Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#181
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: snip So let's recap: With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long, lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing. I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards rather than my own. I even got you to admit something good about K3LT. And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of inappropriate words. Jim, This is really uncharacteristic of you. That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable. I am amazed that a well educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above, given the behaviour that started it off in the first place. You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote something I didn't? Water under the bridge. Bully-like behaviour, Jim? Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything? Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or threats at all in my actions or postings. I wouldn't have thought it possible. It isn't. That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there. Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things others said he "must" do or "should" do? So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#182
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Len Over 21 wrote:
...it might have been a Preview of Coming Attractions advertising a new Sermon on the Antenna Mount by Rev. Jim. :-) Hans is right. A bunch of sanctimonious Church Ladies trying to manufacture disputes with their production lines all broken down. What have your comments to do with elimination of morse testing in the Amateur Radio Service (your only aim here)? Dave K8MN |
#184
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:
Leo wrote in message . .. On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: snip So let's recap: With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long, lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing. I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards rather than my own. I even got you to admit something good about K3LT. And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of inappropriate words. Jim, This is really uncharacteristic of you. That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable. Nope - not that one ![]() I am amazed that a well educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above, given the behaviour that started it off in the first place. You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote something I didn't? Water under the bridge. Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes. You remember that, don't you, Jim? Bully-like behaviour, Jim? Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything? Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or threats at all in my actions or postings. Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup. I wouldn't have thought it possible. It isn't. (ahem) That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there. Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things others said he "must" do or "should" do? Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks, now did he? So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you frequently speak have gotten to. That's all. You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly? You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! That's all that matters..... 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. Not really ![]() 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
#185
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: Mike, how in the Hell is anyone going to alter a post to make it appear like someone else's, when the post is listed as "Sent" by whomever it is that actually sent it? The "art" of making it look like someone else had sent it would only be evidenced as deviant behavior IF (and I did not) I had also changed the Header information to look like it had been sent by Jim. Here's an example for you, Kim, just for purposes of illustration: I know that I often post before taking the time to think things out and have often been guilty of acting from emotion before or instead of taking the time to gather the facts. Now the above was written by me but it has been made to look as if you wrote it. That Dave Heil is so damned bored with life that he has to concoct things from thin air is usual and status quo for him. It wasn't from thin air, Kim. It was from posts made by you. They exist. They can't now be denied. Don't be so quick to jump on a Dave Heil bandwagon...because those wagons don't travel far at all. I have a bandwagon? For anyone with computer sense, it is unreasonable to even consider that a post could be issued under the guise of someone else--contrary to the opinion that it can be done. And, when I resubmit "The Pool" list with my callsign attributed to my prediction date, it is certainly weak, at best, to display anger and make it seem as though I was doing *anything* else but resubmitting a post an attributing my callsign to my prediction. That's simply incorrect. Let's do another example for purposes of illustration: I have given some thought to my choice of callsigns and feel that I may have made a mistake. My choice reflects badly on amateur radio and on me as an individual. If not for the fact that I've made clear that this is an illustration added by me--if I'd simply taken out the white space and my comments, I'd be adding the material to make it look as if the statements came from you. Are you starting to get the picture? However, if you or anyone else, is so desperate to reach for the stars in some display of dislike for me--then go for it. No, it has simply been pointed out to you that you have crossed the line between what's right and what's wrong. Dave K8MN Live with it, Dave, live with it... Kim W5TIT |
#186
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Kim wrote: Ahem...at least he hasn't said he's going to "pray for you" yet. I love it when someone says that to me with that certain "tone of voice" LOL I'll bet you get that a lot. However, why should I do all of the work for you? Are you too busy to pray for yourself? Dave K8MN Did it ever occur to you that not everyone prays? Kim W5TIT |
#187
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Leo
writes: On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Leo wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: snip So let's recap: With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long, lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing. I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards rather than my own. I even got you to admit something good about K3LT. And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of inappropriate words. Jim, This is really uncharacteristic of you. That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable. Nope - not that one ![]() That's the one I was referring to. Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words? I am amazed that a well educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above, given the behaviour that started it off in the first place. You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote something I didn't? Water under the bridge. Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes. So her wishes are more important than my standards? You remember that, don't you, Jim? Bully-like behaviour, Jim? Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything? Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or threats at all in my actions or postings. Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup. Nope. Not from where I sit. I wouldn't have thought it possible. It isn't. (ahem) That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there. Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things others said he "must" do or "should" do? Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks, now did he? Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together, making salt when it was against the law.... Very annoying fellow at times. So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you frequently speak have gotten to. That's all. You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly? Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly? Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel. You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! Not according to Kim. Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree. So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser. That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread. That's all that matters..... Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a callsign I think is inappropriate. 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. Not really ![]() Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#188
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave Heil" wrote:
Sadly, some people attempt to forge a tie between the terms "polite" and "political correctness". There is no link between them. Jim didn't treat Kim's callsign badly; he didn't use it at all. After all, it could be easily argued that Kim didn't treat amateur radio with respect in choosing her call. A number of us believe that her choice was tacky and tactless. (snip) So, because Kim did something, it gave Jim the right to do something? Isn't that a two wrongs don't make a right situation, Dave? Regardless, lets get to the basics of this issue. What is wrong with the word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as a noun meaning "either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman." Seem rather innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like most women, has those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs." So why would so many be offended by her very mention of that fact? It's not like she's refering to the sexual organs or something. It might say something about their character but it doesn't say anything negative about it. The FCC looks the other way with regard to language used in prime time television these days. (snip) So you're comparing a woman's breasts to the filthy or offensive language on television? Isn't that somewhat prudish, Dave? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#189
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 14 Jan 2004 04:48:29 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
In article , Leo writes: On 13 Jan 2004 10:00:24 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Leo wrote in message ... On 12 Jan 2004 10:02:37 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: snip So let's recap: With just a few posts, I was able to get you and others in a long, lengthy and involved debate that had *nothing* to do with code testing. I exposed how some folks want *me* to follow *their* standards rather than my own. I even got you to admit something good about K3LT. And through all that I avoided any name-calling or use of inappropriate words. Jim, This is really uncharacteristic of you. That's actually a characteristic of me. Be predictably unpredictable. Nope - not that one ![]() That's the one I was referring to. Or did you mean the avoidance of name-calling and use of inappropriate words? Nope - the characteristic of always portraying gentlemanly conduct, which is clearly missing here. As you are aware. I am amazed that a well educated man like yourself would publically take pride in the above, given the behaviour that started it off in the first place. You mean Kim's changing of attributions to make it look like I wrote something I didn't? Water under the bridge. Nope. Kim's putting her callsign back in to your posts (agreed, in violation of Usenet convention) was in reaction to your intentional changing of it to her name in your list. Against her wishes. So her wishes are more important than my standards? Nice diversion, Jim - you know that your standards are not the issue. You remember that, don't you, Jim? Bully-like behaviour, Jim? Not by me. Who have I tried to bully into doing or not doing anything? Bullying is the use of force - or the threat of force. No force or threats at all in my actions or postings. Wrong. Bullying also means "to treat someone in an overbearing or intimidating manner". Overbearing? Yup. Nope. Not from where I sit. Sorry to hear that, Jim. I wouldn't have thought it possible. It isn't. (ahem) That's some set of flexible personal standards you have there. Not at all. Was Ghandi a "bully" because he wouldn't do certain things others said he "must" do or "should" do? Ghandi? Ghandi didn't go out of his way to intentionally annoy folks, now did he? Some would say that's mostly what he did. He was very very "annoying", saying that India should be independent, that Hindus and Moslems could live together, making salt when it was against the law.... Very annoying fellow at times. ....but totally unrelated to the issue. As you are aware. So I quote Maximus in the arena, surrounded by those he has vanquished, as he says to the crowd: "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!!" No. dang. I thought you of all people would be. Nope. Just wondering where the high behavioural standards of which you frequently speak have gotten to. That's all. You have read the Amateur's Code, haven't you? Courteous? Friendly? Where have I been uncourteous or unfriendly? Really, Jim. An inane question, indeed. Those words do not mean I must hide my standards under a bushel. Not the issue. As you are aware. You know. But hey, you beat Kim, right! Not according to Kim. According to you - read your own post! Kim thinks she "beat" me. I disagree. So we have a situation where neither Kim nor I feels like the loser. That's perhaps the biggest achievement of the thread. Not true at all, Jim. Let me quote your own words from your reply to to Kim in the full version of this post: "....Too bad you failed, Kim. But I hope you had fun." An interesting way to declare a draw, Jim. That's all that matters..... Not at all. What matters is that I cannot be bullied into using a callsign I think is inappropriate. Sidestepping the issue. 73 de Jim "My name is Gladiator" N2EY Brilliant. Thank you. Not really ![]() Ever see the film "Demolition Man"? Think of Edgar Friendly. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, your debating style seems to be based almost entirely upon diversion, circular logic, word games, smokescreening and sidestepping of the main issue under discussion. I expected better from the man who often speaks of principles and high standards of conduct in his posts. The issue, as you are quite well aware, is your singling out of Kim in a list. And not creating a level playing field out of courtesy to her. Period. An issue which has been carefully avoided in all of your responses so far. Are you unable or unwilling to face up to this single issue? - or shall we all continue merrily down the garden path with you? You are fooling no one but yourself, Jim. "It has always been a peculiarity of the human race that it keeps two sets of morals in stock-the private and the real, and the public and the artificial." - Mark Twain 73, Leo |
#190
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: Sadly, some people attempt to forge a tie between the terms "polite" and "political correctness". There is no link between them. Jim didn't treat Kim's callsign badly; he didn't use it at all. After all, it could be easily argued that Kim didn't treat amateur radio with respect in choosing her call. A number of us believe that her choice was tacky and tactless. (snip) So, because Kim did something, it gave Jim the right to do something? Isn't that a two wrongs don't make a right situation, Dave? Jim has every "right" not to use Kim's callsign whether she does something or not. Kim has no power to force him to use her callsign or make him give approval to her choice. Regardless, lets get to the basics of this issue. What is wrong with the word "tit?" My dictionary defines it as a noun meaning "either of two soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs on the chest of a woman." Seem rather innocuous to me. I assume Kim, like most women, has those "soft fleshy milk-secreting glandular organs." So why would so many be offended by her very mention of that fact? It's not like she's refering to the sexual organs or something. Thanks for the detailed definition, Dwight. The term is vulgar slang and you have, I'm sure, seen Kim's most recent explanation for having chosen her call. Kim's choice is simply another of her several ways of thumbing her nose at the world. Maybe you're the kind of fellow who would be proud to have his wife, mother or daughter choose a similar call. I'm not. It might say something about their character but it doesn't say anything negative about it. The FCC looks the other way with regard to language used in prime time television these days. (snip) So you're comparing a woman's breasts to the filthy or offensive language on television? Isn't that somewhat prudish, Dave? No, Dwight. I'm comparing tasteless and tacky with tasteless and tacky. Dave K8MN |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Using a Pool Cage As an Antenna? | Antenna | |||
Use a Pool Cage As An Antenna? | Antenna | |||
From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment | |||
REQ:latest Ham University with curent tech pool willing to share?/sell cheep | Equipment |