Well said, Sir! Spot on.

73, Leo

On 25 Sep 2003 00:31:08 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Leo

writes:

Well, things aren't always quite that black-and-white, Clint. I am
certainly not a sympathizer nor apologist for either side of the
arguement. Not beacuse I am firmly in one camp or the other - it's
much simpler than that.

Much simpler. YOU hide behind anonymity to relieve yourself on
the group by pretending to exist. You HIDE.

Just like someone who posts here under several different AOL screen names, such
as "nocwtest", "averyfine", "averyfineman", "lenof21", "lenover21", and
probably some more I've forgotten.

It's also interesting that when "vshah101" showed up here and posted
"anonymously", Len had no problem with him at all.

So, here it is - my position: I don't really care that much one way
or the other.

You MUST "care" a great deal...but don't have the COURAGE to
speak out as yourself, not an ANONYMOUS troll.

Ah, the old ad-hominem. You attack the person, not the issue. Vshah101 is
against the code test, so it was OK with Len if he posted "anonymously".

In short, to restate, I don't care too much one way or the other.
perhaps because I didn't go through the rigourous testing that the
Extras did years ago. I didn't have to draw schematics on my test, or
answer essay-type questions, and pass 20 WPM Morse - many of these
fellows did, though, and it must burn them up to see us get in there
today with multiple choice answers and 5 WPM code.

How does anyone KNOW "what you did years ago?"

You are ANONYMOUS, have no verifiable identity.

Sure he does. He's "Leo".

Oh wait, now I get it. You are angry because you don't know things about him
like his last name, his callsign, his job, his age, his military service, etc.
You can't use any of those things against him.

Now stop debating, Clint - for God's sake, you'll go blind

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)