K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

What you are "getting through to (me)" is this:

(1) That you're a pathological liar that can't tell the truth
since it will disrupt your rants in this newsgroup. What a petty
excuse for not telling the truth.

Nope it doesn't dispurt my message at all

"dispurt"

Sure it does.

Telling lies that are so transparent ALWAYS disrupt the flow of
information.

then why do you lie so badly


and yet dispite this your message of hate come through, and my message
of hope for the future even if a dim hope come through

more medical judgements made impoperly

No medical judegements made here, Markie.

sure was gues you forgot this "That you're a pathological liar" that is
a medical judgement

more stevie lies


(2) You exhibit significant paranoid behaviour. Your constant
rants of "stalking", "bully" and "attempting to kill me" are classic.
Wrap this up in your "I am a victim" personna and you have some pretty
lame stories.

get it right

Threatening to kill

you can't even tell your lies straight

Regardless of how you try and twist it, Markie, it's still
paranoia.

Not at all

Making a threat is making a threat stevie


(3) You probably are a fairly intelligent person, but you INSIST
on LOOKING like an idiot. Your excuses as to why you can't manage to
spell check your posts are transparent, baseless and are in direct
opposition to OTHER posts you've made about what great resources you
have at your disposal. Again...More stories that your OWN words
unravel.

I don't waste resources which Is why I have suffiecent resources

Obvioulsy you do NOT have "suffiecent resources".

more lies


Much of what you need is either freeware or very inexpensive
software.

no free ware is going to interface with google this way

and as I said it would be waste of time and effort


You claim to be some sort of "professional" with "pool of typists"
at your disposal, but then you claim you can't afford less than $50
worth of software.

more lies Stevie

I hire typists for my professional work (I bill those hours to the
clientas per contract)

I never claimed I can't afford the software that just it would be waste
of time and money

You can't tell the truth about much of anything


The lie is transparent.

your lie is indeed if someonethrows some light on it


but here they would be wasted

No they wouldn't.

sure would

Even in a post with nothing spelled wrong my post to the FCC you can't
manage to say anything on point

The problem is you didn't! Your post was rife with spelling
errors!

Not a one or if it was then having used spelling check software on it
first before cuting and pasting ti the NG your claim that spelling
check software would help was a lie


The third paragraph was full of typos, and the grammatical
structure looked as though it was fired from a shotgun.

not a mispelled word
and there you go proving the effort would be wasted on the NG

cut wasted BW
Your spelling HAS been getting better...Now if we can just funnel
it into more coherent sentences based on some truth, you'll be well on
your way to getting better as a human being.

you are the liar

I am...?!?!

Your spelling's not getting any better?
nope

nor any worse
it come and goes with the weather and the seasons and how good or bad a
day I am having

to string words together with Crazy Glue.


Steve, K4YZ

Dee Flint wrote:

Nope but it isn't worth my time to compose if people aren't going to bother
reading it. If I'm not going to take the time to do it reasonably well, I'm
not going to bother at all.

Well it is your choice but frankly I skip any message that takes extra
effort to decipher. I keep my spell checker and grammar checker turned
on
at all times despite the fact that I received straight A's throughout
elementary school, high school, and college in all the English classes
(and
related classes) that I took. Even with these aids turned on, I take
time
to look through my message and make sure that it is as clear as possible.
I
want people to read what I've written. Otherwise why bother to write
anything?

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

--

An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Nope but it isn't worth my time to compose if people aren't going to bother
reading it. If I'm not going to take the time to do it reasonably well, I'm
not going to bother at all.

Well it is your choice but frankly I skip any message that takes extra
effort to decipher. I keep my spell checker and grammar checker turned
on
at all times despite the fact that I received straight A's throughout
elementary school, high school, and college in all the English classes
(and
related classes) that I took. Even with these aids turned on, I take
time
to look through my message and make sure that it is as clear as possible.
I
want people to read what I've written. Otherwise why bother to write
anything?

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

When are you going to start writng clearly yourself?


This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

Ok


--

An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

One you you try analogy that is valid

you could also be man enough to say what you mean

For example to addmto your analogy

It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so
impossible to understand

It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem

and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice

and of course Ham operators are so accepting


73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY:

I think I am in agreement with you, if a man is doing the best he can to
express ideas he finds important, somehow I do feel an obligation to see
if I can't understand the idea(s), but not necessarily agree with
that/those idea(s)...

John

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:25:12 -0700, N2EY wrote:


Dee Flint wrote:

Nope but it isn't worth my time to compose if people aren't going to bother
reading it. If I'm not going to take the time to do it reasonably well, I'm
not going to bother at all.

Well it is your choice but frankly I skip any message that takes extra
effort to decipher. I keep my spell checker and grammar checker turned
on
at all times despite the fact that I received straight A's throughout
elementary school, high school, and college in all the English classes
(and
related classes) that I took. Even with these aids turned on, I take
time
to look through my message and make sure that it is as clear as possible.
I
want people to read what I've written. Otherwise why bother to write
anything?

I agree 100% with Dee's ideas expressed above. If something is worth
writing, it's worth writing clearly.

This doesn't mean we're all Shakespeares. It does mean we can at least
do what we can to use correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and
capitalization.

--

An analogy:

Suppose there are a group of hams who regularly QSO on VHF or UHF FM.
Although they use different rigs, all have signals with "good audio" -
clean, crisp, clear, easy to listen to and understand.

Then a newcomer shows up, with a signal that has really poor audio.
Muffled, distorted, very unclear. Not weak, off-frequency or
over-deviating,
just not clear. Varies from 'requires a careful listen' to 'completely
impossible to understand'.

Fortunately it is discovered that the problem lies in the microphone
being used by the newcomer. It's the original that came with the rig,
which is no longer made. Nothing wrong with the rig itself, it's the
mike which is the problem.

But the newcomer refuses to replace the microphone. Says it's too much
trouble, costs too much money, and a new mike wouldn't be as easy to
use as the old one. Plus he doesn't think his audio is all that bad in
the first place.

Newcomer finally says that if the group can't understand him, it's
*their* problem, not his, and he shouldn't be expected to spend money,
time and effort to get a new microphone for his rig.

How should the group respond?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:33:50 -0700 John Smith wrote:

| I think I am in agreement with you, if a man is doing the best he can to
| express ideas he finds important, somehow I do feel an obligation to see
| if I can't understand the idea(s), but not necessarily agree with
| that/those idea(s)...

I would also agree. Being open minded does not necesarily mean becoming
closed minded as soon as any first idea comes along.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote

Your little joke wasn't funny.

It wasn't a joke, and it wasn't meant to be funny.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

[snip]

It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem

and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice

and of course Ham operators are so accepting


73 de Jim, N2EY


Actually we have a ham right here in our area who does have a voice problem
due to cancer, throat surgery, and artificial voice box. He goes the extra
steps to make sure that his mike characteristics are the best possible so as
to minimize adding distortion. He makes sure his deviation and modulation
are set so as to minimize any additional distortion. The result is that he
is perfectly understandable even though his voice is now harsh and grating
with some distortion from his medical condition. We can all tell that he
has his radio & mike as perfectly adjusted as it is possible to be.
Naturally we talk to him. So the analogy still holds up since his mike and
radio adjustments would be similar to using a spell checker/grammar checker
in the written word.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote

But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more
important than your message?

In defense of Mark......

On several ocassions here he has noted that his interface to rrap is via Google.
Google doesn't provide a spell checking service. Get out of his case already!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

Your little joke wasn't funny.

It wasn't a joke, and it wasn't meant to be funny.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

And so it wasn't.

You might want to take emcomms a little more seriously.

I could be wrong, but if you are running windows, if in "Internet
Explorer", in the "address window" (NOT a search window) you enter
"news.excelonline.com" (WITHOUT the quotes)--windows will popup outlook
and you can join this FREE news server, it allows you to post to
newsgroups also... beats google groups or following threads on webpages...

John

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:47:43 +0000, KØHB wrote:


"Dee Flint" wrote

But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more
important than your message?

In defense of Mark......

On several ocassions here he has noted that his interface to rrap is via Google.
Google doesn't provide a spell checking service. Get out of his case already!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB