|
Jim,
Nothing that might happen as aresult of this NPRM will involve changing the written tests. This NPRM as currently put forth ONLY ends Element 1, the code test. Cheers, Bill K2UNK "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... (SNIP of latest statistics analysis on comments) Hello, Len I personally am not concerned about code/no code. My problem is how easy do they wish to make the multiple guess test. Frankly, folks that don't have to work for something seldom appreciate it. Didn't they find that out with welfare? Then again, I might be wrong. If you gave away the licenses with no test at all (no test international?), a lot of folks might well say "no" and a lot of the rest wouldn't appreciate it anyways. Just my humble opinion. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
From: Jim Hampton on Aug 30, 6:12 pm
wrote in message Today's Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur NPRM Opinions! snip I personally am not concerned about code/no code. My problem is how easy do they wish to make the multiple guess test. NPRM 05-143 is concerned about elimination/retention of the morse code test for amateur radio licensing. If you have a bitch, moan, cuss-word, or whatever about the written test questions, you just contact the VEC Question Pool Committee. The VEC QPC make up ALL the written test questions and answers. FCC no longer has a hand in that, they only approve (or disapprove) the Pool. Frankly, folks that don't have to work for something seldom appreciate it. I personally am not concerned about some "work ethic" or "moral virtue" bullsnit or its holier-than-thou sounding phrases. I've WORKED for my living since graduating high school. Spare me some of that folksy filosophizing floobydust, okay? Didn't they find that out with welfare? You mean the WELFARE system that rewarded the high-rate morsemen with fancier titles and better privileges, such as in the "incentive plan" licensing system? Yes. It worked very well, didn't it? Then again, I might be wrong. No, the "incentive plan" worked very well for the welfare of the morsemen. They got real big and important, looked down their noses at the "mundane" and felt good. Made the "class distinction" thing into a fine art. But, it kind of went sour with R&O 99-412, didn't it? FCC made code test rates 5 WPM maximum and cut the number of license classes in half! My, my, what a calamity to the super-special ultra-extra-morsemen! If you gave away the licenses with no test at all (no test international?), a lot of folks might well say "no" and a lot of the rest wouldn't appreciate it anyways. Gosh, REALLY? Wow, gee-whilikers, Captain Code, is that true? Just my humble opinion. Hardly. Hardly "unbiased" either. :-) If you don't like what I publish in this "scorecard," then you welcome to go read all 1967 comments on WT Docket 05-235 that have arrived by midnight EDT on 30 August 2005. Do your own stats. It's easy. Anyone can do it. Just takes a little work. :-) |
Jim Hampton wrote:
I personally am not concerned about code/no code. Hello Jim, (from another Jim who used to live in Wayne County). Concerned or not, it seems FCC *really* wants to dump Element 1. That's no surprise at all, given the past 25-30 years or so. My problem is how easy do they wish to make the multiple guess test. A key factor is which "they" you mean. Several of the proposals asked for a new beginner license. The scariest of those was the NCVEC idea, which was derived from a paper titled "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century". I wrote a rebuttal to that paper which I sent to the authors, and also posted here. Kinda long but it's detailed. You can skip through the code test discussion and focus on the written-test stuff, which says they think the Tech is too hard for newcomers! Other proposals (like the FISTS proposal) detail how the written tests could be improved. But FCC specifically denied all proposed changes to the written exam structure and methods, and the number of license classes in the NPRM. So the writtens won't change much one way or the other. Frankly, folks that don't have to work for something seldom appreciate it. Yup. It's called "investment", in the general sense, not just money. Didn't they find that out with welfare? "Welfare" takes a lot of forms - corporate, lifestyle, geographic, etc. Of course if a behavior is rewarded, you tend to get more of it. Then again, I might be wrong. Not really. If you gave away the licenses with no test at all (no test international?), a lot of folks might well say "no" and a lot of the rest wouldn't appreciate it anyways. FCC did that with a service called 'cb'. Look what happened. Of course some folks will say that cb became a mess because of overcrowding and/or lack of enforcement. IOW, they blame everyone other than those actually breaking the rules. -- But you are correct to be concerned. Back in 2000, when FCC dropped all code testing except Element 1, they also reduced the number and size of the written tests. The written test reduction was dramatic, particularly for Technician and Extra. Just watch. FCC will probably dump Element 1 regardless of what the comment total works out to be in the end. They ignored majority opinion in 2000 on how many code test speeds there should be, and there's no requirement that FCC follow majority opinion on anything. I've predicted before that when Element 1 goes you'll see a flurry of upgrades and some short-term growth - but no big technological changes, nor sustained increases in the number of hams. Once all that settles down, you'll see renewed attacks on the *written* tests from some folks, claiming the written tests are obsolete, outmoded, too hard, unfair to handicapped people, etc. Practically all of the objections to the code tests can be modified for use against the writtens. In fact they have been - read the "21st Century" paper. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Today's Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur NPRM Opinions!
30 Aug 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention a Total 1968 Indeterminate/duplicates (note 1) 97 Unambiguously Against NPRM (note 2) 542 28.97% Unambiguously For NPRM (note 3) 1054 56.33% Code test ONLY for Extras (note 4) 275 14.70% Notes: 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen submission, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentage figures are calculated against the Total less the number of Indeterminate entries. For all up to being received by 30 Aug 05 that would be 1871. This is the last daily posting IN THIS FORMAT. With the notice of NPRM 05-143 finally appearing in the Federal Register and the end of Comment period established as 31 October 2005, end of Replies to Comments on 14 November 2005, and NO statement on whether or not the previous 1968 Comments are effective for Commission R&O decisions, the FORMAT will change. There will be "total" Comments (and percentages) columns and "new" Comments (and percentages) filed from 31 August onward. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
|
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: From: Jim Hampton on Aug 30, 6:12 pm wrote in message Didn't they find that out with welfare? You mean the WELFARE system that rewarded the high-rate morsemen with fancier titles and better privileges, such as in the "incentive plan" licensing system? Yes. It worked very well, didn't it? You seem to have the idea of welfare backward, Len, and you've introduced a factual error. uh-oh, now you've done it, Dave. You pointed out both faulty reasoning and a factual error in one of Len's postings here. There was never a class of license under Incentive Licensing, which provided an upgrade for merely passing a morse exam. To go from the General to Advanced, one passed only a theory exam. To step up from the Advanced to the Amateur Extra, one passed a theory exam and a higher speed morse exam. Not only that, but after 1990 the 13 and 20 wpm Morse Code tests could be avoided by getting a waiver. All it took was a letter from any doctor. The Extra and Advanced license classes have existed since 1951, even though the changes commonly known as "incentive licensing" did not go into effect until the late 1960s. Before the restructuring of 1951, the old "ABC" license system offered had one code test - and two written tests. Upgrading to Class A required only a written test. As for how well it worked, well, the number of Amateur Extras grew from about 5000 in 1968 to over 75,000 in 2000. The number of Advanceds grew from less than 40,000 to over 100,000 in the same time period. And the total number of US amateurs grew from about 260,000 to about 675,000 in the same time period. In a welfare system, you get something for doing nothing. You stick your hand out and someone gives you something. You mean like the proposals by ARRL and NCI and NCVEC to give automatic upgrades without any more tests? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Jim Hampton on Aug 30, 6:12 pm wrote in message Didn't they find that out with welfare? You mean the WELFARE system that rewarded the high-rate morsemen with fancier titles and better privileges, such as in the "incentive plan" licensing system? Yes. It worked very well, didn't it? You seem to have the idea of welfare backward, Len, and you've introduced a factual error. There was never a class of license under Incentive Licensing, which provided an upgrade for merely passing a morse exam. Factual error? It was called the Tech-Plus. And before you go calling me a liar, I'll correct myself and say, "Technician-Plus." |
I love the way Dave and Jim dismiss the existance of whole license
class wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Jim Hampton on Aug 30, 6:12 pm wrote in message Didn't they find that out with welfare? You mean the WELFARE system that rewarded the high-rate morsemen with fancier titles and better privileges, such as in the "incentive plan" licensing system? Yes. It worked very well, didn't it? You seem to have the idea of welfare backward, Len, and you've introduced a factual error. There was never a class of license under Incentive Licensing, which provided an upgrade for merely passing a morse exam. Factual error? It was called the Tech-Plus. And before you go calling me a liar, I'll correct myself and say, "Technician-Plus." |
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut You seem to have the idea of welfare backward, Len, and you've introduced a factual error. There was never a class of license under Incentive Licensing, which provided an upgrade for merely passing a morse exam. Factual error? It was called the Tech-Plus. And before you go calling me a liar, I'll correct myself and say, "Technician-Plus." The Tech-Plus came into existence long, long after the implementation of Incentive Licensing. so what? now you add more words why not admit the mistake instead of trying to cover it up, badly? Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message k.net... wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Jim Hampton on Aug 30, 6:12 pm wrote in message Didn't they find that out with welfare? You mean the WELFARE system that rewarded the high-rate morsemen with fancier titles and better privileges, such as in the "incentive plan" licensing system? Yes. It worked very well, didn't it? You seem to have the idea of welfare backward, Len, and you've introduced a factual error. There was never a class of license under Incentive Licensing, which provided an upgrade for merely passing a morse exam. Factual error? It was called the Tech-Plus. And before you go calling me a liar, I'll correct myself and say, "Technician-Plus." The Tech-Plus came into existence long, long after the implementation of Incentive Licensing. Dave K8MN And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message k.net... wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Jim Hampton on Aug 30, 6:12 pm wrote in message Didn't they find that out with welfare? You mean the WELFARE system that rewarded the high-rate morsemen with fancier titles and better privileges, such as in the "incentive plan" licensing system? Yes. It worked very well, didn't it? You seem to have the idea of welfare backward, Len, and you've introduced a factual error. There was never a class of license under Incentive Licensing, which provided an upgrade for merely passing a morse exam. Factual error? It was called the Tech-Plus. And before you go calling me a liar, I'll correct myself and say, "Technician-Plus." The Tech-Plus came into existence long, long after the implementation of Incentive Licensing. Dave K8MN And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message k.net... wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: Jim Hampton on Aug 30, 6:12 pm wrote in message Didn't they find that out with welfare? You mean the WELFARE system that rewarded the high-rate morsemen with fancier titles and better privileges, such as in the "incentive plan" licensing system? Yes. It worked very well, didn't it? You seem to have the idea of welfare backward, Len, and you've introduced a factual error. There was never a class of license under Incentive Licensing, which provided an upgrade for merely passing a morse exam. Factual error? It was called the Tech-Plus. And before you go calling me a liar, I'll correct myself and say, "Technician-Plus." The Tech-Plus came into existence long, long after the implementation of Incentive Licensing. Dave K8MN And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? At the introduction of the No Code Tech Fact: Novice was the lowest class requiring one written and one code test. Fact: Tech was a "higher" license class requiring the Novice written & Tech written but not the Novice code and did not grant Novice privileges. Fact: To get Novice privileges, Techs had to pass the Novice code. What is insulting about that? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs |
Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut Dave K8MN And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by showing the Speacker as an elistist That you even think in such terms is insulting At the introduction of the No Code Tech Fact: Novice was the lowest class requiring one written and one code test. Fact: Tech was a "higher" license class requiring the Novice written & Tech written but not the Novice code and did not grant Novice privileges. Fact: To get Novice privileges, Techs had to pass the Novice code. What is insulting about that? It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement However I suspect you will be Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs There were no insulting phrases or words in my post. It would take a degree of paranoia to so construe it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs There were no insulting phrases or words in my post. It would take a degree of paranoia to so construe it. certianly were insulting phrases Lowest classes that you think in those terms shows you an elitest Like I said "It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement " "However I suspect you will be " Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut Dave K8MN And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by showing the Speacker as an elistist That you even think in such terms is insulting At the introduction of the No Code Tech Fact: Novice was the lowest class requiring one written and one code test. Fact: Tech was a "higher" license class requiring the Novice written & Tech written but not the Novice code and did not grant Novice privileges. Fact: To get Novice privileges, Techs had to pass the Novice code. What is insulting about that? It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement However I suspect you will be Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Not in the least. Those suffering from paranoia have no power to insult me regardless of their choice of words and attempts to do so. In addition, elitest is a qualitative judgement which I do not have to accept as fact. Bitch is totally inaccurate as I am a human being not a canine so again I do not have to accept it as fact. On the other hand, as licenses are defined by the FCC, Novice is a lower class license that Tech. Tech is a lower class license than General and so on. I did not create the classes or the definitions. Since I have chosen to be a licensed amateur, I must abide by the FCC's definitions. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message cut And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs There were no insulting phrases or words in my post. It would take a degree of paranoia to so construe it. how do you expect to be an effective elmer if you can't reconize that you are being rude Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut Dave K8MN And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by showing the Speacker as an elistist That you even think in such terms is insulting At the introduction of the No Code Tech Fact: Novice was the lowest class requiring one written and one code test. Fact: Tech was a "higher" license class requiring the Novice written & Tech written but not the Novice code and did not grant Novice privileges. Fact: To get Novice privileges, Techs had to pass the Novice code. What is insulting about that? It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement However I suspect you will be Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Not in the least. Those suffering from paranoia have no power to insult me Indeed another MD amoug us regardless of their choice of words and attempts to do so. In addition, elitest is a qualitative judgement which I do not have to accept as fact. wether you accept it or not it is clearly a fact Bitch is totally inaccurate as I am a human being not a canine so again I do not have to accept it as fact. ah yes the ability to see only the difinition you want to see but none of your ranting changes the fact you are an elitist bitch On the other hand, as licenses are defined by the FCC, Novice is a lower class license that Tech. Tech is a lower class license than General and so on. I did not create the classes or the definitions. Since I have chosen to be a licensed amateur, I must abide by the FCC's definitions. but you choose to be insulting by pointing things out in those terms Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs There were no insulting phrases or words in my post. It would take a degree of paranoia to so construe it. certianly were insulting phrases Lowest classes It is not my fault that the language has been so perverted that use of the word class is not PC. Class simply means category. There really aren't good synonyms to use to describe the relative ranks of licenses other than higher or lower. However I could use class instead of category but I don't feel like bowing to the pressures of those who are trying to mangle our language and force their vision of politically correct speach on the rest of us. When will category become politically incorrect. It never ends. that you think in those terms shows you an elitest To me, class is synonymous with category. Therefore there is no insult and no elitism. Like I said "It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement " "However I suspect you will be " As stated, you haven't the power to insult me. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message oups.com... cut And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs There were no insulting phrases or words in my post. It would take a degree of paranoia to so construe it. certianly were insulting phrases Lowest classes It is not my fault that the language has been so perverted that use of the word class is not PC. Class simply means category. There really aren't good synonyms to use to describe the relative ranks of licenses other than higher or lower. However I could use class instead of category but I don't feel like bowing to the pressures of those who are trying to mangle our language and force their vision of politically correct speach on the rest of us. When will category become politically incorrect. It never ends. that you can't see it can be considered insulting shows yu as something undesirable that you think in those terms shows you an elitest To me, class is synonymous with category. Therefore there is no insult and no elitism. and now you demand that I accept that langauge in the way you want more proof of your elistism I call you elitist not just becuase of "lowest class" but you general manner such as your assumtion that the upgrading will need your help becuase they will be generals and you are an Extra You are an elitist You BTW don't get to decode wether you are being insulting. the reader does that you try to inist you van is more evidence of your arogance and elitism Like I said "It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement " "However I suspect you will be " As stated, you haven't the power to insult me. you stated it but I don't believe you Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: "an Old friend" wrote in message groups.com... cut Dave K8MN And it wasn't considered an upgrade. It simply allowed them to have not only their own privileges but the privileges of the "lowest" license class. boy you must be popular when you talk to the techs you insult there licenses And how is factual data considered an insult? by showing the Speacker as an elistist That you even think in such terms is insulting At the introduction of the No Code Tech Fact: Novice was the lowest class requiring one written and one code test. Fact: Tech was a "higher" license class requiring the Novice written & Tech written but not the Novice code and did not grant Novice privileges. Fact: To get Novice privileges, Techs had to pass the Novice code. What is insulting about that? It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement However I suspect you will be Dee, there is no dealing with Mr. Morgan at the moment. He does not seem to be in control of his emotions or his mental faculties. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dee Flint wrote: cut What is insulting about that? It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement However I suspect you will be Dee, there is no dealing with Mr. Morgan at the moment. He does not seem to be in control of his emotions or his mental faculties. another lie form you Dave 2 in fact One that it is ever hard to deal with me. it never is hard. two, that I am not in control of my emotions Dave K8MN |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dee Flint wrote: cut What is insulting about that? It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement However I suspect you will be Dee, there is no dealing with Mr. Morgan at the moment. He does not seem to be in control of his emotions or his mental faculties. another lie form you Dave 2 in fact One that it is ever hard to deal with me. it never is hard. You just called a woman an elitist bitch for posting an accurate statement. Not hard to deal with you? two, that I am not in control of my emotions You are not in control of your emotions. Your quest for victimhood knows no bounds. Dave K8MN |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message cut And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs There were no insulting phrases or words in my post. It would take a degree of paranoia to so construe it. how do you expect to be an effective elmer if you can't reconize that you are being rude Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And how can one be a successful student if they misinterpret plain language? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ink.net... an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dee Flint wrote: cut What is insulting about that? It is a fact that I have come to consider you an Elist Bitch, given the factual nature of that statement and BYS you shoud not be insulted by the statement However I suspect you will be Dee, there is no dealing with Mr. Morgan at the moment. He does not seem to be in control of his emotions or his mental faculties. another lie form you Dave 2 in fact One that it is ever hard to deal with me. it never is hard. You just called a woman an elitist bitch for posting an accurate statement. Not hard to deal with you? two, that I am not in control of my emotions You are not in control of your emotions. Your quest for victimhood knows no bounds. Dave K8MN Don't bother to fight him on my behalf. It won't work anyway. Anyone can read his statements and my statements for themselves and make their own decision. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.w...efe5705925 c9 your thread with an admitted stripper Dave Heil wrote: You're dumber than a stump. The text found at the url you provided: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Heil Feb 29 2004, 1:06 pm Newsgroups: alt.west-virginia From: Dave Heil - Find messages by this author Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:06:08 GMT Local: Sun, Feb 29 2004 1:06 pm Subject: i got a job stripping WV Female wrote: i ride them poles like theres no tomorrow...lol... ok.. ok.. im made it all up.. sounded good tho.. lol.. Linda, Have you considered easing up on the caffeine? Where've you been? Dave near Cameron ------------------------------------------------------------------ So, 1) no stripper and 2) no flirt on my part. Mark, you are a complete twit and a fabricator. not at all look at it and I quote "i got a job stripping" as the title seems clear enough to me Dave K8MN |
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.w...efe5705925 c9 your thread with an admitted stripper Dave Heil wrote: You're dumber than a stump. The text found at the url you provided: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Heil Feb 29 2004, 1:06 pm Newsgroups: alt.west-virginia From: Dave Heil - Find messages by this author Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:06:08 GMT Local: Sun, Feb 29 2004 1:06 pm Subject: i got a job stripping WV Female wrote: i ride them poles like theres no tomorrow...lol... ok.. ok.. im made it all up.. sounded good tho.. lol.. Linda, Have you considered easing up on the caffeine? Where've you been? Dave near Cameron ------------------------------------------------------------------ So, 1) no stripper and 2) no flirt on my part. Mark, you are a complete twit and a fabricator. not at all look at it and I quote "i got a job stripping" as the title seems clear enough to me Sure, it seems clear to you. Now let's talk about how it looks to a rational human being. What does the body of the message state? Where are the flirtaceous comments I'm supposed to have made? Give up? They don't exist. What you've done is fabricate falsehoods, deliberately and maliciously. You are simply lying scum. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.w...efe5705925 c9 your thread with an admitted stripper Dave Heil wrote: You're dumber than a stump. The text found at the url you provided: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Heil Feb 29 2004, 1:06 pm Newsgroups: alt.west-virginia From: Dave Heil - Find messages by this author Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:06:08 GMT Local: Sun, Feb 29 2004 1:06 pm Subject: i got a job stripping WV Female wrote: i ride them poles like theres no tomorrow...lol... ok.. ok.. im made it all up.. sounded good tho.. lol.. Linda, Have you considered easing up on the caffeine? Where've you been? Dave near Cameron ------------------------------------------------------------------ So, 1) no stripper and 2) no flirt on my part. Mark, you are a complete twit and a fabricator. not at all look at it and I quote "i got a job stripping" as the title seems clear enough to me Sure, it seems clear to you. Now let's talk about how it looks to a rational human being. What does the body of the message state? Where are the flirtaceous comments I'm supposed to have made? Give up? They don't exist. the flirts were there esp when combined with other posts I have cited in the past why is this such an issue for you? What you've done is fabricate falsehoods, deliberately and maliciously. You are simply lying scum. No I simply the text and see what I see I was simply mentioning what I found when I made my google search as told me to do No malice there then you demanded I back em up and I did so You are unbalanced and apearntly filled with rage over posts by a person that you claim nobody belives or take seriously Dave K8MN |
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.w...efe5705925 c9 your thread with an admitted stripper Dave Heil wrote: You're dumber than a stump. The text found at the url you provided: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Heil Feb 29 2004, 1:06 pm Newsgroups: alt.west-virginia From: Dave Heil - Find messages by this author Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 13:06:08 GMT Local: Sun, Feb 29 2004 1:06 pm Subject: i got a job stripping WV Female wrote: i ride them poles like theres no tomorrow...lol... ok.. ok.. im made it all up.. sounded good tho.. lol.. Linda, Have you considered easing up on the caffeine? Where've you been? Dave near Cameron ------------------------------------------------------------------ So, 1) no stripper and 2) no flirt on my part. Mark, you are a complete twit and a fabricator. not at all look at it and I quote "i got a job stripping" as the title seems clear enough to me Sure, it seems clear to you. Now let's talk about how it looks to a rational human being. What does the body of the message state? Where are the flirtaceous comments I'm supposed to have made? Give up? They don't exist. the flirts were there esp when combined with other posts I have cited in the past Not true. That too is a fabrication. why is this such an issue for you? I suppose because you are a lying little SOB posting malicious falsehoods. What you've done is fabricate falsehoods, deliberately and maliciously. You are simply lying scum. No I simply the text and see what I see Yeah, you "simply the text" all right. Perhaps you should have your vision checked. You fabricated. I was simply mentioning what I found when I made my google search as told me to do ....except that what you said you found turned out not to exist. No malice there There certainly was malice. You were corrected and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continued the lies. then you demanded I back em up and I did so You backed up nothing and shredded what was left of your credibility. "My credibilty in this NG not important. I never claim to make point based on requiring that I be seen as honest here sso why should it bother me?" -- Mark Morgan June, 29, 2000 Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut Sure, it seems clear to you. Now let's talk about how it looks to a rational human being. What does the body of the message state? Where are the flirtaceous comments I'm supposed to have made? Give up? They don't exist. the flirts were there esp when combined with other posts I have cited in the past Not true. That too is a fabrication. not as I saw it and continue to see it simply disgreeing with is not lying Dave why is this such an issue for you? I suppose because you are a lying little SOB posting malicious falsehoods. Not lying and even if I am an SoB it is rude of you to call my mother a bitch having never met her No flasehood no malicious one Just calling your posts as I see em What you've done is fabricate falsehoods, deliberately and maliciously. You are simply lying scum. No I simply the text and see what I see Yeah, you "simply the text" all right. Perhaps you should have your vision checked. You fabricated. Not at all I was simply mentioning what I found when I made my google search as told me to do ...except that what you said you found turned out not to exist. Seems to to my reading No malice there There certainly was malice. You were corrected and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continued the lies. more lies on your part No malice no proof of anything but you are so senitive about it that you are convining that you may have even had an affair with this woman then you demanded I back em up and I did so You backed up nothing and shredded what was left of your credibility. immpossible you cliamed I had none before therefore your statement that I shredded any was a lie or you previous statement was "My credibilty in this NG not important. I never claim to make point based on requiring that I be seen as honest here sso why should it bother me?" -- Mark Morgan June, 29, 2000 so? This NG is pretty unimortant to me I have said so many time in many ways why are you so frighten of what I say? Dave K8MN |
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut Sure, it seems clear to you. Now let's talk about how it looks to a rational human being. What does the body of the message state? Where are the flirtaceous comments I'm supposed to have made? Give up? They don't exist. the flirts were there esp when combined with other posts I have cited in the past Not true. That too is a fabrication. not as I saw it and continue to see it simply disgreeing with is not lying Dave No it isn't. You aren't simply disagreeing. You posted deliberate falsehoods and now you are lying on top of your initial lies. Then again, you're an admitted liar. why is this such an issue for you? I suppose because you are a lying little SOB posting malicious falsehoods. Not lying... Yes, you have lied and you continue to do so. ...and even if I am an SoB it is rude of you to call my mother a bitch having never met her I guess you'll have to learn to live with that pain. You're not just any SOB, you're a lying little SOB. No flasehood no malicious one Just calling your posts as I see em It is most interesting that you rant and rail at others as you call them all "lier", but that you deny, over and over, your own untruths, even in the face of easily obtainable proof. What you've done is fabricate falsehoods, deliberately and maliciously. You are simply lying scum. No I simply the text and see what I see Yeah, you "simply the text" all right. Perhaps you should have your vision checked. You fabricated. Not at all Yes, all. I was simply mentioning what I found when I made my google search as told me to do ...except that what you said you found turned out not to exist. Seems to to my reading Then again, you're dyslexic. No malice there There certainly was malice. You were corrected and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continued the lies. more lies on your part See what I mean? You call others liars when the truth is evident. You aren't wrapped too tight. No malice no proof of anything but you are so senitive about it that you are convining that you may have even had an affair with this woman I'm convining? How does one convine? Well, Lieutenant/Colonel Morgan, you're about as goofy as they come. then you demanded I back em up and I did so You backed up nothing and shredded what was left of your credibility. immpossible you cliamed I had none before Great. Google it up. therefore your statement that I shredded any was a lie or you previous statement was Naw, Mark, you're lying again, just to keep in practice. "My credibilty in this NG not important. I never claim to make point based on requiring that I be seen as honest here sso why should it bother me?" -- Mark Morgan June, 29, 2000 so? "So?" That's the best you can do? "So?" It is bad enough for you to be dishonest. You take it to a new level, trumpeting it from the rooftops. This NG is pretty unimortant to me I have said so many time in many ways ....yet you find it important enough to show up on a regular basis these days. why are you so frighten of what I say? Frightened? You must have come to a faulty conclusion, Colonel. I have no fear at all of you. You're a perverse individual, lacking in redeeming qualities. I see you as pitiful. In one night, you've threatened death to an individual and you've called a very nice woman an elitist bitch. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote:
an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut the flirts were there esp when combined with other posts I have cited in the past Not true. That too is a fabrication. not as I saw it and continue to see it simply disgreeing with is not lying Dave No it isn't. You aren't simply disagreeing. You posted deliberate falsehoods and now you are lying on top of your initial lies. Then again, you're an admitted liar. No I am simply reading em the way I see em No falsehood at all why are you so threatened by that? cut No flasehood no malicious one Just calling your posts as I see em It is most interesting that you rant and rail at others as you call them all "lier", but that you deny, over and over, your own untruths, even in the face of easily obtainable proof. If there was unturth id be prepared to admit it from where I am siting you wer exchanging a number of flirtaous pots with a Bisexual female o a Hg mostly of peronal ads cut ...except that what you said you found turned out not to exist. Seems to to my reading Then again, you're dyslexic. yes I am your point? No malice there There certainly was malice. You were corrected and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continued the lies. more lies on your part See what I mean? You call others liars when the truth is evident. You aren't wrapped too tight. no I don't see what you mean the turth is I see your post as flirtaous that is a fact that you can call them something else in your mind has nothing to do with that fact No malice no proof of anything but you are so senitive about it that you are convining that you may have even had an affair with this woman I'm convining? How does one convine? Well, Lieutenant/Colonel Morgan, you're about as goofy as they come. by protesting your inocence of such a trival matter so violently then you demanded I back em up and I did so You backed up nothing and shredded what was left of your credibility. immpossible you cliamed I had none before Great. Google it up. already done therefore your statement that I shredded any was a lie or you previous statement was Naw, Mark, you're lying again, just to keep in practice. no need for that Dave "My credibilty in this NG not important. I never claim to make point based on requiring that I be seen as honest here sso why should it bother me?" -- Mark Morgan June, 29, 2000 so? "So?" That's the best you can do? "So?" It is bad enough for you to be dishonest. You take it to a new level, trumpeting it from the rooftops. It isn't bad at all as far as Im concerned I don't owe you turth esp when you don't deliver it in reuturn so is the answer You and Stevie keep projecting your values are you so stupid you can't understand I don't accept them? This NG is pretty unimortant to me I have said so many time in many ways ...yet you find it important enough to show up on a regular basis these days. It kills times why are you so frighten of what I say? Frightened? You must have come to a faulty conclusion, Colonel. I have no fear at all of you. You're a perverse individual, lacking in redeeming qualities. I see you as pitiful. Then why are you concerned about my posts? In one night, you've threatened death to an individual and you've called a very nice woman an elitist bitch. Done neither Dave K8MN |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message cut And how is factual data considered an insult? by being presented in an insluting manner you address someone in insulting terms at some of them will be insulted you have insulted the Novices and the various types of techs There were no insulting phrases or words in my post. It would take a degree of paranoia to so construe it. how do you expect to be an effective elmer if you can't reconize that you are being rude Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And how can one be a successful student if they misinterpret plain language? making your meaning clear is your job as the elmer,at least by the standards you were trying to ram down my throat a few weeks ago. you are the pone comunicating so it is your job to be clear But in answer to your question it is certainly possible for any competant intructor to over come misunderstanding and still You elitist bitch the question stands, "how do you expect to be an effective elmer if you can't reconize that you are being rude?" your manner is insulting in your posts you come off as a snob, at best you are evasive, rude and lazy and always ready to tell another what they should be doing How can anyone call anything but an elitist bitch and be honest? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Believe what you wish. However, my students have a near 100% pass rate on both theory and code on their first try. I refuse to spar with some one who chooses to act like an idiot so I will respond to no more of your posts until you regain your equilibrium. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote in message ink.net... cut Dave K8MN Don't bother to fight him on my behalf. It won't work anyway. Anyone can read his statements and my statements for themselves and make their own decision. don't flatter yourself Dave is not fighting on YOUR behalf is just fighting becuase likes to fight Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
an Old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut the flirts were there esp when combined with other posts I have cited in the past Not true. That too is a fabrication. not as I saw it and continue to see it simply disgreeing with is not lying Dave No it isn't. You aren't simply disagreeing. You posted deliberate falsehoods and now you are lying on top of your initial lies. Then again, you're an admitted liar. No I am simply reading em the way I see em No falsehood at all why are you so threatened by that? You keep using the term "threatened". I don't feel threatened, Mark. You have manufactured stories. You have been called on them. Irrefutable proof that your stories are fabrications has been introduced. You continue to lie. cut No flasehood no malicious one Just calling your posts as I see em It is most interesting that you rant and rail at others as you call them all "lier", but that you deny, over and over, your own untruths, even in the face of easily obtainable proof. If there was unturth id be prepared to admit it According to your own rules, you'd be prepared to tell further lies. from where I am siting you wer exchanging a number of flirtaous pots with a Bisexual female o a Hg mostly of peronal ads ....and since you are aware of the untruth of your statement, anyone can see that you would like about anything at any time. cut ...except that what you said you found turned out not to exist. Seems to to my reading Then again, you're dyslexic. yes I am your point? Yes, you are my point. No malice there There certainly was malice. You were corrected and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continued the lies. more lies on your part See what I mean? You call others liars when the truth is evident. You aren't wrapped too tight. no I don't see what you mean the turth is I see your post as flirtaous that is a fact Actually it isn't a fact. It is simply another of your claims. Google archives show otherwise. that you can call them something else in your mind has nothing to do with that fact You aren't living in reality. No malice no proof of anything but you are so senitive about it that you are convining that you may have even had an affair with this woman I'm convining? How does one convine? Well, Lieutenant/Colonel Morgan, you're about as goofy as they come. by protesting your inocence of such a trival matter so violently Oh? That's "convining", is it? I'm not doing anything "so violently". I've presented concrete evidence that what you have claimed is a fabrication. I've done that consistently, not violently. then you demanded I back em up and I did so You backed up nothing and shredded what was left of your credibility. immpossible you cliamed I had none before Great. Google it up. already done It is? Where, pray tell, did you post it? therefore your statement that I shredded any was a lie or you previous statement was Naw, Mark, you're lying again, just to keep in practice. no need for that Dave The record of your lying shows that you need improvement. "My credibilty in this NG not important. I never claim to make point based on requiring that I be seen as honest here sso why should it bother me?" -- Mark Morgan June, 29, 2000 so? "So?" That's the best you can do? "So?" It is bad enough for you to be dishonest. You take it to a new level, trumpeting it from the rooftops. It isn't bad at all as far as Im concerned I don't owe you turth esp when you don't deliver it in reuturn You'd first have to be able to recognize truth. You can't. so is the answer What is the question? You and Stevie keep projecting your values are you so stupid you can't understand I don't accept them? Anyone can understand that you don't accept many values. Not everyone subscribes to the idea that you can manufacture any story you'd like, whether true or not. This NG is pretty unimortant to me I have said so many time in many ways ...yet you find it important enough to show up on a regular basis these days. It kills times So does watching paint dry. why are you so frighten of what I say? Frightened? You must have come to a faulty conclusion, Colonel. I have no fear at all of you. You're a perverse individual, lacking in redeeming qualities. I see you as pitiful. Then why are you concerned about my posts? Why am I concerned? Because you've manufactured outright and deliberate lies about me, that's why. You seem to feel that you have complete liberty to do so. In one night, you've threatened death to an individual and you've called a very nice woman an elitist bitch. Done neither You've done both, but you have to continue lying. It is your nature. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: an Old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut not as I saw it and continue to see it simply disgreeing with is not lying Dave No it isn't. You aren't simply disagreeing. You posted deliberate falsehoods and now you are lying on top of your initial lies. Then again, you're an admitted liar. No I am simply reading em the way I see em No falsehood at all why are you so threatened by that? You keep using the term "threatened". I don't feel threatened, Mark. You have manufactured stories. You have been called on them. Irrefutable proof that your stories are fabrications has been introduced. You continue to lie. I use the term threatened for want of a better term I have not manfucatured stories I have reported on my reading of what I found when I did the search you inistsed I do Indeed I still don't understand your beef nothing wrong with flirting with her and yet you are in what looks like a rage over the suggestion cut No flasehood no malicious one Just calling your posts as I see em It is most interesting that you rant and rail at others as you call them all "lier", but that you deny, over and over, your own untruths, even in the face of easily obtainable proof. If there was unturth id be prepared to admit it According to your own rules, you'd be prepared to tell further lies. Yes indeed if I felt threatened nothing realy threatening her no reason to lie from where I am siting you wer exchanging a number of flirtaous pots with a Bisexual female o a Hg mostly of peronal ads ...and since you are aware of the untruth of your statement, anyone can see that you would like about anything at any time. I am aware of truth of that statement she is Bisexual by her own words and you were flirting with her over what looks like a period of some weeks cut No malice there There certainly was malice. You were corrected and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continued the lies. more lies on your part See what I mean? You call others liars when the truth is evident. You aren't wrapped too tight. no I don't see what you mean the turth is I see your post as flirtaous that is a fact Actually it isn't a fact. It is simply another of your claims. Google archives show otherwise. Google archives can't show any such thing It is a fact that I see your posting as flirtaous\ wether any one else does is another matter, but does not affect the FACT I see them as such More proof of your lack of conection to reality that you can call them something else in your mind has nothing to do with that fact You aren't living in reality. I certainly am, you OTOH don't seem to be cut down on the BS "My credibilty in this NG not important. I never claim to make point based on requiring that I be seen as honest here sso why should it bother me?" -- Mark Morgan June, 29, 2000 so? "So?" That's the best you can do? "So?" It is bad enough for you to be dishonest. You take it to a new level, trumpeting it from the rooftops. It isn't bad at all as far as Im concerned I don't owe you turth esp when you don't deliver it in reuturn You'd first have to be able to recognize truth. You can't. I certainly you can't reconize turth from lies your opinions from facts or that simple facts that not everyone has to see the same thing the same wya you do Grow up and stop your little temper tantruam, if you can so is the answer What is the question? You and Stevie keep projecting your values are you so stupid you can't understand I don't accept them? Anyone can understand that you don't accept many values. Not everyone subscribes to the idea that you can manufacture any story you'd like, whether true or not. More Davie fabrications, more lies My values are simply different than your This NG is pretty unimortant to me I have said so many time in many ways ...yet you find it important enough to show up on a regular basis these days. It kills times So does watching paint dry. But this is much more fun as another poster (in a thread not so far away) put it, like the morbid fasination of watching a slow motion train wreck or something like that why are you so frighten of what I say? Frightened? You must have come to a faulty conclusion, Colonel. I have no fear at all of you. You're a perverse individual, lacking in redeeming qualities. I see you as pitiful. Then why are you concerned about my posts? Why am I concerned? Because you've manufactured outright and deliberate lies about me, that's why. You seem to feel that you have complete liberty to do so. One I have manufactured nothing. I have formed an opinion you disgree with. Two, in point of fact, if I CHOOSE I have complete liberty to do so, just as you have (and exercise) the complete liberty to manufacture lies about me my beliefs, my very existance In one night, you've threatened death to an individual and you've called a very nice woman an elitist bitch. Done neither You've done both, but you have to continue lying. It is your nature. I have done neither Stevie was merely reminded again that is to stay away from me or face the results, and I have called a not nice woman an elitist bitch, a label I point out she does not object too No lie no continuing what wasn't started grow up show a bit of class Dave K8MN |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an Old friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: cut not as I saw it and continue to see it simply disgreeing with is not lying Dave No it isn't. You aren't simply disagreeing. You posted deliberate falsehoods and now you are lying on top of your initial lies. Then again, you're an admitted liar. No I am simply reading em the way I see em No falsehood at all why are you so threatened by that? You keep using the term "threatened". I don't feel threatened, Mark. You have manufactured stories. You have been called on them. Irrefutable proof that your stories are fabrications has been introduced. You continue to lie. I use the term threatened for want of a better term There are plenty of words which could be used to describe the way I feel. "Threatened" is not among them. I have not manfucatured stories I have reported on my reading of what I found when I did the search you inistsed I do Your new word "manfucatured" is pretty descriptive but I'll stick with "manufactured", "false" or "fabricated". Those words are apt descriptions of your dishonest and untruthful actions. Indeed I still don't understand your beef nothing wrong with flirting with her and yet you are in what looks like a rage over the suggestion Rage? I'm not in a rage at all, Mark. I'm insistent that you have written deliberate and malicious falsehoods. There are no shades of gray here. There is nothing open to interpretation. There are just lies told by you. cut No flasehood no malicious one Just calling your posts as I see em It is most interesting that you rant and rail at others as you call them all "lier", but that you deny, over and over, your own untruths, even in the face of easily obtainable proof. If there was unturth id be prepared to admit it According to your own rules, you'd be prepared to tell further lies. Yes indeed if I felt threatened nothing realy threatening her no reason to lie It is quite apparent from viewing your past posts to this newsgroup, you don't need a reason to lie. You simply lie. from where I am siting you wer exchanging a number of flirtaous pots with a Bisexual female o a Hg mostly of peronal ads ...and since you are aware of the untruth of your statement, anyone can see that you would like about anything at any time. I am aware of truth of that statement she is Bisexual by her own words... Sorry, that is a lie. and you were flirting with her over what looks like a period of some weeks Sorry, that is another lie. cut No malice there There certainly was malice. You were corrected and even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you continued the lies. more lies on your part See what I mean? You call others liars when the truth is evident. You aren't wrapped too tight. no I don't see what you mean the turth is I see your post as flirtaous that is a fact Actually it isn't a fact. It is simply another of your claims. Google archives show otherwise. Google archives can't show any such thing Yes, Mark, the archives do show what was said and by whom. The facts are quite different than your claims. It is a fact that I see your posting as flirtaous\ You see yourself as a victim. You see Dee as an elitist bitch. That doesn't mean that those things are true. It only means that your point of view is skewed. wether any one else does is another matter, but does not affect the FACT I see them as such Huh-uh, Mark. A fact would be that you *say* you see them as such--but you're a known liar. More proof of your lack of conection to reality I don't think you are anyone I'd want to ask about reality. that you can call them something else in your mind has nothing to do with that fact You aren't living in reality. I certainly am, you OTOH don't seem to be cut down on the BS I'm cutting down some BS right now--your own. "My credibilty in this NG not important. I never claim to make point based on requiring that I be seen as honest here sso why should it bother me?" -- Mark Morgan June, 29, 2000 so? "So?" That's the best you can do? "So?" It is bad enough for you to be dishonest. You take it to a new level, trumpeting it from the rooftops. It isn't bad at all as far as Im concerned I don't owe you turth esp when you don't deliver it in reuturn You'd first have to be able to recognize truth. You can't. I certainly you can't reconize turth from lies your opinions from facts or that simple facts that not everyone has to see the same thing the same wya you do Mark, I know you've been told this before, but it bears repeating. You are a twit. Grow up and stop your little temper tantruam, if you can so is the answer What is the question? You and Stevie keep projecting your values are you so stupid you can't understand I don't accept them? Anyone can understand that you don't accept many values. Not everyone subscribes to the idea that you can manufacture any story you'd like, whether true or not. More Davie fabrications, more lies Please point out the fabrications or lies in my statement. My values are simply different than your ....than my what? This NG is pretty unimortant to me I have said so many time in many ways ...yet you find it important enough to show up on a regular basis these days. It kills times So does watching paint dry. But this is much more fun as another poster (in a thread not so far away) put it, like the morbid fasination of watching a slow motion train wreck or something like that ....only you're on the train. why are you so frighten of what I say? Frightened? You must have come to a faulty conclusion, Colonel. I have no fear at all of you. You're a perverse individual, lacking in redeeming qualities. I see you as pitiful. Then why are you concerned about my posts? Why am I concerned? Because you've manufactured outright and deliberate lies about me, that's why. You seem to feel that you have complete liberty to do so. One I have manufactured nothing. I have formed an opinion you disgree with. No, you have spread deliberate lies. You are a stranger to the truth. Two, in point of fact, if I CHOOSE I have complete liberty to do so, just as you have (and exercise) the complete liberty to manufacture lies about me my beliefs, my very existance You may choose to fabricate and lie regarding your very existence. You have no right to do so about my existence. If you choose to lie and you are found out, you must pay the consequences for your actions. That is personal responsibility. In one night, you've threatened death to an individual and you've called a very nice woman an elitist bitch. Done neither You've done both, but you have to continue lying. It is your nature. I have done neither I have to insist. You've done both and on more than one occasion. Stevie was merely reminded again that is to stay away from me or face the results... The results? You threatened to kill him with a gun. The words you used exist. You can't deny them. and I have called a not nice woman an elitist bitch, a label I point out she does not object too I have never observed Dee to be other than pleasant. In her recent dealings with you, you have tested her. She has still not stooped to your level. You have no way to know if she objects to being called such a name by you. No lie no continuing what wasn't started That's right but you are continuing and you did those things initially. grow up show a bit of class Who would tell you if something were classy or not? Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com