) writes:
Canadians could not protect themselves if you paid them. What a bunch
of pussies!

Clearly you, like some of the other posters, are confused about the purpose
of this newsgroup.

You might want to read the intro to rec.radio.shortwave that used
to be posted on a regular basis here,
http://www.faqs.org/ftp/faqs/radio/m...g/introduction

Once again, there are many many newsgroups so you are bound to find
one that fits your needs, so go and find it.

Michael

On 5 May 2007 06:18:00 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

) writes:
Canadians could not protect themselves if you paid them. What a bunch
of pussies!

Clearly you, like some of the other posters, are confused about the purpose
of this newsgroup.

You might want to read the intro to rec.radio.shortwave that used
to be posted on a regular basis here,
http://www.faqs.org/ftp/faqs/radio/m...g/introduction

Once again, there are many many newsgroups so you are bound to find
one that fits your needs, so go and find it.

Michael

I'm good with this one.

Thanks

On 5 May 2007 06:18:00 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

) writes:
Canadians could not protect themselves if you paid them. What a bunch
of pussies!

Clearly you, like some of the other posters, are confused about the purpose
of this newsgroup.

You might want to read the intro to rec.radio.shortwave that used
to be posted on a regular basis here,
http://www.faqs.org/ftp/faqs/radio/m...g/introduction

Once again, there are many many newsgroups so you are bound to find
one that fits your needs, so go and find it.

Michael


Reprinted from the faq for you:

"Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT
limit
discussions to shortwave only."

Besides, I first heard this story on the SW bands. Tht puts it clearly
on topic.

Have a nice day.

On May 5, 6:01 am, wrote:

Reprinted from the faq for you:

"Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT
limit
discussions to shortwave only."

Besides, I first heard this story on the SW bands. Tht puts it clearly
on topic.

Have a nice day.

This is a fine example of a selective and intellectually dishonest
quote, taken out of context in a way that is intended to be
misleading. An honest reading of the FAQ would show that this was
intended to include other radio-related topics, and not to include
anything and everything. This is obvious in a more complete quote:

"Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT
limit discussions to shortwave only. Any radio-related topics are
welcome."

Also, the range of relevant topics is clearly stated in the preceding
paragraph:

"This group is intended to be a place where ANY radio monitoring topic
can and should be discussed. We are happy to hear from posters who
listen to any part of the radio or microwave spectrum, from DC to
daylight. We discuss topics of almost any kind, ranging from (but not
limited to) shortwave broadcasting, DXing small or distant shortwave
stations, utility and teletype monitoring, military eavesdropping,
station schedules, QSLing sw broadcasters, spectrum usage, equipment
design and modifications, antennas, receiver reviews and
recommendations, and many more."

Shame on you for your dishonest attempt to deceive.

On 6 May 2007 15:14:11 -0700, "
wrote:

On May 5, 6:01 am, wrote:

Reprinted from the faq for you:

"Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT
limit
discussions to shortwave only."

Besides, I first heard this story on the SW bands. Tht puts it clearly
on topic.

Have a nice day.

This is a fine example of a selective and intellectually dishonest
quote, taken out of context in a way that is intended to be
misleading. An honest reading of the FAQ would show that this was
intended to include other radio-related topics, and not to include
anything and everything. This is obvious in a more complete quote:

"Despite what the newsgroup name might imply, we definitely DO NOT
limit discussions to shortwave only. Any radio-related topics are
welcome."

Also, the range of relevant topics is clearly stated in the preceding
paragraph:

"This group is intended to be a place where ANY radio monitoring topic
can and should be discussed. We are happy to hear from posters who
listen to any part of the radio or microwave spectrum, from DC to
daylight. We discuss topics of almost any kind, ranging from (but not
limited to) shortwave broadcasting, DXing small or distant shortwave
stations, utility and teletype monitoring, military eavesdropping,
station schedules, QSLing sw broadcasters, spectrum usage, equipment
design and modifications, antennas, receiver reviews and
recommendations, and many more."

Shame on you for your dishonest attempt to deceive.


I don't think that was deceptive at all. I told you that I heard it on
the SW bands at the end of my post. I need to do no more. Shame on you
for trying to make my on topic post look off topic.

On May 6, 3:20 pm, wrote:

I don't think that was deceptive at all. I told you that I heard it on
the SW bands at the end of my post. I need to do no more. Shame on you
for trying to make my on topic post look off topic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is a real stretch. Given that standard, it would be on-topic for
me to post about the death of Princess Di or Anna Nicole Smith because
I had heard about them on shortwave, without indicating in any way how
they were relate to radios.

You did not cite a SW source in your original post. You copied an
article by Reuters. You only came up later with the "heard it on SW"
claim, apparently in a desperate attempt to create a figment of
relevance. There was no obvious intent to discuss this in the context
of any radio transmission. It looks like more evidence of your
honesty and integirty.

On 6 May 2007 15:38:46 -0700, "
wrote:

On May 6, 3:20 pm, wrote:

I don't think that was deceptive at all. I told you that I heard it on
the SW bands at the end of my post. I need to do no more. Shame on you
for trying to make my on topic post look off topic.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is a real stretch. Given that standard, it would be on-topic for
me to post about the death of Princess Di or Anna Nicole Smith because
I had heard about them on shortwave, without indicating in any way how
they were relate to radios.

You did not cite a SW source in your original post. You copied an
article by Reuters. You only came up later with the "heard it on SW"
claim, apparently in a desperate attempt to create a figment of
relevance. There was no obvious intent to discuss this in the context
of any radio transmission. It looks like more evidence of your
honesty and integirty.


I don't recall the FAQ stating that I had to cite a source. It seems
that you are fabricating new rules.

Either way, I heard it while listening to the SW radio. I did not post
it to please you. If you have issues with it might I suggest a kill
filter.

Good day...

On May 6, 4:36 pm, wrote:

I don't recall the FAQ stating that I had to cite a source. It seems
that you are fabricating new rules.

Either way, I heard it while listening to the SW radio. I did not post
it to please you. If you have issues with it might I suggest a kill
filter.

Good day

Rules? What rules? I was only pointing out that your arguments to
rationalize your off-topic positng were intellectually dishonest. You
are making another illogical extrapolation.