KY4Z wrote:
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.

if the reader can stay awake long enough


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...?!?!

Not all, More Stevie lie. I sugfested he could get to the point, or at
least have one


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...?!?!

in claiming that he can test someone IQ over the net


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...

then don't bother


"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.

More lies

Where is your Action?



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?
=20
You just don't get it, Markie...
=20
Steve, KY4Z

wrote:
From: "K0HB" on Wed 17 Aug 2005 20:33


wrote

Your little joke wasn't funny.

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

Congratulations! You've both failed and succeeded, all
at the same time, Hans! :-)


bit bit


Paradox Lost

wrote:
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... :-)

Difficult, but not insurmountable. Remember, compassionate no-codism
serves both faith-based modes as well as all of the other modes.

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... :-) ]

Openly.

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? ;^)

:-)

Turpentine bath.

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...

With Carl in the ARRL, all things are possible.

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% said it was a terrible idea, and 4.4% had no
particular opinion either way.

Looks like a concensus. Those numbers were flipped when we were told
that we had to keep the code.

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... :-)

Please, no.

Remember that compassionate no-codism is tolerant of faith-based modes.

wrote:
From: on Tues 16 Aug 2005 16:33


wrote:

All you EXTRA MORSEMEN ought to be PROUD of a fellow EXTRA, N9KKY,
David G. Brink, now listed under WT Docket 05-235 in the ECFS as
received on 8 August 2005 and added by the FCC on 15 August 2005.
A one-page scrawled hand-printed and very shaky written name
signature dated (by the sender) as 31 July 2005, a Sunday. No
doubt that Sunday featured some slightly excessive imbibing prior
to scrawling this magnificent missive.

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:

a. The NCTA have nothing to be disgruntled about except a quarter
century of arbitrary and unnecessary government regulation, and

b. The PCTA make themselves look bad without any help.

Heh heh heh...I agree on both counts!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

end nul


In order to be fair and balanced, we looked at each side of the issue.
Unfortunately, the rationale does not go with the PCTAs.

I like this compassionate no-codism when applied to faith-based modes.

From: on Fri 19 Aug 2005 12:37


wrote:
From: on Aug 18, 3:33 pm
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

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... :-)

Difficult, but not insurmountable. Remember, compassionate no-codism
serves both faith-based modes as well as all of the other modes.

I sort of draw the line at the cretin who shouts, "God is for
morse code testing and morse code!!!"


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... :-) ]

Openly.

Feels rather good. Time to turn things around now and let all
the coders have it as those smug, arrogant, "superior" types
have acted for the half century I've observed them. :-)



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...

With Carl in the ARRL, all things are possible.

Carl ANDERSON? Yeah, right, just like Brain Kallie to make
nastynoises. :-)


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% said it was a terrible idea, and 4.4% had no
particular opinion either way.

Looks like a concensus. Those numbers were flipped when we were told
that we had to keep the code.

[whut yu mean "we," white man?] [Tonto not hear dat...]

NCTA super-extras like Jimmie Noserve will come out with the
standard disclaimer that the website poll is "not scientific."

They are so forking predictable that one doesn't have to
think twice about what kind of rationalizations they write.

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... :-)

Please, no.

Remember that compassionate no-codism is tolerant of faith-based modes.

Geez...TUFF requirement! Not even a little 1x1 piece of oak?

Difficult. One SO wants to get a Hasty sling, a good sight
picture, BASS, and apply just a few ounces of pressure...

There's "compassion" on the prarie, the badlands, and the great
West for horses that can't make it. A gun or a knife solves
their problems, provides time-tested "compassion." So it is
with the coders. They can't make it without that TEST...so
we should "do the right thing" and end their suffering.

I'll have to consult with Pastor Midtlyng on that and get back
to you...

bye bye

Len:

I don't think I would take a key into heaven, those harp playing angels
would damn yer butt to hell for sure....

beep-beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!

John


On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:05:14 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: on Fri 19 Aug 2005 12:37


wrote:
From: on Aug 18, 3:33 pm
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

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... :-)

Difficult, but not insurmountable. Remember, compassionate no-codism
serves both faith-based modes as well as all of the other modes.

I sort of draw the line at the cretin who shouts, "God is for
morse code testing and morse code!!!"


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... :-) ]

Openly.

Feels rather good. Time to turn things around now and let all
the coders have it as those smug, arrogant, "superior" types
have acted for the half century I've observed them. :-)



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...

With Carl in the ARRL, all things are possible.

Carl ANDERSON? Yeah, right, just like Brain Kallie to make
nastynoises. :-)


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% said it was a terrible idea, and 4.4% had no
particular opinion either way.

Looks like a concensus. Those numbers were flipped when we were told
that we had to keep the code.

[whut yu mean "we," white man?] [Tonto not hear dat...]

NCTA super-extras like Jimmie Noserve will come out with the
standard disclaimer that the website poll is "not scientific."

They are so forking predictable that one doesn't have to
think twice about what kind of rationalizations they write.

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... :-)

Please, no.

Remember that compassionate no-codism is tolerant of faith-based modes.

Geez...TUFF requirement! Not even a little 1x1 piece of oak?

Difficult. One SO wants to get a Hasty sling, a good sight
picture, BASS, and apply just a few ounces of pressure...

There's "compassion" on the prarie, the badlands, and the great
West for horses that can't make it. A gun or a knife solves
their problems, provides time-tested "compassion." So it is
with the coders. They can't make it without that TEST...so
we should "do the right thing" and end their suffering.

I'll have to consult with Pastor Midtlyng on that and get back
to you...

bye bye

NOT the Angels, John, the Clippers! :-)


hum bug

On 19 Aug 2005 15:05:14 -0700, wrote:

Difficult. One SO wants to get a Hasty sling, a good sight
picture, BASS, and apply just a few ounces of pressure...

I realize this code test issue is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel
at this point, but I learned it as BRASS rather than BASS. ;-)

73 de John, KC2HMZ

From: John Kasupski on Aug 20, 3:08 pm

On 19 Aug 2005 15:05:14 -0700, wrote:

Difficult. One SO wants to get a Hasty sling, a good sight
picture, BASS, and apply just a few ounces of pressure...

I realize this code test issue is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel
at this point, but I learned it as BRASS rather than BASS. ;-)

Heyo, John, off the subject but "BASS" was Breath-Aim-Sight-Squeeze
acronym in the U.S. Army of the 1950s.

If you search through past posts of Stebie da Wundermurine (K4YZ)
you will find his implied "threat" of "a few ounces of pressure"
which was, of course, in reference to the squeezing of a trigger.

Hence my remark that you quoted. :-)

In his emotional volatility he forgot to look to see if anyone
could shoot back, hence his continuing anger and frustration
at those who CAN and DARE to do such a thing! :-)

gun sit

Nomen Woger wrote:
wrote in message

Yawn

Try a nap after lunch, old-timer.