In . com " writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am
writes:
But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in
trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in
the amateur radio service person (although one who has
been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since
1956). Have you really done that? Are you really
going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and
reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure
you really, really WANT to do that! :-)
What an obnoxious quibble.
Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?
Considering the dictionary definition of quibble
(
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ):
-noun
1. an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or
irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue.
2. the general use of such arguments.
3. petty or carping criticism; a minor objection.
-verb (used without object)
4. to equivocate.
5. to carp; cavil.
the term "true quibble" is an oxymoron, and likely a "meta-quibble" of
its own.
Unless you're trying to argue that it *truly* was a quibble, in which
case I will agree.
--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger
for PGP Public Key