On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:



Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr.
Godwin's rule.

"attempt"? Hardly!
snip

Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times
before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether
Godwin's impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not.

The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person
who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis"
or references to them, has lost the argument. That the
discussion
continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Jim - for a minute there, I was
afraid that you hadn't accomplished anything useful there!

So it wasn't an "attempt" but a success.

Was it? Not really - the discussion will continue.

Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Oh. OK then. That matters a lot.
Guess that makes you 'right', then. Len was 'wrong', and you were
'right'. Feel better now?


But it just had to be done, didn't it?

No, it didn't. But I did it anyway.

Of course you did. You had to!

Nope. I chose to.

The choice, Sir, was not yours to make - you simply could not
resist doing so.

I chose to respond. Other times I choose not to. Len posts
far more than I respond.

I suggest that you responded because you had to respond. You couldn't
help yourself!


Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs
are acceptable behavior?

There are several folks here whose 'slurs' and language are
much worse
than this example

Yes, Len has done worse....

Is that what I said? Don't think so!

It's a valid interpretation.

Not at all - you are in error.


(a reference to the bumbling and
comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes")

The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1

Godwin invoked.

For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone
involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact
that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1.

I see.

You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all?

Heh heh.


- always has been, always will be.

That claim is incorrect. Usenet is not eternal.

It's not my job
to run around and point that out all day every day.

You have avoided the question.

Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior?

Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.

In other words, you won't answer the question.

That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject. In short, I have
no answer to your (rhetorical) question.

Seek elsewhere.


It's not my job to point that out to each and every participant on this group Jim - is it yours? Why?

Your argument seems to be that since Len will probably exhibit
his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun
Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior anyway, there's no
point in pointing out when he is, indeed, exhibiting his typical
immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting
jackass behavior. Is that about right?

Nope. You have avoided the question.

See how that works?

Apparently, you do. You have a long history of avoiding any question
that you don't like - or didn't ask.


Perhaps you have a valid point, since if what Len seeks is
attention, pointing out his typical immature ethnic-slur
Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior
gives him that attention.


(73 de Jim etc. sig missing again)

Not missing - omitted.

In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!

None of the above.

Not true.


Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?

Not at all.

The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting
between operators". In the context of amateur radio,
this means between amateur radio operators.

In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious!

Most people don't know the original meaning.

In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever you say.


It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to
someone who is not an amateur radio operator.

Which I am. And have stated many times before.

And your callsign is?

Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained
earlier.

Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002.


You can state almost anything here, but as long as you
remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt.

LOL! Anony-mousie? That's a Len term.

You may not like the guy much, but you seem to be learning from him!

Good for you.


Poor memory? Google 'er up.....

I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.

You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence of
that either!

But don't worry - I believe you!


(73 de Jim etc...sig left out again for apparently no known reason -
boo hoo again)

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:

You can state almost anything here, but as long as you
remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt.

LOL! Anony-mousie? That's a Len term.

Jim has begun the free-fall from grace.

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr.
Godwin's rule.

"attempt"? Hardly!
snip

Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times
before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether
Godwin's impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not.

The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person
who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis"
or references to them, has lost the argument. That the
discussion
continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Jim - for a minute there, I was
afraid that you hadn't accomplished anything useful there!

So it wasn't an "attempt" but a success.

Was it? Not really - the discussion will continue.

Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Oh. OK then. That matters a lot.

Glad you agree!

Guess that makes you 'right', then.

Yes, it does.

Len was 'wrong', and you were
'right'.

Yep.

Feel better now?

Sure. How about you?

But it just had to be done, didn't it?

No, it didn't. But I did it anyway.

Of course you did. You had to!

Nope. I chose to.

The choice, Sir, was not yours to make - you simply could not
resist doing so.

I chose to respond. Other times I choose not to. Len posts
far more than I respond.

I suggest that you responded because you had to respond.

That claim is incorrect. I chose to respond.

You couldn't help yourself!

What's to help?

Do you believe in free will, Leo?

Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs
are acceptable behavior?

There are several folks here whose 'slurs' and language are
much worse
than this example

Yes, Len has done worse....

Is that what I said? Don't think so!

It's a valid interpretation.

Not at all - you are in error.

That claim is incorrect...

(a reference to the bumbling and
comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes")

The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1

Godwin invoked.

For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone
involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact
that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1.

I see.

You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all?

Nope. With good reason.

Heh heh.

Yep.

- always has been, always will be.

That claim is incorrect. Usenet is not eternal.

It's not my job
to run around and point that out all day every day.

You have avoided the question.

Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior?

Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.

And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len".

In other words, you won't answer the question.

That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject.

That's a contradiction. You just answered the question.

"I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer.

Thanks!

In short, I have
no answer to your (rhetorical) question.

Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no
opinion one way or the other.

Seek elsewhere.

Why? You answered the question. Thanks again.

It's not my job to point that out to each and every participant on this group Jim - is it yours? Why?

Your argument seems to be that since Len will probably exhibit
his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun
Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior anyway, there's no
point in pointing out when he is, indeed, exhibiting his typical
immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting
jackass behavior. Is that about right?

Nope. You have avoided the question.

See how that works?

Apparently, you do. You have a long history of avoiding any question
that you don't like - or didn't ask.

Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't
answer mine?

Perhaps you have a valid point, since if what Len seeks is
attention, pointing out his typical immature ethnic-slur
Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior
gives him that attention.


(73 de Jim etc. sig missing again)

Not missing - omitted.

In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!

None of the above.

Not true.

That claim is incorrect.

Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?

Not at all.

The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting
between operators". In the context of amateur radio,
this means between amateur radio operators.

In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious!

Most people don't know the original meaning.

In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever
you say.

Did *you* know the original meaning?

It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to
someone who is not an amateur radio operator.

Which I am. And have stated many times before.

And your callsign is?

Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained
earlier.

Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio
operator, perhaps not.

Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002.

Maybe...

You can state almost anything here, but as long as you
remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt.

LOL! Anony-mousie? That's a Len term.

Yep.

You may not like the guy much, but you seem to be learning from him!

I've learned some things from Len. For example, I used to think
that he might be capable of a reasonable discussion on amateur
radio policy issues, even with those who disagree with him. I learned I
was wrong about that...

Good for you.


Poor memory? Google 'er up.....

I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.

You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence
of that either!

Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult?

But don't worry - I believe you!

Thanks!

73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)

On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr.
Godwin's rule.

"attempt"? Hardly!
snip

Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times
before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether
Godwin's impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not.

The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person
who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis"
or references to them, has lost the argument. That the
discussion
continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Jim - for a minute there, I was
afraid that you hadn't accomplished anything useful there!

So it wasn't an "attempt" but a success.

Was it? Not really - the discussion will continue.

Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Oh. OK then. That matters a lot.

Glad you agree!

Guess that makes you 'right', then.

Yes, it does.

That's important!


Len was 'wrong', and you were
'right'.

Yep.

That's important!


Feel better now?

Sure. How about you?

Just fine, thanks! Glad you're feeling better!


But it just had to be done, didn't it?

No, it didn't. But I did it anyway.

Of course you did. You had to!

Nope. I chose to.

The choice, Sir, was not yours to make - you simply could not
resist doing so.

I chose to respond. Other times I choose not to. Len posts
far more than I respond.

I suggest that you responded because you had to respond.

That claim is incorrect. I chose to respond.

....so you seem to believe.


You couldn't help yourself!

What's to help?

Yourself. Said so right there in that sentence!


Do you believe in free will, Leo?

I do indeed. Seen any lately?


Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs
are acceptable behavior?

There are several folks here whose 'slurs' and language are
much worse
than this example

Yes, Len has done worse....

Is that what I said? Don't think so!

It's a valid interpretation.

Not at all - you are in error.

That claim is incorrect...

Hey, it was my statement - I get to be the judge of that!

That claim is incorrect (still).


(a reference to the bumbling and
comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes")

The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1

Godwin invoked.

For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone
involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact
that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1.

I see.

You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all?

Nope. With good reason.

I'm sure that we'd all love to hear your good reason for resurrecting
the work history of the long departed Fuhrer back there, Jim - please
share!

You of course realize that there is a school of thought that
invocation of Godwin's Law can be interpreted to include any such
reference to that - um - Teutonic regime of the 1930's and 1940's?
Especially the Big Guy himself?

Oh - I forgot - you said you use another interpretation of that
rule.......


Heh heh.

Yep.

- always has been, always will be.

That claim is incorrect. Usenet is not eternal.

It's not my job
to run around and point that out all day every day.

You have avoided the question.

Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior?

Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.

And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len".

How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

Heh. "Those who ain't with me are agin' me....!" - what movie was
that from again???


In other words, you won't answer the question.

That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject.

That's a contradiction. You just answered the question.

"I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer.

Thanks!

Actually, it is neither an answer nor a refusal to answer. It is
nothing at all.

But, as long as you're happy with that - you're welcome - for nothing!


In short, I have
no answer to your (rhetorical) question.

Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no
opinion one way or the other.

Heh heh.


Seek elsewhere.

Why? You answered the question. Thanks again.

Heh.


It's not my job to point that out to each and every participant on this group Jim - is it yours? Why?

Your argument seems to be that since Len will probably exhibit
his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun
Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior anyway, there's no
point in pointing out when he is, indeed, exhibiting his typical
immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting
jackass behavior. Is that about right?

Nope. You have avoided the question.

See how that works?

Apparently, you do. You have a long history of avoiding any question
that you don't like - or didn't ask.

Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't
answer mine?

Well, that's a bit childish, but it is Fathers' Day, so I'll help you
out a bit here.

Because you should! Why should you let the behaviour of others
negatively influence yours?

If Johnny jumped in the mud, would you jump in the mud?

Jeez. Kids these days!


Perhaps you have a valid point, since if what Len seeks is
attention, pointing out his typical immature ethnic-slur
Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior
gives him that attention.


(73 de Jim etc. sig missing again)

Not missing - omitted.

In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!

None of the above.

Not true.

That claim is incorrect.

I don't think so!


Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?

Not at all.

The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting
between operators". In the context of amateur radio,
this means between amateur radio operators.

In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious!

Most people don't know the original meaning.

In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever
you say.

Did *you* know the original meaning?

I did indeed - it's not exactly a secret.....didn't I quote you
something from the "92 code" a while back?


It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to
someone who is not an amateur radio operator.

Which I am. And have stated many times before.

And your callsign is?

Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained
earlier.

Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio
operator, perhaps not.

Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002.

Maybe...

There you go again - not believing!


You can state almost anything here, but as long as you
remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt.

LOL! Anony-mousie? That's a Len term.

Yep.

You may not like the guy much, but you seem to be learning from him!

I've learned some things from Len. For example, I used to think
that he might be capable of a reasonable discussion on amateur
radio policy issues, even with those who disagree with him. I learned I
was wrong about that...

You appear to have learned a few more tricks than that!

Woof!


Good for you.


Poor memory? Google 'er up.....

I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.

You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence
of that either!

Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult?

Of course not! Simply an illustration that, in the absence of
conclusive and irrefutable proof, one has no other means to ascertain
whether another individual is misrepresenting themselves other than
the evidence that they present in their posts over a period of time.

So far, we haven't seen much of anything posted that would support
your claims of post-grad education - no thesis references, no detailed
insight which would require that level of training, no written
expressions of advanced theoretical knowledge. A few moderately
complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a
long shot.

In short - your word is all we have.

One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can.
Anyone can.

But to choose to doubt someone simply because they no longer appear to
agree with you or support your views - doesn't seem particularly
brainy, now does it?

You see where reasonable doubt might creep in - right?


But don't worry - I believe you!

Thanks!

No problem!

73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)

Thanks!

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't.

Dave K8MN

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't.

Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive"
was incorrect. Appreciate the help!

With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

Thanks anyway, though!


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I disagree!

I am simply persistent. I offer strong opposition to some of
the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others.

Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me).

Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some
things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can
renew and modify their licenses without retesting)?

I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning
that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic,
and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO.

You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was
mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that
the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was
that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence
in getting something right.


73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY

On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:

With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I disagree!

There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no
avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem!

Just 11 more steps to go!


I am simply persistent.

Or persistently simple. Time will tell!

I offer strong opposition to some of
the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others.


Oh, that's nice. How's that working out for you? Changed anybody's
mind lately?

Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me).

You don't really believe that, do you? You're not the entertainer -
you're the entertainment! He pokes and prods, and you sing and dance
- been that way for 8 long years now.


Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some
things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can
renew and modify their licenses without retesting)?

I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types
of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in
the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing
your buttons.....for fun.....y'think?

Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too,
didn't you?


I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning
that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic,
and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO.

You can only control your own postings. You may also refute and argue
points. That is not obsesssive.

To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is
very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL!


You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was
mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that
the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was
that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence
in getting something right.

In a way, yes.

I asked you several times if being correct was important to you.

You replied that it was.

I asked if being correct was very important to you.

You replied that it was.

I confirmed this again, and you agreed that it was very important to
you.

So, I spent about 20 minutes on Google and provided you with the
correct info and a few references for you to read.

That's what you said that you wanted - and that's what I provided.

Obsessive? No. Persistent? Not really - it wasn't a lot of work -
and I knew the correct answers before Googling the references - so I
wouldn't say persistent exactly.

However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no
success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be
wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways
back there or something.....



73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo (is it just me, or is there a diss aimed at me again in ol'
Jim's sig above? heh heh)

Leo wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


Leo wrote:


How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't.


Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive"
was incorrect. Appreciate the help!

You're welcome. I spotted it the first time you used it but didn't
comment on it then.


With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I don't see evidence of any *pursuit* of Len by Jim, much less
"relentless pursuit".

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:43:40 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


Leo wrote:


How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't.


Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive"
was incorrect. Appreciate the help!

You're welcome. I spotted it the first time you used it but didn't
comment on it then.

Yeah, I should have caught it myself - didn't seem right when I wrote
it, but too lazy to look it up, I guess!



With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I don't see evidence of any *pursuit* of Len by Jim, much less
"relentless pursuit".


Not sure I can agree with you on that point, Dave. It's been going on
for years on a pretty frequent basis - see my reply to Jim elsewhere
in this thread....

Dave K8MN

73, Leo