Leo wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Seig Heil!!! :-)
Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Dreidel U? Where's that?
I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges.....


(apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!)

Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo.

Nope - it was a joke.

Well, no. It was actually a failed attempt at a joke. If
you have to tell the audience that something is a joke,
it isn't one.

A 'Top" college - Dreidel (a child's toy top) -
get it?

Is that the best you can do?

Anti-semetic - no.

Anti-Semitic. More accurately, anti-semantic.

It rhymes (well, sort of)

Not really

with Drexel - your good ol' alma mater.

One of them.

Heh heh.

It was a zing, though - you are right about that.

Yeah, yeah, make cutesy nicknames in an attempt to rile others...where
have I seen that before?

That school of thought reminds me of the episode of "Blackadder III" in
which two characters are superstitious about the name of
a particular play by Shakespeare - supposedly, saying the name brings
bad luck. They refer to it as "the Scottish play", and if
someone says the actual name, they have to do an elaborate ritual to
excise the evil spirits.

Of course Blackadder says the name of the play for them at every
opportunity.

MACBETH!


I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful
by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your
response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred
to the Nazis.

And I did.

Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please....

Why?

Because you have not completed your research on the topic.

No I haven't.

You fail to have grasped it's essence.

Well, no. I just don't agree with your interpretation, that's all.

BTW, "it's" is a contraction for "it is", not the possessive form of
"it".
Didn't they teach you that at *your* alma mater, Leo?

In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong
'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you!

Well, no.

Oh, yeah! for seven and a half years now! (corrected per your
timeline).

Why is that a problem?

According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative
reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his
behalf
show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong
by you" means.

That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental.

By your logic, then, I should ccontinue to disagree with him even
though he has provided me no direct reason to do so?

It's your choice.

- giving me no reason to do any wrong to
him.

Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his
professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that
acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without
Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every
chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it.

I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been
telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in
error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly
frequency (at minimum).

Well, no.

Oh, yeah!

Oh no.

I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago.

Sorry - you're correct - make that seven and a half years then. LOL!

There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from
rrap.

Yup - we all take vacations.

Your research is incomplete, then.

On average, though, I'd estimate a
frequency of (conservatively) once per week. That means three times
this week, and none over the next two, et. etc. equals an average
frequency of approximately weekly. Actually, I have probably given
you the advantage here - it may be even more.....

So? Is there a limit?

As for:

"telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth
anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional
knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and
that is a fact.

"acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from
me.

It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret!

Why not say what you mean?

"a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I
have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully
qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact.

It wasn't a literal, Jim - come on, guy - use that education!

Why not say what you mean?

"- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong'
about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes,
when he
has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed?

.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when
someone catches him in an error and points it out.

Once again - a reference back to Len.

Because you act like him sometimes.

Does your whole world revolve
around this guy?

Not at all. I spend a few minutes here and there writing a post, and
you
interpret that as an obsession?

A few Google examples:

Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998
"Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the
issue."

What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

The frequency over time is.

"Frequency over time"? Frequency is events per unit time. Didn't they
teach that at your alma mater?

Please try to comprehend.

I comprehend more than you realize, Leo.

Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001
"No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:"

What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.


Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003
"So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong."

Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.


Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004
(Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all!

Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

In each example, do you believe that your opponent could care less
whether he was wrong?

Doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact is that in all of the
above cases, and many more, Len posted information that wasn't true.

You avoid that fact for some reason.

Might there be an ulterior motive?

Of course. I realized that long ago. In fact I mentioned it here
back on Feb 10, 2003. Your research is very incomplete, Leo.


You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..."
wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive?

Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error
about the subjects discussed.

Therein lies the nature of the affliction.

Yes, Len is afflicted by the inability to admit a mistake
when it is pointed out by someone he considers an inferior, like me...

Nobody, least of all Len,
cares that you think that he is 'wrong''.

Why not be honest, Leo?

*You* don't care. Maybe Len doesn't care. You don't speak for
everybody.

It's being done to torment
you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure.

Well DUH!

"His hobby is wasting time. Your time"

Guess who wrote that?

The fact is that Len spends much more time and effort posting here than
I. Always has. Gets all upset and outraged over any opposition. Now you
may say it's all an act, but so what?

The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers
looking at an accident on the highway.

Do you speak for everyone who reads rrap? Or just for you?

You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'.
(oh, how I loathe that expression....! ).

Sounds like another disguised way of you telling me to shut up.

Why not be honest and just say it?

You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it.

Real sad.

It may appear that way to you. The truth is very different.

Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken
about something?

Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the
distance! Heh heh heh.

All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test,
defend
that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his
postings.

An inconsistency or two? For eight years?

I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing
and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will
go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in
a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode.

To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing
more.

Look at his postings compared to mine. It's not me who is dancing and
hopping.

Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are
going to change anything by whining on?

"Whining on"?

Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something?

You mistake my persistent strong opposition with "whining". Another
attempt to get me worked up. Doesn't work. Leo.

btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at
greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes
here than
I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you.

I could personally care less. I am not obsessed.

Yes, you are.

Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife....

Well, no.

Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum.
like a demented parrot.

Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage.

Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh.

I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

You can't join what doesn't exist.

Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write?

I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len?

I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change?

Probably not. So what?

So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on?

Who says I'm achieving nothing? Who are you to judge, Leo?

Are you incapable of controlling yourself?

I've got plenty of self-control.

Find The Strength!

Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with?

"ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!"

um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie
"Gladiator" - well, no.

The correct quote is "Are you not entertained"

I know.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes

Now who is obsessive, Leo? You had to go look that up and correct me -
just
couldn't help yourself, could you?

If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the
answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as
the next guy - it's human nature!

Heh heh heh.

Then I am achieving something.

Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy!

Nope.

Yup. In Technicolour.

Well, no.

Panavision then? With DTS sound.

Nope. Not once.

The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period.

The real truth is that if anyone is obsessed, it's Len. And/or Brian,
N0IMD. Not me.

We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake....

Who is "we"? Are you the Pope? Lots of Pope Leos, btw..


Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting
discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of
issues,
including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and
K2UNK,
for example.

Agreed.

So there *is* a difference!

Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice
guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no.

Well, there you have it.

So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues
that the folks you are arguing with will never agree?

Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer.

There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you.

Nope.

In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow
the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of
them back.

Nope.

The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no).

Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You didn't fully understand the analogy.

Who didn't understand what, Jim?

You didn't understand the analogy I made.

I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to
understand.

Well, no.

One of the limitations of online communication is that it's difficult
or
impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be dense and when
someone
really *is* dense....


You avoided my question, threw in
your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding?

Not gonna happen, Bud!

The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't
lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but
won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the
neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave
that way?

Rhetorical question - ignored.

One of the limitations...

After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and
equality. Also experience with what is done with the information
provided."
Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You're absolutely correct.

You should steal the tools instead.

Well, no.

Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh.

No, it doesn't.

All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another
source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway.

...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you
can't trust anybody these days....!

You misunderstand.

Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt
- and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition.
I merely stated it in conclusion.

You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir.


It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one
location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your
postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who
their author is.

That's all.

Well, no.

Well, yes.

Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup
messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers
(i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) -
this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for
transmission of massive volumes of SPAM.

If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that
is not an ISP.

I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is
significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the
Internet.

Think outside the box, Leo.

Someone in Location A writes a newsgroup post. Sends the post as a
textfile to
someone else in Location B. Someone else then posts it to Usenet. Looks
like
it came from Location B but it didn't.

A few moderately
complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a long shot.

In short - your word is all we have.

That applies to you as well. I can include "u" in certain words -
doesn't make me Canadian...

True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio,
you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove
my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical
origin of the posts!

Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location.
Easy to do.

Oh yeah. Forgot.

Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake
references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign
countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials......

Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you?

ROTFLMAO!

See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in
one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That
your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or
who their author is.

That's all.

Not necessarily - please see above.

Well, no.

One of the limitations...

It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a
disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes
and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do.

Not at all.

Yes, it is. Do you not want me to shut up?

It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant
battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in
what you say.

Of course he's interested - otherwise he wouldn't respond!

His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy
to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently
displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when
pressed: your ire, passion and rage.

Well, no.

You have me confused with Len.

In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will.

Heck no.

Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you,
Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment.

I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate.

You've ranted on here at great length, Leo. Much longer than me.

And educate.

And research before I post.

Feb 10, 2003.

Maybe I will.

God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you
can break free.

Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted
here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what
could you have accomplished?

That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all
modes, all bands perhaps?)

Not really - not that much time to write these posts, you see.

- or a second degree at night school (we're
talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new
car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here,
over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those
who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements
- no progress. Zilch.

You forget the entertainment value. Nice try with the nine years
mistake, though.

You got an F.

You're not the teacher, Leo. Deal with it.

The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago.

What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is.

And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this
thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you
ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone
else that they are wrong.

I see. Personal attack rather than looking at the facts. Was Len right
in
the cases you cited above? Or was I? Look them up and see. Do *your*
research....

When your emotions gain control over your
intellect - you will lose.

Every time.

Without question.

That's why my posts are calm and reasoned.

If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to
educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and
avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll
be better off.

IOW, you want me to shut up. Why not be honest and say it straight out?

Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM!

Your call.

My call is N2EY. What's yours?

You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name.

73 de Jim, N2EY