From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm

On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:

With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I disagree!

There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no
avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem!

Just 11 more steps to go!

Antabuse might be quicker...? :-)


I am simply persistent.

Or persistently simple. Time will tell!

Obsessively persistent? :-)


I offer strong opposition to some of
the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others.

Oh, that's nice. How's that working out for you? Changed anybody's
mind lately?

:-) [with all that "parenting" he implies he's had you'd
think he changed SOMETHING at one time...]

Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me).

You don't really believe that, do you? You're not the entertainer -
you're the entertainment! He pokes and prods, and you sing and dance
- been that way for 8 long years now.

"Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer.


Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some
things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can
renew and modify their licenses without retesting)?

I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types
of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in
the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing
your buttons.....for fun.....y'think?

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too,
didn't you?

?

I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning
that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic,
and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO.

You can only control your own postings. You may also refute and argue
points. That is not obsesssive.

To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is
very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL!

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was
mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that
the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was
that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence
in getting something right.

In a way, yes.

I asked you several times if being correct was important to you.

You replied that it was.

I asked if being correct was very important to you.

You replied that it was.

I confirmed this again, and you agreed that it was very important to
you.

So, I spent about 20 minutes on Google and provided you with the
correct info and a few references for you to read.

That's what you said that you wanted - and that's what I provided.

Obsessive? No. Persistent? Not really - it wasn't a lot of work -
and I knew the correct answers before Googling the references - so I
wouldn't say persistent exactly.

However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no
success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be
wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways
back there or something.....

I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!"

[that kind of says it all...maybe...]

Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ]

Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications
and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up
and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and
everyone else always "wrong!"



73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo (is it just me, or is there a diss aimed at me again in ol'
Jim's sig above? heh heh)

Heh heh heh heh heh.....