|
|
wrote: wrote: snip So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur? Indeed it does get tiresome that they go on and on about Could we keep to once a month or once a week (valid I suppose if someone slips in to let them Know) And regardless of how someone replies to Len's posts here, Len will reply according to the profile. It's just his way. Why should anyone reply to his posts at all, Dave? 73 de Jim, N2EY Hi, hi! You reply directly to my comment, then you act as if you are speaking to Dave. Then you ask why anyone should reply to Len's posts at all. More hi, hi's! Jim, when you're ready to have a rational discussion with me, I'll be here. when we have a rational discussion it will likely merely be a front for Procoder effort to assinate us, by shocking us into heart attacks |
wrote Mike, are you an atheist? Or are you just playing at one because President Bush is a Christian? There are thousands of gods available to believe in, and for each individual god there are often several different versions of that religion. Take, for example, President Bush's god --- dozens and dozens of different cults all claiming to be the "proper" Christians. The only difference between atheists and GWB is that the atheists believe in one less god than George does. If I have it right, Georges god, in His cosmic loneliness, felt a need to be worshipped, so He invented Us to worship him. Those of Us who aren't so inclined, He will banish to spend eternity on 75-meter phone. Beep beep! de Hans, K0HB Most Reverend Keeper of the Codes of Q |
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:50:11 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: There are thousands of gods available to believe in, and for each individual god there are often several different versions of that religion. Take, for example, President Bush's god --- dozens and dozens of different cults all claiming to be the "proper" Christians. The only difference between atheists and GWB is that the atheists believe in one less god than George does. If I have it right, Georges god, in His cosmic loneliness, felt a need to be worshipped, so He invented Us to worship him. Those of Us who aren't so inclined, He will banish to spend eternity on 75-meter phone. Beep beep! de Hans, K0HB Most Reverend Keeper of the Codes of Q Since this subject has been brought up, I'll admit it - I am an atheist. Here are MY observations, however off-topic they may be... With the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, we saw thousands of survivors thanking god for their lives, even though they’ve lost everything. I haven’t seen one survivor blaming god for the death of innocents in this disaster, not to mention the thousands that have been left homeless and displaced from their families, not yet knowing whether they’re dead or alive. Yet, they still thank god for their lives. If a madman forced you out of your house by gun point, and then burned your house to the ground while you watched, would you thank him for sparing your life? What good is life if your lifestyle, quality of life, and means of sustanation are suddenly gone? It makes no sense to me why people would appeal to god and praise god, yet not scratch their heads in confusion when said god anally rapes New Orleans, but say that it is "god’s will". Believers will say that I must not question "god’s will", but I SHALL question the will of such a god in the hopes that some right-wing bible thumpers will re-think their god’s position in the wake of such disasters. But I doubt that is going to happen. Today, there are people going to prayer-fests in just about every church in the country. They’ll do their praying, get back into their big, gas-sucking SUVs, and drive back to their fancy homes with the smug satisfaction that they actually did something to help the survivors of this disaster. Is all of this praying supposed to cause some big hand to come down out of the sky and supply those affected by this tragedy with food, water, clothes, medicine and shelter until the government and volunteer donations can be supplied. Somehow, I doubt it. I am ashamed of my government, and I don’t care who is offended by my comments. I’ll question and bash anyone and any god I damn well please and make no apologies for it. I have had with the religious platitudes from politicians and community leaders on all levels of government. They invoke a non-existent supernatural deity so they can duck their responsibilities. They dragged their asses when it came to getting the job done and lives were lost as a result. It’s time to fire all of them, starting with their murdering, cruel, vindictive god and working the way down. |
|
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote: In article om wrote: Dave is smug. He's an asshole. Pretty much, but far be if for me to call people names on RRAP. |
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: snip So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur? Indeed it does get tiresome that they go on and on about Could we keep to once a month or once a week (valid I suppose if someone slips in to let them Know) There's something in there that they just won't come out an say. If they do, it will likely be on Aaron Jones "Morse Myths" list. So they get to the very edge of the ledge and peer over, afraid to make the leap. And regardless of how someone replies to Len's posts here, Len will reply according to the profile. It's just his way. Why should anyone reply to his posts at all, Dave? 73 de Jim, N2EY Hi, hi! You reply directly to my comment, then you act as if you are speaking to Dave. Then you ask why anyone should reply to Len's posts at all. More hi, hi's! Jim, when you're ready to have a rational discussion with me, I'll be here. when we have a rational discussion it will likely merely be a front for Procoder effort to assinate us, by shocking us into heart attacks Jim probably sends secret morse code messages the other three Morsemen begging them to reply to my or Len's comments or opinions, so that he can then jump in without looking like he's actually addressing us. Poor thing. |
wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: snip So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur? Indeed it does get tiresome that they go on and on about Could we keep to once a month or once a week (valid I suppose if someone slips in to let them Know) There's something in there that they just won't come out an say. If they do, it will likely be on Aaron Jones "Morse Myths" list. So they get to the very edge of the ledge and peer over, afraid to make the leap. Indeed they can't be honest to admit that what they want is the power to censor and silence all oposition Did you catch Dan flaming for daring to answer his direct question. Of course I did commit the sin of not answering as he wished cut |
Mike Coslo wrote:
I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to tell us about how to live. Yup - and how *not* to live. That being said, I think that many people who are proclaiming themselves as "Christians" these days are not. The so-called conservative Christians who loudly proclaim their ascendancy these days don't really seem to have much to do with Jesus at all. Nothing new about that. Constantine, Cyril, the Crusades, and of course the Spanish Inquisition. "If Jesus came back, and saw what's going on in His name, He'd never stop throwing up." --Frederick, in Woody Allen's "Hannah and Her Sisters" The closest thing that they are is a modern day version of the Pharisees. Their trends are much more old testament - therefore not sharing in the new covenant proclaimed by Jesus. They push public prayer, also proscribed against by Jesus, they push religious domination of government - same deal. They've had plenty of company in the past 2000 years... While demanding that the first books of *their* bible Except it's not really "theirs" - particularly the first five books... (KJV) be taken as absolutely literal, despite two different versions of creation, they totally ignore the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus delivers direct orders in as plain language as you will find in the bible. What's up with that? It's a mystery, Mike. You just have to take it on faith. I find it interesting that the dietary and other laws of the "old" testament are ignored when inconvenient - just like the inconvenient teachings of Jesus. Fun fact: Which states do you think have the highest and lowest divorce rates - "conservative" red states or "liberal" blue states? "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder"... What is up with that is the modern fundamentalist Christians are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book - the false prophets. 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.... There is no doubt in my mind that the present day universe *was* created billions of years ago, probably in an event we call "the Big Bang. There should always be doubt, Mike. The Big Bang cosmology is simply the best explanation we have now that fits all the scientific data. New data might require a new cosmology. That's one big difference between real and fake science. Real science is always open to new data and new explanations. 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? For what happened before then, it becomes quite complex, and I enjoy speculation on that. You can explain anything by using the 'supernatural'. Which means the 'supernatural' explains nothing. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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!!! 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. 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. Go figure. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: snip So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur? Indeed it does get tiresome that they go on and on about Could we keep to once a month or once a week (valid I suppose if someone slips in to let them Know) There's something in there that they just won't come out an say. If they do, it will likely be on Aaron Jones "Morse Myths" list. So they get to the very edge of the ledge and peer over, afraid to make the leap. Indeed they can't be honest to admit that what they want is the power to censor and silence all oposition But the moment they do they know that they will be in league with the dark side. Better for them to just pray for and wish it and not actually do it. Did you catch Dan flaming for daring to answer his direct question. Of course I did commit the sin of not answering as he wished cut Him and Bruce are running buddies, so I can't take much of Dan seriously. |
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote: wrote: snip So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur? Indeed it does get tiresome that they go on and on about On and on about? Could we keep to once a month or once a week (valid I suppose if someone slips in to let them Know) Could we? How are you involved? Jim, when you're ready to have a rational discussion with me, I'll be here. when we have a rational discussion it will likely merely be a front for Procoder effort to assinate us, by shocking us into heart attacks I have a sneaking hunch that you've been assinated any number of times. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: snip So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur? Indeed it does get tiresome that they go on and on about On and on about? about the subject of the text now 3 to 6 lines above this Could we keep to once a month or once a week (valid I suppose if someone slips in to let them Know) Could we? How are you involved? I guess you are syaing we can't. I am certainly involved in the NG much to your ..disaproval shale we say Jim, when you're ready to have a rational discussion with me, I'll be here. when we have a rational discussion it will likely merely be a front for Procoder effort to assinate us, by shocking us into heart attacks I have a sneaking hunch that you've been assinated any number of times. Now you are showing your need for meds, serious meds Dave K8MN |
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: snip So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur? Indeed it does get tiresome that they go on and on about On and on about? about the subject of the text now 3 to 6 lines above this Could we keep to once a month or once a week (valid I suppose if someone slips in to let them Know) Could we? How are you involved? I guess you are syaing we can't. I am certainly involved in the NG much to your ..disaproval shale we say Jim, when you're ready to have a rational discussion with me, I'll be here. when we have a rational discussion it will likely merely be a front for Procoder effort to assinate us, by shocking us into heart attacks I have a sneaking hunch that you've been assinated any number of times. Now you are showing your need for meds, serious meds Get someone to read you what you wrote. Dave K8MN |
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: K0HB: Yes, I have read a couple of books on the subject--most of the authors strike me as being rather weak in math and especially in the area of probability and statistics--quite possibly lotus-blossom-eaters. For some it is easier to attack the thinker than to disprove the idea.... It certainly is a lot easier to say "God makes it so, so it is" The hard part is defining what is meant by "God"... Not for those who want the easy answer. There are plenty enough people who are just slap happy to tell us that! First, just for starters, to get all the necessary elements formed into the complex amino acids to create the RNA is preposterous-- let alone the actual creation of the RNA (and this would only be a virus-- unable to replicate on its own.) Why no, it really isn't preposterous. What are the titles of your books? Next, to get a complex DNA structure would be another extraordinary event, for the proper structure (organism) to be present and form around the DNA AND be able to use the DNA would be another extraordinary event, for this organism to be able to replicate would be one more extraordinary event, for just one of these single celled organisms to go "multi-cellular" would be one more extraordinary event, then for each cell to develop specialized functions--another extraordinary event, for them to form complete organs handling a specific function--another extraordinary event.... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO GO RIGHT ON UP TO WHERE THE ORGANISM IS CAPABLE OF SELF- REALIZATION, COMPLEX THOUGHT AND CONSIDERS ITSELF TO HAVE A SPIRIT! At times like this, it's important to recall the Unnamed Law: "If it happens, it must be possible" You are off the scientific track to begin with, otherwise you wouldn't use the string of "Preposterous, Extraordinary, impossible, endlessly number, impossible links, Impossible- end of story" stuff. What's really missing in those statements is imagination. Look at your PC or Mac. Then look at pictures of ENIAC (or actually go see it, as I have done...) Could anyone imagine that today's PCs are the direct descendants of that machine? Yet they are, after just 60 years Want to see a few things that are interesting? Look up lipid structures, and see their likely early life implications. No miracles here, just simple chemistry. You speak of RNA and DNA. When speaking of origins of life, it is probably better to speak of metabolic pathways, as the DNA and RNA probably evolved to accommodate them. And are they complicated! see http://tinyurl.com/dm8hu This is a pdf file of the various metabolic pathways. While the major ones are ATP and glycolysis, there are many. Now whereas you may look at this chart, and say look how complicated! this is proof that we are created by God!, I look at it and say "What kind of God would create such a sloppy convoluted MESS!" "You see, to be quite frank, Kevin, the fabric of the universe is far from perfect. It was a bit of botched job, you see. We only had seven days to make it. And that's where this comes in. This is the only map of all the holes. Well, why repair them? Why not use them to get stinking rich?" Hitchhikers guide? No. "Time Bandits" (Terry Gilliam film from 1981, still dead-on) I can only speak for myself, but if I were to create life, I would leave no doubt that it was created. There would be no processes, no interconnected pathways, nothing of the sort. "God is not interested in technology... He knows nothing of the potential of the micro-chip or the silicon revolution. He's obsessed with making the grass grow and getting rainbows right... Look at what he spends his time on. 43 species of parrot! Nipples for men! Slugs! HE created slugs! They can't hear. They can't speak. They can't operate machinery. Are we not in the hands of a lunatic? If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!" Also from Time Bandits. My creatures would see because I made them see, would think because they just do, and there would be no obvious source of life - cut one of them open, and inside would be nothing. A genuine miracle. Simple, and allowing of no argument. Is not life-as-we-know-it a genuine miracle, regardless of how it came about? Sure! But not the same kind of miracle. Any sufficiently advanced technology appears to work miracles. Ours is a miracle of different processes. We live because of various chemical reactions, taking energy and transforming it into ourselves. Well, some of it. A large diesel engine is more efficient... No, I'm talking about life that takes in no energy, and no apparent support structure. It just IS. The life forms should be just sacks of goo that have no obvious reason to be alive. They just are. There would be no question that someone had to "make" that life. Why? ... as you can quickly see, this chain of impossible, seemingly endlessly numbered and impossible links of extraordinary events to have all occurred, all at just the right time, all in just the proper order is just too mathematically impossible to have any believe but those willing to believe the most preposterous impossibility which could ever be devised... in plain english--IT IS IMPOSSIBLE--END OF STORY! You try to make it much more complicated sounding than it is. What you're seeing in those statements is a lack of imagination. Plus a failure to comprehend how long a billion years is... There are moments where I believe that I can. At least for a few minutes. Then I invariably get a headache! 8^) Those books on the subject, start quickly to, toss around these CHAINS of extraordinary events without the slightest considerations to the mathematical possibilities, which end up being NON-EXISTENT! What were those books again? "If it happens, it must be possible" absolutely, and it is possible, it must happen. Not necessarily. All that happens must be possible, but all that is possible doesn't necessarily happen. I had the fortune to have a mathematics professor who I worked with at the university, who obtained a grant and was into computing these possibilities, he WAS an atheist... and that is a true story! Must have read Oolon Coolophid's "Well That About Wraps It Up For God"... *That's* HHTTG. The whole subject of creationism is nicely dealt with in the first HHTG book, as part of the explanation of the Babelfish. That was long before the current antiscience inquisition.. In fact, it was this professor who first told me to look either for angels or aliens--before he finally settled on the angels (intelligence NOT from a mud puddle as you could ever find upon an earth-like planet)... I just flat do not know what to think, it is all too impossible... perhaps the answers are out there... X-Files-theme-plays-in-the-background ... or, perhaps there is a very simple explanation we just have not thought of--yet... any guess is as valid as another... Well, the simplest answer is "All this comes from God". Simple, to the point, and the great thing is that once you accept this, you need look no further. You are her to worship him, and that is all the knowledge needed. I've got a two-liner that works for me: Science is the how God is the why Why? Insecurity that causes God to create you so that you worship him because he needs worship, and if you don't he will torture you for eternity? That's one explanation. It's not mine. I find most definitions of "God" to be far too limited. If you want more, if the one liner answer is not enough, I would suggest that you add time to your equations of impossibility. Also the size of the earth. For some reason that reminds me of the natural "reactor that they found in Africa. Seems that there was a concentration of Uranium ore that was reacting a couple billion of years ago. Groundwater was acting as the moderator. (at least the theory that sounds best to me) The odds of that happening are pretty darn slight. How do we know? We've only examined the planets of this solar system. We've barely scratched the surface of this one. For all we know, there are dozens - hundreds - thousands of such uranium deposits deep in the earth. So I guess God must have done it for some reason. http://tinyurl.com/5wth8 No, it was the planet manufacturers on Magrathea. As for your math professor, I wonder if he had the concept of time on the billion year scale? Almost no one does. Worse, too many don't realize they don't know. Well, when you want to be certain of things, you have to know what you don't know! ;^) How is it that the human has eyes? An exquisite organ of sense to be sure. But before we throw up our hands and say that it was too complicated a structure to have simply come about by chance, we might want to take a look at the facts. Phototropism exists at the lowest levels of life. There are bacteria in the ocean that adjust the level at which they "swim" by the amount of ambient light falling on them. It is a pretty simple thing. Various creatures make use of this in varying degrees of complexity, from simple organs that react to light coming from different directions, to simple lensed eyes, to multi lensed wonders that detect movement, to reflective layers behind the sensing structure that allow sight at the individual photon level. As well as our eyes, which although wonderful, are not at the top of the list for acuity. And in the oceans are creatures who have lost the ability to see, because in their environment it's pretty useless. Some forms of life have senses we don't - like migratory birds that can sense the earth's magnetism. But at it's root level, it *is* a simple thing. That's phototropism. A chemical reaction that would exist if there were no life to put it in. That is just one case. The other senses are also similarly simply based. All based on detection of energy sources, and using those sources to extract information from the environment. Just like looking at a modern automobile. While they look very complicated, at heart, they are just a compilation of simple machines. They're also the end product of a long series of small developments. This is in no way to say that life is not a wonderful and amazing thing. It is. It is a messy, complicated, unruly, terribly imperfect yet surprisingly resilient gastraphagus we have here. And yet, some people look at it, and some throw their arms in the air and say that "It is so complex! It could only have been created by God!". While I look at it and say "It is so complex! I doubt any God would create such a mess when under his total control, a simple life form could be created". I doubt that anyone on this planet really knows. We're just at the beginning in so many ways. Consider how recently things like infectious disease, vaccines and basic metabolism were understood. And yet some people think they are qualified to say what is "too complex"? That's almost funny. It is an admission of failure. Or hubris. Or a strange combination of both. If something is too complex for someone to understand, that does no mean it is too complex for me to understand. And vice versa. Exactly. Next thing they'll do is want to ban "Inherit the Wind" It is worth study with an open mind. When you work on the billion year time scale, all sorts of possibilities exist. Yup. One more thing is unknown: Is the biology we know the only one possible, or are there many possibilities, and Earth just has one of them? I think that the answer lies in the many metabolic pathways. And I believe the answer is that there are a lot of possibilities. Earth has two distinct forms of life already. There is plenty of room for more. Which form are the tube worms found near volcanic vents in the deep oceans? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
K=D8HB wrote: wrote Mike, are you an atheist? Or are you just playing at one because President Bush is a Christian? There are thousands of gods available to believe in, and for each individ= ual god there are often several different versions of that religion. Take, for e= xample, President Bush's god --- dozens and dozens of different cults all claimin= g to be the "proper" Christians. The only difference between atheists and GWB is that the atheists believe= in one less god than George does. If I have it right, Georges god, in His cosmic loneliness, felt a need to be worshipped, so He invented Us to worship hi= m=2E Those of Us who aren't so inclined, He will banish to spend eternity on 7= 5-meter phone. Beep beep! de Hans, K0HB Most Reverend Keeper of the Codes of Q Hans, you're already on record. I was just curious about Mike. Before the election, almost every liberal was saying that they were Christians. Now that all of the hooplah is over, they're back to being atheists. |
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: K0HB: Yes, I have read a couple of books on the subject--most of the authors strike me as being rather weak in math and especially in the area of probability and statistics--quite possibly lotus-blossom-eaters. For some it is easier to attack the thinker than to disprove the idea.... It certainly is a lot easier to say "God makes it so, so it is" The hard part is defining what is meant by "God"... Not for those who want the easy answer. There are plenty enough people who are just slap happy to tell us that! Mike, are you an atheist? Or are you just playing at one because President Bush is a Christian? You tell me, Brian! I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to tell us about how to live One cool dude? That being said, I think that many people who are proclaiming themselves as "Christians" these days are not. The so-called conservative Christians who loudly proclaim their ascendancy these days don't really seem to have much to do with Jesus at all. The closest thing that they are is a modern day version of the Pharisees. Their trends are much more old testament - therefore not sharing in the new covenant proclaimed by Jesus. They push public prayer, also proscribed against by Jesus, They push religious domination of government - same deal. While demanding that the first books of *their* bible (KJV) be taken as absolutely literal, despite two different versions of creation, they totally ignore the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus delivers direct orders in as plain language as you will find in the bible. What's up with that? What is up with that is the modern fundamentalist Christians are falling for one of the oldest tricks in the book - the false prophets. 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. There is no doubt in my mind that the present day universe *was* created billions of years ago, probably in an event we call "the Big Bang. I highly doubt that it was created by a supreme being. For what happened before then, it becomes quite complex, and I enjoy speculation on that. - Mike KB3EIA - There! I knew you had a lot more to say than mere nide remarks about God. I hope you feel better. |
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!!! 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. 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. 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. 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. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
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!!! 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. 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. Does your soul need saving? 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. Do you refer to a flood? There's one in New Orleans right now. Do you know where the water came from? Do you know how it's going to be let out? Are the zoo animals swimming for Cairo? 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. - Mike KB3EIA - It's "nuclear." And they should be dating much younger women if decay is going to be a problem. |
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to tell us about how to live. But I doubt it. Seems a incredibly roundabout way of doing things. 4.5 billion years to have people start thinking of "him" around 4000 years ago. Not to mention all the times they got it wrong before this one came along.... Yep, you've convinced me that "Jesus was one cool dude." Hi! |
Uncle Ted wrote: On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:50:11 GMT, "K=D8HB" wrote: There are thousands of gods available to believe in, and for each indivi= dual god there are often several different versions of that religion. Take, for = example, President Bush's god --- dozens and dozens of different cults all claimi= ng to be the "proper" Christians. The only difference between atheists and GWB is that the atheists believ= e in one less god than George does. If I have it right, Georges god, in His cosm= ic loneliness, felt a need to be worshipped, so He invented Us to worship h= im. Those of Us who aren't so inclined, He will banish to spend eternity on = 75-meter phone. Beep beep! de Hans, K0HB Most Reverend Keeper of the Codes of Q Since this subject has been brought up, I'll admit it - I am an atheist. Here are MY observations, however off-topic they may be... With the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, we saw thousands of survivors thanking god for their lives, even though they've lost everything. I haven't seen one survivor blaming god for the death of innocents in this disaster, not to mention the thousands that have been left homeless and displaced from their families, not yet knowing whether they're dead or alive. Yet, they still thank god for their lives. If a madman forced you out of your house by gun point, and then burned your house to the ground while you watched, would you thank him for sparing your life? What good is life if your lifestyle, quality of life, and means of sustanation are suddenly gone? It makes no sense to me why people would appeal to god and praise god, yet not scratch their heads in confusion when said god anally rapes New Orleans, but say that it is "god's will". Believers will say that I must not question "god's will", but I SHALL question the will of such a god in the hopes that some right-wing bible thumpers will re-think their god's position in the wake of such disasters. But I doubt that is going to happen. Today, there are people going to prayer-fests in just about every church in the country. They'll do their praying, get back into their big, gas-sucking SUVs, and drive back to their fancy homes with the smug satisfaction that they actually did something to help the survivors of this disaster. Is all of this praying supposed to cause some big hand to come down out of the sky and supply those affected by this tragedy with food, water, clothes, medicine and shelter until the government and volunteer donations can be supplied. Somehow, I doubt it. I am ashamed of my government, and I don't care who is offended by my comments. I'll question and bash anyone and any god I damn well please and make no apologies for it. I have had with the religious platitudes from politicians and community leaders on all levels of government. They invoke a non-existent supernatural deity so they can duck their responsibilities. They dragged their asses when it came to getting the job done and lives were lost as a result. It's time to fire all of them, starting with their murdering, cruel, vindictive god and working the way down. Welp, Ted, at least you didn't try to bash Bush over the hurricane. |
|
|
|
wrote:
wrote: From: on Aug 28, 6:02 pm 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: 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. 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. Professional credentials don't get one a pass into amateur radio. ...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. 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. He is to amateur radio as a fishing rod to deer hunting. Dave K8MN |
Now you are showing your need for meds, serious meds Get someone to read you what you wrote. Dave K8MN ............. And yet nary a discouraging word is uttered concerning Lennie's bloated and self-aggrandizing posts. Blowgut is a term that seems fitting for Lennie's oft tedious commentaries. |
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. 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. (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?!) 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"? 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. 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. 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. Just don't try to pass off those beliefs as "science", because they simply don't stand up to the scientific method. 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. 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 |
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 |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com