Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Johnston" wrote in
message
...

On the Mary Tyler Moore show, Ted Baxter is an incompetent shell of a
man. He's selfish, inflated, overblown, egotistical, insecure, and very
very dumb.

Baxter's role model is Walter Cronkite. Although devoted to his wife,
Baxter has reproductive "issues." We're never told but my guess is,
he's impotent. Baxter is the proverbial talking air-head - no one
respects him.

So why did we enjoy following Baxter's antics?

It's simple. His idiocy made us laugh. He was the quintessential clown;
the court jester; the fool.

I'll miss our amateur radio version of Ted Baxter. In less than two
weeks his license will expire, and although he'll undoubtedly try to
get his license renewed, there's a huge doubt as to whether we'll ever
hear another original "broadcast."

I often wonder if Baxter, like another tragic clown, Pagliacci, is
crying on the inside. The comedy is nearly ended, and we may never
know.

This has been an editorial by John Johnston.


--
John Johnston

However, the comparison to Pagliacci is not entirely fair to Pagliacci.
Baxter created all his own problems by knowingly violating the rules. On
the other hand, Pagliacci, although brought down by his own unreasoning
jealousy, did not create the initial problem of his wife's
unfaithfulness.

stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point

My comments are based on the various warnings, inspections, and other
run-ins with the FCC that Baxter has had. It certainly gives the impression
that he chooses to see how far he can push the FCC.

well even if your revised stament is true that is different than saying
he has knowingly violated the rules

the later is slander without knowledge neither of us has


He could have asked the FCC for an opinion on the things he wanted to do
before he did them rather than taking an approach that appears
confrontational.

he could choosen to do so

he is not required to

he has the right to choose to be confrontational, if he chooses

again with your appearant efforts to deny that others have the right to
exercise their rights

If you are turely not going to "converse with me" then don't, but don't
complain when you chose to do so

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE