wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that
the world was *not*
created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October
in 4004 BC
as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home.

Actually, Genesis says it took six days - because the Creator
rested on the seventh day.

Rush job, too. Left a lot of holes....

LOL!!!

That's from Time Bandits as well.

Great! "Time Bandits" is used to critize someone else's faith.

snip

I highly doubt that it was created by
a supreme being.

Why? Couldn't the Supreme Being have set it all
in motion, and the Bang was just the method?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions.

I find them somewhat interesting and somewhat dismaying.
The dismaying part is that the deeper meanings of the
Bible stories are missed because folks are too busy
taking them literally.

For example, take the two contradictory creation
stories in Genesis. First off, you find that relatively
few have actually read them well enough to see the
contradictions.

But those contradictions only exist if the interpretation
is literal. If you see the stories as parables, the contradictions
don't matter.

Or take the part about all of us being punished because
of Adam eating the apple. Doesn't make any sense at first - you
don't send a son to jail because his father robbed a bank!

OTOH, the mistakes of one generation (like pollution) *can*
affect following generations.

Retention of the Morse Code exam.

(Why the heck did anyone
ever decide to build a major city on ground that is *below*
sea level and right next to three major bodies of water? And
in a hurricane zone?!)

Because it was fantastic for the mode of transportation available at
the time. Then it had momentum which brought us to the present point.
Are you suggesting the New Orleans be rebuilt at a different location,
or not be rebuilt at all?

Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly
trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted
to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of
God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car
on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time.
I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but
after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.

When did logic and reason become "the dogs"?

When you insisted that the government retain an arbitrary and
unnecessary exam.

Turns out
they did not know where the water came from or went to, and
didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order not to drown.

Oh yes, the deluge. Lots of good stuff in there. Here's some mo

The Book tells us how big the ark was and how many of each
animal were taken aboard.

Now since evolution supposedly doesn't happen, all of the land mammals
and birds we see must have been on the ark, since otherwise they'd
drown. The Book specifically mentions Noah
sending out a bird, too.

Not just the animals and birds themselves were on the ark but food and
water for them.

Look around for all the different species of land animals and birds
around today. Then figure out how much space they'd all take up.

Unless the ark was actually a tardis, it wasn't near big enough for all
the different types of deer, bison, antelope, giraffe, elephant,
cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goat, emu, ostrich, eland, moose, horse,
zebra, bear, lion, tiger, panther, caribou, etc., etc., etc.

You get too excited about the details.

Even my more serious questions were troublesome
for them,
especially since they were engineers. They really hated my
thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe
and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to
disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because
the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

The basic explanation they use for all that is that it
was made that way. Even down to the light from the stars more
distant than 6000 light years. Just popped into being.

Of course if someone accepts that "popped into being"
explanation, the universe could only be an hour old...

I think the real attraction of the "young universe" idea
is that it's comforting and reduces people's
environmental responsibility. Global warming? Resource
depletion? Species extinction? No problems, because
the Earth isn't old enough for there to be enough data.

But if the Earth is billions of years old, the situation is very
different.

Yep. Most of the pollution and extinctions occurred prior to man.
Comforting.

If someone wants to believe the Earth is a bit more than 6000
years old, that's fine with me. Just as if they want to believe
that pi is equal to 3, that the earth is flat or the moon is
made of cheese.

Obviously it's not fine with you. You make fun of them and their
faith. Yet I don't hear any making fun of strapping on a bomb for
one's faith. You've too much respect for that religion because GW Bush
isn't a Moslem.

Just don't try to pass off those beliefs as "science", because
they simply don't stand up to the scientific method.

They are two different things.

When people insist that their religious beliefs be considered
"scientific" even though they fall apart under scientific
scrutiny, what they're really trying to do is destroy the
scientific method.

Oh, is that it?

Not a new thing. Look at what happened to Galileo. How many years did
it take for the Vatican to admit they were wrong?

73 de Jim, N2EY

How many years will it take for Miccolis to admit that he was wrong?

Dave Heil wrote:


It has been a civil discussion. Don't read it if you don't care for it.
It certainly beats Mark Morgan's endless, "lier" and "cuting Sevie..."

Dave K8MN

Don't read Len if you don't care for it.
Don't read Mark if you don't care for it.
Don't read Brian if you don't care for it.

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


wrote:


From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm


K4YZ wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


Frank Gilliland wrote:

Just as they have not permitted you to comment about "amateur" radio
because you hold no license, NoServers may not comment about the
military.

Hold on, Sparky. Len has commented here at great length and on many,
many occasions.

And what has Jim's response been to Len's comments?

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

We were instructed to discard Len's comments.

...and you always follow instruction--right?

And you always give instruction not to be followed--right?

In the end, if they cannot
lay waste to Len's comments with rational argument(s)...

I've seen any number of Len's comments made to look like the product of
one who has little experience.


As Len has questioned your net control capabilities.

Net control capabilities? What in the world are you going on about?

Opening and closing a RTTY net with CW. Hi!

...they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham.

Sometimes Len's opinions are no good because they are issued because he
has no experience in amateur radio. Sometimes his opinions are no good
because they are the rantings of a geezer with an ax to grind. Often,
he makes factual errors and there have been numerous times when he
deliberately fabricates.

You want us to believe that all of Len's comments are to be discarded.

I'd settle for 80-90%.

About the same percentage as your commnets. Imagine that!

David Heil/K8MN is a primary culprit in that tactic, but Jim has used it as
well.

Oh no, I've by no means been "a primary culprit", but I have
participated over a period of years.


Can you guess how many times you've commented that Len isn't an amateur
radio operator?

I didn't know there was going to be a quiz.

There is always a quiz where your motives are concerned.

It has to be fewer than the
number of recountings of his ADA tale or his comments about FCC staffers
don't need to hold amateur radio licenses.

Are FCC staffers required to hold an amateur radio license in order to
hold their positions?

Len isn't involved in amateur
radio. He wraps himself in bunting and writes of his Constitutional
rights of free speech and to petition his government. Well, he has done
those things. Nothing on this planet can prevent me from lauging at him
or ridiculing him or his ideas.

Nor him you.

That's where I came in. Len's been doing that almost since my first
posts to this newsgroup in 1996.

Congratulations on almost a century of posting meaningless drivel.

Len writes of being denigrated or
insulted by those who do not agree with his him but he often insults and
denigrates those who have the opposite point of view.

Perhaps Len is correct to do so.

The signs point to his not being correct.

Please point out those "signs."

He is quick to tell others that they are not discussing amateur radio
policy,

Get a clue, he's giving it back to you. He's been told that he is not
an amateur radio operator and should be here. This is a place only of
amateurs and amateur things.

I don't think Len has ever been told that he should be here. :-)

Typo. You really are a frustrated technical writer, aren't you?

Back to the subject.

Len has declared a several-decades-long "interest" in amateur radio.

OK.

He's never been interested enough to even attempt passing a license
exam.

How do you know that?

Len was going to go for an "Extra right out of the box" several
years back. That hasn't happened.

How do you know that?

We have him declaring within the
past few months that he has *no interest* in obtaining an amateur radio
license. Tsk, tsk. What is one to believe?

Perhaps he has tried and failed. Many people fail the tests.

then he goes on a multi-post rant having everything to do with
personalities and nothing to do with amateur radio.

Have you ever thought of reigning in Robeson?

Am I in charge of Steve's postings? Feel free to take on the job if you
think it should be done.

Yet you think that you are in charge of Anderson. You take it as a
personal challenge to reign in Len's postings. Why is that?

When you do, get back to
me about Len and we'll talk some more.

Howzzat? Did I suggest that it is up to you to control Len's bad behavior?

Then end your decade-long griping about Len. Take your own advice and
simply don't read it. And don't start tail-ending someone elses
comments as Jim has, in order to comment on Len's opinions. Hi!

You, of course, are Len's little electrolytic acolyte.

And you are the World Famous DXer that works out of band Frenchmen on 6
Meters.

Well, I certainly operate on 6m, but always within the regs which govern
my amateur radio operation. I don't control French radio amateurs any
more than I'm responsible for Steve's posts.

Dave K8MN

I'd prefer not to engage out of band Frenchmen on six meters, and not
to give Robeson a pass on his outrageous behavio[u]r by remaining
silent.

You, of course, will do both.

wrote


How many years will it take for Miccolis to admit that he was wrong?


I was wrong only once. That was the time I thought I was wrong but it turned
out that I wasn't.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Aug 28, 6:02 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
hot
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

I've seen any number of Len's comments made to look like the product of
one who has little experience.

As Len has questioned your net control capabilities.

Not quite true either side. I was citing Heil as a CONTROL FREAK
that he appears to be from all his postings to me. Evident to all.

Closing a net with CW?

The only nets I've ever closed with CW were CW nets.

More word play.

I have experience in radio. A considerable amount. Most of it is
PROFESSIONAL radio...that kind that pays money for services
rendered.

Heil must not equate government employ in the Department of State
as "professional" yet he obviously got MONEY for that, PLUS living
expenses.

Obviously he's not professional.

...not any more. There aren't any professional radio amateurs.

When did that end?

Professional credentials don't get one a pass into amateur radio.

What? Another set of redundant licensing requirements?

I recall taking the GROL. Looked identical to the Amatuer Advanced
exam.

...they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham.

Sometimes Len's opinions are no good because they are issued because he
has no experience in amateur radio. Sometimes his opinions are no good
because they are the rantings of a geezer with an ax to grind. Often,
he makes factual errors and there have been numerous times when he
deliberately fabricates.

You want us to believe that all of Len's comments are to be discarded.

Heil doesn't like my commenting, therefore I am to be "discarded,"
discredited, demeaned, and some other "d" I can't think of. :-)

demonized.

Deep-sixed.

As in murdered?

David Heil/K8MN is a primary culprit in that tactic, but Jim has used it as
well.

Oh no, I've by no means been "a primary culprit", but I have
participated over a period of years.

Can you guess how many times you've commented that Len isn't an amateur
radio operator?

He has a macro sentence generator for that. :-)

And there is a purpose for his stating that you're not an amateur.

There certainly is. It is to point out that Len isn't a radio amateur
and that he has no experience in amateur radio.

There must be somthing more to it than that.

He is to amateur radio
as a fishing rod to deer hunting.

Dave K8MN

You're not even close enough to be considered a poor analogue.

K=D8HB wrote:
wrote

[sorry, Brian, I know you like Kehler, but he was NOT kind,
gracious, or anything else civil to me...as old archives show]

That's why a lot of folks like him.

73, de Hans, K0HB

And that's precisely why the PCTA tolerate someone as obnoxious and
vile as Steven J. Robeson/K4YX/K4CAP into their circle.

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Intimidating Leonard H. Anderson? How does one intimidate a piranha?
Len began personal attacks long before he got on the receiving end.
Discussion of moderating a newsgroup is not a forbidden subject.

I remember well when Leneoard was all upset that some regular poster
here decided to meet on 40m CW. Len probably considered his right of
free speech to be violated in that instance. Of course he was wrong.

The fact is that your claim that Jim Miccolis prevented Len from posting
here is utter nonsense. You're becoming well known for nonsense.

The fact is that there are two sides to every story, and you clowns
think you own both. You don't. Get used to it.

That's three things offered by you as fact. Please provide any old
evidence at all that what you've claimed, that Jim Miccolis prevented
Len from presenting his views here. A single instance will do.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Do you ever tire of being an A1 Operator and work out of band Frenchmen
on 6 meters?

Do you?

wrote:
wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


Intimidating Leonard H. Anderson? How does one intimidate a piranha?
Len began personal attacks long before he got on the receiving end.
Discussion of moderating a newsgroup is not a forbidden subject.

I remember well when Leneoard was all upset that some regular poster
here decided to meet on 40m CW. Len probably considered his right of
free speech to be violated in that instance. Of course he was wrong.

The fact is that your claim that Jim Miccolis prevented Len from posting
here is utter nonsense. You're becoming well known for nonsense.

The fact is that there are two sides to every story, and you clowns
think you own both. You don't. Get used to it.

That's three things offered by you as fact. Please provide any old
evidence at all that what you've claimed, that Jim Miccolis prevented
Len from presenting his views here. A single instance will do.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Do you ever tire of being an A1 Operator and work out of band Frenchmen
on 6 meters?


Do you?

Why no, Brian, I've never tired of being an A-1 Op. Do you tire of
being one? I've never been out of band when working French ops on any
band. If French ops work outside their allocations, they are
responsible and it is up to the French PTT to do something about it.
Then again, you already knew that.

Do you ever tire of trying to make something out of nothing?

Dave K8MN

wrote


I recall taking the GROL. Looked identical to the Amatuer Advanced
exam.


The GROL exam has Amateur Radio questions in it?

I never knew that! Sunuvagun!

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

From: on Aug 28, 6:02 pm

Dave Heil wrote:

hot

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:
wrote:

From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm

K4YZ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

I've seen any number of Len's comments made to look like the product of
one who has little experience.

As Len has questioned your net control capabilities.

Not quite true either side. I was citing Heil as a CONTROL FREAK
that he appears to be from all his postings to me. Evident to all.

Closing a net with CW?

The only nets I've ever closed with CW were CW nets.


More word play.

Word play? Hardly. I've never participated in a State Department net
on RTTY or CW.

I have experience in radio. A considerable amount. Most of it is
PROFESSIONAL radio...that kind that pays money for services
rendered.

Heil must not equate government employ in the Department of State
as "professional" yet he obviously got MONEY for that, PLUS living
expenses.

Obviously he's not professional.

...not any more. There aren't any professional radio amateurs.


When did that end?

It never began.

Professional credentials don't get one a pass into amateur radio.


What? Another set of redundant licensing requirements?

They aren't redundant. They're for different services.

I recall taking the GROL. Looked identical to the Amatuer Advanced
exam.

Really? Were there lots of regulatory questions dealing with the
amateur bands?


...they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham.

Sometimes Len's opinions are no good because they are issued because he
has no experience in amateur radio. Sometimes his opinions are no good
because they are the rantings of a geezer with an ax to grind. Often,
he makes factual errors and there have been numerous times when he
deliberately fabricates.

You want us to believe that all of Len's comments are to be discarded.

Heil doesn't like my commenting, therefore I am to be "discarded,"
discredited, demeaned, and some other "d" I can't think of. :-)

demonized.

Deep-sixed.


As in murdered?

As in "deep-sixed".


David Heil/K8MN is a primary culprit in that tactic, but Jim has used it as
well.

Oh no, I've by no means been "a primary culprit", but I have
participated over a period of years.

Can you guess how many times you've commented that Len isn't an amateur
radio operator?

He has a macro sentence generator for that. :-)

And there is a purpose for his stating that you're not an amateur.

There certainly is. It is to point out that Len isn't a radio amateur
and that he has no experience in amateur radio.


There must be somthing more to it than that.

A read-between-the-lines guy like you would probably attempt to find a
hidden meaning or agenda.

He is to amateur radio

as a fishing rod to deer hunting.

You're not even close enough to be considered a poor analogue.

It'd be tough to come up with something. I'm a long time participant in
amateur radio. The closest Len can come is being an SWL.

Dave K8MN