| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
October 22nd 05, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? Are you saying that I should just shut up and not ask questions? Sure looks like it. it is his count so he makes the rules he will use I'm just asking for explanations of those rules. again and again and again Is there a limit? I've only asked most of the questions once. Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? That's totally bogus. It is his count, his rules, and he is NOT accountable to you, or me or even the FCC or Father Chrismass for that matter I'm just asking for an explanation of some of his "rules". Like whether a comment by a group or club is counted as one or more than one comment. Is it somehow not "grown up" to ask questions about what those rules are? what you are doing, by going on and one about is interfere with others find the results of his work How am I interfering in any way? cut out of mercy to us all You don't have to read my posts, Mark. Nor respond to them. now grow up and take a hint he isn't going to answer you He answers all right - with his typical jackass behavior. At great length, too, all the while avoiding the real issues. Do you consider that behavior to be "grown up"? But all that's OK with you, yet my questions aren't. You're saying that Len has freedom of speech here, but I don't. Think about it. |
|
#3
October 22nd 05, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote:
wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions cut Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? then don't accept them as valid Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? never siad you lacked the right That's totally bogus. your effort to imply someone is doing something imporper is totalay bogus you distortion of a plea to stop asking question that is is clear are not going to be answered as someone tryin gto intfer with your ight is totaly bogus cut You're saying that Len has freedom of speech here, but I don't. liar I am excercising My rights to tell I think you are trying to infringe on Lens right (and now mine as well) to engage in legal actvities by harrasment you are not in any way a victum of censorhsip Think about it. _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
|
#4
October 27th 05, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. cut Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? then don't accept them as valid But why? Lennie went to a lot of effort to make these posts in order to validate his points. Why then would he NOT want anyone to understand his "work"...?!?! Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? never siad you lacked the right "said" No...You didn't "say" it...You just told Jim to shut up. That's totally bogus. your effort to imply someone is doing something imporper is totalay bogus "improper" "totally" But it's NOT "bogus". He's been after Lennie to clarify his data collection methods, and YOU are telling Jim to just "accept" it or shut up. you distortion of a plea to stop asking question that is is clear are not going to be answered as someone tryin gto intfer with your ight is totaly bogus "Your" "trying" "to" "interfere" "right" No, it's NOT bogus. You've clearly attempted to coerce Jim into NOT asking Lennie VALID data collection questions on his "scorecard". YOU are the one doing the interfering. cut You're saying that Len has freedom of speech here, but I don't. liar No, he's not. I am excercising My rights to tell I think you are trying to infringe on Lens right (and now mine as well) to engage in legal actvities by harrasment You are "exercising" your right to be a foul-mouthed, ill-informed and arrogant idiot who is making false accusations. you are not in any way a victum of censorhsip "victim" Sure he is. YOU have point-blank told him to shut up. THAT is censorship. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#5
October 27th 05, 03:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons cut Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? then don't accept them as valid But why? Lennie went to a lot of effort to make these posts in order to validate his points. but not to you or jim Why then would he NOT want anyone to understand his "work"...?!?! why should he care if you understand his work? you are not interested in facts you never have been Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? never siad you lacked the right "said" No...You didn't "say" it...You just told Jim to shut up. yes I did i told he wasn't going to get his answers and he should stop going on about it never sadi he did not have the right to ignore that request cuttng the raving of the nutjob _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
|
#6
October 27th 05, 04:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all Sure it is! it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "...to be buffons..." BBWWWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! cut Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? then don't accept them as valid But why? Lennie went to a lot of effort to make these posts in order to validate his points. but not to you or jim Sure he did...He posted them to a public forum. Why then would he NOT want anyone to understand his "work"...?!?! why should he care if you understand his work? If he wants to "make his point" he'd clarify his work. Otherwise all he's doing is spamming the NG. you are not interested in facts you never have been Sure I am. And when you PRESENT some, I will pay close attention, COLONEL..... Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? never siad you lacked the right "said" No...You didn't "say" it...You just told Jim to shut up. yes I did Then you acted to coerce him into supressing his speech. So here we have your voluntary admission of your wanton violation of Jim's civil rights...No grey area here...You did it! i told he wasn't going to get his answers and he should stop going on about it But if he wants to ask the question 10,000 times in 10,000 threads, it IS his RIGHT to do so... never sadi he did not have the right to ignore that request "said" You DID try to suppress Jim's freedom of speech. cuttng the raving of the nutjob The nutjob is in Chassell, Michigan. But I am not yet sure if it's you or the guy you're sleeping with........ Steve, K4YZ |
|
#7
October 27th 05, 04:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 26 Oct 2005 19:05:14 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all Sure it is! nope it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons cuting all after stevie proves he is not engaged in anything serious _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
|
#8
October 27th 05, 06:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
|
#9
October 22nd 05, 08:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote:
wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? Strange. I read about the PCTA's being ill mannered and rude. I do find in practice however, that the NCTA's and interested others are the ones telling people to keep their mouth shut. Ya notice that too, Jim? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#10
October 22nd 05, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote: wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? Strange. I read about the PCTA's being ill mannered and rude. I do find in practice however, that the NCTA's and interested others are the ones telling people to keep their mouth shut. yea we advocate against harrassment one of the worst forms of rudeness Procders complain that other excercising there free speech is somehow infringing on their own Ya notice that too, Jim? - Mike KB3EIA - _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Docket Scorecard | Policy | |||
| Docket 05-235 Scorecard | Policy | |||
| Stonewalling on WT Docket 05-235? | Policy | |||
| Stonewalling WT Docket 05-235? | Policy | |||
| Status of WT Docket 05-235 | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
