Dave Heil wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.


boy oh boy you are obsessed with what other MEN do with their genitals

Colonel Morgan,

break

"John Smith", so the jokes go, is a commonly used name by those checking
into a hotel with a woman other than one's wife. I didn't mention "John
Smith's" or anyone else's genitals.

Now you refered instead to what he was doing with them

so you are still obsessed with what other MEN are doing with their
genitals

I am of course well aware of the joke


Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 2:53 pm



wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am

an old friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:



HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Dave wrote that last. But I agree with him


Sweetums, you've been plugging for that all by yourself for
lots of messages in here. You NEGLECT any other forms of
communications and concentrate on imagery, many-pixel images.

"HF will never be the place for high-speed transmission?"
What do you "extra experts" think BPL is basically? Clue:
High-speed data transmission, most of it on HF.


Gee, Len, BPL isn't supposed to be radio at all. Fill us in on the
various intended BPL wireless propagation media. Those power lines are
intended to be antennas?

Dave K8MN

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

an_old_friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:


Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.


boy oh boy you are obsessed with what other MEN do with their genitals

Colonel Morgan,


break


"John Smith", so the jokes go, is a commonly used name by those checking
into a hotel with a woman other than one's wife. I didn't mention "John
Smith's" or anyone else's genitals.


Now you refered instead to what he was doing with them

That's incorrect. I wrote of where he was going with them. I wrote
nothing at all about what he was doing with them and I did not refer to
his, hers or the desk clerk's genitals.

so you are still obsessed with what other MEN are doing with their
genitals

Are you still laboring under a misconception about which organs are
included as genitals, Colonel?

I am of course well aware of the joke

From your response, that was not at all evident.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me. You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.

Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?

Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?

Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".

Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.

a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.

Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!

You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me.

I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now,
you're simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him
appear to be drinking or heavily medicated.

You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist?

I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt.

My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere.

The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John
Smith"? That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose.

The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting
to present something as factual--you have my actual view.

That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works.
Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council.

My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank.

My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because
you haven't a face or a name? Spot on.

My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio
and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I
have with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims.

So which B.S. is left to cut?

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.


Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?


Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?


Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".


Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.


a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.


Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!


You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN


John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

Len:

Phone lines are limited to roughly 38K by using the full audio bandwidth a
phone line is filtered to, with the early compression techniques. 56K is
obtained by improved data compression techniques.

Any line capable of supporting transmission of these audio freaks can
carry that much digital data (roughly +/-300hz to +/-5,000hz.

DSL is obtained by pulling all the filters from the line, audio bandwidth
is much expanded and much greater data can be crammed into that bandwidth,
with even greater efficient compression techniques.

Powerlines can support near/equal such bandwidths. With a bandwidth
allowing freqs to climb into the LF RF freqs, tremendous data speeds are
possible.... very localized interference to some rf freqs may be
generated... this is now in a testing phase...

Why this is so misunderstood is beyond explanation, or perhaps it is only
limited to the older generations, for some unknown reason--as any familiar
with technical details of data transmission methods and protocols should
know this, it is very basic stuff...

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:27:28 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 2:53 pm


wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am
an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:


HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Dave wrote that last. But I agree with him

Sweetums, you've been plugging for that all by yourself for
lots of messages in here. You NEGLECT any other forms of
communications and concentrate on imagery, many-pixel images.

"HF will never be the place for high-speed transmission?"
What do you "extra experts" think BPL is basically? Clue:
High-speed data transmission, most of it on HF.

And the answer to "why" is that other people bring it up. So I answer.

Is that not allowed?

It's allowed. It's also allowed that YOU *might* consider
OTHER forms of communications on beloved HF other than what
the holy Handbook says is "good."

Quit acting petulant.

The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible"

Who said that? It is most certainly possible. We just have to be
patient, very patient.

Sorry, I've lost my patience with the brain-draggers in here
only considering U.S. ham radio "high-tech" being some finished
product advertised in QST and having a "lab review" on it all
glowing with praise.

There's an INFINITY of POSSIBILITIES that can be done in U.S.
ham radio and about the ONLY innovation of late is the Tayloe
Mixer (patent pending). Mike Gingell in the UK came up with
the polyphase audio phase shifter for better phasing SSB
and Peter Martinez, also in the UK, came up with PSK31. Once
in a while some U.S. guys come out with an innovating product
and all you "communications experts" all get together and
carp it up, refuse to buy it, or say whatever each one of you
has is "so much better" than anything new. Newness is to be
feared?

Go back in time to the late Dick Carroll complaining and
grousing about his peripheral DSP audio filter...he said
outright in here that he had difficulty setting the
controls! Waaa...waaaa...if it ain't like it usta was in
the 1950s and 1960s it ain't no good!

Okay, so somebody INNOVATE something.

INNOVATE something besides sitting around gabbling how "good"
and "expert" you all are because you are morsemen and grand
champions in radio because you are federally authorized for
beeping. The rest of the radio world is NOT buying it. The
rest of the radio world will continue to improve as it has
been for years. The U.S. amateur radio world can only play
copycat and steal from that, having the ARRL say that "hams
invented it" when it didn't.

Tayloe did it. What have the other 700K+ done? Sit around
griping because none of you have done anything?

non seq

Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything... nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing... I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it... however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:24:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me.

I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now,
you're simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him
appear to be drinking or heavily medicated.

You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist?

I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt.

My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere.

The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John
Smith"? That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose.

The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting
to present something as factual--you have my actual view.

That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works.
Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council.

My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank.

My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because
you haven't a face or a name? Spot on.

My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio
and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I
have with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims.

So which B.S. is left to cut?

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.


Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?


Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?


Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".


Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.


a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.


Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!


You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN


John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of
your claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors
with pen names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward
something new.

nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.

I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!

however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:24:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me.

I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now,
you're simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him
appear to be drinking or heavily medicated.


You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist?


I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt.

My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere.

The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John
Smith"? That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose.

The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting
to present something as factual--you have my actual view.

That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works.
Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council.

My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank.

My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because
you haven't a face or a name? Spot on.

My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio
and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I
have with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims.

So which B.S. is left to cut?

Dave K8MN


John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.



Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?



Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?



Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".



Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.



a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.



Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!



You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN



John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:




John Smith wrote:



Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of
your claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors
with pen names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward
something new.

holes? hmmmm ah it is procoder thing we nocoders would not understand

nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.

I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!

however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

break

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

then show some MANNERS and thank the man


Dave K8MN

Dee Flint wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dee:

We are possibly talking about 300,000 hams in the us, that is NOT a large
number for a good hobby... compare that to millions of bicyclists,
millions of fishermen, millions of bowlers, etc, etc... perhaps skydivers
are near that number, 300,000, but only because many of us are too damn
smart and won't jump out of a plane with a large sized piece of ripstop
nylon attached to us!



There are over 600,000 hams in the US.


How you quote such dismal numbers in amateur radio as if they/it are
something to be proud of does nothing but amaze me! As I have pointed out
before, there are MAGNITUDES more illegal aliens here than hams!

John



In this day and age, any technical or semi-technical hobby is lucky to have
any members at all.


True, Dee. But there are a number of people hard at work to change that!

- Mike KB3EIA -