the Web (see below) translate "Feldwebel" to "Sergeant". This was a rank senior to his. Other references refer to him as "feldwebel" as in "feldwebel schikelgruber. However, it appears that, in fact, he never actually held that rank. Well, no. That would be a reference to another person entirely. Although "Schicklgruber" was Adolf's mother's maiden name, it was never given to him. He went by his father's now-famous last name for his entire time on this Earth. Same references should yield this information. So it comes down to whether the original writer of the sentence "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" knew those facts or not. That was not a part of our discussion - as such, it is irrelevant in this context. 2. "It shows that the word "Feldwebel", when it was used in connection with a specific person, has Godwin connections." Well, no. Even if Mr. Hitler had indeed held that rank in the German (Bavarian, actually) Army during WW I, that was before the creation of the Nazi party in 1920. Bu that time, he had left that rank and entered politics. Not at all. Some people are still addressed by their rank long after their military service is done, such as "Captain" Peacock and "General" Sarnoff. Well, no. Although that is certainly true in many instances, I am unaware of any historical references which refer to Mr. Hitler continuing to use the prefix "Corporal" (in German, of course) at any time following his departure from the Army. I would suggest that is indeed quite unkilely as it is a very low rank - and I would expect that anyone addressing the man in that fashion would have had some serious explaining to do..... All you would have proven was his rank in the Army during WW I - just like thousands of other soldiers - none of whom attained the level of notoriety that Adolf did. Not exactly Godwin invokable stuff at all! A few references for you: FELDWEBEL http://odge.info/german-english/Feldwebel+%7Bm%7D.html http://www.silentwall.com/LuftwaffePortraits9.html http://babelfish.altavista.com/ ADOLF http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler/warone.htm NAZI PARTY http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...ziorigins.html And, if one of your electives at good ol' Dreidel U was 20th Century World History, you should give them a call and see if you can still get your money back! Dreidel U? Where's that? I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges..... :) (apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!) Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo. I didn't take any 20th Century World History courses. Heh...I'm pretty sure that we are all aware of that now, Jim! 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. I see...we'll deal with that next! 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.. Well, no. Well, yes. Well, no - you are not following all of it - just the part that suits your purpose. Well, no. Has an invocation of Godwing *ever* ended a thread on rrap? Part of it - but not all. The intent of Godwin's Law was to provide an upper limit for the length of a Usenet thread - he theorized that, eventually, someone would make reference to the Nazis, and that would be that. End of thread. That may have been the original intent, but it doesn't usually work that way. Disagree - unless someone repealed or amended it, the law is still the Law.... Not enforced here, however. I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred to the Nazis. And I did. Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please.... Why? Mr. Godwin would disagree - if the thread continues, then the invocation of his law has failed. Do you know Mr. Godwin? Rhetorical question, not relevant. Ignored. You can't use the 'correct' version if you don't use it all! :) 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. Well, no. That just ain't so Google back a couple of years ago, and you'll see that Len and I haven't always been at peace...... :) Len has done no wrong to me Not "to" you - "by" you. Different thing entirely. Not at all. I personally deal with those who do wrong 'to' me. Doing wrong 'by' me is subjective - not my problem unless it impacts me directly. In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong 'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you! Well, no. According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his behalf show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong by you" means. That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental. - giving me no reason to do any wrong to him. Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it. I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly frequency (at minimum). Well, no. I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago. There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from rrap. As for: "telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and that is a fact. "acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from me. "a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact. "- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes, when he has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed? .......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when someone catches him in an error and points it out. A few Google examples: Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998 "Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the issue." What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it? Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001 "No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:" What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not? Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003 "So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong." Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong? Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004 (Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all! Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"? You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..." wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive? Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error about the subjects discussed. Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken about something? LOL! All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test, defend that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his postings. An inconsistency or two? For eight years? I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode. Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are going to change anything by whining on? "Whining on"? btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes here than I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you. Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife.... :) Well, no. Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len? I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change? Probably not. So what? Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with? "ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!" Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy! Nope. Yup. In Technicolour. Well, no. 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! A pretty accurate description of your behaviour too, sadly enough. That claim is incorrect. Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of issues, including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and K2UNK, for example. Agreed. So there *is* a difference! So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues that the folks you are arguing with will never agree? Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer. Jeez. Even Ghandi would have taken up golf by now. :) 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. Oh - I see - it was an opinion poll and not a question. Sorry then - I thought is was a question! :) It's a question. X Strongly Disagree "Is this the right room for an argument?" If thaat's true, though - "no answer" is a valid answer - it's right there on your list. But, you said that I had to have an answer, and that 'no answer' was not an answer. Waaaah! I'll pick that one then. No answer. 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. Heh heh is never a valid answer! :) Heh heh. 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? Because I said so! Now go outside and play! Hehheh 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? Actually, my analogy was right on the money. exactly two variables (jump / not jump) just like your option regarding the question (answer / don't answer). Yours has a few more variables. The number of variables is irrelevant in this case. Not true. True. In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. Nope. The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no). Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You didn't fully understand the analogy. Who didn't understand what, Jim? You didn't understand the analogy I made. You avoided my question, threw in your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding? Not gonna happen, Bud! The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave that way? After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You're absolutely correct. You should steal the tools instead. Well, no. 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? ....now that's one question that you really should have an answer to, Jim - that's something you do quite frequently? Or was that another rhetorical question? Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? Not at all. Well, impolite at least....nah, I'll stick with lid-like. 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! Well, no. I got it on the Net - from this site: http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html As I recall, it was late last year, when you first began questioning whether I was really me :) I sent you ""134, Leo" instead of 73 - a literal Internet-era translation of which would be "Who is at the key(board)? 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"... Well, if you think it would help........if you want a VE3 or VA3 licence, you'll need to come here for sure - but I'd try and find a more efficient method of transportation. That one only worked once - in 1939 :) (thinking to self: say, was that an attempt to insult me? nah, couldn't have been!) LOL! 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. ...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! You misunderstand. It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location. Easy to do. Oh yeah. Forgot. Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials...... Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you? ROTFLMAO! See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can. Anyone can. We call it "reasonable doubt"... Reasonable is judgemental - we just call it "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. Not correct. Again. Your claim is incorrect. Really? Most of the things that you posted in this thread are - to use your word - incorrect. Sunnavagun! (Sorry again, Hans - stole that too!) 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) 73, Leo (nothing condescending in my sig! heh heh) 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) 73, Leo (trying hard to believe you're educated - but I promised I would so I will!) It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do. Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you, Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment. Maybe I will. |
From: "John Smith" on Tues 21 Jun 2005 23:20
Len: That girl you are taking out, does she have a sister with most of her teeth still? If so, I got a bottle of vodka and some orange juice--we could make it four-some!!! Gawd, been awhile since I have seen cars rust up close! Any still have some backseats in 'em? grin Heh heh heh...I'm just waiting around to see who takes my message and yours seriously. :-) Some WILL and they will want to word-fight at the drop of a keystroke! :-) A few others will become quietly enraged and demand SERIOUSNESS in responses...which are those wonderful irregulars in here who take themselves wayyyyy too seriously. :-) |
On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote: On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote: 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. Oh. I see. I was wondering, because - well, there are a couple of errors with your statement . Let's have a look: 1. "The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1". Well, no. According to several historical references, our friend Adolf never achieved a rank higher than the equivalent of Lance Corporal by the end of WW I. Several translation facilities available on the Web (see below) translate "Feldwebel" to "Sergeant". This was a rank senior to his. Other references refer to him as "feldwebel" as in "feldwebel schikelgruber. However, it appears that, in fact, he never actually held that rank. Well, no. That would be a reference to another person entirely. Although "Schicklgruber" was Adolf's mother's maiden name, it was never given to him. He went by his father's now-famous last name for his entire time on this Earth. Same references should yield this information. So it comes down to whether the original writer of the sentence "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" knew those facts or not. That was not a part of our discussion - as such, it is irrelevant in this context. 2. "It shows that the word "Feldwebel", when it was used in connection with a specific person, has Godwin connections." Well, no. Even if Mr. Hitler had indeed held that rank in the German (Bavarian, actually) Army during WW I, that was before the creation of the Nazi party in 1920. Bu that time, he had left that rank and entered politics. Not at all. Some people are still addressed by their rank long after their military service is done, such as "Captain" Peacock and "General" Sarnoff. Well, no. Although that is certainly true in many instances, I am unaware of any historical references which refer to Mr. Hitler continuing to use the prefix "Corporal" (in German, of course) at any time following his departure from the Army. I would suggest that is indeed quite unkilely as it is a very low rank - and I would expect that anyone addressing the man in that fashion would have had some serious explaining to do..... All you would have proven was his rank in the Army during WW I - just like thousands of other soldiers - none of whom attained the level of notoriety that Adolf did. Not exactly Godwin invokable stuff at all! A few references for you: FELDWEBEL http://odge.info/german-english/Feldwebel+%7Bm%7D.html http://www.silentwall.com/LuftwaffePortraits9.html http://babelfish.altavista.com/ ADOLF http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler/warone.htm NAZI PARTY http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...ziorigins.html And, if one of your electives at good ol' Dreidel U was 20th Century World History, you should give them a call and see if you can still get your money back! Dreidel U? Where's that? I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges..... :) (apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!) Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo. Nope - it was a joke. A 'Top" college - Dreidel (a child's toy top) - get it? Anti-semetic - no. It rhymes (well, sort of) with Drexel - your good ol' alma mater. Heh heh. It was a zing, though - you are right about that. Not sure what they teach there, but research skills and accuracy don't appear to be weighted very heavily...unless you picked up those bad habits after you left..... Good catch, though! I didn't take any 20th Century World History courses. Heh...I'm pretty sure that we are all aware of that now, Jim! 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. I see...we'll deal with that next! 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.. Well, no. Well, yes. Well, no - you are not following all of it - just the part that suits your purpose. Well, no. Oh, yeah! Has an invocation of Godwing *ever* ended a thread on rrap? No - it has failed every time. Completely and utterly useless, I'd say. Part of it - but not all. The intent of Godwin's Law was to provide an upper limit for the length of a Usenet thread - he theorized that, eventually, someone would make reference to the Nazis, and that would be that. End of thread. That may have been the original intent, but it doesn't usually work that way. Disagree - unless someone repealed or amended it, the law is still the Law.... Not enforced here, however. Not enforceable outside a moderated group, Jim - perhaps you would be more comfortable in one of those? Heh heh. I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred to the Nazis. And I did. Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please.... Why? Because you have not completed your research on the topic. You fail to have grasped it's essence. Mr. Godwin would disagree - if the thread continues, then the invocation of his law has failed. Do you know Mr. Godwin? Rhetorical question, not relevant. Ignored. You can't use the 'correct' version if you don't use it all! :) 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. Well, no. That just ain't so Google back a couple of years ago, and you'll see that Len and I haven't always been at peace...... :) Len has done no wrong to me Not "to" you - "by" you. Different thing entirely. Not at all. I personally deal with those who do wrong 'to' me. Doing wrong 'by' me is subjective - not my problem unless it impacts me directly. In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong 'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you! Well, no. Oh, yeah! for seven and a half years now! (corrected per your timeline). According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his behalf show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong by you" means. That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental. By your logic, then, I should ccontinue to disagree with him even though he has provided me no direct reason to do so? ....wouldn't that be a bit psychotic, eh? LOL! - giving me no reason to do any wrong to him. Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it. I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly frequency (at minimum). Well, no. Oh, yeah! I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago. Sorry - you're correct - make that seven and a half years then. LOL! There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from rrap. Yup - we all take vacations. On average, though, I'd estimate a frequency of (conservatively) once per week. That means three times this week, and none over the next two, et. etc. equals an average frequency of approximately weekly. Actually, I have probably given you the advantage here - it may be even more..... They taught averages at Dreidel, didn't they? As for: "telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and that is a fact. "acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from me. It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret! "a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact. It wasn't a literal, Jim - come on, guy - use that education! "- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes, when he has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed? .......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when someone catches him in an error and points it out. Once again - a reference back to Len. Does your whole world revolve around this guy? Why? A few Google examples: Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998 "Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the issue." What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it? Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001 "No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:" What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not? Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003 "So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong." Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong? Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004 (Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all! Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"? Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. In each example, do you believe that your opponent could care less whether he was wrong? Might there be an ulterior motive? Heh heh heh. You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..." wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive? Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error about the subjects discussed. Therein lies the nature of the affliction. Nobody, least of all Len, cares that you think that he is 'wrong''. It's being done to torment you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure. The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers looking at an accident on the highway. You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'. (oh, how I loathe that expression....! ). You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it. Real sad. Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken about something? Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the distance! Heh heh heh. LOL! All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test, defend that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his postings. An inconsistency or two? For eight years? I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode. To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing more. Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are going to change anything by whining on? "Whining on"? Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something? btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes here than I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you. I could personally care less. I am not obsessed. Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife.... :) Well, no. Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum. like a demented parrot. Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len? I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change? Probably not. So what? So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on? Are you incapable of controlling yourself? Find The Strength! Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with? "ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!" um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie "Gladiator" - well, no. The correct quote is "Are you not entertained" Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as the next guy - it's human nature! Heh heh heh. Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy! Nope. Yup. In Technicolour. Well, no. Panavision then? With DTS sound. The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period. We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake.... 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! A pretty accurate description of your behaviour too, sadly enough. That claim is incorrect. Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of issues, including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and K2UNK, for example. Agreed. So there *is* a difference! Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no. So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues that the folks you are arguing with will never agree? Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer. There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you. All roads lead to Len! LOL! Jeez. Even Ghandi would have taken up golf by now. :) 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. Oh - I see - it was an opinion poll and not a question. Sorry then - I thought is was a question! :) It's a question. X Strongly Disagree "Is this the right room for an argument?" Not at all - I was marking my selection from your list directly above with an "X". Your comment was a bit apocryphal, though..... If thaat's true, though - "no answer" is a valid answer - it's right there on your list. But, you said that I had to have an answer, and that 'no answer' was not an answer. Waaaah! I'll pick that one then. No answer. 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. Heh heh is never a valid answer! :) Heh heh. 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? Because I said so! Now go outside and play! Hehheh 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? Actually, my analogy was right on the money. exactly two variables (jump / not jump) just like your option regarding the question (answer / don't answer). Yours has a few more variables. The number of variables is irrelevant in this case. Not true. True. Not at all - the situation had two - I provided two. To add more is simply obfuscation - which tou do well. If you were Hindu, I would suspect that you were a squid in a previous life....! Heh heh heh. In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. Nope. The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no). Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You didn't fully understand the analogy. Who didn't understand what, Jim? You didn't understand the analogy I made. I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to understand. You avoided my question, threw in your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding? Not gonna happen, Bud! The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave that way? Rhetorical question - ignored. After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You're absolutely correct. You should steal the tools instead. Well, no. Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh. 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? ....now that's one question that you really should have an answer to, Jim - that's something you do quite frequently? Or was that another rhetorical question? Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think? Not at all. Well, impolite at least....nah, I'll stick with lid-like. 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! Well, no. I got it on the Net - from this site: http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html As I recall, it was late last year, when you first began questioning whether I was really me :) I sent you ""134, Leo" instead of 73 - a literal Internet-era translation of which would be "Who is at the key(board)? 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"... Well, if you think it would help........if you want a VE3 or VA3 licence, you'll need to come here for sure - but I'd try and find a more efficient method of transportation. That one only worked once - in 1939 :) (thinking to self: say, was that an attempt to insult me? nah, couldn't have been!) LOL! 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. ...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! You misunderstand. Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt - and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition. I merely stated it in conclusion. You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir. It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Well, no. Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers (i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) - this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for transmission of massive volumes of SPAM. If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that is not an ISP. I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the Internet. 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location. Easy to do. Oh yeah. Forgot. Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials...... Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you? ROTFLMAO! See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Not necessarily - please see above. One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can. Anyone can. We call it "reasonable doubt"... Reasonable is judgemental - we just call it "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. Not correct. Again. Your claim is incorrect. Really? Most of the things that you posted in this thread are - to use your word - incorrect. Sunnavagun! (Sorry again, Hans - stole that too!) 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) 73, Leo (nothing condescending in my sig! heh heh) 73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3) 73, Leo (trying hard to believe you're educated - but I promised I would so I will!) It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do. Not at all. It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in what you say. His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when pressed: your ire, passion and rage. In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will. Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you, Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment. I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate. And educate. And research before I post. Maybe I will. God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you can break free. Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what could you have accomplished? That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all modes, all bands perhaps?) - or a second degree at night school (we're talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here, over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements - no progress. Zilch. You got an F. The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago. What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is. And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone else that they are wrong. When your emotions gain control over your intellect - you will lose. Every time. Without question. If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll be better off. Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM! Your call. 73, Leo (hmmm - 73 de N2...etc sig missing yet again - wonder what's the deal this time?) |
Leo wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote: 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. Dreidel U? Where's that? I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges..... :) (apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!) Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo. Nope - it was a joke. Well, no. It was actually a failed attempt at a joke. If you have to tell the audience that something is a joke, it isn't one. A 'Top" college - Dreidel (a child's toy top) - get it? Is that the best you can do? Anti-semetic - no. Anti-Semitic. More accurately, anti-semantic. It rhymes (well, sort of) Not really with Drexel - your good ol' alma mater. One of them. Heh heh. It was a zing, though - you are right about that. Yeah, yeah, make cutesy nicknames in an attempt to rile others...where have I seen that before? 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. MACBETH! I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred to the Nazis. And I did. Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please.... Why? Because you have not completed your research on the topic. No I haven't. You fail to have grasped it's essence. Well, no. I just don't agree with your interpretation, that's all. BTW, "it's" is a contraction for "it is", not the possessive form of "it". Didn't they teach you that at *your* alma mater, Leo? In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong 'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you! Well, no. Oh, yeah! for seven and a half years now! (corrected per your timeline). Why is that a problem? According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his behalf show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong by you" means. That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental. By your logic, then, I should ccontinue to disagree with him even though he has provided me no direct reason to do so? It's your choice. - giving me no reason to do any wrong to him. Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it. I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly frequency (at minimum). Well, no. Oh, yeah! Oh no. I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago. Sorry - you're correct - make that seven and a half years then. LOL! There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from rrap. Yup - we all take vacations. Your research is incomplete, then. On average, though, I'd estimate a frequency of (conservatively) once per week. That means three times this week, and none over the next two, et. etc. equals an average frequency of approximately weekly. Actually, I have probably given you the advantage here - it may be even more..... So? Is there a limit? As for: "telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and that is a fact. "acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from me. It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret! Why not say what you mean? "a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact. It wasn't a literal, Jim - come on, guy - use that education! Why not say what you mean? "- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes, when he has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed? .......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when someone catches him in an error and points it out. Once again - a reference back to Len. Because you act like him sometimes. Does your whole world revolve around this guy? Not at all. I spend a few minutes here and there writing a post, and you interpret that as an obsession? A few Google examples: Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998 "Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the issue." What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. The frequency over time is. "Frequency over time"? Frequency is events per unit time. Didn't they teach that at your alma mater? Please try to comprehend. I comprehend more than you realize, Leo. Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001 "No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:" What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003 "So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong." Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004 (Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all! Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. In each example, do you believe that your opponent could care less whether he was wrong? Doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact is that in all of the above cases, and many more, Len posted information that wasn't true. You avoid that fact for some reason. Might there be an ulterior motive? Of course. I realized that long ago. In fact I mentioned it here back on Feb 10, 2003. Your research is very incomplete, Leo. You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..." wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive? Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error about the subjects discussed. Therein lies the nature of the affliction. Yes, Len is afflicted by the inability to admit a mistake when it is pointed out by someone he considers an inferior, like me... Nobody, least of all Len, cares that you think that he is 'wrong''. Why not be honest, Leo? *You* don't care. Maybe Len doesn't care. You don't speak for everybody. It's being done to torment you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure. Well DUH! "His hobby is wasting time. Your time" Guess who wrote that? The fact is that Len spends much more time and effort posting here than I. Always has. Gets all upset and outraged over any opposition. Now you may say it's all an act, but so what? The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers looking at an accident on the highway. Do you speak for everyone who reads rrap? Or just for you? You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'. (oh, how I loathe that expression....! ). Sounds like another disguised way of you telling me to shut up. Why not be honest and just say it? You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it. Real sad. It may appear that way to you. The truth is very different. Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken about something? Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the distance! Heh heh heh. All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test, defend that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his postings. An inconsistency or two? For eight years? I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode. To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing more. Look at his postings compared to mine. It's not me who is dancing and hopping. Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are going to change anything by whining on? "Whining on"? Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something? You mistake my persistent strong opposition with "whining". Another attempt to get me worked up. Doesn't work. Leo. btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes here than I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you. I could personally care less. I am not obsessed. Yes, you are. Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife.... :) Well, no. Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum. like a demented parrot. Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage. Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len? I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change? Probably not. So what? So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on? Who says I'm achieving nothing? Who are you to judge, Leo? Are you incapable of controlling yourself? I've got plenty of self-control. Find The Strength! Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with? "ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!" um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie "Gladiator" - well, no. The correct quote is "Are you not entertained" I know. Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes Now who is obsessive, Leo? You had to go look that up and correct me - just couldn't help yourself, could you? If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as the next guy - it's human nature! Heh heh heh. Then I am achieving something. Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy! Nope. Yup. In Technicolour. Well, no. Panavision then? With DTS sound. Nope. Not once. The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period. The real truth is that if anyone is obsessed, it's Len. And/or Brian, N0IMD. Not me. We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake.... Who is "we"? Are you the Pope? Lots of Pope Leos, btw.. Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of issues, including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and K2UNK, for example. Agreed. So there *is* a difference! Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no. Well, there you have it. So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues that the folks you are arguing with will never agree? Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer. There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you. Nope. In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. Nope. The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no). Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You didn't fully understand the analogy. Who didn't understand what, Jim? You didn't understand the analogy I made. I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to understand. Well, no. One of the limitations of online communication is that it's difficult or impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be dense and when someone really *is* dense.... You avoided my question, threw in your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding? Not gonna happen, Bud! The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave that way? Rhetorical question - ignored. One of the limitations... After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You're absolutely correct. You should steal the tools instead. Well, no. Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh. No, it doesn't. All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway. ...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! You misunderstand. Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt - and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition. I merely stated it in conclusion. You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir. It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Well, no. Well, yes. Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers (i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) - this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for transmission of massive volumes of SPAM. If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that is not an ISP. I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the Internet. Think outside the box, Leo. Someone in Location A writes a newsgroup post. Sends the post as a textfile to someone else in Location B. Someone else then posts it to Usenet. Looks like it came from Location B but it didn't. 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location. Easy to do. Oh yeah. Forgot. Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials...... Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you? ROTFLMAO! See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Not necessarily - please see above. Well, no. One of the limitations... It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do. Not at all. Yes, it is. Do you not want me to shut up? It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in what you say. Of course he's interested - otherwise he wouldn't respond! His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when pressed: your ire, passion and rage. Well, no. You have me confused with Len. In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will. Heck no. Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you, Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment. I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate. You've ranted on here at great length, Leo. Much longer than me. And educate. And research before I post. Feb 10, 2003. Maybe I will. God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you can break free. Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what could you have accomplished? That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all modes, all bands perhaps?) Not really - not that much time to write these posts, you see. - or a second degree at night school (we're talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here, over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements - no progress. Zilch. You forget the entertainment value. Nice try with the nine years mistake, though. You got an F. You're not the teacher, Leo. Deal with it. The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago. What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is. And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone else that they are wrong. I see. Personal attack rather than looking at the facts. Was Len right in the cases you cited above? Or was I? Look them up and see. Do *your* research.... When your emotions gain control over your intellect - you will lose. Every time. Without question. That's why my posts are calm and reasoned. If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll be better off. IOW, you want me to shut up. Why not be honest and say it straight out? Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM! Your call. My call is N2EY. What's yours? You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 05:54
On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote: etc Dreidel U? Where's that? I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges..... :) (apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!) Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo. Nope - it was a joke. A 'Top" college - Dreidel (a child's toy top) - get it? Anti-semetic - no. It rhymes (well, sort of) with Drexel - your good ol' alma mater. Heh heh. I think you're going to be accused of putting "spin" on it... Don't diddle his driedel or Dremel his Drexel. Has an invocation of Godwing *ever* ended a thread on rrap? No - it has failed every time. Completely and utterly useless, I'd say. Every so often "Godwing's" law must be featured from the pulpit. Phoenix/Icarus...to take "wing." In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong 'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you! Well, no. Oh, yeah! for seven and a half years now! (corrected per your timeline). You should have seen the AOL ham radio group way back...:-) I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago. Sorry - you're correct - make that seven and a half years then. LOL! [not counting the AOL ham radio group, of course...] "acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from me. It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret! Literal...literary...literati...litorati. All fused together in some minds. That, of course, leads to mental lithiasis. :-) As Obi Wan said later, "may the aphorisms be with him..." "a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact. It wasn't a literal, Jim - come on, guy - use that education! Tsk, he should be working on the "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse" phrase... The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when someone catches him in an error and points it out. Once again - a reference back to Len. Does your whole world revolve around this guy? Why? He honors me? :-) Nahhhhh... Outside of having a nosh now and then in Kantor's in Hollywood, I'm not daily involved with any Yiddish phrases and never grew up with such ethnic toys. [excellent pastrami there] Contact diminished remarkably about 41 years ago...BTASE (But That's Another Story Entirely). Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error about the subjects discussed. Therein lies the nature of the affliction. Nobody, least of all Len, cares that you think that he is 'wrong''. It's being done to torment you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure. SOP of "Tormentors International," a conspiracy group. The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers looking at an accident on the highway. "Oooooo...lookit all dat roadkill!!" Hahahahahha...etc. You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'. (oh, how I loathe that expression....! ). You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it. Would I buy a used opinion from this man? No. :-) I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode. To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing more. Actually, considerably more. I consider myself a "WMD" (Weapon of Morse Destruction). Low-yield, of course, not bearing the imprimateur of that "federally-authorized" callsign. As such, ANY pro-morse position gets boresighted and locked-on for a full magazine and semi/full auto mode as needed. Tsk. Progress is very slow, but there IS progress. The U.S. ham regs dropped to 5 WPM for all classes a while back...before S25 got rewritten at WRC-03. Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with? "ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!" um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie "Gladiator" - well, no. The correct quote is "Are you not entertained" Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes Citius, fortius, altius, followed by "obsessius." I rather like the soft-drink commercial using "Spartacus" clips on TV instead. :-) If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as the next guy - it's human nature! Heh heh heh. Oooooo...lookit all dat roadkill! Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy! Nope. Yup. In Technicolour. Well, no. Panavision then? With DTS sound. Wide-screen, anamorphic lens, HDTV compatible format...but the sound is narrowband beeping quality. Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer. There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you. All roads lead to Len! "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." SPQR. "Citius, morseus, hameous." Ave, imperator! :-) You didn't understand the analogy I made. I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to understand. Tsk. Unlike Lamont Cranston, "Shadow Jim" didn't stay long enough in the Far East to learn ALL the lessons...tsk, tsk. It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do. Not at all. It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in what you say. His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when pressed: your ire, passion and rage. In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will. The FBI has a warrant out on me and I'm currently #8 on the USPS offices all over the USA. I am posting this from an "undisclosed location" near Cheney's place... Ain't easy being a hijacker! [no morsemanship required, tho...] Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you, Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment. I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate. And educate. And research before I post. "Throughout the land there shall be but ONE voice and that of the prophet Morse, hollowed be his name." - the league [or was that in the Vulgate? I forget...] Maybe I will. God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you can break free. He be typing from a TERMINAL. Name sayeth all. No hope. Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM! Okay, let's get out the flares and warning triangles and the Highway Patrol notified. 10-4, 10-4 Broderick. Phlegm at eleven. "Pass me the CHPs, dear, there's another breaking news on the tube." "What, AGAIN?" |
On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote: On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote: 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. Dreidel U? Where's that? I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges..... :) (apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!) Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo. Nope - it was a joke. Well, no. It was actually a failed attempt at a joke. If you have to tell the audience that something is a joke, it isn't one. I didn't have to tell the audience, Jim - just you! A 'Top" college - Dreidel (a child's toy top) - get it? Is that the best you can do? Heh heh heh.... Anti-semetic - no. Anti-Semitic. More accurately, anti-semantic. There you go. Good description. It rhymes (well, sort of) Not really Close enough for humour! with Drexel - your good ol' alma mater. One of them. Heh heh. It was a zing, though - you are right about that. Yeah, yeah, make cutesy nicknames in an attempt to rile others...where have I seen that before? Let me guess - it's still all about Len, isn't it! tsk. 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. MACBETH! I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred to the Nazis. And I did. Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please.... Why? Because you have not completed your research on the topic. No I haven't. You fail to have grasped it's essence. Well, no. I just don't agree with your interpretation, that's all. Ain't up to you to interpret, Jim. It's the way it was written. It's a law. Not a guideline. BTW, "it's" is a contraction for "it is", not the possessive form of "it". Heh heh heh. A typo - nice catch! Didn't they teach you that at *your* alma mater, Leo? Nope - basic grammar is taught in public school. Just like in the U.S. system. You should know that! That's basic stuff, Jim. In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong 'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you! Well, no. Oh, yeah! for seven and a half years now! (corrected per your timeline). Why is that a problem? Duh! According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his behalf show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong by you" means. That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental. By your logic, then, I should ccontinue to disagree with him even though he has provided me no direct reason to do so? It's your choice. A quite logical choice indeed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it is one available to you.... - giving me no reason to do any wrong to him. Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it. I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly frequency (at minimum). Well, no. Oh, yeah! Oh no. Heh. Oh yeah! I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago. Sorry - you're correct - make that seven and a half years then. LOL! There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from rrap. Yup - we all take vacations. Your research is incomplete, then. We don't all take vacations, then? On average, though, I'd estimate a frequency of (conservatively) once per week. That means three times this week, and none over the next two, et. etc. equals an average frequency of approximately weekly. Actually, I have probably given you the advantage here - it may be even more..... So? Is there a limit? Of course not! You could go on indefinitely.....as Einstein once said, only intelligence is finite :) As for: "telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and that is a fact. "acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from me. It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret! Why not say what you mean? Heh. Are you saying that you had difficulty figuring out what I meant? "a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact. It wasn't a literal, Jim - come on, guy - use that education! Why not say what you mean? Heh. Not a 'read between the lines' type of guy, huh? "- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes, when he has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed? .......well, then Len and I might have a problem getting along here. The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when someone catches him in an error and points it out. Once again - a reference back to Len. Because you act like him sometimes. Heh heh. You too, on occasion. Look at the little digs that you have tried to get me with in this thread. Without success, of course. Does your whole world revolve around this guy? Not at all. I spend a few minutes here and there writing a post, and you interpret that as an obsession? For seven and a half (plus) years? As frequently as you do? Nah...of course not. That's just normal everyday behaviour..... :) A few Google examples: Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998 "Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the issue." What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. I'm sure that Len knows that he was wrong, Jim. Maybe he was just trying to get you going? Heh heh heh.... The frequency over time is. "Frequency over time"? Frequency is events per unit time. Didn't they teach that at your alma mater? Um - that's what I said, Jim - didn't think you needed it in such technical language. It wasn't a division problem.... Please try to comprehend. I comprehend more than you realize, Leo. Sorry - not much evidence to support that claim so far, Jim. Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001 "No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:" What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. Who cares? That is not the issue. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003 "So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong." Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. Who cares? That is not the issue. The frequency over time is. Please try to comprehend. Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004 (Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all! Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. Who cares? That is not the issue. In each example, do you believe that your opponent could care less whether he was wrong? Doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact is that in all of the above cases, and many more, Len posted information that wasn't true. You avoid that fact for some reason. Who cares? That is not the issue. Might there be an ulterior motive? Of course. I realized that long ago. In fact I mentioned it here back on Feb 10, 2003. Your research is very incomplete, Leo. That is indeed an interesting point. Unfortunately - well, no again. Your statement was something like "his hobby is wasting time - your time." I really don't think that 'wasting time' is what it's all about, Jim. Do you? It's about control. Specifically, controlling you. And making you squirm and dance. Unless you are saying that you actually understand that you are being abused intentionally by others. And have done so since 2003. And if so....you continue to post the same "wrong, wrong, wrong" garbage here - knowing full well that you will continue to be abused for the pleasure of others. Does that seem like particularly sane bahaviour to you? Are you a fool? Or a masochist? Or both? You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..." wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive? Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error about the subjects discussed. Therein lies the nature of the affliction. Yes, Len is afflicted by the inability to admit a mistake when it is pointed out by someone he considers an inferior, like me... If by "inferior" you mean "controlled by someone in a superior position" (i.e. boss, tormentor, etc.) - then he is correct. You jump on command. Every time. You can't help yourself. Nobody, least of all Len, cares that you think that he is 'wrong''. Why not be honest, Leo? *You* don't care. Maybe Len doesn't care. You don't speak for everybody. Of course I don't speak for everybody. Nor do you, although you seem to envision yourself as on some sort of a crusade to defend the 'truth'. In an impossible situation. Cast in a role as a playtoy. I see. It's being done to torment you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure. Well DUH! "His hobby is wasting time. Your time" Well, no. Wasting time, and being abused, are two different things. Aren't they? Guess who wrote that? The fact is that Len spends much more time and effort posting here than I. Always has. Gets all upset and outraged over any opposition. Now you may say it's all an act, but so what? The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers looking at an accident on the highway. Do you speak for everyone who reads rrap? Or just for you? Rhetorical question - ignored. You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'. (oh, how I loathe that expression....! ). Sounds like another disguised way of you telling me to shut up. Why not be honest and just say it? Wake up, maybe - I don't recall inferring that you should shut up! You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it. Real sad. It may appear that way to you. The truth is very different. Apparently not. No evidence exists to support that claim. Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken about something? Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the distance! Heh heh heh. All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test, defend that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his postings. An inconsistency or two? For eight years? I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode. To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing more. Look at his postings compared to mine. It's not me who is dancing and hopping. Heh heh heh. Y'think? Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are going to change anything by whining on? "Whining on"? Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something? You mistake my persistent strong opposition with "whining". Another attempt to get me worked up. Doesn't work. Leo. Not at all - just a statement. You're whining. On and on and on. Even when you know that you cannot win. That's normal behaviour, alright! btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes here than I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you. I could personally care less. I am not obsessed. Yes, you are. Heh heh heh. That's funny, Jim! Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife.... :) Well, no. Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum. like a demented parrot. Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage. This is a text-only newsgroup, Jim. We don't see the plumage - all we hear is the noise! Squawk squawk squawk.....for almost 8 years now! Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len? I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change? Probably not. So what? So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on? Who says I'm achieving nothing? Who are you to judge, Leo? You have achieved nothing. You tormentor is still here - and you are still being controlled. Heh. Nice victory! Are you incapable of controlling yourself? I've got plenty of self-control. LOL! Find The Strength! Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with? "ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!" um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie "Gladiator" - well, no. The correct quote is "Are you not entertained" I know. Then why did you get it wrong twice in this thread? Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes Now who is obsessive, Leo? You had to go look that up and correct me - just couldn't help yourself, could you? Ask me again in 8 years! Heh. If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as the next guy - it's human nature! Heh heh heh. Then I am achieving something. You most certainly are - you are performing a valuable role for some folks on the group. As Shakespeare wrote in his play "As You Like It": "Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits." Hear that stropping noise, Jim? That's somebody sharpening up on you..... Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy! Nope. Yup. In Technicolour. Well, no. Panavision then? With DTS sound. Nope. Not once. So it only consumes your waking hours, then? Perhaps there is hope. The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period. The real truth is that if anyone is obsessed, it's Len. And/or Brian, N0IMD. Not me. We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake.... Who is "we"? Are you the Pope? Lots of Pope Leos, btw.. Heh heh - "there are none so blind as those who will not see....." Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of issues, including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and K2UNK, for example. Agreed. So there *is* a difference! Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no. Well, there you have it. I most assuredly do. So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues that the folks you are arguing with will never agree? Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer. There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you. Nope. Heh. "To thine own self be true...." In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. Nope. The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no). Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You didn't fully understand the analogy. Who didn't understand what, Jim? You didn't understand the analogy I made. I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to understand. Well, no. Well, obviously - yes. And you just missed another typo.... One of the limitations of online communication is that it's difficult or impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be dense and when someone really *is* dense.... I fully agree! You avoided my question, threw in your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding? Not gonna happen, Bud! The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave that way? Rhetorical question - ignored. One of the limitations... After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You're absolutely correct. You should steal the tools instead. Well, no. Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh. No, it doesn't. Heh. All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway. ...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! You misunderstand. Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt - and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition. I merely stated it in conclusion. You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir. It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Well, no. Well, yes. Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers (i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) - this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for transmission of massive volumes of SPAM. If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that is not an ISP. I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the Internet. Think outside the box, Leo. Someone in Location A writes a newsgroup post. Sends the post as a textfile to someone else in Location B. Someone else then posts it to Usenet. Looks like it came from Location B but it didn't. That box you're thinking outside might be a bit too big, Jim. Please explain why someone would go to all of that trouble simply to fool you. Unless thay are as OC as you... 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location. Easy to do. Oh yeah. Forgot. Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials...... Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you? ROTFLMAO! See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Not necessarily - please see above. Well, no. Not a simple matter at all - lots of work involved! One of the limitations... It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do. Not at all. Yes, it is. Do you not want me to shut up? Not at all. Please continue! It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in what you say. Of course he's interested - otherwise he wouldn't respond! Heh. His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when pressed: your ire, passion and rage. Well, no. Say what? You don't see it? Heh heh. You have me confused with Len. You have you obsessed with Len. You have confused yourself. In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will. Heck no. You mean you are being hijacked willingly? A bit psychotic, no? Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you, Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment. I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate. You've ranted on here at great length, Leo. Much longer than me. LOL! That's funny, Jim! And educate. And research before I post. Feb 10, 2003. Well, no. Different issue in that post - as stated above! Maybe I will. God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you can break free. Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what could you have accomplished? That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all modes, all bands perhaps?) Not really - not that much time to write these posts, you see. Heh heh heh.....not much time, eh? Any idea how many posts you write in a day? A week? a year? Each may be small, but they add up....! :) - or a second degree at night school (we're talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here, over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements - no progress. Zilch. You forget the entertainment value. Absolutely - if you are willing to submit to being used for entertainment, then of course - that has value. To others - and perhaps to you too in some odd way.....painful to watch, though! Nice try with the nine years mistake, though. Things have been like this on the group for the last nine yearrs - the arguements do pre-date you, Jim. You weren't the first.....just the next..... :) You got an F. You're not the teacher, Leo. Deal with it. Lucky you! The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago. What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is. And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone else that they are wrong. I see. Personal attack rather than looking at the facts. Was Len right in the cases you cited above? Or was I? Look them up and see. Do *your* research.... Who cares who was right? That's not the issue, Jim. When your emotions gain control over your intellect - you will lose. Every time. Without question. That's why my posts are calm and reasoned. Um - calm and reasoned? You must be a riot at parties, Jim. "No Fred, you're wrong....Betty, that's just incorrect....Hey, Sam, that's not how you do that!...Say, Charlie......" Heh heh. If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll be better off. IOW, you want me to shut up. Why not be honest and say it straight out? No, Jim....please continue! Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM! Your call. My call is N2EY. What's yours? Unlisted. :) You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name. 73 de Jim, N2EY Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what is being done to you. But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!! 73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!) :) |
wrote I have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact. No, it's not a fact; it's just your opinion. In my opinion (and in the opinion of FCC) here are tens of thousands of fully qualified radio amateurs who have not demonstrated any Morse skills. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 19:15
On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: plus 8 more back-and-forths gigantic snip You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name. 73 de Jim, N2EY Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what is being done to you. But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!! 73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!) :) Shhhh. Don't tell him we are really all AI constructs living in his computer! ooops, here come da bells....WRRRONNNNNNNNNG....WRRRONNNNNNNG... WRRRONNNNNNNGGG...WRRRONNNNNNGGGGG... [has a ring to it...] The "beat" goes on. :-) WRRRONNNNNGGGGGGGGGnnnngggnnnnggggnnnngggg... [forgot that one] |
On 23 Jun 2005 21:56:47 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 19:15 On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: plus 8 more back-and-forths gigantic snip You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name. 73 de Jim, N2EY Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what is being done to you. But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!! 73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!) :) Shhhh. Don't tell him we are really all AI constructs living in his computer! Dang! I think he's beginning to believe that there are! Heh heh. I might not even be me anymore! :) :) :) ooops, here come da bells....WRRRONNNNNNNNNG....WRRRONNNNNNNG... WRRRONNNNNNNGGG...WRRRONNNNNNGGGGG... [has a ring to it...] Hmmm - that reminds me of the sound my old outboard makes when it's just above idle ... add a few 'blurbles' in there, and that's it! :) The "beat" goes on. :-) Hey - thanks for 'Cher'-ing, Len! :) :) :) WRRRONNNNNGGGGGGGGGnnnngggnnnnggggnnnngggg... [forgot that one] Blurblewrooooonnnnnnnggggggggblurbleblurbleblurble wrrrrrrrrrooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggPFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTT TT....... Pull.....sputter Pull.....sputter cough Pull.....sputter 73, Leo |
From: Leo on Fri 24 Jun 2005 14:21
On 23 Jun 2005 21:56:47 -0700, wrote: From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 19:15 On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: plus 8 more back-and-forths gigantic snip You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name. 73 de Jim, N2EY Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what is being done to you. But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!! 73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!) :) Shhhh. Don't tell him we are really all AI constructs living in his computer! Dang! I think he's beginning to believe that there are! Heh heh. I might not even be me anymore! :) :) :) Well, I ain't you... :-) FWITW, I'm waiting for a response from Steven Spielberg on the sequel to "AI." Maybe he will include us AIs in the newsgroup? Joel Haley Osment (or whatever his name) can be the 13 year old kid going for his ham radio license and then encountering all us mean old AI robots who don't give him no respect. ooops, here come da bells....WRRRONNNNNNNNNG....WRRRONNNNNNNG... WRRRONNNNNNNGGG...WRRRONNNNNNGGGGG... [has a ring to it...] Hmmm - that reminds me of the sound my old outboard makes when it's just above idle ... add a few 'blurbles' in there, and that's it! :) The "beat" goes on. :-) Hey - thanks for 'Cher'-ing, Len! :) :) :) "I got you, babe..." :-) bit, bit |
Leo wrote: On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote: 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!!! :-) A quite logical choice indeed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it is one available to you.... What would you suggest? It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret! Why not say what you mean? Heh. Are you saying that you had difficulty figuring out what I meant? Why not say what you mean, Leo? "- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes, when he has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed? Does your whole world revolve around this guy? Not at all. I spend a few minutes here and there writing a post, and you interpret that as an obsession? For seven and a half (plus) years? As frequently as you do? Nah...of course not. That's just normal everyday behaviour..... :) What do you suggest? A few Google examples: Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998 "Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the issue." What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. I'm sure that Len knows that he was wrong, Jim. Maybe he was just trying to get you going? Heh heh heh.... The frequency over time is. "Frequency over time"? Frequency is events per unit time. Didn't they teach that at your alma mater? Um - that's what I said, Jim - didn't think you needed it in such technical language. It wasn't a division problem.... Please try to comprehend. I comprehend more than you realize, Leo. Sorry - not much evidence to support that claim so far, Jim. Not to you, perhaps... Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001 "No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:" What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. Who cares? That is not the issue. Yes, it is. Might there be an ulterior motive? Of course. I realized that long ago. In fact I mentioned it here back on Feb 10, 2003. Your research is very incomplete, Leo. That is indeed an interesting point. Unfortunately - well, no again. Your statement was something like "his hobby is wasting time - your time." And that sums it up quite well. I really don't think that 'wasting time' is what it's all about, Jim. Do you? That's exactly what it's about. It's about control. Specifically, controlling you. And making you squirm and dance. Except I do neither. Unless you are saying that you actually understand that you are being abused intentionally by others. Hmmmm...so you consider the way Len treats me to be abuse. Now we're making progress. What do you suggest? And have done so since 2003. And if so....you continue to post the same "wrong, wrong, wrong" garbage Why is what I wrote "garbage", Leo? Len posts things which are provably untrue in a public debate forum. I point out those things and you call my doing so "garbage" - why? here - knowing full well that you will continue to be abused for the pleasure of others. What do you suggest I do instead? Does that seem like particularly sane bahaviour to you? Are you a fool? Or a masochist? Or both? What do you suggest I do instead? You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..." wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive? Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error about the subjects discussed. Therein lies the nature of the affliction. Yes, Len is afflicted by the inability to admit a mistake when it is pointed out by someone he considers an inferior, like me... If by "inferior" you mean "controlled by someone in a superior position" (i.e. boss, tormentor, etc.) - then he is correct. You jump on command. Every time. You can't help yourself. Then what do you suggest I do? Nobody, least of all Len, cares that you think that he is 'wrong''. Why not be honest, Leo? *You* don't care. Maybe Len doesn't care. You don't speak for everybody. Of course I don't speak for everybody. But you used the phrase "Nobody....cares that you think that he is 'wrong'". If even one other person cares, your statement is false. And unlike the soft sciences, the errors I point out are provable. Nor do you, although you seem to envision yourself as on some sort of a crusade to defend the 'truth'. Do you think truth si subjective or objective? In an impossible situation. Cast in a role as a playtoy. I see. What do you suggest I do instead? It's being done to torment you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure. Well DUH! "His hobby is wasting time. Your time" Well, no. Well, yes. Wasting time, and being abused, are two different things. Aren't they? So you call what Len does here "abuse". Guess who wrote that? The fact is that Len spends much more time and effort posting here than I. Always has. Gets all upset and outraged over any opposition. Now you may say it's all an act, but so what? The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers looking at an accident on the highway. Do you speak for everyone who reads rrap? Or just for you? Rhetorical question - ignored. Not rhetorical at all. I think you just call it that to avoid answering. What do you suggest I do? You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'. (oh, how I loathe that expression....! ). Sounds like another disguised way of you telling me to shut up. Why not be honest and just say it? Wake up, maybe - I don't recall inferring that you should shut up! You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it. Real sad. Let's say, for sake of discussion, that you're right about what Len is doing and why he's doing it. What do you suggest I do about it? It may appear that way to you. The truth is very different. Apparently not. No evidence exists to support that claim. There's plenty of evidence, but you refuse to see it. Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken about something? Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the distance! Heh heh heh. All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test, defend that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his postings. An inconsistency or two? For eight years? I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode. To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing more. Look at his postings compared to mine. It's not me who is dancing and hopping. Heh heh heh. Y'think? Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are going to change anything by whining on? "Whining on"? Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something? You mistake my persistent strong opposition with "whining". Another attempt to get me worked up. Doesn't work. Leo. Not at all - just a statement. You're whining. On and on and on. Even when you know that you cannot win. What would you suggest? That's normal behaviour, alright! btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes here than I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you. I could personally care less. I am not obsessed. Yes, you are. Heh heh heh. That's funny, Jim! Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife.... :) Well, no. Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum. like a demented parrot. Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage. This is a text-only newsgroup, Jim. We don't see the plumage - all we hear is the noise! Squawk squawk squawk.....for almost 8 years now! Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len? I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change? Probably not. So what? So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on? Who says I'm achieving nothing? Who are you to judge, Leo? You have achieved nothing. You tormentor is still here - and you are still being controlled. Heh. Nice victory! Are you incapable of controlling yourself? I've got plenty of self-control. LOL! Find The Strength! Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with? "ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!" um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie "Gladiator" - well, no. The correct quote is "Are you not entertained" I know. Then why did you get it wrong twice in this thread? Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes Now who is obsessive, Leo? You had to go look that up and correct me - just couldn't help yourself, could you? Ask me again in 8 years! Heh. If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as the next guy - it's human nature! Heh heh heh. Then I am achieving something. You most certainly are - you are performing a valuable role for some folks on the group. As Shakespeare wrote in his play "As You Like It": "Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits." Hear that stropping noise, Jim? That's somebody sharpening up on you..... What do you suggest I do, Leo? The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period. The real truth is that if anyone is obsessed, it's Len. And/or Brian, N0IMD. Not me. We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake.... Who is "we"? Are you the Pope? Lots of Pope Leos, btw.. Heh heh - "there are none so blind as those who will not see....." Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of issues, including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and K2UNK, for example. Agreed. So there *is* a difference! Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no. Well, there you have it. I most assuredly do. So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues that the folks you are arguing with will never agree? Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer. There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you. Nope. Heh. "To thine own self be true...." In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. Nope. The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no). Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You didn't fully understand the analogy. Who didn't understand what, Jim? You didn't understand the analogy I made. I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to understand. Well, no. Well, obviously - yes. And you just missed another typo.... Not my job to correctg *every* mistake... One of the limitations of online communication is that it's difficult or impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be dense and when someone really *is* dense.... I fully agree! You avoided my question, threw in your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding? Not gonna happen, Bud! The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave that way? Rhetorical question - ignored. One of the limitations... After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You're absolutely correct. You should steal the tools instead. Well, no. Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh. No, it doesn't. Heh. All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway. ...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! You misunderstand. Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt - and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition. I merely stated it in conclusion. You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir. It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Well, no. Well, yes. Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers (i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) - this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for transmission of massive volumes of SPAM. If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that is not an ISP. I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the Internet. Think outside the box, Leo. Someone in Location A writes a newsgroup post. Sends the post as a textfile to someone else in Location B. Someone else then posts it to Usenet. Looks like it came from Location B but it didn't. That box you're thinking outside might be a bit too big, Jim. Please explain why someone would go to all of that trouble simply to fool you. Unless thay are as OC as you... I'm simply pointing out that if someone wants to disguise the point of origin of an email or NG posting, it's very easy to do. Doesn't take lots of skills or knowledge, just access to a remote computer. 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location. Easy to do. Oh yeah. Forgot. Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials...... Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you? ROTFLMAO! See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Not necessarily - please see above. Well, no. Not a simple matter at all - lots of work involved! If a little cut and paste is "a lot of work" to you.... One of the limitations... It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do. Not at all. Yes, it is. Do you not want me to shut up? Not at all. Please continue! What do you suggest? It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in what you say. Of course he's interested - otherwise he wouldn't respond! Heh. Exactly. His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when pressed: your ire, passion and rage. Well, no. Say what? You don't see it? Heh heh. What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? You have me confused with Len. You have you obsessed with Len. You have confused yourself. In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will. Heck no. You mean you are being hijacked willingly? A bit psychotic, no? Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you, Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment. I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate. You've ranted on here at great length, Leo. Much longer than me. LOL! That's funny, Jim! And educate. And research before I post. Feb 10, 2003. Well, no. Different issue in that post - as stated above! Maybe I will. God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you can break free. Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what could you have accomplished? That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all modes, all bands perhaps?) Not really - not that much time to write these posts, you see. Heh heh heh.....not much time, eh? Any idea how many posts you write in a day? A week? a year? Each may be small, but they add up....! :) And your suggestion is? - or a second degree at night school (we're talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here, over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements - no progress. Zilch. You forget the entertainment value. Absolutely - if you are willing to submit to being used for entertainment, then of course - that has value. To others - and perhaps to you too in some odd way.....painful to watch, though! Nice try with the nine years mistake, though. Things have been like this on the group for the last nine yearrs - the arguements do pre-date you, Jim. You weren't the first.....just the next..... :) You got an F. You're not the teacher, Leo. Deal with it. Lucky you! The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago. What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is. And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone else that they are wrong. I see. Personal attack rather than looking at the facts. Was Len right in the cases you cited above? Or was I? Look them up and see. Do *your* research.... Who cares who was right? That's not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. Too bad you can't see that. When your emotions gain control over your intellect - you will lose. Every time. Without question. That's why my posts are calm and reasoned. Um - calm and reasoned? You must be a riot at parties, Jim. "No Fred, you're wrong....Betty, that's just incorrect....Hey, Sam, that's not how you do that!...Say, Charlie......" Heh heh. If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll be better off. IOW, you want me to shut up. Why not be honest and say it straight out? No, Jim....please continue! Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM! Your call. My call is N2EY. What's yours? Unlisted. :) You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name. 73 de Jim, N2EY Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what is being done to you. What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? |
On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote: On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote: 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!!! :-) A quite logical choice indeed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it is one available to you.... What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret! Why not say what you mean? Heh. Are you saying that you had difficulty figuring out what I meant? Why not say what you mean, Leo? "- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes, when he has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed? Does your whole world revolve around this guy? Not at all. I spend a few minutes here and there writing a post, and you interpret that as an obsession? For seven and a half (plus) years? As frequently as you do? Nah...of course not. That's just normal everyday behaviour..... :) What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? A few Google examples: Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998 "Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the issue." What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. I'm sure that Len knows that he was wrong, Jim. Maybe he was just trying to get you going? Heh heh heh.... The frequency over time is. "Frequency over time"? Frequency is events per unit time. Didn't they teach that at your alma mater? Um - that's what I said, Jim - didn't think you needed it in such technical language. It wasn't a division problem.... Please try to comprehend. I comprehend more than you realize, Leo. Sorry - not much evidence to support that claim so far, Jim. Not to you, perhaps... Heh heh heh. Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001 "No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:" What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not? Not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then. Who cares? That is not the issue. Yes, it is. Well, no. Again. Might there be an ulterior motive? Of course. I realized that long ago. In fact I mentioned it here back on Feb 10, 2003. Your research is very incomplete, Leo. That is indeed an interesting point. Unfortunately - well, no again. Your statement was something like "his hobby is wasting time - your time." And that sums it up quite well. There is a big difference between 'wasting time' and what is happening here! Duh. I really don't think that 'wasting time' is what it's all about, Jim. Do you? That's exactly what it's about. Well, no. It's about control. Specifically, controlling you. And making you squirm and dance. Except I do neither. ROTFLMAO! You, Sir, would put Gene Kelly to shame, "Singin' In The Acid Rain" of this group! Heh heh heh, Unless you are saying that you actually understand that you are being abused intentionally by others. Hmmmm...so you consider the way Len treats me to be abuse. Duh! Now we're making progress. Well - not we, exactly - but you are! Good for you! What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? And have done so since 2003. And if so....you continue to post the same "wrong, wrong, wrong" garbage Why is what I wrote "garbage", Leo? Len posts things which are provably untrue in a public debate forum. I point out those things and you call my doing so "garbage" - why? Because, what you post in response if no consequence. Who cares - the object of the exercise was to *get* you to post in the first place! Duh again..... here - knowing full well that you will continue to be abused for the pleasure of others. What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? Does that seem like particularly sane bahaviour to you? Are you a fool? Or a masochist? Or both? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..." wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive? Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error about the subjects discussed. Therein lies the nature of the affliction. Yes, Len is afflicted by the inability to admit a mistake when it is pointed out by someone he considers an inferior, like me... If by "inferior" you mean "controlled by someone in a superior position" (i.e. boss, tormentor, etc.) - then he is correct. You jump on command. Every time. You can't help yourself. Then what do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? Nobody, least of all Len, cares that you think that he is 'wrong''. Why not be honest, Leo? *You* don't care. Maybe Len doesn't care. You don't speak for everybody. Of course I don't speak for everybody. But you used the phrase "Nobody....cares that you think that he is 'wrong'". If even one other person cares, your statement is false. Heh - here's that old "gotta be correct" obsession again....... And unlike the soft sciences, the errors I point out are provable. Of course they are - but who cares? Nor do you, although you seem to envision yourself as on some sort of a crusade to defend the 'truth'. Do you think truth si subjective or objective? In an impossible situation. Cast in a role as a playtoy. I see. What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? It's being done to torment you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure. Well DUH! "His hobby is wasting time. Your time" Well, no. Well, yes. Not wasting time, Jim. That ain't the hobby here. Perhaps you are? Heh heh heh... Wasting time, and being abused, are two different things. Aren't they? So you call what Len does here "abuse". Guess who wrote that? The fact is that Len spends much more time and effort posting here than I. Always has. Gets all upset and outraged over any opposition. Now you may say it's all an act, but so what? The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers looking at an accident on the highway. Do you speak for everyone who reads rrap? Or just for you? Rhetorical question - ignored. Not rhetorical at all. I think you just call it that to avoid answering. Not at all - "rhetorical" sounds so much more polite than "stupid"....heh What do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'. (oh, how I loathe that expression....! ). Sounds like another disguised way of you telling me to shut up. Why not be honest and just say it? Wake up, maybe - I don't recall inferring that you should shut up! You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it. Real sad. Let's say, for sake of discussion, that you're right about what Len is doing and why he's doing it. What do you suggest I do about it? Isn't that rather obvious? It may appear that way to you. The truth is very different. Apparently not. No evidence exists to support that claim. There's plenty of evidence, but you refuse to see it. Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken about something? Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the distance! Heh heh heh. All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test, defend that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his postings. An inconsistency or two? For eight years? I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode. To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing more. Look at his postings compared to mine. It's not me who is dancing and hopping. Heh heh heh. Y'think? Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are going to change anything by whining on? "Whining on"? Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something? You mistake my persistent strong opposition with "whining". Another attempt to get me worked up. Doesn't work. Leo. Not at all - just a statement. You're whining. On and on and on. Even when you know that you cannot win. What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? That's normal behaviour, alright! btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes here than I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you. I could personally care less. I am not obsessed. Yes, you are. Heh heh heh. That's funny, Jim! Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife.... :) Well, no. Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum. like a demented parrot. Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage. This is a text-only newsgroup, Jim. We don't see the plumage - all we hear is the noise! Squawk squawk squawk.....for almost 8 years now! Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh. I simply refuse to join you in your obcessive crusade against him. You can't join what doesn't exist. Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write? I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len? I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change? Probably not. So what? So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on? Who says I'm achieving nothing? Who are you to judge, Leo? You have achieved nothing. You tormentor is still here - and you are still being controlled. Heh. Nice victory! Are you incapable of controlling yourself? I've got plenty of self-control. LOL! Find The Strength! Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with? "ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!" um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie "Gladiator" - well, no. The correct quote is "Are you not entertained" I know. Then why did you get it wrong twice in this thread? Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes Now who is obsessive, Leo? You had to go look that up and correct me - just couldn't help yourself, could you? Ask me again in 8 years! Heh. If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as the next guy - it's human nature! Heh heh heh. Then I am achieving something. You most certainly are - you are performing a valuable role for some folks on the group. As Shakespeare wrote in his play "As You Like It": "Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits." Hear that stropping noise, Jim? That's somebody sharpening up on you..... What do you suggest I do, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period. The real truth is that if anyone is obsessed, it's Len. And/or Brian, N0IMD. Not me. We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake.... Who is "we"? Are you the Pope? Lots of Pope Leos, btw.. Heh heh - "there are none so blind as those who will not see....." Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of issues, including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and K2UNK, for example. Agreed. So there *is* a difference! Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no. Well, there you have it. I most assuredly do. So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues that the folks you are arguing with will never agree? Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer. There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you. Nope. Heh. "To thine own self be true...." In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of them back. Nope. The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no). Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You didn't fully understand the analogy. Who didn't understand what, Jim? You didn't understand the analogy I made. I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to understand. Well, no. Well, obviously - yes. And you just missed another typo.... Not my job to correctg *every* mistake... Good thing, too, judging by that sentence....! LOL! One of the limitations of online communication is that it's difficult or impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be dense and when someone really *is* dense.... I fully agree! You avoided my question, threw in your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding? Not gonna happen, Bud! The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave that way? Rhetorical question - ignored. One of the limitations... After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with what is done with the information provided." Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any of his, so your solution is not feasible. You're absolutely correct. You should steal the tools instead. Well, no. Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh. No, it doesn't. Heh. All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway. ...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you can't trust anybody these days....! You misunderstand. Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt - and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition. I merely stated it in conclusion. You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir. It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Well, no. Well, yes. Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers (i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) - this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for transmission of massive volumes of SPAM. If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that is not an ISP. I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the Internet. Think outside the box, Leo. Someone in Location A writes a newsgroup post. Sends the post as a textfile to someone else in Location B. Someone else then posts it to Usenet. Looks like it came from Location B but it didn't. That box you're thinking outside might be a bit too big, Jim. Please explain why someone would go to all of that trouble simply to fool you. Unless thay are as OC as you... I'm simply pointing out that if someone wants to disguise the point of origin of an email or NG posting, it's very easy to do. Doesn't take lots of skills or knowledge, just access to a remote computer. 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... True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio, you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical origin of the posts! Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location. Easy to do. Oh yeah. Forgot. Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials...... Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you? ROTFLMAO! See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who their author is. That's all. Not necessarily - please see above. Well, no. Not a simple matter at all - lots of work involved! If a little cut and paste is "a lot of work" to you.... ....and a "remote computer"...heh One of the limitations... It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do. Not at all. Yes, it is. Do you not want me to shut up? Not at all. Please continue! What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in what you say. Of course he's interested - otherwise he wouldn't respond! Heh. Exactly. Agreed - that is indeed a laughable point! His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when pressed: your ire, passion and rage. Well, no. Say what? You don't see it? Heh heh. What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? You have me confused with Len. You have you obsessed with Len. You have confused yourself. In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will. Heck no. You mean you are being hijacked willingly? A bit psychotic, no? Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you, Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment. I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate. You've ranted on here at great length, Leo. Much longer than me. LOL! That's funny, Jim! And educate. And research before I post. Feb 10, 2003. Well, no. Different issue in that post - as stated above! Maybe I will. God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you can break free. Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what could you have accomplished? That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all modes, all bands perhaps?) Not really - not that much time to write these posts, you see. Heh heh heh.....not much time, eh? Any idea how many posts you write in a day? A week? a year? Each may be small, but they add up....! :) And your suggestion is? Isn't that rather obvious? - or a second degree at night school (we're talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here, over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements - no progress. Zilch. You forget the entertainment value. Absolutely - if you are willing to submit to being used for entertainment, then of course - that has value. To others - and perhaps to you too in some odd way.....painful to watch, though! Nice try with the nine years mistake, though. Things have been like this on the group for the last nine yearrs - the arguements do pre-date you, Jim. You weren't the first.....just the next..... :) You got an F. You're not the teacher, Leo. Deal with it. Lucky you! The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago. What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is. And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone else that they are wrong. I see. Personal attack rather than looking at the facts. Was Len right in the cases you cited above? Or was I? Look them up and see. Do *your* research.... Who cares who was right? That's not the issue, Jim. Yes, it is. Too bad you can't see that. Really? That ain't true, Jim.... heh heh When your emotions gain control over your intellect - you will lose. Every time. Without question. That's why my posts are calm and reasoned. Um - calm and reasoned? You must be a riot at parties, Jim. "No Fred, you're wrong....Betty, that's just incorrect....Hey, Sam, that's not how you do that!...Say, Charlie......" Heh heh. If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll be better off. IOW, you want me to shut up. Why not be honest and say it straight out? No, Jim....please continue! Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM! Your call. My call is N2EY. What's yours? Unlisted. :) You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name. 73 de Jim, N2EY Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what is being done to you. What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? Y'know, for a smart feller like yourself, you just don't get it. So... Don't do anything different, Jim. Just keep up the good fight - and let those who wish to get their kicks watching you behave so predictably....and foolishly....you don't seem to mind serving as the entertainment, so hey - why not? Looks like you get exactly what you want here - you are owned! 73, Leo |
Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote: What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? Then what do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? And your suggestion is? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? In a word: No. It's not rather obvious, Leo. What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than answering a question with another question, or a zinger. What's your suggestion? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote: What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? Then what do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? And your suggestion is? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? In a word: No. It's not rather obvious, Leo. Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be? What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than answering a question with another question, or a zinger. What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. Owned or free. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. Choose wisely! 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote: What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? Then what do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? And your suggestion is? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? In a word: No. It's not rather obvious, Leo. Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be? It's not about simplification, Leo. It's about clarity. Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you suggest that I do? What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than answering a question with another question, or a zinger. What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. OK so far. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you suggest *I* take. Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. So what do you suggest *I* do? Owned or free. That's your spin. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. So there *is* a choice! Choose wisely! Wise by whose standards? How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms? What actions do you suggest? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote: What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? Then what do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? And your suggestion is? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? In a word: No. It's not rather obvious, Leo. abreak to try and get google to frmat as I choose here goes Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be? It's not about simplification, Leo. It's about clarity. Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you suggest that I do? Jim he can he just chooses not to He also doesn't have to What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than answering a question with another question, or a zinger. What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. OK so far. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you suggest *I* take. No He leaves you with the free choice adknownledges and respcts you Rights to decide for yourself what to do Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. So what do you suggest *I* do? Clearly he and I for that matter suggest that you take a close look at your options Owned or free. That's your spin. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. So there *is* a choice! certainly he has gone and on about the fact you have a choice, Choose wisely! Wise by whose standards? Any you choose to follow How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms? What actions do you suggest? I should think he has made it clear that he does not intend to tell you how to think or how to act. and the He (and I) claim the right same right ourselves 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. Owned or free. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. Choose wisely! 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo Grasshopper, snatch this pebble from my hand. |
wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. OK so far. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you suggest *I* take. Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. So what do you suggest *I* do? Owned or free. That's your spin. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. So there *is* a choice! Choose wisely! Wise by whose standards? How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms? What actions do you suggest? 73 de Jim, N2EY And so Grasshopper hesitates. Asks many questions. Must be told what he is to do, rather than just do what he is told. The pebble is withdrawn and Grasshopper is none the richer and none the wiser. |
From: Leo on Mon 27 Jun 2005 07:19
On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote: The following cantu-respondu is repeated 14 times, more or less the same What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? In a word: No. It's not rather obvious, Leo. Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be? Based on years of trying to play the Olde Guru of Amateur Radio in here, he simply wants things HIS WAY. He was that way on an AOL amateur radio group, too. What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than answering a question with another question, or a zinger. What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... He will do it again (and did) following. Predictable. :-) Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. Owned or free. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. Choose wisely! He hasn't, but then HE MUST BE *RIGHT* in whatever he sayeth. All who speak contrary to His wisdom are WRRRONNNNGGGG. The bells have been ringing in here with the above for years. Watch the replies to his "Riley" encyclical. :-) |
On 27 Jun 2005 09:59:04 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote: What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? Then what do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do instead? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do? Isn't that rather obvious? What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? And your suggestion is? Isn't that rather obvious? What do you suggest I do differently, Leo? Isn't that rather obvious? In a word: No. It's not rather obvious, Leo. Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be? It's not about simplification, Leo. It's about clarity. Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you suggest that I do? I have - many, many times. You must decide. What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than answering a question with another question, or a zinger. What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. OK so far. Glad to hear it! So far, so good. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you suggest *I* take. That is your current reality. Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. This is your potential future reality. So what do you suggest *I* do? Decide! Owned or free. That's your spin. That's your opinion. Owned - or free. You must decide. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. So there *is* a choice! There is always a choice. Yours to make if your are able to do so, You must decide! Choose wisely! Wise by whose standards? We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you decide! How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms? Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :) What actions do you suggest? Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own now. Good luck! 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
On 27 Jun 2005 15:37:43 -0700, "bb" wrote:
Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. Owned or free. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. Choose wisely! 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo Grasshopper, snatch this pebble from my hand. Ah - the journey of 1,000 miles begins with but a single step. He must decide. 73, Leo |
On 27 Jun 2005 16:02:31 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Mon 27 Jun 2005 07:19 On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote: The following cantu-respondu is repeated 14 times, more or less the same Thank God for copy-and-paste - I'd never have made it! :) What would you suggest? Isn't that rather obvious? In a word: No. It's not rather obvious, Leo. Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be? Based on years of trying to play the Olde Guru of Amateur Radio in here, he simply wants things HIS WAY. He was that way on an AOL amateur radio group, too. BTW - are there archives of those discussions on the Net anywhere? Might make interesting reading..... :) What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than answering a question with another question, or a zinger. What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... He will do it again (and did) following. Predictable. :-) We'll soon see - he might surprise us! Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. Owned or free. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. Choose wisely! He hasn't, but then HE MUST BE *RIGHT* in whatever he sayeth. He might! We'll all know soon enough...... All who speak contrary to His wisdom are WRRRONNNNGGGG. The bells have been ringing in here with the above for years. Watch the replies to his "Riley" encyclical. :-) Heh. I'm watching 'er grow day by day......... 73, Leo |
On 27 Jun 2005 15:41:23 -0700, "bb" wrote:
wrote: Leo wrote: On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote: What's your suggestion? The way I see it, you have two options: 1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. 2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments. OK so far. Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of someone's strings.... That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you suggest *I* take. Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right. So what do you suggest *I* do? Owned or free. That's your spin. The path you choose will be entirely up to you. So there *is* a choice! Choose wisely! Wise by whose standards? How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms? What actions do you suggest? 73 de Jim, N2EY And so Grasshopper hesitates. Asks many questions. Must be told what he is to do, rather than just do what he is told. The pebble is withdrawn and Grasshopper is none the richer and none the wiser. Ah - it is true, he has missed the pebble. Again. (sigh) But take heart - perhaps there is a greater treasure to be attained. Perhaps, by missing the little pebble he is but one step closer to the final destination. He must decide. 73, Leo :) |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com