Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip
Seig Heil!!! :-)
Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr.
Godwin's rule.
"attempt"? Hardly!
snip
Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times
before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether
Godwin's impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not.
The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person
who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis"
or references to them, has lost the argument. That the
discussion
continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument.
I see. Thanks for clearing that up, Jim - for a minute there, I was
afraid that you hadn't accomplished anything useful there!
So it wasn't an "attempt" but a success.
Was it? Not really - the discussion will continue.
Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.
But it just had to be done, didn't it?
No, it didn't. But I did it anyway.
Of course you did. You had to!
Nope. I chose to.
The choice, Sir, was not yours to make - you simply could not
resist doing so.
I chose to respond. Other times I choose not to. Len posts
far more than I respond.
Is there a problem with that? Do you think Len's slurs
are acceptable behavior?
There are several folks here whose 'slurs' and language are
much worse
than this example
Yes, Len has done worse....
Is that what I said? Don't think so!
It's a valid interpretation.
(a reference to the bumbling and
comical 'Nazis' on "Hogan's Heroes")
The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1
Godwin invoked.
For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone
involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact
that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1.
- always has been, always will be.
That claim is incorrect. Usenet is not eternal.
It's not my job
to run around and point that out all day every day.
You have avoided the question.
Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior?
Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.
In other words, you won't answer the question.
It's not my job to point that out to each and every participant on this group Jim - is it yours? Why?
Your argument seems to be that since Len will probably exhibit
his typical immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun
Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior anyway, there's no
point in pointing out when he is, indeed, exhibiting his typical
immature ethnic-slur Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting
jackass behavior. Is that about right?
Nope. You have avoided the question.
See how that works?
Perhaps you have a valid point, since if what Len seeks is
attention, pointing out his typical immature ethnic-slur
Godwin-violating bad-pun Unknown-Soldier-insulting jackass behavior
gives him that attention.
(73 de Jim etc. sig missing again)
Not missing - omitted.
In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!
None of the above.
Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?
Not at all.
The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting
between operators". In the context of amateur radio,
this means between amateur radio operators.
In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious!
Most people don't know the original meaning.
It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to
someone who is not an amateur radio operator.
Which I am. And have stated many times before.
And your callsign is?
You can state almost anything here, but as long as you
remain an "anony-mousie", there's room for doubt.
Poor memory? Google 'er up.....
I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.