Robert:

Do you see a pattern here, they can't do it (from lack of knowledge and
unwillingness to learn a new method), so they just attempt to stop everyone
else--now there is the real "state of amateur radio today!"

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Robert:

I am aware that it would be "tacky" to start hundreds of binaries flowing in
the group here.

However, a uuencoded/decoded binary of pics of an op, shack, equip, antenna,
object or place of interest, etc only enhances the newsgroup experience...

But don't even get the idea these old farts are fooling me, they couldn't
uuencode a binary and post it if their lives depended on it... and even if
the pic was a hot mama in a thong--they'd die before uudecoding/seeing the
pic! grin

John

"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
John Smith wrote:

Lloyd:

What are you claiming as evidence for this claim, in your own words, "you
are not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news groups..." ????

Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements
no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups.
"Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever"

John Smith wrote:
Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

It isn't my rules, it is Usenet convention.

John Smith wrote:
Funny thing:

Amateur "control freaks" damn near reduced radio to where no one is left on the
HF bands though there imposing ridiculous tests and rules... now they are right
there at the door of the internet attempting to reproduce this miracle of
destruction...

You obviously don't ever listen to HF.

robert casey wrote:
John Smith wrote:

Lloyd:

What are you claiming as evidence for this claim, in your own words,
"you are not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news
groups..." ????

Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements
no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups.
"Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever"

There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman,
kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well.

commander:

Furnish me with a URL to a document by usenet on the false specs you are
attempting to pass off on the un-witting hams, and others, here. Where is a
usenet "Official Faq" stating what you are claiming?

No, it is you "control freaking" and thinking someone will pay attention...
now you will probably wonder why people will ignore your other "facts."
Perhaps you are confused?

Like I say, if I even posted a uuencoded binary here, how many could even deal
with it and end up with an app they could use or a pic they could view, most
likely NONE!

John


"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Yes, well, we are not asking that you give us a set of rules to live under
either...

It isn't my rules, it is Usenet convention.

commander:

There is no "gentleman's agreement."

What you got there is some crafty old farts attempting to pull the wool over
peoples eyes with fancy "feel good terms" like "gentleman's agreement."

You are a cheap shot idiot!
Nothing angers me more quickly than a liar in sheep's clothing attempting to
make fools out of the people he attempts to "get over on"...

John

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
robert casey wrote:
John Smith wrote:

Lloyd:

What are you claiming as evidence for this claim, in your own words, "you
are not supposed to be posting binary files in regular news groups..." ????

Similar to informal band plans, by gentlemen's agreements
no binary file posting on non binary file newsgroups.
"Binary" newsgroups are usually marked "alt.binaries.whatever"

There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman,
kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well.

commander:

I don't see the URL, did I miss it?

John

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
commander:

There is no "gentleman's agreement."

What you got there is some crafty old farts attempting to pull the wool over
peoples eyes with fancy "feel good terms" like "gentleman's agreement."

You are a cheap shot idiot!
Nothing angers me more quickly than a liar in sheep's clothing attempting to
make fools out of the people he attempts to "get over on"...

You seem to be able to make a fool out of yourself all too easily.

John Smith wrote:
commander:

There is no "gentleman's agreement."

What you got there is some crafty old farts attempting to pull the wool over
peoples eyes with fancy "feel good terms" like "gentleman's agreement."

You are a cheap shot idiot!
Nothing angers me more quickly than a liar in sheep's clothing attempting to
make fools out of the people he attempts to "get over on"...

You seem to be able to make a fool out of yourself all too easily.

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman,
kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well.

JJ loves his CB..no need for a call there.

--
http://NewsReader.Com/

Steveo:

Some ignorant hams think there is a BIG difference between 27.400 and
28.400mhz--AND THERE IS!!!

.... a megacycle...

John

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
There is the problem, "gentlemen's agreement", but John is no gentleman,
kinda like on the Childrens Band where he fits in real well.

JJ loves his CB..no need for a call there.

--
http://NewsReader.Com/