RadioBanter - View Single Post

January 14th 04, 02:35 PM

On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
snip

So let's recap:

With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long,
lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing.

I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards
rather than my own.

I even got you to admit something good about K3LT.

And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of
inappropriate words.

Jim,

This is really uncharacteristic of you.

That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable.

Nope - not that one

That's the one I was referring to.

Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words?

Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct,
which is clearly missing here. As you are aware.

I am amazed that a well
educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above,
given the behaviour that started it off in the first place.

You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote
something I didn't? Water under the bridge.

Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in
violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional
changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes.

So her wishes are more important than my standards?

Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue.

You remember that, don't you, Jim?

Bully-like behaviour, Jim?

Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything?
Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or
threats at all in my actions or postings.

Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or
intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup.

Nope. Not from where I sit.

Sorry to hear that, Jim.

I wouldn't have thought it possible.

It isn't.

(ahem)

That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there.

Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things
others said he "must" do or "should" do?

Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks,
now did he?

Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying
that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together,
making salt when it was against the law....

Very annoying fellow at times.

....but totally unrelated to the issue. As you are aware.

So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has
vanquished, as he says to the crowd:

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!"

No.

dang. I thought you of all people would be.

Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you
frequently speak have gotten to. That's all.

You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly?

Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly?

Really, Jim. An inane question, indeed.

Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel.

Not the issue. As you are aware.

You know.

But hey, you beat Kim, right!

Not according to Kim.

According to you - read your own post!

Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree.

So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser.

That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread.

Not true at all, Jim.

Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full
version of this post:

"....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun."

An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim.

That's all that matters.....

Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a
callsign I think is inappropriate.

Sidestepping the issue.

73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY

Brilliant.

Thank you.

Not really

Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon
diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping
of the main issue under discussion. I expected better from the man who
often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts.

The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in
a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to
her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your
responses so far.

Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or
shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are
fooling no one but yourself, Jim.

"It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two
sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and
the artificial." - Mark Twain

73, Leo