Leo wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 16:04:55 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:00:59 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:08 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Nope - just the right of one individual to be treated equally by the
others. Plain and simple.

Do you disagree with this concept, Dave?

Yes, I'll have to disagree with it. "Bill" is a good neighbor. "Pete"
lives on the other side of me. "Pete" has a dog which he allows to roam
freely. "Pete" refuses to control the dog and laughs when I tell him
that I object to his dog's use of my lawn for a toilet.

"Bill" asks if he can borrow my lawn mower. I lend it to him. A month
later, "Pete" asks if he might borrow the mower. I tell him "no". I've
not treated these individuals equally. It is my view that I'm not bound
to do so.

No, you certainly are not.

Then what about your comments about folks deserving equal treatment?

One question, though... did you put up posters all over the
neighbourhood to let everyone know what a jerk you thought Pete is?
Do you tell everyone that you meet that he is an inconsiderate boor?
Do you go to the mall with a bucket of the dog droppings and tell
everyone within earshot how wrong Pete is?

That's *three* questions, "Leo".

I've never brought up Kim's inappropriate call on the air. Both "Bill"
and "Pete" are hypotheticals.

That would be OK to do, you know - you and Pete are not on the air!


Hypothetical Pete isn't a ham. He never heard of the Amateur's Code? I
didn't lessen his operating pleasure.

Dave K8MN