From: Leo on Mon 27 Jun 2005 07:19

On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote:

The following cantu-respondu is repeated 14 times, more
or less the same

What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

In a word: No.

It's not rather obvious, Leo.

Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be?

Based on years of trying to play the Olde Guru of Amateur
Radio in here, he simply wants things HIS WAY. He was that
way on an AOL amateur radio group, too.


What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than
answering a question with another question, or a zinger.

What's your suggestion?

The way I see it, you have two options:

1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments.
2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments.

Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you
in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of
someone's strings....

He will do it again (and did) following. Predictable. :-)

Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the
intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and
considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when
you know you are in the right.

Owned or free.

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

Choose wisely!

He hasn't, but then HE MUST BE *RIGHT* in whatever he sayeth.

All who speak contrary to His wisdom are WRRRONNNNGGGG.

The bells have been ringing in here with the above for years.

Watch the replies to his "Riley" encyclical. :-)

On 27 Jun 2005 16:02:31 -0700, wrote:

From: Leo on Mon 27 Jun 2005 07:19

On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote:

The following cantu-respondu is repeated 14 times, more
or less the same

Thank God for copy-and-paste - I'd never have made it!


What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

In a word: No.

It's not rather obvious, Leo.

Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be?

Based on years of trying to play the Olde Guru of Amateur
Radio in here, he simply wants things HIS WAY. He was that
way on an AOL amateur radio group, too.

BTW - are there archives of those discussions on the Net anywhere?

Might make interesting reading.....



What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than
answering a question with another question, or a zinger.

What's your suggestion?

The way I see it, you have two options:

1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments.
2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments.

Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you
in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of
someone's strings....

He will do it again (and did) following. Predictable. :-)

We'll soon see - he might surprise us!


Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the
intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and
considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when
you know you are in the right.

Owned or free.

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

Choose wisely!

He hasn't, but then HE MUST BE *RIGHT* in whatever he sayeth.

He might! We'll all know soon enough......


All who speak contrary to His wisdom are WRRRONNNNGGGG.

The bells have been ringing in here with the above for years.

Watch the replies to his "Riley" encyclical. :-)

Heh. I'm watching 'er grow day by day.........




73, Leo

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.

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