RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Navy Radiomen (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/72761-navy-radiomen.html)

an_old_friend June 28th 05 03:08 AM



wrote:
John Smith wrote:
... the amateur tests are a trivial problem to men with real
educations...


What about women with real educations?

Would you consider someone with a BSEE from the University of
Pennsylvania and an MSEE from Drexel University to have
"a real education"?

... the cw part


Is an amateur test. And is a trivial problem to people with
real educations..


Simply not neccasarly so Jim


makes as much sense as learning to play a "jew's
harp"--a lot of sense if you wish to, none if you don't...


Then why require someone with no interest in VHF-UHF to learn
those techniques in order to operate on HF? Why require
knowedge of FSK, PSK and other data modes to operate voice?
Why require knowledge of transistors and ICs to operate
vacuum-tube equipment?


Why? We don't require it you don't have to get right fully 25 percent
of the stuff, and you can pick and choose what not to know



IOW, why require anyone to learn anything about a subject they
are not interested in, just to get a license to do the things
they *are* interested in?


We don't you presentation is inaccurate

--

Perhaps what bothers some people the most about the code test
is that it isn't something most people already know. And it
isn't something that can be learned by reading a book, watching
a video, etc. It's a skill, not "book learning".

In learning the code, a Ph.D in EE has to start at the same place
as a grade-schooler. And the grade schooler may learn faster and
do better! Perhaps it is this characteristic of the test - its
ability to act as a Great Equalizer - that causes some to resent
it so much.


Not true, surely you understand that not everyone has the difficulty in
learning Morse Code.

That creates a bias based on brain fucntion and anything but a level
feild





[email protected] June 28th 05 03:12 AM

Leo wrote:
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 just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.

You must decide.


Why?

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.


That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)


Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1


For you, maybe.

- 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.


You're begging the question, Leo.

This is your potential future reality.


So what do you suggest *I* do?


Decide!


Actions, Leo.

Owned or free.


That's your spin.


That's your opinion.


Fact.

Owned - or free.

You must decide.


Why?

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.


So there *is* a choice!


There is always a choice.


Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.

Yours to make if your are able to do so,


Ah - now there's a condition!

You must decide!


Why?

Choose wisely!


Wise by whose standards?


We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!


How will you know what is decided?


How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms?


Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)


Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.

What actions do you suggest?


Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.


You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.

Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.

Good luck!


Be seeing you.

73 de Jim, N2EY


bb June 28th 05 03:35 AM



Leo wrote:
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


Nevermind the journey. It's probably time to hear again about the
exploits of amateur radio during WWII.


[email protected] June 28th 05 06:12 AM

From: Leo on Jun 27, 9:52 pm

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! :)


Tsk, his "answers" were little better than cut-and-paste. :-(


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..... :)


I seriously doubt it would be "interesting." It was just
"ARRL south" parrot phrases. AOL did not have a large
ham radio group. If it was archived, it would be on AOL
(which I can access) but it was the same old stuff as in
here.



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!


I wouldn't put any serious money on that...


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......


Usual tactic is to jump off into a NEW preaching subject, this
week it is "Riley Hollingsworth Speaks!"

Looks rather like a Sermon on the Antenna Mount first draft...
along with a segue into U.S. ham radio a la 1912. :-(


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.........


Ding Dong School is in session. Sheesh.





[email protected] June 28th 05 06:48 PM

From: on Mon 27 Jun 2005 19:12

Leo wrote:
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?

not to those who cannot see

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

billboard displays too small

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

we try for Mt. Rushmore size

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

maybe do some crop circles

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

two-page ads in QST?

Then what do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?

new reading glasses might help

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

we send obvious in morse?

What do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?

yawn
What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What do you suggest I do, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

...

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

still at it?

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

yup, drain is still clogged

And your suggestion is?

Isn't that rather obvious?

call Roto-Rooter!

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

use Bangalore Torpedo?

In a word: No.

It's not rather obvious, Leo.

excavate, dump in lye, cover...

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 just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.


Give up eating those crackers, polly. You get repetitious.

Makes your cage all crumby.

You must decide.


Why?


Tsk, tsk, all you're doing in here is "busy work" writing many
words (over and over again) without doing any deciding. :-)

Decide, decide, that is not the question. - Ham-let


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.


That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)


Tsk. Only Jimmie speak "truth," "facts" from QTH on Mount
Olympus...while he make babble, babble like motel proprietor
in "Psycho."

He parent too many children...



Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1


For you, maybe.


Tsk, be a MAN and admit defeat. You've LOST these rounds a
few go-arounds ago.

- 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.


You're begging the question, Leo.


Tsk, tsk. YOU were begging for solutions before, now you can't
implement any? Not MANLY! NO decision!

This is your potential future reality.


So what do you suggest *I* do?


Decide!


Actions, Leo.


Decide for YOURSELF. If you cannot, quit. Simple.


Owned or free.

That's your spin.


That's your opinion.


Fact.


No, just your opinion.

Owned - or free.

You must decide.


Why?


Grasshopper doesn't understand the world does not revolve
around him. Tsk.

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

So there *is* a choice!


There is always a choice.


Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.


You can't. You feel obsessed, compelled to continue deep
denial of anything wrong.

Yours to make if your are able to do so,


Ah - now there's a condition!


You have a "condition," and that is true. :-)

You must decide!


Why?


Only YOU can stop yourself before it is too late.

Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?


We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!


How will you know what is decided?


"Wise we are," said Yoda, "Know we will when comes the time."

How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical
terms?


Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)


Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


They were all spelled out. In English. English English.


What actions do you suggest?


Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.


You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.

Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.


We are all AI constructs living in your computer, out to do you
harm in public.

All we are the same.

Good luck!


Be seeing you.


"Worry not," said Yoda, "'Decisions for Dummies' mailed it will
be to you, plain brown wrapper in."

May the Farce be with you, grasshopper.





[email protected] June 28th 05 06:50 PM

From: Leo on Mon 27 Jun 2005 21:52

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!


Grasshopper, snatch this pebble from my hand.


Ah - the journey of 1,000 miles begins with but a single step.

He must decide.


Why? :-)







an_old_friend June 28th 05 09:15 PM


You must decide!


Why?


You decide everytime you post, you can't avoid it

Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?


We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!


How will you know what is decided?


He may not, nor is it required that he does,



How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms?


Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)


Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


He has


What actions do you suggest?


Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.


You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.


He is not required to indeed he lacks the information you require only
you have it within yourself


Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.

Good luck!


Be seeing you.

73 de Jim, N2EY



Leo June 29th 05 03:24 AM

On 28 Jun 2005 10:48:49 -0700, wrote:

From:
on Mon 27 Jun 2005 19:12

Leo wrote:
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?

not to those who cannot see

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

billboard displays too small

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

we try for Mt. Rushmore size

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

maybe do some crop circles

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

two-page ads in QST?

Then what do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?

new reading glasses might help

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

we send obvious in morse?

What do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?

yawn
What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What do you suggest I do, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

...

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

still at it?

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

yup, drain is still clogged

And your suggestion is?

Isn't that rather obvious?

call Roto-Rooter!

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

use Bangalore Torpedo?

In a word: No.

It's not rather obvious, Leo.

excavate, dump in lye, cover...

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 just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.


Give up eating those crackers, polly. You get repetitious.

Makes your cage all crumby.

You must decide.


Why?


Tsk, tsk, all you're doing in here is "busy work" writing many
words (over and over again) without doing any deciding. :-)

Decide, decide, that is not the question. - Ham-let


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.


That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)


Tsk. Only Jimmie speak "truth," "facts" from QTH on Mount
Olympus...while he make babble, babble like motel proprietor
in "Psycho."

He parent too many children...



Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1


For you, maybe.


Tsk, be a MAN and admit defeat. You've LOST these rounds a
few go-arounds ago.

- 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.


You're begging the question, Leo.


Tsk, tsk. YOU were begging for solutions before, now you can't
implement any? Not MANLY! NO decision!

This is your potential future reality.


So what do you suggest *I* do?

Decide!


Actions, Leo.


Decide for YOURSELF. If you cannot, quit. Simple.


Owned or free.

That's your spin.

That's your opinion.


Fact.


No, just your opinion.

Owned - or free.

You must decide.


Why?


Grasshopper doesn't understand the world does not revolve
around him. Tsk.

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

So there *is* a choice!

There is always a choice.


Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.


You can't. You feel obsessed, compelled to continue deep
denial of anything wrong.

Yours to make if your are able to do so,


Ah - now there's a condition!


You have a "condition," and that is true. :-)

You must decide!


Why?


Only YOU can stop yourself before it is too late.

Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?

We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!


How will you know what is decided?


"Wise we are," said Yoda, "Know we will when comes the time."

How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical
terms?

Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)


Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


They were all spelled out. In English. English English.


What actions do you suggest?

Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.


You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.

Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.


We are all AI constructs living in your computer, out to do you
harm in public.

All we are the same.

Good luck!


Be seeing you.


"Worry not," said Yoda, "'Decisions for Dummies' mailed it will
be to you, plain brown wrapper in."

May the Farce be with you, grasshopper.


He must decide.

Owned - or free!





73, Leo

Leo June 29th 05 03:30 AM

On 28 Jun 2005 10:50:28 -0700, wrote:

From: Leo on Mon 27 Jun 2005 21:52

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!


Grasshopper, snatch this pebble from my hand.


Ah - the journey of 1,000 miles begins with but a single step.

He must decide.


Why? :-)


Et tu, Brute? :)

He must decide. Owned - or free.

In the words of the immortal Caine (in the spirit of the many Kung Fu
references of late...)

"If a man sees a wrong and does nothing, how can he still call himself
a man?"

;o)








73, Leo

Leo June 29th 05 03:34 AM

On 27 Jun 2005 22:12:03 -0700, wrote:

From: Leo on Jun 27, 9:52 pm

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! :)


Tsk, his "answers" were little better than cut-and-paste. :-(


True - much dogma and little substance.

This may change!



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..... :)


I seriously doubt it would be "interesting." It was just
"ARRL south" parrot phrases. AOL did not have a large
ham radio group. If it was archived, it would be on AOL
(which I can access) but it was the same old stuff as in
here.


God forbid.....




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!


I wouldn't put any serious money on that...


Heh...



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......


Usual tactic is to jump off into a NEW preaching subject, this
week it is "Riley Hollingsworth Speaks!"

Looks rather like a Sermon on the Antenna Mount first draft...
along with a segue into U.S. ham radio a la 1912. :-(


True enough.

But this may change. He will decide.....soon.



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.........


Ding Dong School is in session. Sheesh.


Heh heh heh...





73, Leo

Leo June 29th 05 03:56 AM

On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
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:

snip


Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you
suggest that I do?


I have - many, many times.


You just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.


Option 1 or Option 2.

You must decide!


You must decide.


Why?


You must.


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.


That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)


Not at all.



Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1


For you, maybe.


Not at all.


- 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.


You're begging the question, Leo.


I am begging the answer.

Decide!


This is your potential future reality.


So what do you suggest *I* do?


Decide!


Actions, Leo.


Um - decision is an action.

Decide!


Owned or free.

That's your spin.


That's your opinion.


Fact.


Owned or free - Decide!


Owned - or free.

You must decide.


Why?


You must.


The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

So there *is* a choice!


There is always a choice.


Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.


Hopefully I was incorrect.

Decide!


Yours to make if your are able to do so,


Ah - now there's a condition!


Which only you can overcome.

Decide!


You must decide!


Why?


You must.


Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?


We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!


How will you know what is decided?


That is the simplest task of all.

Should you choose Option 2, it will be immediately apparent to all.

Should you continue down the current path, then you have chosen to
remail with Option 1. Equally apparent to all.

You must decide!



How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms?


Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)


Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


The options have been spelled out quite clearly above.

Option 1. Status Quo. Owned.

And Option 2. Change. Free.


What actions do you suggest?


Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.


You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.


Decide!


Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.


Not at all!


Good luck!


Be seeing you.


Um - shouldn't that be BCNU? :)


73 de Jim, N2EY


44, Leo


Mike Coslo June 29th 05 03:58 AM

Leo wrote:

In the words of the immortal Caine (in the spirit of the many Kung Fu
references of late...)

"If a man sees a wrong and does nothing, how can he still call himself
a man?"


How much wood could a wood chuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

- Mike KB3EIA -

[email protected] June 29th 05 10:34 AM

Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:

snip


Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you
suggest that I do?

I have - many, many times.


You just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.


Option 1 or Option 2.


Those are not concrete actions.

You must decide!
You must decide.

You must.


You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.

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 called trolling. You're saying I should not respond to Len's
trolls. In other words, you suggest that I shut up. But you can't bring
yourself to write clearly and plainly, choosing to gussy up your words
with psychobabble.

What you fail to notice is that Len dances at the ends of others'
strings far more. And that while I write the truth, he inserts mistakes
(intentional or otherwise) to bait others into responding.

Look at the number of posts I have made in this thread. Or other
threads. Compare to the number made in response to me.

There's also the organ grinder's red-hatted monkey who will do almost
anything for attention. Including misquotes of others.

Now you'll say that's not the point. And perhaps in your fantasy, it
isn't.

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.


That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)


Not at all.


I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C

Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1


For you, maybe.


Not at all.


- 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.


"resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right"
= shut up.

That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

You're begging the question, Leo.


I am begging the answer.

Decide!


This is your potential future reality.


Many Happy Returns

So what do you suggest *I* do?

Decide!


Actions, Leo.


Um - decision is an action.

Decide!


Owned or free.


Yet you quote Caine and the stuff about a man not being silent.

That's your spin.

That's your opinion.


Fact.


Owned or free - Decide!


Owned - or free.

You must decide.


Why?


You must.


Says who?

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

So there *is* a choice!

There is always a choice.


Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.


Hopefully I was incorrect.

Decide!


Yours to make if your are able to do so,


Ah - now there's a condition!


Which only you can overcome.


You want me to shut up. That is clear. You dress it up in fancy
terms but that's what it comes down to.

Decide!


You must decide!


Why?


You must.


No, I don't.

Free For All.

Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?

We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!


How will you know what is decided?


That is the simplest task of all.

Should you choose Option 2, it will be immediately apparent to all.

Should you continue down the current path, then you have chosen to
remail with Option 1. Equally apparent to all.

You must decide!


Option 1 - Speak out against incorrect information (even though it's
probably a troll)

Option 2 - Shut up


How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms?

Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)


Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


That would require Leo to be responsible..

The options have been spelled out quite clearly above.


Option 1. Status Quo. Owned.


= Speak out against incorrect information

And Option 2. Change. Free.


= Shut up

What actions do you suggest?

Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.


You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.


Decide!


Perhaps you are talking about yourself *and* Len.

Suppose you are correct, and Len's purpose is to


Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.


Not at all!


If you *were*, that's how you'd respond.
If you *weren't*, that's how you'd respond.

Good luck!


Be seeing you.


Um - shouldn't that be BCNU? :)


No. You don't get the reference, I see. Pity.

73 de Jim, N2EY


44, Leo


"I am not a number! I am a free man"


[email protected] June 29th 05 09:37 PM

From: Leo on Tues 28 Jun 2005 22:30

On 28 Jun 2005 10:50:28 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Mon 27 Jun 2005 21:52
On 27 Jun 2005 15:37:43 -0700, "bb" wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700,
wrote:


Grasshopper, snatch this pebble from my hand.

Ah - the journey of 1,000 miles begins with but a single step.

He must decide.


Why? :-)


Et tu, Brute? :)


No, just et one. I'm on a diet to avoid sharp foods...

He must decide. Owned - or free.


His is not to question why, his is to obey the league or die...

In the words of the immortal Caine (in the spirit of the many Kung Fu
references of late...)

"If a man sees a wrong and does nothing, how can he still call himself
a man?"


Only if the show's sponsor is Viagra. :-)

David Carradine lives in the horse country of Lake View Terrace
somewhat close to my neighborhood. I'll ask him if I happen to
see him in the barbershop getting his hair lengthened. :-)

Actually, speaking of show biz, I think Jimmie is an LAPD Reservist
equivalent, busy bee being a semi-pro Political Reservist out to
maintain the status quo at all costs. It sure seems that way to me.
His automobile probably has the ARRL diamond on it with the phrase
"To protect and serve" printed under it.

Anyone who doesn't defend the Standards and Practices HE bought
into over three decades ago is a "bell ringer": WRRRONNNNGGGGG.

WRRRRRONNNNNGGGGGG......WRRRONNNNNGGGGG......WRRRO NNNNGGGGGgggggg.

"The hills are alive with the sound of wrrronnnggging..."

England has Big Ben. This newsgroup has big jim. Every blessed
day...




Leo June 29th 05 11:32 PM

On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
snip


Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you
suggest that I do?

I have - many, many times.

You just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.


Option 1 or Option 2.


Those are not concrete actions.


To, Sir, they are quite obviously not.

They are choices!

Decision is a concrete action.

In this case, your decision.

Your action.


You must decide!
You must decide.

You must.


You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


When text is displayed upon a monitor, or uopn a page, does it make a
sound?

Most assuredly not.

Tinnitus, perhaps? :)


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 called trolling. You're saying I should not respond to Len's
trolls. In other words, you suggest that I shut up. But you can't bring
yourself to write clearly and plainly, choosing to gussy up your words
with psychobabble.

What you fail to notice is that Len dances at the ends of others'
strings far more. And that while I write the truth, he inserts mistakes
(intentional or otherwise) to bait others into responding.

Look at the number of posts I have made in this thread. Or other
threads. Compare to the number made in response to me.

There's also the organ grinder's red-hatted monkey who will do almost
anything for attention. Including misquotes of others.

Now you'll say that's not the point. And perhaps in your fantasy, it
isn't.


Please try to stay focussed.

Everything is not about Len.

Does he possess you so completely that your world revolves around him?

Break free.

Decide.


That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)


Not at all.


I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


Not at all.

Think harder.

Use your education.

And focus.

There are only two choices available to you.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.


Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1

For you, maybe.


Not at all.


- 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.


"resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right"
= shut up.


That is quite an oversimplification, Jim.

Resisting the temptation to be suckered in to responding to a post
designed with the intent of making you jump would require the
discipline of refusing to respond, and the wisdom to recognize the
need..

Do you have that discipline, Jim? The wisdom?

Can you resist the temptation to respond? Do you possess the inner
strength?

Not so far.

Not in the past - but perhaps in future. Perhaps today!

Decide - Owned or Free.

Polish - or Avoid.


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.


It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Owned - or Free.

Decide.


You're begging the question, Leo.


I am begging the answer.

Decide!


This is your potential future reality.


Many Happy Returns


Focus, Jim.

Option 1. Or Option 2.

Continue - or Change.


So what do you suggest *I* do?

Decide!

Actions, Leo.


Um - decision is an action.

Decide!


Owned or free.


Yet you quote Caine and the stuff about a man not being silent.


(Forgetting for a moment that Caine was a make-believe person in a TV
show rife with pseudo-wise Eastern philosophical sayings...)

That quote did not apply to your situation.

It referenced 'wrong' in more of a human sense - i.e. someone doing
'wrong' to others. Intervening - i.e. 'correcting the wrong', was to
stop the actions of the perpetrator of said wrong, thereby protecting
the perpetrator (bu getting suckered every time) and the victim (of
the resultant bashing). Caine could not help you - he would be too
confused.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his path. What
should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he would be
quite foolish indeed."

Polish - or Avoid.

Option 1 - or Option 2.

You must decide!


That's your spin.

That's your opinion.

Fact.


Owned or free - Decide!


Owned - or free.

You must decide.

Why?


You must.


Says who?


There is no option.

If you continue on the current path, then you have chosen Option 1.

Things continue as they are.

You remain owned.

If you elect to change, then you have chosen Option 2.

You become free.

You must decide!


The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

So there *is* a choice!

There is always a choice.

Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.


Hopefully I was incorrect.

Decide!


Yours to make if your are able to do so,

Ah - now there's a condition!


Which only you can overcome.


You want me to shut up. That is clear. You dress it up in fancy
terms but that's what it comes down to.


Do you possess the discipline which you will require in order to avoid
responding to each and every taunt and tease posted to annoy you?

Do you possess the wisdom to see things as they are, and recognize a
need for change?

I see little evidence so far - but there is hope.

Look within. Think.

And Decide!


Decide!


You must decide!


Why?


You must.


No, I don't.


There is no choice. Continue - or Change.

You must decide!


Free For All.

Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?

We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!

How will you know what is decided?


That is the simplest task of all.

Should you choose Option 2, it will be immediately apparent to all.

Should you continue down the current path, then you have chosen to
remail with Option 1. Equally apparent to all.

You must decide!


Option 1 - Speak out against incorrect information (even though it's
probably a troll)


Correct.


Option 2 - Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.



How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms?

Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)

Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


That would require Leo to be responsible..


That would relieve you of your requirement to think.


The options have been spelled out quite clearly above.


Option 1. Status Quo. Owned.


= Speak out against incorrect information


Correct.


And Option 2. Change. Free.


= Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.


What actions do you suggest?

Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.

You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.


Decide!


Perhaps you are talking about yourself *and* Len.


Focus. Everything is not about Len.


Suppose you are correct, and Len's purpose is to


Focus. Everything is not about Len.

And try to start what you finish. :)



Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.


Not at all!


If you *were*, that's how you'd respond.
If you *weren't*, that's how you'd respond.


Hmmm - now that's a Masters - level analysis of the issue.

Thanks for narrowing this one down for us, Jim!


Good luck!

Be seeing you.


Um - shouldn't that be BCNU? :)


No. You don't get the reference, I see. Pity.


I ignored it. This is a serious matter.

Not TV.

And hold on to that pity - you may well be in need of it.

When you decide.


73 de Jim, N2EY


44, Leo


"I am not a number! I am a free man"


Well, no.

At the moment, you are at a crossroads.

To be free, you must decide.

Status quo - or change.

44, Leo


[email protected] June 30th 05 12:10 AM

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
snip

Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you
suggest that I do?

I have - many, many times.

You just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.

Option 1 or Option 2.


Those are not concrete actions.


To, Sir, they are quite obviously not.

They are choices!

Decision is a concrete action.

In this case, your decision.

Your action.


You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.


You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


When text is displayed upon a monitor, or uopn a page, does it make a sound?

Most assuredly not.

Tinnitus, perhaps? :)

You missed the reference completely, then.

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 called trolling. You're saying I should not respond to Len's
trolls. In other words, you suggest that I shut up. But you can't bring
yourself to write clearly and plainly, choosing to gussy up your words
with psychobabble.

What you fail to notice is that Len dances at the ends of others'
strings far more. And that while I write the truth, he inserts mistakes
(intentional or otherwise) to bait others into responding.

Look at the number of posts I have made in this thread. Or other
threads. Compare to the number made in response to me.

There's also the organ grinder's red-hatted monkey who will do almost
anything for attention. Including misquotes of others.

Now you'll say that's not the point. And perhaps in your fantasy, it
isn't.


Please try to stay focussed.


The word is spelled "focused".

Everything is not about Len.


That is correct!

Does he possess you so completely that your world revolves
around him?


No one "possesses" me, Leo.

Break free.

Decide.


Why?

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.


I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


Not at all.


Think harder.

Use your education.

And focus.

There are only two choices available to you.


Says who?

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.


There's always a C.

Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1

For you, maybe.

Not at all.


- 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.


"resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right"
= shut up.


That is quite an oversimplification, Jim.


How, Leo?

If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me
to shut up without using those words.

Resisting the temptation to be suckered in to responding to a
post
designed with the intent of making you jump would require the
discipline of refusing to respond, and the wisdom to recognize the need..


Which is what I do, most of the time. Just not all of the time. To
satisfy your criteria for Option 2, I'd have to pretty much stop
posting here.

In fact, it seems to me that perhaps *you* are posting here with the
intent of making me "jump"....

Do you have that discipline, Jim? The wisdom?


Sure. Do you?

Can you resist the temptation to respond? Do you possess the
inner strength?

Not so far.

Not in the past - but perhaps in future. Perhaps today!

Decide - Owned or Free.

Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.

That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.


It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.


Sure it can: the two words "shut up"

Owned - or Free.


Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.

Decide.


You're begging the question, Leo.

I am begging the answer.

Decide!


This is your potential future reality.


Many Happy Returns


Focus, Jim.


You really should get out more, Leo.

Option 1. Or Option 2.

Continue - or Change.


So what do you suggest *I* do?

Decide!

Actions, Leo.

Um - decision is an action.

Decide!


Owned or free.


Yet you quote Caine and the stuff about a man not being silent.


(Forgetting for a moment that Caine was a make-believe person
in a TV
show rife with pseudo-wise Eastern philosophical sayings...)

That quote did not apply to your situation.


Why not?

It referenced 'wrong' in more of a human sense - i.e. someone
doing
'wrong' to others.


Intentional misstatement does wrong to others.

Intervening - i.e. 'correcting the wrong', was to
stop the actions of the perpetrator of said wrong, thereby protecting
the perpetrator (bu getting suckered every time) and the victim (of
the resultant bashing). Caine could not help you - he would be too
confused.


What was Caine's callsign?

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he would be
quite foolish indeed."



So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here are turds.

I think you have a point there!

Polish - or Avoid.

Option 1 - or Option 2.

You must decide!


That's your spin.

That's your opinion.

Fact.

Owned or free - Decide!


Owned - or free.

You must decide.

Why?

You must.


Says who?


There is no option.


There's always an option.

If you continue on the current path, then you have chosen
Option 1.

Things continue as they are.

You remain owned.

If you elect to change, then you have chosen Option 2.


You become free.

You must decide!


Speak - or shut up.

That's the choice you give me.

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.


So there *is* a choice!

There is always a choice.

Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.

Hopefully I was incorrect.

Decide!


Yours to make if your are able to do so,

Ah - now there's a condition!

Which only you can overcome.


You want me to shut up. That is clear. You dress it up in fancy
terms but that's what it comes down to.


Do you possess the discipline which you will require in order
to avoid
responding to each and every taunt and tease posted to annoy
you?


I already have demonstrated that, Leo. Do you see me responding to
"each and every taunt and tease"?

Yes or no?

Do you possess the wisdom to see things as they are, and
recognize a need for change?


You mean to shut up?

I see little evidence so far - but there is hope.

Look within. Think.

And Decide!


You sure are fixated on that stuff, Leo.

--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent

--
Decide!

You must decide!


Why?


You must.


No, I don't.


There is no choice. Continue - or Change.

You must decide!


I've decided you want to be the landlord.

Free For All.

Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?

We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!

How will you know what is decided?

That is the simplest task of all.

Should you choose Option 2, it will be immediately apparent to all.


Translation: shut up!

Should you continue down the current path, then you have chosen to
remail with Option 1. Equally apparent to all.

You must decide!


Option 1 - Speak out against incorrect information (even though it's
probably a troll)


Correct.


Option 2 - Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.


How is it an oversimplification? How else would Option 2 be chosen?
What other evidence would convince you that I chose Option 2?

How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms?

Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)

Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


That would require Leo to be responsible..


That would relieve you of your requirement to think.


I'm simply asking for a definite criteria. You won't provide it,
because you know that Option 2 = shut up

Is there a way I could choose Option 2 and not shut up? If so, the two
are not the same. If not, the two are essentially the same thing.

The options have been spelled out quite clearly above.


Option 1. Status Quo. Owned.


= Speak out against incorrect information


Correct.


So far so good.


And Option 2. Change. Free.


= Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.


What other alternative exists, Leo? The opposite of

"Speak out against incorrect information"

is

"Do not speak out against incorrect information"

What actions do you suggest?

Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.

You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.

Decide!


Perhaps you are talking about yourself *and* Len.


Focus. Everything is not about Len.


Of course not. This part is about your unwillingness to be honest.

Suppose you are correct, and Len's purpose is to


Focus. Everything is not about Len.

And try to start what you finish. :)



Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.

Not at all!


If you *were*, that's how you'd respond.
If you *weren't*, that's how you'd respond.


Hmmm - now that's a Masters - level analysis of the issue.

Thanks for narrowing this one down for us, Jim!


You soft-science types fall apart when concrete reality comes along
;-)



Good luck!

Be seeing you.

Um - shouldn't that be BCNU? :)


No. You don't get the reference, I see. Pity.


I ignored it. This is a serious matter.


To whom?

Not TV.


And hold on to that pity - you may well be in need of it.

When you decide.


73 de Jim, N2EY

44, Leo


"I am not a number! I am a free man"


Well, no.

At the moment, you are at a crossroads.

To be free, you must decide.

Status quo - or change.


Speak out - or shut up.

44, Leo


Who is #1?


[email protected] June 30th 05 12:51 AM

From: Leo on Jun 29, 6:32 pm

On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
snip



Option 1 or Option 2.


Those are not concrete actions.


To, Sir, they are quite obviously not.

They are choices!

Decision is a concrete action.

In this case, your decision.

Your action.


Tsk, Jimmie will not do the "action." He will stay on his subject
and his "correctness" until the coroner pries the keyboard away
from his cold, dead fingers...


You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


WRRRONNNNGGGGG....
WRRRONNNNGGGGG....
WRRRONNNNGGGGG....

Jimmie Noserve does his best to sound like the Beeb's SW BC
signature sound...


When text is displayed upon a monitor, or uopn a page, does it make a
sound?

Most assuredly not.


If a tree falls on a florist, will he make himself a bouquet? :-)


That's called trolling. You're saying I should not respond to Len's
trolls. In other words, you suggest that I shut up. But you can't bring
yourself to write clearly and plainly, choosing to gussy up your words
with psychobabble.


What you fail to notice is that Len dances at the ends of others'
strings far more. And that while I write the truth, he inserts mistakes
(intentional or otherwise) to bait others into responding.


Look at the number of posts I have made in this thread. Or other
threads. Compare to the number made in response to me.


There's also the organ grinder's red-hatted monkey who will do almost
anything for attention. Including misquotes of others.


Now you'll say that's not the point. And perhaps in your fantasy, it
isn't.


Please try to stay focussed.

Everything is not about Len.


[oh, heck and darn! :-) ]

Does he possess you so completely that your world revolves around him?

Break free.

Decide.


Long ago I removed the geas and erased the pentacle, breaking the
spell.

Tsk. I must have been using indelible chalk...

Heap powerful magic stuff I gots... :-)


I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


Not at all.

Think harder.

Use your education.

And focus.

There are only two choices available to you.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.


I give him a D-minus...


"resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right"
= shut up.


That is quite an oversimplification, Jim.

Resisting the temptation to be suckered in to responding to a post
designed with the intent of making you jump would require the
discipline of refusing to respond, and the wisdom to recognize the
need..

Do you have that discipline, Jim? The wisdom?

Can you resist the temptation to respond? Do you possess the inner
strength?

Not so far.

Not in the past - but perhaps in future. Perhaps today!

Decide - Owned or Free.

Polish - or Avoid.


RPN or Clear?



Yet you quote Caine and the stuff about a man not being silent.


(Forgetting for a moment that Caine was a make-believe person in a TV
show rife with pseudo-wise Eastern philosophical sayings...)

That quote did not apply to your situation.

It referenced 'wrong' in more of a human sense - i.e. someone doing
'wrong' to others. Intervening - i.e. 'correcting the wrong', was to
stop the actions of the perpetrator of said wrong, thereby protecting
the perpetrator (bu getting suckered every time) and the victim (of
the resultant bashing). Caine could not help you - he would be too
confused.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his path. What
should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he would be
quite foolish indeed."

Polish - or Avoid.


[ahhh...the Light of Wisdom of the East dawns upon the grasshopper]


You must decide.


Why?


You must.


Says who?


There is no option.

If you continue on the current path, then you have chosen Option 1.

Things continue as they are.


You remain owned.


[the upkeep on that "ownership" is terrible...I'm going to Ebay]


If you elect to change, then you have chosen Option 2.

You become free.

You must decide!


[I should have gotten a prenup before coming in here...]



You want me to shut up. That is clear. You dress it up in fancy
terms but that's what it comes down to.


Do you possess the discipline which you will require in order to avoid
responding to each and every taunt and tease posted to annoy you?

Do you possess the wisdom to see things as they are, and recognize a
need for change?

I see little evidence so far - but there is hope.

Look within. Think.

And Decide!


"He polished up the bell so care-full-ee, that now he is an
extra in the ham coterie..."

[with apologies to Mssrs Gilbert and Sullivan]



Option 1 - Speak out against incorrect information (even though it's
probably a troll)


Correct.

Option 2 - Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.


Big Jim allus RIGHT. Me allus WRRRONNNNGGGGG (or a "troll")

Bells are still "wringing..."

WRRRONNNNGGGG...WRRRONNNGGGG...WRRRONNNGGGG...WRRR ONNNGGGG...


That would require Leo to be responsible..


That would relieve you of your requirement to think.


"The League is his shepherd, he shall not have to think...}


Perhaps you are talking about yourself *and* Len.


Focus. Everything is not about Len.

Suppose you are correct, and Len's purpose is to


Focus. Everything is not about Len.

And try to start what you finish. :)


A problem with a wide-angle lens is that everything seems in
the field of view...but proper focussing requires concentration
on the center of the image. Some just don't have the single-
lens REFLEX to do it... [clik......clique]


"I am not a number! I am a free man"


Well, no.

At the moment, you are at a crossroads.

To be free, you must decide.

Status quo - or change.


Easy route is status quo. No need to fire up brainworks. Every
day the beginning of every other day of the past...except:

"All things are as they were then, except Jim was THERE..."

[apologies to CBS and their old radio show "You Are There"]

I need a better agent. I was getting used to being at the
"center focus" of so much agitated hate. Maybe I need more
more exposure? [I was using Eastman Super-XX at ASA 400]

buy, buy,




John Smith June 30th 05 01:45 AM

What is wrong with that so long as I practice safe sex and spit out the man
gravy?

"Steveo" wrote in message
news:74fbpjcj4jfsm00.290620051621@kirk...
the only reason guys hung out around the radio shacks on those boats was
to get a bj from the gay radio operator

"Leo" wrote in message
...
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 June 30th 05 02:54 AM

On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
snip

Why can't you just clearly and plainly state what you
suggest that I do?

I have - many, many times.

You just keep writing that I must decide. But
you do not state concrete actions that the
decision will produce.

Option 1 or Option 2.

Those are not concrete actions.


To, Sir, they are quite obviously not.

They are choices!

Decision is a concrete action.

In this case, your decision.

Your action.


You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.


You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


When text is displayed upon a monitor, or uopn a page, does it make a sound?

Most assuredly not.

Tinnitus, perhaps? :)

You missed the reference completely, then.


You cannot answer a question with a question.

Focus.


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 called trolling. You're saying I should not respond to Len's
trolls. In other words, you suggest that I shut up. But you can't bring
yourself to write clearly and plainly, choosing to gussy up your words
with psychobabble.

What you fail to notice is that Len dances at the ends of others'
strings far more. And that while I write the truth, he inserts mistakes
(intentional or otherwise) to bait others into responding.

Look at the number of posts I have made in this thread. Or other
threads. Compare to the number made in response to me.

There's also the organ grinder's red-hatted monkey who will do almost
anything for attention. Including misquotes of others.

Now you'll say that's not the point. And perhaps in your fantasy, it
isn't.


Please try to stay focussed.


The word is spelled "focused".


....but again, the obsessive-compulsive need to be 'always correct'
rears it's ugly head.

Focus.


Everything is not about Len.


That is correct!


There is hope!


Does he possess you so completely that your world revolves
around him?


No one "possesses" me, Leo.


Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.

Decide!


Break free.

Decide.


Why?


You must.


That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


Not at all.


Think harder.

Use your education.

And focus.

There are only two choices available to you.


Says who?


There are two.


A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.


There's always a C.


Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.

Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)


Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1

For you, maybe.

Not at all.

- 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.

"resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right"
= shut up.


That is quite an oversimplification, Jim.


How, Leo?


This has been explained enough times already.

Do your homework!


If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.


Not true.


All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me
to shut up without using those words.


Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?

Why?


Resisting the temptation to be suckered in to responding to a
post
designed with the intent of making you jump would require the
discipline of refusing to respond, and the wisdom to recognize the need..


Which is what I do, most of the time. Just not all of the time. To
satisfy your criteria for Option 2, I'd have to pretty much stop
posting here.


Are you suggesting that you cannot post without responding to trolls?

If your statement is true - why do you stay?

Are you nothing more than bait?

Are your posts simply strings of rants assembled at the pleasure of
others?

You cannot post anything at all of substance without joining in your
own torment?

What drives this sort of behaviour?


In fact, it seems to me that perhaps *you* are posting here with the
intent of making me "jump"....

Do you have that discipline, Jim? The wisdom?


Sure. Do you?


Prove it, Jim - show us all.

There is no evidence available to support your claim to date.

Demonstration, please.

Show us what you've got!


Can you resist the temptation to respond? Do you possess the
inner strength?

Not so far.

Not in the past - but perhaps in future. Perhaps today!

Decide - Owned or Free.

Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.


You are polishing. Turds.


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.


It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.


Sure it can: the two words "shut up"


Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.


Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.


Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.


Decide.


You're begging the question, Leo.

I am begging the answer.

Decide!

This is your potential future reality.

Many Happy Returns


Focus, Jim.


You really should get out more, Leo.


Focus.


Option 1. Or Option 2.

Continue - or Change.


So what do you suggest *I* do?

Decide!

Actions, Leo.

Um - decision is an action.

Decide!

Owned or free.

Yet you quote Caine and the stuff about a man not being silent.


(Forgetting for a moment that Caine was a make-believe person
in a TV
show rife with pseudo-wise Eastern philosophical sayings...)

That quote did not apply to your situation.


Why not?


You can read, correct? Such as the next paragraph, which contains the
answer:

It referenced 'wrong' in more of a human sense - i.e. someone
doing
'wrong' to others.


Intentional misstatement does wrong to others.


Intentional misstatement is a device to get you arguing. The wrong
done to you in these cases is done by you. The fact that it is
'intentional' indicates this - the facts are immaterial - the medium
itself is the message.

You are your own enemy in these battles.


Intervening - i.e. 'correcting the wrong', was to
stop the actions of the perpetrator of said wrong, thereby protecting
the perpetrator (bu getting suckered every time) and the victim (of
the resultant bashing). Caine could not help you - he would be too
confused.


What was Caine's callsign?


Oh oh. The need to be right can be a painful master, Jim.

The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there, podner......yee
haw!

Some day....you might want to try to learn how to use Google too - so
you can do your homework before you post!

Instead of having to have others clean up after you. Frequently.

http://www.kungfu-guide.com/overview.html


Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he would be
quite foolish indeed."



So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here are turds.

I think you have a point there!


Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.

Then again - some of your posts here are -well- just a tad stinky as
well.

Like the German history lesson that you tried to give me earlier in
this thread.

That was a turd.

I chose not to polish it.

One cannot polish a turd.


Polish - or Avoid.

Option 1 - or Option 2.

You must decide!


That's your spin.

That's your opinion.

Fact.

Owned or free - Decide!


Owned - or free.

You must decide.

Why?

You must.

Says who?


There is no option.


There's always an option.


And you have only two.

Option 1.

and Option 2.

SOS - or change.


If you continue on the current path, then you have chosen
Option 1.

Things continue as they are.

You remain owned.

If you elect to change, then you have chosen Option 2.


You become free.

You must decide!


Speak - or shut up.


Do you feel that this is the only way that you could handle the
situation?

Do you believe that you could do it?


That's the choice you give me.


That's the choice you gave you.


The path you choose will be entirely up to you.


So there *is* a choice!

There is always a choice.

Odd to hear from someone who told me I could not stop
myself.

Hopefully I was incorrect.

Decide!

Yours to make if your are able to do so,

Ah - now there's a condition!

Which only you can overcome.

You want me to shut up. That is clear. You dress it up in fancy
terms but that's what it comes down to.


Do you possess the discipline which you will require in order
to avoid
responding to each and every taunt and tease posted to annoy
you?


I already have demonstrated that, Leo. Do you see me responding to
"each and every taunt and tease"?


Yup.

You haven't missed a turd yet.


Yes or no?


Yup.


Do you possess the wisdom to see things as they are, and
recognize a need for change?


You mean to shut up?


Do you equate that with wisdom?

Would that make you appear more wise?

"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your
mouth and remove all doubt."

Mark Twain, I believe.

Is this the philosophy that you are leaning towards?


I see little evidence so far - but there is hope.

Look within. Think.

And Decide!


You sure are fixated on that stuff, Leo.


Thinking is good for you. So is introsspection. And decision.

Try it and see!


--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent

-
Decide!


You must decide!


Why?


You must.


No, I don't.


There is no choice. Continue - or Change.

You must decide!


I've decided you want to be the landlord.


Great! You are capable of decision!

Try to apply that to the choice before you.

Fool. Or Savant.

Decide.

Free For All.

Choose wisely!

Wise by whose standards?

We'll all see the answer to that one soon enough - when you
decide!

How will you know what is decided?

That is the simplest task of all.

Should you choose Option 2, it will be immediately apparent to all.


Translation: shut up!


You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em......


Should you continue down the current path, then you have chosen to
remail with Option 1. Equally apparent to all.

You must decide!


Option 1 - Speak out against incorrect information (even though it's
probably a troll)


Correct.


Option 2 - Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.


How is it an oversimplification? How else would Option 2 be chosen?
What other evidence would convince you that I chose Option 2?


Simple - we wouldn't have Jim saying "You're Wrong" over and over and
over again in multiple threads. Just a few times. In legitimate
discussions.

Would you be able to tell? Or has it been too long?


How would such a choice be demonstrated in concrete, practical terms?

Hmmm - you read the two options, right? :)

Just can't make yourself spell them out, I see.


That would require Leo to be responsible..


That would relieve you of your requirement to think.


I'm simply asking for a definite criteria. You won't provide it,
because you know that Option 2 = shut up


Is there a way I could choose Option 2 and not shut up? If so, the two
are not the same. If not, the two are essentially the same thing.


You'll need to think just a bit harder, Jim......you aren't quite
there yet! Use that brain!

The options have been spelled out quite clearly above.


Option 1. Status Quo. Owned.


= Speak out against incorrect information


Correct.


So far so good.


This is where you are at right now.

So far, not good.



And Option 2. Change. Free.


= Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.


What other alternative exists, Leo? The opposite of


"Speak out against incorrect information"


is


"Do not speak out against incorrect information"


You feel that you must respond to every challenge in a thread? You
are incapable of making your point and then ignoring the inevitable
rehashing over and over again? (the trolling part?)

Didn't you say that you had the discipline and the wisdom a while back
in this thread?

Where is it, then? Perhaps you have it, but cannot apply it?

Where'd you put them? In a drawer somewhere with your socks?

Go get 'em - and let's see 'em in action!

What actions do you suggest?

Decide! Only you can make this decision - you're on your own
now.

You have not offered the requested information. Seems to me that
when you speak of "abuse" and "control" and "goading", you're
really talking about yourself, not Len.

Decide!


Perhaps you are talking about yourself *and* Len.


Focus. Everything is not about Len.


Of course not. This part is about your unwillingness to be honest.


Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?

Why?

Do you need that for some reason?

Would it fulfil a need?

Do you need to fight?

Suppose you are correct, and Len's purpose is to


Focus. Everything is not about Len.


And try to start what you finish. :)




Or perhaps you and he are one and the same.

Not at all!


If you *were*, that's how you'd respond.
If you *weren't*, that's how you'd respond.


Hmmm - now that's a Masters - level analysis of the issue.


Thanks for narrowing this one down for us, Jim!


You soft-science types fall apart when concrete reality comes along


Yup - that was some real handy analysis there, Jim. You reduced the
equation right down to the least common denominator, and proved beyond
the shadow of a doubt that I may be...or may not be.

Nice work! :)



Good luck!

Be seeing you.

Um - shouldn't that be BCNU? :)


That means the same thing....it's telegraph stuff! :)


No. You don't get the reference, I see. Pity.


I ignored it. This is a serious matter.


To whom?


You. It's your future!

Not TV.


And hold on to that pity - you may well be in need of it.


When you decide.



73 de Jim, N2EY

44, Leo


"I am not a number! I am a free man"


Well, no.


At the moment, you are at a crossroads.


To be free, you must decide.


Status quo - or change.


Speak out - or shut up.


Natter - or discuss.

Rag on - or ragchew.

Sucker - or Smart.

Owned. Or Free.

You Decide.

44, Leo


Who is #1?


You sure don't know your "92 Code" too well, either...maybe you could
brush up on that after...

....you Decide.

44, Leo


Leo June 30th 05 03:11 AM

On 29 Jun 2005 16:51:34 -0700, wrote:

From: Leo on Jun 29, 6:32 pm

On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
snip



Option 1 or Option 2.


Those are not concrete actions.


To, Sir, they are quite obviously not.

They are choices!

Decision is a concrete action.

In this case, your decision.

Your action.


Tsk, Jimmie will not do the "action." He will stay on his subject
and his "correctness" until the coroner pries the keyboard away
from his cold, dead fingers...


So far - right you are!

But - There's Still Hope. :)



You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


WRRRONNNNGGGGG....
WRRRONNNNGGGGG....
WRRRONNNNGGGGG....

Jimmie Noserve does his best to sound like the Beeb's SW BC
signature sound...


When text is displayed upon a monitor, or uopn a page, does it make a
sound?

Most assuredly not.


If a tree falls on a florist, will he make himself a bouquet? :-)


Hmmm - lemme think about that one a spell.....



That's called trolling. You're saying I should not respond to Len's
trolls. In other words, you suggest that I shut up. But you can't bring
yourself to write clearly and plainly, choosing to gussy up your words
with psychobabble.


What you fail to notice is that Len dances at the ends of others'
strings far more. And that while I write the truth, he inserts mistakes
(intentional or otherwise) to bait others into responding.


Look at the number of posts I have made in this thread. Or other
threads. Compare to the number made in response to me.


There's also the organ grinder's red-hatted monkey who will do almost
anything for attention. Including misquotes of others.


Now you'll say that's not the point. And perhaps in your fantasy, it
isn't.


Please try to stay focussed.

Everything is not about Len.


[oh, heck and darn! :-) ]


I know....but there has to be room for other things in the guy's life
too!

Like radio - and TV, and research, and history....

Hmmm ....


Does he possess you so completely that your world revolves around him?

Break free.

Decide.


Long ago I removed the geas and erased the pentacle, breaking the
spell.


There's the problem, right there. You erased the pentacle?

Thanks a lot! :)


Tsk. I must have been using indelible chalk...


Irascible chalk, perhaps! :)


Heap powerful magic stuff I gots... :-)


I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


Not at all.

Think harder.

Use your education.

And focus.

There are only two choices available to you.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.


I give him a D-minus...


Better than the F I gave him a while back.....



"resist the drive to respond, even when you know you are in the right"
= shut up.


That is quite an oversimplification, Jim.

Resisting the temptation to be suckered in to responding to a post
designed with the intent of making you jump would require the
discipline of refusing to respond, and the wisdom to recognize the
need..

Do you have that discipline, Jim? The wisdom?

Can you resist the temptation to respond? Do you possess the inner
strength?

Not so far.

Not in the past - but perhaps in future. Perhaps today!

Decide - Owned or Free.

Polish - or Avoid.


RPN or Clear?


HP - or TI?




Yet you quote Caine and the stuff about a man not being silent.


(Forgetting for a moment that Caine was a make-believe person in a TV
show rife with pseudo-wise Eastern philosophical sayings...)

That quote did not apply to your situation.

It referenced 'wrong' in more of a human sense - i.e. someone doing
'wrong' to others. Intervening - i.e. 'correcting the wrong', was to
stop the actions of the perpetrator of said wrong, thereby protecting
the perpetrator (bu getting suckered every time) and the victim (of
the resultant bashing). Caine could not help you - he would be too
confused.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his path. What
should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he would be
quite foolish indeed."

Polish - or Avoid.


[ahhh...the Light of Wisdom of the East dawns upon the grasshopper]


Yes - our intrepid soul may now see the light at the end of the
tunnel.

Then again - it might be a train coming.....

We'll see soon! :)



You must decide.


Why?


You must.


Says who?


There is no option.

If you continue on the current path, then you have chosen Option 1.

Things continue as they are.


You remain owned.


[the upkeep on that "ownership" is terrible...I'm going to Ebay]


It would be cheaper if you did a little more maintenance once in a
while! He seems to be getting a bit rusty, too..... :)



If you elect to change, then you have chosen Option 2.

You become free.

You must decide!


[I should have gotten a prenup before coming in here...]


Or shots... :)




You want me to shut up. That is clear. You dress it up in fancy
terms but that's what it comes down to.


Do you possess the discipline which you will require in order to avoid
responding to each and every taunt and tease posted to annoy you?

Do you possess the wisdom to see things as they are, and recognize a
need for change?

I see little evidence so far - but there is hope.

Look within. Think.

And Decide!


"He polished up the bell so care-full-ee, that now he is an
extra in the ham coterie..."

[with apologies to Mssrs Gilbert and Sullivan]


Oh yeah! The King's Nayvee!




Option 1 - Speak out against incorrect information (even though it's
probably a troll)


Correct.

Option 2 - Shut up


Oversimplification, as discussed above.


Big Jim allus RIGHT. Me allus WRRRONNNNGGGGG (or a "troll")

Bells are still "wringing..."

WRRRONNNNGGGG...WRRRONNNGGGG...WRRRONNNGGGG...WRRR ONNNGGGG...


That would require Leo to be responsible..


That would relieve you of your requirement to think.


"The League is his shepherd, he shall not have to think...}


Perhaps you are talking about yourself *and* Len.


Focus. Everything is not about Len.

Suppose you are correct, and Len's purpose is to


Focus. Everything is not about Len.

And try to start what you finish. :)


A problem with a wide-angle lens is that everything seems in
the field of view...but proper focussing requires concentration
on the center of the image. Some just don't have the single-
lens REFLEX to do it... [clik......clique]


Oh oh.

Um, there's an extra 's' in 'focusing' up there.

I just got #@$% for that - he'll be on to you shortly..... :)



"I am not a number! I am a free man"


Well, no.

At the moment, you are at a crossroads.

To be free, you must decide.

Status quo - or change.


Easy route is status quo. No need to fire up brainworks. Every
day the beginning of every other day of the past...except:

"All things are as they were then, except Jim was THERE..."

[apologies to CBS and their old radio show "You Are There"]

I need a better agent. I was getting used to being at the
"center focus" of so much agitated hate. Maybe I need more
more exposure? [I was using Eastman Super-XX at ASA 400]

buy, buy,



We'll see soon!

73, Leo


[email protected] June 30th 05 07:11 AM

From: Leo on Jun 29, 10:11 pm

On 29 Jun 2005 16:51:34 -0700, wrote:



Tsk, Jimmie will not do the "action." He will stay on his subject
and his "correctness" until the coroner pries the keyboard away
from his cold, dead fingers...


So far - right you are!

But - There's Still Hope. :)


Bob is gone. But there's a nice airport with his name on it just
five minutes away by car from here...


If a tree falls on a florist, will he make himself a bouquet? :-)


Hmmm - lemme think about that one a spell.....


Sorry about that, I had a newly-ground axe that needed testing.


Please try to stay focussed.


Everything is not about Len.


[oh, heck and darn! :-) ]


I know....but there has to be room for other things in the guy's life
too!

Like radio - and TV, and research, and history....


...and choo-choo trains.


Long ago I removed the geas and erased the pentacle, breaking the
spell.


There's the problem, right there. You erased the pentacle?

Thanks a lot! :)


Sorry. It was "that old black magic has me in its spell..."


Tsk. I must have been using indelible chalk...


Irascible chalk, perhaps! :)


Yee-haa! "Chalk" one up for Leo! Good word! :-)



Your current situation requires a different metaphor:


"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his path. What
should he do?


If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he would be
quite foolish indeed."


Polish - or Avoid.


[ahhh...the Light of Wisdom of the East dawns upon the grasshopper]


Yes - our intrepid soul may now see the light at the end of the
tunnel.

Then again - it might be a train coming.....

We'll see soon! :)


Metaphors be with you, Leo Skywalker!


[I should have gotten a prenup before coming in here...]


Or shots... :)


The whole rabies series in the abdomen?!? Yuch.


A problem with a wide-angle lens is that everything seems in
the field of view...but proper focussing requires concentration
on the center of the image. Some just don't have the single-
lens REFLEX to do it... [clik......clique]


Oh oh.

Um, there's an extra 's' in 'focusing' up there.

I just got #@$% for that - he'll be on to you shortly..... :)


Tsk, I know...but the choice of one or two S is optional in use
(depending on the editor).

In English, using one S would tend to have the word pronounced
"foe-cues-ed" while two S would tend to prounounce "foe-cuss-ed."
With one S it also sounds like a nastyword..."foe-cue-ess." :-)



I need a better agent. I was getting used to being at the
"center focus" of so much agitated hate. Maybe I need more
more exposure? [I was using Eastman Super-XX at ASA 400]


We'll see soon!


I doubt anything will "develop" on that...too long in the Stop
bath.

buy, buy,




Dave Heil July 2nd 05 02:05 AM

Leo wrote:

At the moment, you are at a crossroads.

To be free, you must decide.

Status quo - or change.

44, Leo


As a casual observer, "Leo", it would appear that you have no free will.
You seem compelled to respond to each and every one of Jim's posts.

Dave K8MN


[email protected] July 6th 05 01:44 AM

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

So here goes:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.


You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


You missed the reference completely, then.


You cannot answer a question with a question.

I didn't!

Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.


Some would say since Arrival

Decide!
Break free.
Decide.


Why?


You must.


Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C



There are only two choices available to you.


Says who?


There are two.


A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.


There's always a C.


Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.


Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?

Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)


Sounds like an order from The General..
If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.


Not true.


That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.


Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?


No.

Why?


Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.


You are polishing. Turds.


Not me!


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.


Sure it can: the two words "shut up"


Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.


Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.


Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.

How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.


But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!


Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:


"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?


If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."


Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.

So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!


Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.

So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent

-



b.b. July 7th 05 04:36 AM



wrote:

Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?


Holy Moly!

Jim used to alter Kim's post to live in Harmony?

Jim used to insult Len just to live in harmony?

Jim said that a Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code use
just to live in harmony?

Jim very very surprising individual.


Leo July 7th 05 10:29 PM

On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.


You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


So here goes:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.

You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


You missed the reference completely, then.


You cannot answer a question with a question.

I didn't!

Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.


Some would say since Arrival

Decide!
Break free.
Decide.

Why?


You must.


Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C



There are only two choices available to you.

Says who?


There are two.


A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.

There's always a C.


Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.


Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?

Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)


Sounds like an order from The General..
If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.


Not true.


That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.


Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?


No.

Why?


Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.


You are polishing. Turds.


Not me!


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Sure it can: the two words "shut up"


Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.

Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.


Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.

How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.


But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!


Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:


"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?


If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."


Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.

So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!


Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.

So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent

-



????

Where'd the rest of it go?

b.b. July 7th 05 11:28 PM



Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.


You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.
Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.


[email protected] July 8th 05 12:09 AM

Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.


You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


So here goes:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.

You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.


You missed the reference completely, then.

You cannot answer a question with a question.

I didn't!

Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.


Some would say since Arrival

Decide!
Break free.
Decide.

Why?

You must.


Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C



There are only two choices available to you.

Says who?

There are two.


A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.

There's always a C.

Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.


Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?

Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)


Sounds like an order from The General..
If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.

Not true.


That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.

Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?


No.

Why?


Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.

You are polishing. Turds.


Not me!


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Sure it can: the two words "shut up"

Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.

Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.

Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.

How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.


But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!


Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:


"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?


If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."


Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.

So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!

Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.

So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent
-



????

Where'd the rest of it go?


I edited it out as being redundant.

Your basic message was that the way to deal with
certain.....unpleasant items....that one may encounter,
is to simply avoid them completely, rather than picking them
up and fooling with them (which you refer to as
"polishing" - an illustrative description!)

This course of action is particularly appropriate
if the....unpleasant items....were intentionally
placed for you to find, in the hopes you would
react to them in a certain way.

That's really what you've been trying to tell me
all along, isn't it, Leo?

That course of action (avoidance) does make a lot of sense.

However, it occurs to me that the nature of
the...items...tells us something about the
person who created them.

If you encounter a watch, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a watchmaker.

If you encounter a loaf of bread, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a baker.

And if you encountered the....unpleasant items...
you describe as being unpolishable, you would
logically conclude that is was made by an



73 de Jim, N2EY


[email protected] July 8th 05 04:53 AM

From: Leo on Jul 7, 5:29 pm

On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.


You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


Oh, my, now we can expect another 10- to 20-screen "reply"
consisting mainly of his chopping up paragraphs into
individual sentences and then committing ritual slaughter
on grabbing out-of-context inferences of selected sentences.

Tsk. Jimmie must have his basement coal bin filled with
old dried turds he is busy polishing, polishing, polishing
in order to admire his own reflection in them... :-(

But, there's a good side. He may insert a personal anecdote
of his doing with mentor Reggie Fessenden in '06 when Reggie
"set the standard for AM broadcasting" by sticking a carbon
microphone in series with a transmitter's antenna. [like
ANY AM voice transmitter does that now...]

Yawn.




[email protected] July 8th 05 04:55 AM

From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28


Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.


You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.


Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp

I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?

Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.


Ah! The organization in Newington, the one with the "milk
of ham-an kindness?" :-)

"Polish, polish, polish he goes, and where he stops, nobody
knows..." with some hat tips to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour

bit bit



Leo July 8th 05 10:49 PM

On 7 Jul 2005 16:09:07 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700,
wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.


You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


So here goes:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.

You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.

You missed the reference completely, then.

You cannot answer a question with a question.

I didn't!

Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.

Some would say since Arrival

Decide!
Break free.
Decide.

Why?

You must.

Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


There are only two choices available to you.

Says who?

There are two.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.

There's always a C.

Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.

Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?

Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)

Sounds like an order from The General..
If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.

Not true.

That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.

Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?

No.

Why?

Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.

You are polishing. Turds.

Not me!


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Sure it can: the two words "shut up"

Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.

Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.

Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.

How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.

But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!

Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."

Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.

So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!

Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.

So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent
-



????

Where'd the rest of it go?


I edited it out as being redundant.


Fair enough - as long as you get the idea!


Your basic message was that the way to deal with
certain.....unpleasant items....that one may encounter,
is to simply avoid them completely, rather than picking them
up and fooling with them (which you refer to as
"polishing" - an illustrative description!)

This course of action is particularly appropriate
if the....unpleasant items....were intentionally
placed for you to find, in the hopes you would
react to them in a certain way.

That's really what you've been trying to tell me
all along, isn't it, Leo?


That's it - you have it!


That course of action (avoidance) does make a lot of sense.

However, it occurs to me that the nature of
the...items...tells us something about the
person who created them.

If you encounter a watch, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a watchmaker.

If you encounter a loaf of bread, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a baker.

And if you encountered the....unpleasant items...
you describe as being unpolishable, you would
logically conclude that is was made by an


There you go.

And, from what I've read over the last week or so, you have discovered
that application of this philosophy does not limit your posts very
much at all!

Well done.




73 de Jim, N2EY


73, Leo


[email protected] July 9th 05 03:40 PM

Leo wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 16:09:07 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700,
wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


So here goes:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
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:
You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.

You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.

You missed the reference completely, then.

You cannot answer a question with a question.

I didn't!

Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.

Some would say since Arrival

Decide!
Break free.
Decide.

Why?

You must.

Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


There are only two choices available to you.

Says who?

There are two.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.

There's always a C.

Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.

Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?

Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)

Sounds like an order from The General..
If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.

Not true.

That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.

Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?

No.

Why?

Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.

You are polishing. Turds.

Not me!


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Sure it can: the two words "shut up"

Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.

Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.

Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.

How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.

But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!

Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."

Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.

So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!

Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.

So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent
-


????

Where'd the rest of it go?


I edited it out as being redundant.


Fair enough - as long as you get the idea!


Exactly!

Your basic message was that the way to deal with
certain.....unpleasant items....that one may encounter,
is to simply avoid them completely, rather than picking them
up and fooling with them (which you refer to as
"polishing" - an illustrative description!)

This course of action is particularly appropriate
if the....unpleasant items....were intentionally
placed for you to find, in the hopes you would
react to them in a certain way.

That's really what you've been trying to tell me
all along, isn't it, Leo?


That's it - you have it!


Of course it could be argued that what I was doing was
not "polishing" but pointing out the...unpleasant items...
but that's a minor issue. The decision to be made is the
same.

That course of action (avoidance) does make a lot of sense.

However, it occurs to me that the nature of
the...items...tells us something about the
person who created them.

If you encounter a watch, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a watchmaker.

If you encounter a loaf of bread, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a baker.

And if you encountered the....unpleasant items...
you describe as being unpolishable, you would
logically conclude that is was made by an


There you go.


So you agree!

And, from what I've read over the last week or so,
you have discovered
that application of this philosophy does not limit your posts
very much at all!


Of course it limits my posts - to a very great degree. However,
that's not really the issue, is it?

The lack of "polishing" does not seem to have reduced the
production of said ...unpleasant items...though.


Well done.


TNX

There's always the possibility that I might decide to
....point out...one of those....unpleasant items....

Who knows?


73 de Jim, N2EY


b.b. July 9th 05 06:04 PM



wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28


Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700,
wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.


Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp


I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.

I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?


I think that Jim was bottle fed.

Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.


Ah! The organization in Newington, the one with the "milk
of ham-an kindness?" :-)

"Polish, polish, polish he goes, and where he stops, nobody
knows..." with some hat tips to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour

bit bit


When the Mad LaLeche reLay League Mothers discover all of the K5TIT
haters in here...


an_old_friend July 10th 05 01:40 AM



b.b. wrote:
wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28


Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700,
wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo

Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.


Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp


I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.

I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?


I think that Jim was bottle fed.

Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.


Ah! The organization in Newington, the one with the "milk
of ham-an kindness?" :-)

"Polish, polish, polish he goes, and where he stops, nobody
knows..." with some hat tips to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour

bit bit


break


When the Mad LaLeche reLay League Mothers discover all of the K5TIT
haters in here...


oh that could be painfull to watch


[email protected] July 10th 05 07:09 PM

From: b.b. on Jul 9, 1:04 pm

wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28
Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:


Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.


Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp


I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.


Well, that's what he gets for spending less than $100 and
designing it with vacuum tubes in the 1990s...


I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?


I think that Jim was bottle fed.


That would explain much! :-)

bit bit



[email protected] July 11th 05 10:30 AM



b.b. wrote:
wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28


Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700,
wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo

Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.


Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp


I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.

I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?


I think that Jim was bottle fed.



So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?


Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.


Ah! The organization in Newington, the one with the "milk
of ham-an kindness?" :-)

"Polish, polish, polish he goes, and where he stops, nobody
knows..." with some hat tips to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour

bit bit


When the Mad LaLeche reLay League Mothers discover all of the K5TIT
haters in here...



Michael Coslo July 11th 05 01:15 PM

wrote:
Leo wrote:

On 7 Jul 2005 16:09:07 -0700,
wrote:


Leo wrote:

On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700,
wrote:


I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


So here goes:

Leo wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700,
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700,
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700,
wrote:

Leo wrote:

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:

You must decide!

You must decide.

You must.

You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.

You missed the reference completely, then.

You cannot answer a question with a question.


I didn't!


Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.

Some would say since Arrival

Decide!

Break free.

Decide.

Why?

You must.

Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil


That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C

There are only two choices available to you.

Says who?

There are two.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.

There's always a C.

Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.

Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?


Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)

Sounds like an order from The General..

If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.

Not true.

That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.

Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?

No.

Why?

Polish - or Avoid.


I'm not Polish.

You are polishing. Turds.

Not me!

That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Sure it can: the two words "shut up"

Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.

Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.

Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.


How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.

But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!

Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.


Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."

Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.


So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!

Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.


So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.


--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent

-


????

Where'd the rest of it go?

I edited it out as being redundant.


Fair enough - as long as you get the idea!



Exactly!


Your basic message was that the way to deal with
certain.....unpleasant items....that one may encounter,
is to simply avoid them completely, rather than picking them
up and fooling with them (which you refer to as
"polishing" - an illustrative description!)

This course of action is particularly appropriate
if the....unpleasant items....were intentionally
placed for you to find, in the hopes you would
react to them in a certain way.

That's really what you've been trying to tell me
all along, isn't it, Leo?


That's it - you have it!



Of course it could be argued that what I was doing was
not "polishing" but pointing out the...unpleasant items...
but that's a minor issue. The decision to be made is the
same.

That course of action (avoidance) does make a lot of sense.

However, it occurs to me that the nature of
the...items...tells us something about the
person who created them.

If you encounter a watch, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a watchmaker.

If you encounter a loaf of bread, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a baker.

And if you encountered the....unpleasant items...
you describe as being unpolishable, you would
logically conclude that is was made by an


There you go.



So you agree!

And, from what I've read over the last week or so,
you have discovered
that application of this philosophy does not limit your posts
very much at all!



Of course it limits my posts - to a very great degree. However,
that's not really the issue, is it?

The lack of "polishing" does not seem to have reduced the
production of said ...unpleasant items...though.


Well done.



TNX

There's always the possibility that I might decide to
...point out...one of those....unpleasant items....

Who knows?



I must say, this thread has just about crapped out, eh guys?

- Mike KB3EIA -


[email protected] July 11th 05 11:33 PM

wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?


While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.

As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.

The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY


[email protected] July 12th 05 02:28 AM

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Leo wrote:


.. . . .
Well done.


As if.



TNX

There's always the possibility that I might decide to
...point out...one of those....unpleasant items....

Who knows?



I must say, this thread has just about crapped out, eh guys?


It crapped out less than 24 hours after Hans tossed out his post about
how smelly diesel summarine bug slappers always won their bets on
ballgame scores.

WTF where you been??


- Mike KB3EIA -


Red Velvet


b.b. July 12th 05 03:59 AM



wrote:
wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?


While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.

As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.

The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY


And now we have a whole generation of hams who hate K5TIT's.


Kim July 12th 05 04:29 AM

wrote in message
oups.com...

While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.


PAH!!!! Genny Cream Ale. Long, long time since I sipped an ice cold one of
them. Hey, they still brewing the 10-Horse Ale? Or, is my memory fuzzy and
Genny Cream IS the 10-Horse Ale. I remember the 10-Horse nearly when it was
new, I was up there for a visit. It was stout, but it'd give a grin on 1/2
a one! :)


As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.


Whatever's the advertising win for the "period" is what is supposed to be
*ahem* healthy.


The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Heh, adverstisers.

Kim W5TIT




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com