On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700,
wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
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:
Seig Heil!!! :-)
Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.
Oh. OK then. That matters a lot.
Glad you agree!
Guess that makes you 'right', then.
Yes, it does.
That's important!
Len was 'wrong', and you were
'right'.
Yep.
That's important!
Feel better now?
Sure. How about you?
Just fine, thanks! Glad you're feeling better!
I was pretty good before. How about you?
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.
I see.
You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all?
Nope. With good reason.
I'm sure that we'd all love to hear your good reason for
resurrecting
the work history of the long departed Fuhrer back there, Jim - please share!
It shows that the word "feldwebel", when it was used in connection with
a specific person, has Godwin connections.
Oh. I see.
I was wondering, because - well, there are a couple of errors with
your statement .
Let's have a look:
1. "The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1".
Well, no. According to several historical references, our friend
Adolf never achieved a rank higher than the equivalent of Lance
Corporal by the end of WW I. Several translation facilities available
on the Web (see below) translate "Feldwebel" to "Sergeant". This was
a rank senior to his.
2. "It shows that the word "Feldwebel", when it was used in connection
with a specific person, has Godwin connections."
Well, no. Even if Mr. Hitler had indeed held that rank in the German
(Bavarian, actually) Army during WW I, that was before the creation of
the Nazi party in 1920. Bu that time, he had left that rank and
entered politics.
All you would have proven was his rank in the Army during WW I - just
like thousands of other soldiers - none of whom attained the level of
notoriety that Adolf did.
Not exactly Godwin invokable stuff at all!
A few references for you:
FELDWEBEL
http://odge.info/german-english/Feldwebel+%7Bm%7D.html
http://www.silentwall.com/LuftwaffePortraits9.html
http://babelfish.altavista.com/
ADOLF
http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler/warone.htm
NAZI PARTY
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...ziorigins.html
And, if one of your electives at good ol' Dreidel U was 20th Century
World History, you should give them a call and see if you can still
get your money back!
You of course realize that there is a school of thought that
invocation of Godwin's Law can be interpreted to include any
such
reference to that - um - Teutonic regime of the 1930's and
1940's? Especially the Big Guy himself?
Oh sure - but the classic interpretation is that Godwin only
applies when someone refers to another in such terms. Which
I have not done.
I see...we'll deal with that next!
That school of thought reminds me of the episode of "Blackadder III" in
which two characters are superstitious about the name of
a particular play by Shakespeare - supposedly, saying the name brings
bad luck. They refer to it as "the Scottish play", and if
someone says the actual name, they have to do an elaborate ritual to
excise the evil spirits.
Of course Blackadder says the name of the play for them at every
opportunity.
Oh - I forgot - you said you use another interpretation of that
rule.......
The correct one..
Well, no. Part of it - but not all. The intent of Godwin's Law was
to provide an upper limit for the length of a Usenet thread - he
theorized that, eventually, someone would make reference to the Nazis,
and that would be that. End of thread.
I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful
by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your
response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred
to the Nazis.
Mr. Godwin would disagree - if the thread continues, then the
invocation of his law has failed.
You can't use the 'correct' version if you don't use it all!
Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.
And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len".
How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len.
Len can do no wrong by you.
Well, no. That just ain't so Google back a couple of years ago, and
you'll see that Len and I haven't always been at peace......
Len has done no wrong to me - giving me no reason to do any wrong to
him.
Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his
professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that
acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without
Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every
chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.
Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh.
I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.
You can't join what doesn't exist.
Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write?
Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy!
Heh. "Those who ain't with me are agin' me....!"
- what movie was that from again???
Not a movie - a good description of Len's newsgroup behaviour,
though!
A pretty accurate description of your behaviour too, sadly enough.
In other words, you won't answer the question.
That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject.
That's a contradiction. You just answered the question.
"I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer.
Thanks!
Actually, it is neither an answer nor a refusal to answer. It is nothing at all.
No, it's a valid answer. Look at the way opinion polls are
usually structured - they often have a six-choice scale, to be applied
to each statement:
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree (no opinion)
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No answer
Often the last is implied - if the respondent doesn't choose any of the
first five choices, the sixth is applied.
Oh - I see - it was an opinion poll and not a question. Sorry then -
I thought is was a question!
If thaat's true, though - "no answer" is a valid answer - it's right
there on your list. But, you said that I had to have an answer, and
that 'no answer' was not an answer. Waaaah!
I'll pick that one then. No answer.
In short, I have
no answer to your (rhetorical) question.
Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no
opinion one way or the other.
Heh heh.
Which is a valid answer.
Heh heh is never a valid answer!
Heh heh.
Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't
answer mine?
Well, that's a bit childish, but it is Fathers' Day, so I'll
help you out a bit here.
Because you should!
Why?
Because I said so! Now go outside and play!
Why should you let the behaviour of others
negatively influence yours?
It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with
what is done with the information provided.
If Johnny jumped in the mud, would you jump in the mud?
Not a valid analogy. Try this one:
A neighbor is always asking to borrow your tools, but won't lend
you any of his. If you get a tool back, it's dirty, broken or both.
Meanwhile he keeps his tools in perfect condition.
Should you keep lending him your tools?
Actually, my analogy was right on the money. exactly two variables
(jump / not jump) just like your option regarding the question (answer
/ don't answer). Yours has a few more variables.
In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow
the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of
them back. After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and
equality. Also experience with what is done with the information
provided."
In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!
None of the above.
Not true.
That claim is incorrect.
I don't think so!
If you know the answer, why ask the question?
.....now that's one question that you really should have an answer to,
Jim - that's something you do quite frequently?
Or was that another rhetorical question?
Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?
Not at all.
Well, impolite at least....nah, I'll stick with lid-like.
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.
In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever
you say.
Did *you* know the original meaning?
I did indeed - it's not exactly a secret.....didn't I quote you
something from the "92 code" a while back?
You probably got the quote from me!
Well, no. I got it on the Net - from this site:
http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html
As I recall, it was late last year, when you first began questioning
whether I was really me
I sent you ""134, Leo" instead of 73 - a literal Internet-era
translation of which would be "Who is at the key(board)?
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?
Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained
earlier.
Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio
operator, perhaps not.
Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002.
Maybe...
There you go again - not believing!
Perhaps I should tap my shoes together and say "there's no place like
Ontario"...
Well, if you think it would help........if you want a VE3 or VA3
licence, you'll need to come here for sure - but I'd try and find a
more efficient method of transportation. That one only worked once -
in 1939
(thinking to self: say, was that an attempt to insult me? nah,
couldn't have been!) LOL!
Poor memory? Google 'er up.....
I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.
You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence
of that either!
Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult?
Of course not!
Heh heh.
Simply an illustration that, in the absence of
conclusive and irrefutable proof, one has no other means to ascertain
whether another individual is misrepresenting themselves other than
the evidence that they present in their posts over a period of time.
So far, we haven't seen much of anything posted that would support
your claims of post-grad education - no thesis references, no detailed
insight which would require that level of training, no written
expressions of advanced theoretical knowledge.
All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another
source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway.
....Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you
can't trust anybody these days....!
A few moderately
complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a long shot.
In short - your word is all we have.
That applies to you as well. I can include "u" in certain words -
doesn't make me Canadian...
True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio,
you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove
my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical
origin of the posts!
One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can.
Anyone can.
We call it "reasonable doubt"...
Reasonable is judgemental - we just call it "doubt".
But to choose to doubt someone simply because they no longer
appear to
agree with you or support your views - doesn't seem particularly
brainy, now does it?
Nope - but that's not what I'm doing.
Not correct. Again.
73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)
73, Leo (nothing condescending in my sig! heh heh)