|
K0HB:
True, how very true... however, you neglected to mention those times when some other girl is "sick of our crap!" grin John On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:22:55 +0000, KØHB wrote: "Digital" wrote The prettier they are, the greater the rejection, eh, John? No matter how pretty they are, some other guy is sick of their crap. |
Jim your posts could be made A Lot easier to read, by simply geting to
your point in staed of going and and on about event starting in mnay case before i was born, and that you have related a number of times Why don't you post more clearly? simply becuase it does not suit YOUR style and wishes wrote: K=D8HB wrote: wrote 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. Your analogy is broken, Jim. Not at all, Hans. You snipped off the rest of the analogy, in which it is revealed that although there is a way to fix or at least improve the situation, the newcomer refuses to do anyhting about it. That's the central issue: the *refusal* to use an available tool to fix or at least improve a problem. The newcomers microphone is analogous to Marks computer keyboard, which works just fine. As you well know (unless you just fell off the turnip truck) the reason for Marks difficult-(sometimes impossible)-to-read posts is a medical condition. Allegedly. Mark has claimed a lot of things in the past that simply did not add up. Like claims of a 248 IQ... proving you don't know much about medical matters Perhaps his condition is real, perhaps it isn't. That's not the issue at all - the issue is what he does about it. He says the use of a spellchecker would slow him down too much and that we're not worth the effort. it would at least doueblt the amount of Time and the medium is not worth the effort. If you want to take saying that Medium is not worth the effort personaly you can of course I am not convinced the medium is worth the time I am spending Now let alone more Give your newcomer a medical problem (speech impediment?) and rewrite the story. How about a person with a speech problem who refuses to go to speech therapy, even though the cost is low and improvement is clearly possible? and Who are you know what is possible. Stevie at least has some exposure to medical matter although he clearly is off target Then we'll answer your question "How should the group respond?" =20 Who is "we"?=20 who is we indeed? =20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: cut dis dat Len, we could apply the null hypothesis. It could have been a disgruntled NCTA trying to make the PCTA look bad. But there's two problems with that hypothesis: sorry about mssing this one earlier a. The NCTA have nothing to be disgruntled about except a quarter century of arbitrary and unnecessary government regulation, and and right Now I can't see how NCTA can be disgruntled the only bothering me now is chopping at the bit wiating for it to be over Even my non Ham freinds have noticed the improvement in my often somewhat dower expression and dared asked me to explain that and I have have found myself breaking into song on the repeater stuff like that Stop right there. Even the slightest upturn at the corner of your mouth might be mistaken as gloating. way too late but I realy don't care, even at the club meeting with a fair number of code supporter there were gracious enough to ask me what I thought of NPRM, after first sugest ing everyone brace themsleves for my response which a loud "YES, Bout damn time!!" b. The PCTA make themselves look bad without any help. OTOH they do even better by just making em SEE happy folks They'll form support groups to try to cope. I hope so. think we should start a fund to help out? |
K=D8HB wrote: wrote That's the central issue: the *refusal* to use an available tool to fix or at least improve a problem. Aha! The "central issue"! He refuses to do what *you* think he ought to= do. He refuses to do something that would greatly help others understand him. He also says it's *their* problem, not his. He's told me what *I* should do, too. Sunnuvagun! I've not said Mark is lazy, or a liar, or a bad person, etc. My response is simply to not read much of what he writes. Sonofagun! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: cut dis dat Len, we could apply the null hypothesis. It could have been a disgruntled NCTA trying to make the PCTA look bad. But there's two problems with that hypothesis: sorry about mssing this one earlier You gotta look at both sides if you want to be known as being fair and balanced. a. The NCTA have nothing to be disgruntled about except a quarter century of arbitrary and unnecessary government regulation, and and right Now I can't see how NCTA can be disgruntled the only bothering me now is chopping at the bit wiating for it to be over Even my non Ham freinds have noticed the improvement in my often somewhat dower expression and dared asked me to explain that and I have have found myself breaking into song on the repeater stuff like that Stop right there. Even the slightest upturn at the corner of your mouth might be mistaken as gloating. way too late but I realy don't care, even at the club meeting with a fair number of code supporter there were gracious enough to ask me what I thought of NPRM, after first sugest ing everyone brace themsleves for my response which a loud "YES, Bout damn time!!" Was it tough getting the tar and feathers off? ;^) b. The PCTA make themselves look bad without any help. OTOH they do even better by just making em SEE happy folks They'll form support groups to try to cope. I hope so. think we should start a fund to help out? Compassionate No-Codism? I'm good with that. |
From: on Aug 18, 3:33 pm
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: cut dis dat Len, we could apply the null hypothesis. It could have been a disgruntled NCTA trying to make the PCTA look bad. But there's two problems with that hypothesis: sorry about mssing this one earlier You gotta look at both sides if you want to be known as being fair and balanced. Some of us DO but, when messaging to unbalanced, unfair folks, it is rather difficult... :-) a. The NCTA have nothing to be disgruntled about except a quarter century of arbitrary and unnecessary government regulation, and and right Now I can't see how NCTA can be disgruntled the only bothering me now is chopping at the bit wiating for it to be over Even my non Ham freinds have noticed the improvement in my often somewhat dower expression and dared asked me to explain that and I have have found myself breaking into song on the repeater stuff like that Stop right there. Even the slightest upturn at the corner of your mouth might be mistaken as gloating. [only the NCTA are allowed to gloat... :-) ] way too late but I realy don't care, even at the club meeting with a fair number of code supporter there were gracious enough to ask me what I thought of NPRM, after first sugest ing everyone brace themsleves for my response which a loud "YES, Bout damn time!!" Was it tough getting the tar and feathers off? ;^) :-) b. The PCTA make themselves look bad without any help. OTOH they do even better by just making em SEE happy folks They'll form support groups to try to cope. I hope so. think we should start a fund to help out? Compassionate No-Codism? I'm good with that. Heh heh. Expect the ARRL to get in on the act, maybe the "Pro-coder Compassion Supporter (or Truss?) Fund" or some title like that... On the ARRL's "poll" for 5 Aug 05 and an opinion on NPRM 05-143, of the 9,484 votes cast: 48.5% said it was a fine idea, 47.1% sait it was a terrible idea, and 4.4% had no particular opinion either way. Nah...let's just pick up the 2x4s and beat them over the head with the issue...just like they used to do it to no-coders in the last 50 years or so. I think they deserve it... :-) two for |
wrote in message Yawn |
an_old_friend wrote: Jim your posts could be made A Lot easier to read, by simply geting to your point in staed of going and and on about event starting in mnay case before i was born, and that you have related a number of times "getting" "instead" "many" Why don't you post more clearly? His posts are crystal clear to anyone with more than a fifth grade education. simply becuase it does not suit YOUR style and wishes So...it's your "suggestion" that Jim lobotomize himself just so YOU can understand him a bit better...?!?! Somehow I don't see that happening! wrote: K=D8HB wrote: wrote Allegedly. Mark has claimed a lot of things in the past that simply did not add up. Like claims of a 248 IQ... proving you don't know much about medical matters Where in that did Jim state ANYthing that required any "knowledge" about medical matters...?!?! You DID state that you have an IQ of 248. Perhaps his condition is real, perhaps it isn't. That's not the issue at all - the issue is what he does about it. He says the use of a spellchecker would slow him down too much and that we're not worth the effort. it would at least doueblt the amount of Time and the medium is not worth the effort. If you want to take saying that Medium is not worth the effort personaly you can of course "doueblt"...I'm not even going to guess what that was supposed to be... "personally" And what were you trying to say, anyway..?!?! Again, more non-sensical jibberish masquerading as "English".... I am not convinced the medium is worth the time I am spending Now let alone more Huh...?!?! What...?!?! Give your newcomer a medical problem (speech impediment?) and rewrite the story. How about a person with a speech problem who refuses to go to speech therapy, even though the cost is low and improvement is clearly possible? and Who are you know what is possible. Stevie at least has some exposure to medical matter although he clearly is off target Nope. Got you nailed to the wall, Markie. Not even Ray Charles could miss you! Then we'll answer your question "How should the group respond?" Who is "we"? who is we indeed? You just don't get it, Markie... Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com