From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm

wrote:
wrote:

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.

Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.

Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.

Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.

To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
Never mind that several hundred have already seen
the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
quotes in here! :-)

Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
for anything in the military or in one of his
governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
who wants to demean military that are serving (or
veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
doesn't give a **** if he insults 99.99% of everyone
else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
same syndrome as that sick Robesin.


How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.


Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION. Everyone
will be busy arguing and arguing over the OLD post and
Jimmy can simply ignore the current post. :-)


Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...

Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.

Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
isn't even a RRAP issue.

Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult
about a million members of the United States military?

I don't understand that. It must be some twisted so-and-so
who never volunteered for any military service and thinks
they are so much better than any service person...


As Heil says, "Bully for you."

The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get.

It's the Robeswine syndrome in Jimmy's posts again...going
deeper and deeper and deeper until, like falling into a
Black Hole, they can never get out.

---

I stopped by the Armed Forces Career office on the 3rd floor
of the Media City Mall in Burbank, CA, today. It's next to
the 3rd floor entrance to Sears at the south end of the Mall.
Nice place. Very attractive, really. Not busy today. Had
a nice chat with an Army E-5 there. He got some information
(on you-know-who) and we traded a few items of personal info.
He got a kick out of my miniature DD-214 photocopy. [no
background check of me was necessary, Paul Schleck]

You might note that Robesin's QRZ bio has been altered. He
doesn't mention his "USMC career" at all now! Wonder why?
:-)


["signature" omitted here due to hissy fits of the
'moderator team' or whatever]

wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm

wrote:
wrote:


To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

who wants to demean
....
with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."

Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:

"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"

What is demeaning about that?

"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"

Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

OTOH, governments subsidize all kinds of things. Why do you think the
word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period.

How would that be done, Len? Who has the authority to shut down rrap?
Obviously you do not, because you would have done it by now.

No, wait, that's not right. You don't always do what you say you are
going to do.

Len, if you want rrap to go silent, why don't you lead the way?

Perhaps you want rrap to continue, because without it, you'll not be
able to rant the way you have for the past decade or so.

Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here.

Not even you, Len.

I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.

You mean he's pointed out how *your* behavior doesn't meet IEEE
standards....

I see a contradiction, Len.

On the one hand you want rrap shut down.

On the other hand, you don't want a moderated newsgroup, and you attack
the person who wants to set one up.

Sounds like you have issues with control, Len. Self-control, that is.
You realize that your postings are buried in the noise here, but on a
moderated newsgroup they'd not be allowed. You'd have to control your
behavior on a moderated newsgroup, and that's a problem for you.

Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION.

How is it misdirection?

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

--

btw, Len, you don't have to keep trying to convince me. I'm convinced!

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm

wrote:
wrote:

To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

The only logical explanation I can see for Brian's refusal is that he
now isn't so sure that his claim is accurate.

who wants to demean
...
with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."

Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:

"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"

What is demeaning about that?

"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"

Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

OTOH, governments subsidize all kinds of things. Why do you think the
word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

Len was recently attempting to cast aspersions on my U.S. Department of
State employment so it is interesting to look at the line he spouted:

On Sunday, Sept. 10, 2006 he wrote:

"Tsk, all those years in the State Department (paid for by the
US taxpayer) and he picked up NOTHING on diplomacy."

and

"Tsk, and all those Department of State years and
you never learning any diplomacy skills paid for by the US
taxpayer..."

He didn't write that I was paid by the U.S. Government. He wrote that
my years were paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.


How many newcomers actually read rrap?
How many *people* actually read rrap?
Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period.

How would that be done, Len? Who has the authority to shut down rrap?
Obviously you do not, because you would have done it by now.

Len thinks he is in charge of the newsgroup now. He is a self-appointed
advocate for something-or-other, dontcha know?

No, wait, that's not right. You don't always do what you say you are
going to do.

Len, if you want rrap to go silent, why don't you lead the way?

Perhaps you want rrap to continue, because without it, you'll not be
able to rant the way you have for the past decade or so.

Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here.

Not even you, Len.

I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.

You mean he's pointed out how *your* behavior doesn't meet IEEE
standards....

I see a contradiction, Len.

On the one hand you want rrap shut down.

On the other hand, you don't want a moderated newsgroup, and you attack
the person who wants to set one up.

Sounds like you have issues with control, Len. Self-control, that is.
You realize that your postings are buried in the noise here, but on a
moderated newsgroup they'd not be allowed. You'd have to control your
behavior on a moderated newsgroup, and that's a problem for you.

Problem? He can't control his behavior. He is the way he is.

Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION.

How is it misdirection?

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

It simply isn't misdirection. After all, Brian stated something without
proof. You asked to see the proof and Len accused you of misdirection.
The misdirection is Len's.

--

btw, Len, you don't have to keep trying to convince me. I'm convinced!

I've been convinced for years.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm

wrote:
wrote:


To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question.
There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as
Heil has - "do your own homework."

who wants to demean
...
with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."

Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?

I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:

"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"

A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private
company.

Do you even know what they are?

What is demeaning about that?

What isn't demeaning about it?

"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"

So?

Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

You don't say.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:

To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question.

A now-dead person isn't going to ask it.

There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as
Heil has - "do your own homework."

Sure there is.

You claimed that a now-dead person wrote something here on rrap.

Your memory isn't perfect - in fact, you've recently been shown to be
mistaken on some things.

You've been asked to back up your claim - to show where the now-dead
person actually wrote what you claimed. But you either can't do that,
or won't do it.

Either way, your claim must be assumed to be false until you provide
some proof. Google contains all the archives.

I have seen a nonsense tactic used by both you, Brian P. Burke, N0IMD,
and Leonard H. Anderson. It goes like this:

You claim someone said or did something, but provide no proof. Usually
the false claim is in the form of a misquote or a misinterpretation of
history. When the claim is challenged, and the correct quote or history
provided, you either ignore the truth on and/or simply insult the
person. Often the misquote or mistake is repeated later, and the cycle
begins again.

Len does this more than you, but you've picked up on his example.
Misquoting the dead - that's pretty lame.

From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:53 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:


To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question.
There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as
Heil has - "do your own homework."

Sigh...that CONSTANT "prove-it-by-dredging-up-an-old-post"
bull**** again. :-( Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort)
and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in
here before...


I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:

"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"

A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private
company.

Jimmie Noserve doesn't know that. Obviously. He's never taken
that Oath.

Do you even know what they are?

Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any
of his governments. He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe
dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies?


What is demeaning about that?

What isn't demeaning about it?

Indeed!

Jimmie Noserve must be connected with aviation somehow...he is
on some higher plane. He is "better" than the rest of us.


"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"

So?

Good grief...this NO-serve individual just cannot stop trying
to rationalize he is "right" and therefore cannot be faulted!
Just the same, he never took that Oath to serve his country,
putting his life on that line, possibly harming his precious
body dedicated to morse code.


Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

You don't say.

I couldn't figure out what he said...or meant to say...

Oh, wait, here must be the meaning of his words: It is okay
to be a civilian government employee (such as that glorious
DX king from State, retired)...but NOT okay to wear the
uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military
things and putting their LIVES on the line! Military
people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service"
are NOT!

Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible
"protector." Heil was a government employee at State. Heil
is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now.

Anyone who is a pro-coder and served in the military is NOT
"subsidized" but all no-coders aren't worthy of any respect
from pro-coders, are always "subsidized," never do things on
their own, got ALL education from the government, and
probably have underarm odor.

But, it is "okay" whatever Jimmie Noserve says. If you
don't like it he will keep on keep on keep on rationalizing
whatever he said is "correct" until everyone gives in just
to keep him quiet. :-(

wrote:
From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:53 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:


To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?
There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question.
There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as
Heil has - "do your own homework."

Sigh...that CONSTANT "prove-it-by-dredging-up-an-old-post"
bull**** again. :-(

I'm convinced, Len. Why did you dredge up the old post by "Jeffie-poo"?

Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort)
and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in
here before...

If we'd all seen it, why did you find it necessary to bring it up again?
Are you now feigning outrage of the previously described sort?


I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:
"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"
A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private
company.

Jimmie Noserve doesn't know that. Obviously.

Who is "Jimmie Noserve"? Is this just your way of showing us that you
are incapable of doing other than living up to the profile which
outlines your behavior?

He's never taken
that Oath.

So? You mentioned that the other day. What of it?

Do you even know what they are?

Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any
of his governments.

So? You mentioned that the other day. What of it?

He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe
dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies?

You can't help but to insult and denigrate. If any should react to you
in the same manner, you go to great lengths to discuss character
assassination and worse.


What is demeaning about that?
What isn't demeaning about it?

Indeed!

Jimmie Noserve must be connected with aviation somehow...he is
on some higher plane. He is "better" than the rest of us.

You've long had a thing about being seen as inferior, less qualfied,
less experienced or not an expert in any field. Your military service
or mine conveys no super citizen status.


"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"
So?

Good grief...this NO-serve individual just cannot stop trying
to rationalize he is "right" and therefore cannot be faulted!
Just the same, he never took that Oath to serve his country,
putting his life on that line, possibly harming his precious
body dedicated to morse code.

Are you ever going to tell us where and when it was that you went
throught that artillery barrage? Can your friend Gene confirm it?
Did his sphincter tighten too?


Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.
You don't say.

I couldn't figure out what he said...or meant to say...

Oh, wait, here must be the meaning of his words: It is okay
to be a civilian government employee (such as that glorious
DX king from State, retired)...

You just can't help yourself.

but NOT okay to wear the
uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military
things and putting their LIVES on the line!

I'm a military veteran, Len. Jim has never said anything insulting to
me about my military service. You are a veteran. You have insulted my
military service on more than one occasion.

Military
people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service"
are NOT!

According to your own words, my DXing while I was on government
assignment abroad was paid for by taxpayers.

Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible
"protector."

Is Brian your protector? Is Mark Morgan? Are they your friends? Your
supporters?

Heil was a government employee at State. Heil
is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now.

Good luck on the new conspiracy theory. Don't leave the house without
your aluminum foil cap.

Anyone who is a pro-coder and served in the military is NOT
"subsidized" but all no-coders aren't worthy of any respect
from pro-coders, are always "subsidized," never do things on
their own, got ALL education from the government, and
probably have underarm odor.

You really need to find something with which to fill your empty hours.

But, it is "okay" whatever Jimmie Noserve says. If you
don't like it he will keep on keep on keep on rationalizing
whatever he said is "correct" until everyone gives in just
to keep him quiet. :-(

Whereas there is not much likely to keep you quiet. You are bound to
demonstrate the accuracy of the well known profile.

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 20:23:05 -0700, "
wrote:

From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:53 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:

Sigh...that CONSTANT "prove-it-by-dredging-up-an-old-post"
bull**** again. :-( Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort)
and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in
here before...
it is always the Nocoders that must do the work somehow the procoder I
guess cazan't losing the abilty as they learn code perhaps?

Nah...that's just an old, old trick of J. Miccolis. He diverts
attention away from a challenge by another (and usually on
a different subject) to get the group focussing on some old,
old newsgripe argument. He does that deliberately.


Do you even know what they are?

Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any
of his governments. He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe
dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies?

as expendable materail in any event

No doubt.


What is demeaning about that?

What isn't demeaning about it?

Indeed!

Jimmie Noserve must be connected with aviation somehow...he is
on some higher plane. He is "better" than the rest of us.

Len you forgot his Code skills put him on a higher plane

...and without his parachute! :-)


Good grief...this NO-serve individual just cannot stop trying
to rationalize he is "right" and therefore cannot be faulted!
Just the same, he never took that Oath to serve his country,
putting his life on that line, possibly harming his precious
body dedicated to morse code.

yea I can personal attest serving is dangerous even in peacetime

"We were expendable." :-)



Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

You don't say.

I couldn't figure out what he said...or meant to say...

Oh, wait, here must be the meaning of his words: It is okay
to be a civilian government employee (such as that glorious
DX king from State, retired)...but NOT okay to wear the
uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military
things and putting their LIVES on the line! Military
people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service"
are NOT!

Jim is simply on the slide to ending up like Robeson sad to say it
since he was managging better than than most of the ProCoders but it
looks we ought to ban CW to protect hams from the obviously damaging
effect of CW usage

Maybe "it's the water?" [like the Olympia Brewing Co. slogan]


Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible
"protector." Heil was a government employee at State. Heil
is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now.

Anyone who is a pro-coder and served in the military is NOT
"subsidized" but all no-coders aren't worthy of any respect
from pro-coders, are always "subsidized," never do things on
their own, got ALL education from the government, and
probably have underarm odor.

and these people expect to be trusted to moderate a Ng involving the
code issue?

People like them. They all passed the code test. No sweat.

Remember, Mark, they brooke NO contentiousness!


But, it is "okay" whatever Jimmie Noserve says. If you
don't like it he will keep on keep on keep on rationalizing
whatever he said is "correct" until everyone gives in just
to keep him quiet. :-(

pity for all of us he does not read the ng more hed learn at least One
us will not do that

I have to just ignore him. If I don't, I'm liable to be accused of
"(mis)conduct" and other high crimes against the State. :-)

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 22:59:21 -0700, "
wrote:

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 20:23:05 -0700, "
wrote:

From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:53 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:

Sigh...that CONSTANT "prove-it-by-dredging-up-an-old-post"
bull**** again. :-( Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort)
and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in
here before...
it is always the Nocoders that must do the work somehow the procoder I
guess cazan't losing the abilty as they learn code perhaps?

Nah...that's just an old, old trick of J. Miccolis. He diverts
attention away from a challenge by another (and usually on
a different subject) to get the group focussing on some old,
old newsgripe argument. He does that deliberately.

he taught it to Steve and the rest fo Procoders

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP. Jimmie the M.
probably picked it up on the old (defunct) AOL discussion board
and saw it was useful for him as a misdirection. It's an old, old
trick and - surprisingly - works well with the uninitiated.


Do you even know what they are?

Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any
of his governments. He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe
dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies?

as expendable materail in any event

No doubt.

I do say that on rainy day like today is here it realy makes me regret
I put my life and health on the line for the nation

Welp, 2000 miles away from you the weather was nice down
here. Picked up new glasses from Sears Optical and passed
the Armed Forces Career Center just outside the Sears
entrance. Briefly had some nice words with the same Army
E-5 on duty that I did on Tuesday. :-)


What is demeaning about that?

What isn't demeaning about it?

Indeed!

Jimmie Noserve must be connected with aviation somehow...he is
on some higher plane. He is "better" than the rest of us.

Len you forgot his Code skills put him on a higher plane

...and without his parachute! :-)

they don't need hard enough heads you could most procoder from orbit
and they would survie byt beep in in their Code does get though your
know and the air would part and not let them burn up

Well then, let's get Heil to work with NASA. He wrote he "worked
with NASA" while in Vietnam. Maybe this time he can help them
with new nosecones or shuttle tiles? :-)


Good grief...this NO-serve individual just cannot stop trying
to rationalize he is "right" and therefore cannot be faulted!
Just the same, he never took that Oath to serve his country,
putting his life on that line, possibly harming his precious
body dedicated to morse code.

yea I can personal attest serving is dangerous even in peacetime

"We were expendable." :-)



Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

You don't say.

I couldn't figure out what he said...or meant to say...

Oh, wait, here must be the meaning of his words: It is okay
to be a civilian government employee (such as that glorious
DX king from State, retired)...but NOT okay to wear the
uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military
things and putting their LIVES on the line! Military
people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service"
are NOT!

Jim is simply on the slide to ending up like Robeson sad to say it
since he was managging better than than most of the ProCoders but it
looks we ought to ban CW to protect hams from the obviously damaging
effect of CW usage

Maybe "it's the water?" [like the Olympia Brewing Co. slogan]

maybe


Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible
"protector." Heil was a government employee at State. Heil
is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now.

Anyone who is a pro-coder and served in the military is NOT
"subsidized" but all no-coders aren't worthy of any respect
from pro-coders, are always "subsidized," never do things on
their own, got ALL education from the government, and
probably have underarm odor.

and these people expect to be trusted to moderate a Ng involving the
code issue?

People like them. They all passed the code test. No sweat.

yea

Remember, Mark, they brooke NO contentiousness!

except from themselves hypocrites but again the NG is dead even if
they get it lanched with attides

RRAP is dead for any real discussion. Pro-coders won't allow it.
That's IT in a nutshell. Pro-coders want to stop all discussion.
It is obvious to any disinterested observer. Problem is the
"moderating team" (well, one anyway) wants to be in the public
engaging in a ****ing contest. Ah, but with just ONE, me. :-)

The hypocrisy will be proven later, after the "moderation" starts.



But, it is "okay" whatever Jimmie Noserve says. If you
don't like it he will keep on keep on keep on rationalizing
whatever he said is "correct" until everyone gives in just
to keep him quiet. :-(

pity for all of us he does not read the ng more hed learn at least One
us will not do that

I have to just ignore him. If I don't, I'm liable to be accused of
"(mis)conduct" and other high crimes against the State. :-)

well Clinton survived impeachment and even profitted from it

As far as I saw, Bill Clinton NEVER had to face the elite
"moderating
team" of RRAP! :-)

Yet again the gaseous bageous Exalted One takes it upon himself to hold
Court where none is necessary.
Len, you are quickly becoming a simple, smarmy to-be-ignored buffoon much
like your lone Peanut Gallery follower aka Mark Morgan.

And Len? Yes, I am one of those dreaded "Coders" you love to malign, though
I pose no stance on code or no code.
Tsk...What say you, Exalted One?