In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:49:20 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:16*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,

*RHF wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:56*pm, msg wrote:
-
- *Fromwww.davidgleason.com:

SNIP
-
- Hey clueless, nobody cares about this.
- It has nothing to do with RRS.
-

The entertainment value of your feud has passed; if neither of you is
going to extend an olive branch why don't you at least accept a
cease-fire.

I don't see a positive contribution from you about this.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:18:19 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:49:20 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:16*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,

*RHF wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:56*pm, msg wrote:
-
- *Fromwww.davidgleason.com:

SNIP
-
- Hey clueless, nobody cares about this.
- It has nothing to do with RRS.
-

The entertainment value of your feud has passed; if neither of you is
going to extend an olive branch why don't you at least accept a
cease-fire.

I don't see a positive contribution from you about this.

Very little positive to say about it. Sure, I believe you are more
knowledgeable about radio than RHF and I've often commented on his
godawful writing style and lack of substantive contribution in actual
knowledge. However, either of you could walk away from the feud and
neither of you chooses to.

Now, if you mean positive contribution to be me sticking some barbs in
RHF that would be akin to bayonetting a dead soldier. Or do you wish
I should challenge Eduardo Gleason - again, very little to say that
hasn't been said already.

So, that leaves my one positive contribution as suggesting that the
parties cease their bickering and if you don't find that positive
and/or relevant well that's just too damn bad 'cause I don't play to
you as my primary audience nor do I seek or need your approval of what
I post.

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:18:19 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:49:20 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:16*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,

*RHF wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:56*pm, msg wrote:
-
- *Fromwww.davidgleason.com:

SNIP
-
- Hey clueless, nobody cares about this.
- It has nothing to do with RRS.
-

The entertainment value of your feud has passed; if neither of you is
going to extend an olive branch why don't you at least accept a
cease-fire.

I don't see a positive contribution from you about this.

Very little positive to say about it. Sure, I believe you are more
knowledgeable about radio than RHF and I've often commented on his
godawful writing style and lack of substantive contribution in actual
knowledge. However, either of you could walk away from the feud and
neither of you chooses to.

Now, if you mean positive contribution to be me sticking some barbs in
RHF that would be akin to bayonetting a dead soldier. Or do you wish
I should challenge Eduardo Gleason - again, very little to say that
hasn't been said already.

So, that leaves my one positive contribution as suggesting that the
parties cease their bickering and if you don't find that positive
and/or relevant well that's just too damn bad 'cause I don't play to
you as my primary audience nor do I seek or need your approval of what
I post.

I've tried the non-confrontational approach and that was unsatisfactory.

I need another suggestion.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:53:52 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:18:19 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:49:20 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:16*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,

*RHF wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:56*pm, msg wrote:
-
- *Fromwww.davidgleason.com:

SNIP
-
- Hey clueless, nobody cares about this.
- It has nothing to do with RRS.
-

The entertainment value of your feud has passed; if neither of you is
going to extend an olive branch why don't you at least accept a
cease-fire.

I don't see a positive contribution from you about this.

Very little positive to say about it. Sure, I believe you are more
knowledgeable about radio than RHF and I've often commented on his
godawful writing style and lack of substantive contribution in actual
knowledge. However, either of you could walk away from the feud and
neither of you chooses to.

Now, if you mean positive contribution to be me sticking some barbs in
RHF that would be akin to bayonetting a dead soldier. Or do you wish
I should challenge Eduardo Gleason - again, very little to say that
hasn't been said already.

So, that leaves my one positive contribution as suggesting that the
parties cease their bickering and if you don't find that positive
and/or relevant well that's just too damn bad 'cause I don't play to
you as my primary audience nor do I seek or need your approval of what
I post.

I've tried the non-confrontational approach and that was unsatisfactory.

I need another suggestion.

Semtex?

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:53:52 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:18:19 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:49:20 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:16*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,

*RHF wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:56*pm, msg wrote:
-
- *Fromwww.davidgleason.com:

SNIP
-
- Hey clueless, nobody cares about this.
- It has nothing to do with RRS.
-

The entertainment value of your feud has passed; if neither of you is
going to extend an olive branch why don't you at least accept a
cease-fire.

I don't see a positive contribution from you about this.

Very little positive to say about it. Sure, I believe you are more
knowledgeable about radio than RHF and I've often commented on his
godawful writing style and lack of substantive contribution in actual
knowledge. However, either of you could walk away from the feud and
neither of you chooses to.

Now, if you mean positive contribution to be me sticking some barbs in
RHF that would be akin to bayonetting a dead soldier. Or do you wish
I should challenge Eduardo Gleason - again, very little to say that
hasn't been said already.

So, that leaves my one positive contribution as suggesting that the
parties cease their bickering and if you don't find that positive
and/or relevant well that's just too damn bad 'cause I don't play to
you as my primary audience nor do I seek or need your approval of what
I post.

I've tried the non-confrontational approach and that was unsatisfactory.

I need another suggestion.

Semtex?

Might be worth a try.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Feb 24, 3:18*pm, Telamon
wrote:

* * * Three Star Snip * * *

- - The entertainment value of your feud has passed;
- -*if neither of you is going to extend an olive branch
- - why don't you at least accept a cease-fire. *
-
- I don't see a positive contribution from you about this.
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
-

Telamon,

Each of Your Negativity {Attack} Posts Against Me :
Will simply Result in a Reply by Me.
[ You Are Playing a Game of Newsgroup Ping-Pong ]

Again -IF- it is you objective to Improve / Better this
Newsgroup : Then Start by Being Positive Yourself
and Post something Positive Each Day to the Group.
Hey -if- I like what I Read being Posted by You :
I might even give you an Atta-Boy.

Once More Here is My Message of Hope for You
and Others who Read and Post to this Newsgroup.

(OT) : My Positive Message of Hope for Telamon and
'Others' - Each of You Can Make A Difference.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5262fe2c0024e5

PLUS - Improve the Rec.Radio.Shortwave Newsgroup
-by- Make On-Topic Posts -not- Waring Words
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...fa1c6bb6c19cd0

Telamon - Do You Have an Action Plan for a Better RRS Newsgroup :
Other Than To Drive People {Myself} Away ?
. . . and After Me Who's Next On Your List ?