|
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: [snip] No I can't, 5 years pretty well proved that Well I believe it was Alun who, for 15 years, "proved" he couldn't learn code. Then he found the right teachers. Part of the problem is that many people do NOT really know how to teach the code even though they may be proficient at using it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
This, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." should have been, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have [NOT] purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." .... but then, you most likely guess that, and demonstrated a clear ability to read through typos ... John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:26:48 -0700, John Smith wrote: You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check. |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: [snip] You refuse to use a spellchecker. yes I do That makes you a voluntary idiot. no it makes me at worst stuborn You want me to spend time and energy on what you want? You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will One becuase it is made as a demand Two, becuase in sending a message to someone that does not want to recieve it it takes special action. Have you not heard that the man that will not listen to the shout may strain to hear the wisper. Other are efectively shoutin gth message, in making Stevie and other strain for it you also make em think about it, It is simply one more tool in the aresenal Three, It take alot of time and effort Four in going and On about the message they help to reach the real audience which is the lurker gruop out there In the NoCode movements various people are taking various parts My message gets out there well enough to suit me, but every voice need not reach all the listeners Five producing prefectly correct spelling (I went to trouble for awhile some years back) will not stop the flaming from Stevie and Dave, and I prefer the flavour of these flames to the others I have seen BTW I am totaly convinced that Stevie understand better than 95%, his complaints of Giberish are too well placed against the center of my arguements to beleive otherwise, that with the fact that the degree to which folks seem to have problems with my depends directly on the degree to which they oppose my ideas also leads me to conclusion I am comunicating quite well indeed Any questions? You are being polite so I will try and answer you But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more important than your message? In every communications class that I have ever been involved in, the instructors taught that it is the message that is important. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to communicate that message to be sure it is sent in a manner that the audience can understand. If your audience tunes out because of the extra effort to read or listen to it because of avoidable problems, it is your fault not theirs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 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? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... AOF: The people who are asking you about a spell checker probably got their software (windows) with the computer. Or, they have purchased expensive microsoft office, works, etc and it gave them the ability to incorporate their spell checker directly into outlook express. You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check. Outlook Express comes with a spell checker without having to purchase additional software. Am I close to correct? John Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... This, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." should have been, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have [NOT] purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." ... but then, you most likely guess that, and demonstrated a clear ability to read through typos ... John As I said, Outlook Express comes with a spell checker build in with no need to purchase additional software. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
On my "Windows XP Pro" w/sp2, had to add MS Word (MS Office) to get spell check. Find it hard to believe bill started giving anything away, well, anything worthwhile... John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:52:04 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... This, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." should have been, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have [NOT] purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." ... but then, you most likely guess that, and demonstrated a clear ability to read through typos ... John As I said, Outlook Express comes with a spell checker build in with no need to purchase additional software. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
If I took the time to read and carefully check usenet posts, think of the intricate detail I would pay attention to with important things in my life, and how little time I would soon have... a usenet post is a casual exchange medium, not a doctors thesis written in perfect script with a quill pen on the finest parchment! You letting them fool you into thinking these posts are archived into gov't archives for posterity? Guarded my secret agent types with brass keys ready to sound the SOS to the CIA? .... naaaa .... John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:47:18 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: [snip] You refuse to use a spellchecker. yes I do That makes you a voluntary idiot. no it makes me at worst stuborn You want me to spend time and energy on what you want? You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will One becuase it is made as a demand Two, becuase in sending a message to someone that does not want to recieve it it takes special action. Have you not heard that the man that will not listen to the shout may strain to hear the wisper. Other are efectively shoutin gth message, in making Stevie and other strain for it you also make em think about it, It is simply one more tool in the aresenal Three, It take alot of time and effort Four in going and On about the message they help to reach the real audience which is the lurker gruop out there In the NoCode movements various people are taking various parts My message gets out there well enough to suit me, but every voice need not reach all the listeners Five producing prefectly correct spelling (I went to trouble for awhile some years back) will not stop the flaming from Stevie and Dave, and I prefer the flavour of these flames to the others I have seen BTW I am totaly convinced that Stevie understand better than 95%, his complaints of Giberish are too well placed against the center of my arguements to beleive otherwise, that with the fact that the degree to which folks seem to have problems with my depends directly on the degree to which they oppose my ideas also leads me to conclusion I am comunicating quite well indeed Any questions? You are being polite so I will try and answer you But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more important than your message? In every communications class that I have ever been involved in, the instructors taught that it is the message that is important. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to communicate that message to be sure it is sent in a manner that the audience can understand. If your audience tunes out because of the extra effort to read or listen to it because of avoidable problems, it is your fault not theirs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 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? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote: AOF: The people who are asking you about a spell checker probably got their software (windows) with the computer. Or, they have purchased expensive microsoft office, works, etc and it gave them the ability to incorporate their spell checker directly into outlook express. You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check. Am I close to correct? Pretty close My ISP does not provide a Usenet server and the software that could spell check a usenet post (in my poscession) would require me to spend money to aquire access to such a server. Google which I am using is free but does not provide such a spell checker so you are very close indeed John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:18:58 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: [snip] You refuse to use a spellchecker. yes I do That makes you a voluntary idiot. no it makes me at worst stuborn You want me to spend time and energy on what you want? You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will One becuase it is made as a demand Two, becuase in sending a message to someone that does not want to recieve it it takes special action. Have you not heard that the man that will not listen to the shout may strain to hear the wisper. Other are efectively shoutin gth message, in making Stevie and other strain for it you also make em think about it, It is simply one more tool in the aresenal Three, It take alot of time and effort Four in going and On about the message they help to reach the real audience which is the lurker gruop out there In the NoCode movements various people are taking various parts My message gets out there well enough to suit me, but every voice need not reach all the listeners Five producing prefectly correct spelling (I went to trouble for awhile some years back) will not stop the flaming from Stevie and Dave, and I prefer the flavour of these flames to the others I have seen BTW I am totaly convinced that Stevie understand better than 95%, his complaints of Giberish are too well placed against the center of my arguements to beleive otherwise, that with the fact that the degree to which folks seem to have problems with my depends directly on the degree to which they oppose my ideas also leads me to conclusion I am comunicating quite well indeed Any questions? You are being polite so I will try and answer you But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more important than your message? In every communications class that I have ever been involved in, the instructors taught that it is the message that is important. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to communicate that message to be sure it is sent in a manner that the audience can understand. If your audience tunes out because of the extra effort to read or listen to it because of avoidable problems, it is your fault not theirs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: [snip] No I can't, 5 years pretty well proved that Well I believe it was Alun who, for 15 years, "proved" he couldn't learn code. Then he found the right teachers. Part of the problem is that many people do NOT really know how to teach the code even though they may be proficient at using it. Ms Flint, I spent 5 years in my teens working with a Specail ed teacher and Ham radio operator, the teacher specaily was LD's such my Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John My mind sorted through to your meaning without even noticing your
mistake This ability is BTW one the things that make my condiction realy rough some times my mind, It is also is the part of the package that puts food on the table John Smith wrote: This, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." should have been, "You, apparently, do not have that ability or have [NOT] purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check." ... but then, you most likely guess that, and demonstrated a clear ability to read through typos ... John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:26:48 -0700, John Smith wrote: You, apparently, do not have that ability or have purchased the expensive software just to gain spell check. |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: [snip] You refuse to use a spellchecker. yes I do That makes you a voluntary idiot. no it makes me at worst stuborn You want me to spend time and energy on what you want? You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will One becuase it is made as a demand Two, becuase in sending a message to someone that does not want to recieve it it takes special action. Have you not heard that the man that will not listen to the shout may strain to hear the wisper. Other are efectively shoutin gth message, in making Stevie and other strain for it you also make em think about it, It is simply one more tool in the aresenal Three, It take alot of time and effort Four in going and On about the message they help to reach the real audience which is the lurker gruop out there In the NoCode movements various people are taking various parts My message gets out there well enough to suit me, but every voice need not reach all the listeners Five producing prefectly correct spelling (I went to trouble for awhile some years back) will not stop the flaming from Stevie and Dave, and I prefer the flavour of these flames to the others I have seen BTW I am totaly convinced that Stevie understand better than 95%, his complaints of Giberish are too well placed against the center of my arguements to beleive otherwise, that with the fact that the degree to which folks seem to have problems with my depends directly on the degree to which they oppose my ideas also leads me to conclusion I am comunicating quite well indeed Any questions? You are being polite so I will try and answer you But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more important than your message? In every communications class that I have ever been involved in, the instructors taught that it is the message that is important. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to communicate that message to be sure it is sent in a manner that the audience can understand. If your audience tunes out because of the extra effort to read or listen to it because of avoidable problems, it is your fault not theirs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE break 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? You are of course free to do so I want people to process what I write not merely read it, and judging by Stevies behvoir I do a pretty good, which is likely why he goes into such a frenzy since I am getting through to him, and others like him Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
John Smith wrote: Dee: Break If I took the time to read and carefully check usenet posts, think of the intricate detail I would pay attention to with important things in my life, and how little time I would soon have... a usenet post is a casual exchange medium, not a doctors thesis written in perfect script with a quill pen on the finest parchment! You letting them fool you into thinking these posts are archived into gov't archives for posterity? Guarded my secret agent types with brass keys ready to sound the SOS to the CIA? Thank you John on many levels I could never have said that better myself ... naaaa .... John |
AOF:
I will share something important with you, a secret I am rather ashamed of. In latter elementary school and most of high school, because of my height and speed, I was rather a bully. I fear I made some other kids lives a "bit of hell" rather than just taking my insignificant (and rightly so) place in the scheme of things and attempting to make my teachers and parents proud of my caliber, I let them down--worse, and even worse--myself. The good news is I learned better... I took what steps I could to apologize and set things right, after I had gained the common sense to see it for the insanity it was... The bad news, I still think about it and feel sad... I suppose it will be like that to my grave, perhaps a lot longer... If the lesson I learned is of value to anyone else, I summarize it here, "When you strike another person, the blow really lands upon you. You just don't see that it does you the damage, others do..." I still would not back down from a fight, but the other clearly has to ask for it. John On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:51:57 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: [snip] No I can't, 5 years pretty well proved that Well I believe it was Alun who, for 15 years, "proved" he couldn't learn code. Then he found the right teachers. Part of the problem is that many people do NOT really know how to teach the code even though they may be proficient at using it. Ms Flint, I spent 5 years in my teens working with a Specail ed teacher and Ham radio operator, the teacher specaily was LD's such my Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Dee: If I took the time to read and carefully check usenet posts, think of the intricate detail I would pay attention to with important things in my life, and how little time I would soon have... a usenet post is a casual exchange medium, not a doctors thesis written in perfect script with a quill pen on the finest parchment! You letting them fool you into thinking these posts are archived into gov't archives for posterity? Guarded my secret agent types with brass keys ready to sound the SOS to the CIA? ... naaaa .... John 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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:47:18 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: [snip] You refuse to use a spellchecker. yes I do That makes you a voluntary idiot. no it makes me at worst stuborn You want me to spend time and energy on what you want? You are a fool if you think you can bully me into doing your will One becuase it is made as a demand Two, becuase in sending a message to someone that does not want to recieve it it takes special action. Have you not heard that the man that will not listen to the shout may strain to hear the wisper. Other are efectively shoutin gth message, in making Stevie and other strain for it you also make em think about it, It is simply one more tool in the aresenal Three, It take alot of time and effort Four in going and On about the message they help to reach the real audience which is the lurker gruop out there In the NoCode movements various people are taking various parts My message gets out there well enough to suit me, but every voice need not reach all the listeners Five producing prefectly correct spelling (I went to trouble for awhile some years back) will not stop the flaming from Stevie and Dave, and I prefer the flavour of these flames to the others I have seen BTW I am totaly convinced that Stevie understand better than 95%, his complaints of Giberish are too well placed against the center of my arguements to beleive otherwise, that with the fact that the degree to which folks seem to have problems with my depends directly on the degree to which they oppose my ideas also leads me to conclusion I am comunicating quite well indeed Any questions? You are being polite so I will try and answer you But why be so stubborn about using a spell checker? Is your ego more important than your message? In every communications class that I have ever been involved in, the instructors taught that it is the message that is important. It is the responsibility of the person wanting to communicate that message to be sure it is sent in a manner that the audience can understand. If your audience tunes out because of the extra effort to read or listen to it because of avoidable problems, it is your fault not theirs. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 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? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: [snip] No I can't, 5 years pretty well proved that Well I believe it was Alun who, for 15 years, "proved" he couldn't learn code. Then he found the right teachers. Part of the problem is that many people do NOT really know how to teach the code even though they may be proficient at using it. Ms Flint, I spent 5 years in my teens working with a Specail ed teacher and Ham radio operator, the teacher specaily was LD's such my Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia. Which is great but doesn't mean he/she had the correct training in teaching code. It is a bit different than teaching other subjects. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
an_old_friend wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... 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? You are of course free to do so I want people to process what I write not merely read it, and judging by Stevies behvoir I do a pretty good, which is likely why he goes into such a frenzy since I am getting through to him, and others like him 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. (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. (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. 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. Steve, K4YZ |
Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: [snip] No I can't, 5 years pretty well proved that Well I believe it was Alun who, for 15 years, "proved" he couldn't learn code. Then he found the right teachers. Part of the problem is that many people do NOT really know how to teach the code even though they may be proficient at using it. Ms Flint, I spent 5 years in my teens working with a Specail ed teacher and Ham radio operator, the teacher specaily was LD's such my Dyslexia and Dyslexiod Aphasia. break Which is great but doesn't mean he/she had the correct training in teaching code. It is a bit different than teaching other subjects. You know MS Flint claiming that Morse Code is so different that specail in Education In LD educatio who are ham themselves can't teach it right, is pretty bad You are starting to sound like Stevie, "he didn't work hard enough" didn't have the right teacher etc what was the point? If effort was the point I put it in If code was that manifextly import why does the ITU and the FCC disgree with you Even if you happen to be right why should I spend more time on the off chance you are right Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: Dee Flint wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... 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? You are of course free to do so I want people to process what I write not merely read it, and judging by Stevies behvoir I do a pretty good, which is likely why he goes into such a frenzy since I am getting through to him, and others like him 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 more medical judgements made impoperly (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 (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 but here they would be wasted Even in a post with nothing spelled wrong my post to the FCC you can't manage to say anything on point 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 Steve, K4YZ |
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. more medical judgements made impoperly No medical judegements made here, Markie. (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. (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". Much of what you need is either freeware or very inexpensive software. 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. The lie is transparent. but here they would be wasted No they wouldn't. 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! The third paragraph was full of typos, and the grammatical structure looked as though it was fired from a shotgun. And WHAT were you trying to say about privileges before 1998? It looked idiotic! 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? And like it or not, until you learn how to USE the English language like the rest of us, you'll still look like a pathetic idiot trying to string words together with Crazy Glue. Steve, K4YZ |
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 |
wrote If something is worth writing, it's worth writing clearly. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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: 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. 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. |
roillng on the folor luaghnig my ass off
Ceehrs, Blil, KNU2K "KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote If something is worth writing, it's worth writing clearly. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
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 Eternal Truth: CW gets through when everything else will. |
an old friend wrote: 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? BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! You're such a card, Markie! Always the comedian! 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 He says "ok", but my money's on "But I won't do a darned thing about it". 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 It's absolutely valid. you could also be man enough to say what you mean Seem's pretty straight forward to me. For example to addmto your analogy "addmto"...?!?! That's not even close to being a "word". It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so impossible to understand I don't always agree with Jim and it made perfect sence to me. It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem "turns" and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice and of course Ham operators are so accepting Sure they are...Unless you're blatantly lying or deceiving. Like you, Lennie and Brainless. Steve, K4YZ |
K0HB:
Thanks, I learned something I didn't know, worked well for me! John On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:04:09 +0000, KØHB wrote: wrote If something is worth writing, it's worth writing clearly. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K4YZ wrote: an old friend wrote: 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? BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! You're such a card, Markie! Always the comedian! Not realy but you can tell yourself that lie Jim wanders on and on to the point no one is quite sure what his point is 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 He says "ok", but my money's on "But I won't do a darned thing about it". which is of course the same thing 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 It's absolutely valid. nope it isn't you could also be man enough to say what you mean Seem's pretty straight forward to me. For example to addmto your analogy "addmto"...?!?! That's not even close to being a "word". It is only those that disgree with the newcomers views that find him so impossible to understand I don't always agree with Jim and it made perfect sence to me. It it also truns out not to be his mike but his voice that has problem "turns" and of course tell get off the air till you can fix your voice and of course Ham operators are so accepting Sure they are...Unless you're blatantly lying or deceiving. Not lying or decieving you are lying and decieving in claiming to know the medcial state of a person you have never met You know this since you are an LPN Like you, Lennie and Brainless. Steve, K4YZ |
"KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "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 Normally I would have not commented except for the fact that he has also made the point several times that he is deliberately choosing not to in order to spite people. Even with Google, one could compose in a word processor and then cut and paste. Or a person could at least read through it a couple of times before hitting send. However, it doesn't particularly bother me as I exercise my option not to read the garbled ones. If he wishes to waste his time writing stuff that people won't read, that's his prerogative. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee:
I like it when the girl plays hard to get, then acquiesces in the end, been movies made about that yanno!!! tongue-in-cheek John On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:59:32 -0400, Dee Flint wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... "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 Normally I would have not commented except for the fact that he has also made the point several times that he is deliberately choosing not to in order to spite people. Even with Google, one could compose in a word processor and then cut and paste. Or a person could at least read through it a couple of times before hitting send. However, it doesn't particularly bother me as I exercise my option not to read the garbled ones. If he wishes to waste his time writing stuff that people won't read, that's his prerogative. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "K=D8HB" wrote in message nk.net... "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! Ty Hans (trying to save Bandwidth by checking you both at once Beep beep de Hans, K0HB Normally I would have not commented except for the fact that he has also made the point several times that he is deliberately choosing not to in order to spite people. Even with Google, one could compose in a word processor and then cut and paste. Or a person could at least read through it a couple of times before hitting send. I could double or triple the time involved and again iif you aren't interested in reading posts feel free to ignore them You might not be my target audeince However, it doesn't particularly bother me as I exercise my option not to read the garbled ones. If he wishes to waste his time writing stuff that people won't read, that's his prerogative. =20 Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com