Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
So WHAT, Brian? Steve is Pro code test, so you decide everyone
who is
pro code test is like Steve?
If Steve has a problem with anonymous posters, so what?
Nursie only has "problems" with those who think differently than her.
Hypocrisy with hysteresis.
I think you and Brian should take it up with Steve.
We have. In public. That's what has you up a tree and yelling. :-)
I'm certainly not going to condemn every anonymous poster no
matter if
they disagree with me or not. I won't condemn Blackguard or Quitefine
or
Leo or any of them.
But...you WILL side with them, even cheer them on, if they are PCTA.
And you say I have a thing about stating the obvious!
Once again, *so what*? You'll side with an anonymous NCTA or interested
No code test person.
If an anonymousie shows up, then they are unidentified. No one can
really know what their opinions on the code test are... Hi hi.
To expect me to bust someone's chops because they are anonymous and
express an opinion that I agree with is unrealistic and a bit odd. Fight
your own fights.
Tsk. Nobody's "chops were busted." :-)
If you have a beef with chops, then get ham. Or fish around for
another tasty subject. Or vegetate.
The only "fighting" or "chop busting" going on is the self-perceived
activity going on in the mind of individual readers.
It ain't my fight, and you'll not be able to make it my fight.
I may
occasionally have something to say if one of them makes a particularly
offensive post, but none of them have.
You ARE making it a fight! :-)
Absolutely not! :^) Brian wants me to condemn them because Steve does.
Ain't my fight at all.
If it isn't "your fight," then why are you spending so much time
talking
about other "fights?" :-)
You are taking two different things here, notably the fact that
some
of
us don't condemn anonymous posters, and furthermore, we also don't
condemn anonymous posters that may agree with us, and expecting
something that just isn't human nature. Now when the anonymous poster
disagrees with us, its more likely that a person will say something
negative about the anonymous poster, but that doesn't mean we all have
to.
Nobody is forcing you to support the anonymousie PCTA-ers. :-)
But you do. Hi hi.
LIB! I've been here for years now and it's official now. I'm a PCTA!
"LIB?" :-)
Coslo, you support the anonymousie PCTA types. You must. You
don't "bust their chops."
I'd say you secretly support them by not saying nasty about Their
saying nasty.
You can post as Billybeeper all day as far as I am concerned.
Leo is
civil, and I have no problem with that.
But you DO have a problem here, don't you? Hi hi.
Nope.
To (again) state the obvious, you've already devoted much of your time
to talking about "chop busting" and "fights." You DO have a problem.
hmmm.....
Steve thinks elsewise. Argue the point with him.
There is NO argument with the gunnery nurse. She never does
or says anything wrong. :-)
Frankly my dear Lenover21, I don't give a damn about Steve and his mode
of expression.
Right. Another example of the PCTA extra Double Standard. Hi hi.
Hmm, explain? I don't care about your mode of expression either.
Sometimes I enjoy it.
Tsk, tsk. You want a meeting with charts and graphs and an
experienced presenter to show you examples of the infamous
Double Standard?!?!?
hmm, maybe. *Your answer* is what needs explaining. If I don't care
about your mode, nor Steve's mode of expression, and you two are on
opposite sides of the discussion, I need an explanation of why that
means that I have a double standard.
Tsk. Still need an "explanation?"
Not a good reply, Coslo.
Nor a good explanation.
You don't have that kind of time. There are many, many examples.
They are all in Google, safely archived. :-)
I don't particularly care for it, but he and you and
Brian have carved out a relationship that seems to give all of you what
you seek in here.
I don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
We "have a relationship?"
I have no "relationship" with any uncouth left-over marine who
thinks that a purchasing agent job equals "engineering." Hi hi.
Oh yes you do. Don't get so excited now!
Coslo, you must have been sticked in the helmet in recent past
hockey games.
Nope, I took the summer off to rest a torn meniscus. Takes longer to
heal as time marches on.
Who filled in under your name in here "all summer?" :-)
What are yuo talking about?
Or you may be smoking some "good stuff" that Bob Casey said I
was... :-)
nahh. nothing stronger than the occasional beer for me.
3.2 stuff? :-)
You smoke beer? How is that done? :-)
So. you deliberately misunderstand me to serve as the content of your
replies? noted! 8^)
If you want to see where your faulty reasoning on "relationships"
is, just look back over the last two weeks or so of newsgroup
messages.
You three are in a co-dependent relationship. Denial is okay at this
stage.
Tsk. You should get a subscription to Psychology Today and
fill yourself in on what "relationships" are. :-)
It is okay. This happens all over Netnews. Don't let it bother you too
much.
I don't have any "relationship" with some SOB (the B stands for
Beeper) who wants to insult my wife and imply harm is coming
to me and my family.
Oh yes you do.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you are condoning threatening behavior...and
thereby showing the PCTA extra Double Standard!
Now this ia a bizarre conclusion. I do not condone violence against
anyone.
But you made no comment on his implied threats.
Nor I to you on your's to Dan Jeswald. That's between you and Steve,
and you and Dan. Making threats is bad and makes for bad karma.
Why do you want to dictate the content of my postings? Want to be the
moderator?
If he does or does not threaten violence against you, or you do
the same with him, does not affect the co-dependent relationship you
have all developed. It only shows the true nature of the co-dependance.
What is that "true nature," Dr. Freud?
We're well beyond Freud.
You have a very strange comment and have driven way out of the
limits of definitions of the word "relationship."
Without them, you have less people to join in your posting tirades. I
doubt I'm much fun to post to, certainly nowhere near as much fun as
your battles with Steve.
What "battle?" Do you perceive "battles?" Tsk.
You perceive yourself in battles all the time, if Dave's quotations are
correct! 8^)
Who is "Dave?"
Oh good, philosophy! Who are any of us?
Tsk. If you want to think someone who works Frenchmen out of band
on 6m is "correct," then feel free... :-)
Thanks for the chuckle. I *really* didn't expect that! 8^)
But, you've never been in the military, don't know what "live fire" is
about (from weaponry, that is).
I've served my country for a lot longer than you ever did.
You are being very irrelevant now.
Tsk. Another "hostile action" hero claiming what? :-)
No hostile actions.
Sounds very rank to me...
and no rank.
"Steve" who? :-)
You get what you want out of those battles, all three of you.
Unless you take all of this seriously. Tell me you *don't* take any of
this seriously. Do you think that you will change Steve's, or Jim's, or
Dave's or even my own mind?
I don't take these things seriously. :-)
That's really good.
It's really true.
Hmmm, I hear your words.
It's fun to poke holes in some of the cherished, beloved mythology
found so abundant in olde-tyme hamme lore.
Most of that lore is passed from generation to generation, preserved
and cherished even though much of it is false...or appears false
because alternatives aren't presented for modern-day radio.
But those last two paragraphs make me wonder
I'm sure it does...but then deep philosophical thought is passe' in
here. :-)
Unless you do take it seriously you are just here for the fun of it, to
call Steve and the rest of us names, do whatever arguing you want to do,
and get whatever response we give back to you.
"We?" Do you have several alternate personalities also? Or are you
just wanting to shake your "we-we?"
Now that's not mice.
It appears you've joined what you think is a "battle." Go for it.
Is this the one time it "isn't" a battle? Unlike all the other battle
quotes you've made?
I'm not claiming "hostile action" experience in the military. :-)
Now this is really odd. You accuse Steve of that. Are you getting the
two of us mixed up?
You seem to be confused as to who is posting what.
No confusion here!
All you will waste is your own time...which could be spent playing
with your radios (when not posting from workplace).
And that, my dear Lenover21, is a relationship that is carved out
mostly between You, Brian, and Steve. Dysfunctional to be sure, but hey,
I'm not going to judge. 8^)
You have ALREADY "judged." And ruled, sentenced, etc. :-)
I don't have a "relationship" with olde-tyme hamme raddio...or its
lifestyling fans.
I think that has been disproven.
I'm just showing what a ridiculous thing the
morse code test is for a civilian hobby...to a bunch of twits who
still think ARS stands for Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.
So you really DO take this seriously.
The FCC is on public record saying they don't think the code test
serves as an indicator to them for an applicant's licensing.
That's nice. I like the little side trips we take. 8^)
Oh, my, isn't that a "sunnuvagun?"
Perhaps a Huzzanga?
No. It's a Brakobian "sunnuvagun."
Perhaps we should ask Hans himself?
It's all in the Handbook. Look in the index. :-)
If you still believe the morse code test is a valid requirement for
a civilian hobby of amateur radio, then YOU are the "dysfunctional"
one, not I.
If you wish to believe that, go right ahead.
No "belief" necessary.
The FCC doesn't believe it...every other radio service doesn't believe
it.
Those who believe it are just olde-tyme hamme raddio jocks who
managed to pass high-rate morse and Demand Respect as "radio
ops" for having done so.
I see.
They've managed to create the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society
(ARS) that keeps trying to recapture the "pioneering days" of a past
that existed before they were born. [they get very angry if one
doesn't respect their meeting 1934 standards and practices in the
year 2004]
any more?
Have fun peeing in your own pool, Coslo. I don't swim there.
This group is the pool I speak of, and you are the majority poster, so
I'd have to say that you are swimming in the deep end. 8^)
No problem. Sooner or later some agency will install cleaning and
filtrating equipment to sanitize whatever area you PCTA have
polluted...by yourselves.
Like all agencies, that sanitizing installation may take time. But, it
will eventually happen. I'm not worried about time...but such
sanitizing is long, long overdue.
I've had a full career in radio-electronics and am happy for the experience.
[not to mention monetarily independent] Never once in a half century
have I been required to learn or use morse code for any communications
purpose...nor even have to obtain an amateur license in order to show
"interest in radio." Hi hi.
Oh good, we're going on another side trip. It is good to hear a success
story. Hopefully you give thanks for every day that you don't have to
use Morse code... 8^)
The regulatory end of the amateur radio "pool" needs some sanitizing.
If nothing else, it is clogged with outdated debris from long ago that
makes it sluggish, slow-moving. All that seems to keep it moving is a
lot of fraternal-hall emotional rah-rah of everyone saying how "good" they
are for performing the same job tasks outlined long ago.
ahh, now *there* is a visualization! 8^)
Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a job, isn't a guild, isn't a union,
isn't some sort of para-military "service" that is essential for national
security. It is regulated by a federal agency which does not require a
single agency staffer to have any amateur radio license.
Hobbies are supposed to be fun. I don't see much "fun" in this
particular wading pool...just a bunch of very angry PCTA calling names
and demanding strict adherence to their particular brand of "fun."
Tsk.
The anger is there, and it is real. Perhaps there is some confusion as
to just *who* is feeling the anger.
- Mike KB3EIA -
|