In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Brian:

I don't think that Rush (that's MISTER Limbaugh to you!) would appreciate
your drawing comparisons between him and Kim!

73 de Larry, K3LT


ROFLMAO!!! Brian, see? Denial...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

You're really out-doing yourself here. You've produced one non-responsive,
irrelevant and un-enlightening response to each and every thing I've posted
these last two days. You have truly perfected the art of wasting bandwidth
on Usenet, not to mention your own time.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Brian:

I don't think that Rush (that's MISTER Limbaugh to you!) would
appreciate
your drawing comparisons between him and Kim!

73 de Larry, K3LT


ROFLMAO!!! Brian, see? Denial...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

You're really out-doing yourself here. You've produced one
non-responsive,
irrelevant and un-enlightening response to each and every thing I've
posted
these last two days. You have truly perfected the art of wasting
bandwidth
on Usenet, not to mention your own time.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I haven't anything of substance to respond to, Larry. Produce some
literate, logical, intelligent form in your style and I will respond in
kind...

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim:

You're really out-doing yourself here. You've produced one
non-responsive,
irrelevant and un-enlightening response to each and every thing I've
posted
these last two days. You have truly perfected the art of wasting
bandwidth
on Usenet, not to mention your own time.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I haven't anything of substance to respond to, Larry. Produce some
literate, logical, intelligent form in your style and I will respond in
kind...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

One hundred percent of my postings provide what you call "literate,
logical, and intelligent" arguments for you and others to respond to in
the same manner. Yet, you usually just toss dismissive one-liners,
or, just a simple "ROFLMAO." You have never demonstrated any
capability to produce "literate, logical, or intelligent" commentary in
this newsgroup whatsoever. And it's not just my postings which you
seem incapable of dealing with in an intelligent manner. You are
universally childish, immature, and just plain dumb in all of your
replies to each and every participant in this newsgroup -- and this
includes those with which you merely indicate agreement and call
it "participation."

You are so completely out of your intellectual depth that it is truly
a sad thing to witness on a daily basis. Have you no pride, woman?

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Kim:

You're really out-doing yourself here. You've produced one
non-responsive,
irrelevant and un-enlightening response to each and every thing I've
posted
these last two days. You have truly perfected the art of wasting
bandwidth
on Usenet, not to mention your own time.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I haven't anything of substance to respond to, Larry. Produce some
literate, logical, intelligent form in your style and I will respond in
kind...

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

One hundred percent of my postings provide what you call "literate,
logical, and intelligent" arguments for you and others to respond to in
the same manner.


Now, Larry, if that were true, then we'd be having intelligent communication
rather than this blather. You are about as bright as a 2-watt light bulb.


Yet, you usually just toss dismissive one-liners,
or, just a simple "ROFLMAO." You have never demonstrated any
capability to produce "literate, logical, or intelligent" commentary in
this newsgroup whatsoever.


The reason you have missed it is because you are incapable of recognizing
anything intelligent, Larry. Like I said you're about as bright as a 2-watt
lightbulb.


And it's not just my postings which you
seem incapable of dealing with in an intelligent manner. You are
universally childish, immature, and just plain dumb in all of your
replies to each and every participant in this newsgroup -- and this
includes those with which you merely indicate agreement and call
it "participation."


You are not worthy to judge my posts, Larry. They are far superior to your
poor intellect.


You are so completely out of your intellectual depth that it is truly
a sad thing to witness on a daily basis. Have you no pride, woman?

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, at least you can spell the word "intellectual." Now, could you start
practicing it? Go ahead, challenge me. I'd like to see something
intelligent from you for a change. When you do that, I will respond in
kind...

Kim W5TIT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim:

One hundred percent of my postings provide what you call "literate,
logical, and intelligent" arguments for you and others to respond to in
the same manner.


Now, Larry, if that were true, then we'd be having intelligent communication
rather than this blather. You are about as bright as a 2-watt light bulb.


Yet, you usually just toss dismissive one-liners,
or, just a simple "ROFLMAO." You have never demonstrated any
capability to produce "literate, logical, or intelligent" commentary in
this newsgroup whatsoever.


The reason you have missed it is because you are incapable of recognizing
anything intelligent, Larry. Like I said you're about as bright as a 2-watt
lightbulb.


And it's not just my postings which you
seem incapable of dealing with in an intelligent manner. You are
universally childish, immature, and just plain dumb in all of your
replies to each and every participant in this newsgroup -- and this
includes those with which you merely indicate agreement and call
it "participation."


You are not worthy to judge my posts, Larry. They are far superior to your
poor intellect.

Kim:

You are truly amazing. Amazingly predictable, that is. In this last round
of responses, all you've done is prove me right by simply parroting things
I've already said -- about you! No original thought whatsoever. Nothing
new, nothing original. Ever.

You are so completely out of your intellectual depth that it is truly
a sad thing to witness on a daily basis. Have you no pride, woman?

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, at least you can spell the word "intellectual." Now, could you start
practicing it? Go ahead, challenge me. I'd like to see something
intelligent from you for a change. When you do that, I will respond in
kind...

Ok, Kim, that's easy. Please provide a logical, rational, and convincing
argument justifying your call sign, giving proof that it is not demeaning
to women, and that it cannot possibly give a negative image of amateur
radio operators to the general public, including adults who are concerned
about the exposure of young children, particularly young boys, to things
which tend to create negative sexual stereotypes.

I hope this is "intelligent" enough for you. Quite frankly, I don't think you
can handle it. Prove me wrong, if you can.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Kim:

One hundred percent of my postings provide what you call "literate,
logical, and intelligent" arguments for you and others to respond to in
the same manner.


Now, Larry, if that were true, then we'd be having intelligent
communication
rather than this blather. You are about as bright as a 2-watt light
bulb.


Yet, you usually just toss dismissive one-liners,
or, just a simple "ROFLMAO." You have never demonstrated any
capability to produce "literate, logical, or intelligent" commentary in
this newsgroup whatsoever.


The reason you have missed it is because you are incapable of recognizing
anything intelligent, Larry. Like I said you're about as bright as a
2-watt
lightbulb.


And it's not just my postings which you
seem incapable of dealing with in an intelligent manner. You are
universally childish, immature, and just plain dumb in all of your
replies to each and every participant in this newsgroup -- and this
includes those with which you merely indicate agreement and call
it "participation."


You are not worthy to judge my posts, Larry. They are far superior to
your
poor intellect.

Kim:

You are truly amazing. Amazingly predictable, that is. In this last
round
of responses, all you've done is prove me right by simply parroting things
I've already said -- about you! No original thought whatsoever. Nothing
new, nothing original. Ever.

You are so completely out of your intellectual depth that it is truly
a sad thing to witness on a daily basis. Have you no pride, woman?

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, at least you can spell the word "intellectual." Now, could you
start
practicing it? Go ahead, challenge me. I'd like to see something
intelligent from you for a change. When you do that, I will respond in
kind...

Ok, Kim, that's easy. Please provide a logical, rational, and convincing
argument justifying your call sign, giving proof that it is not demeaning
to women, and that it cannot possibly give a negative image of amateur
radio operators to the general public, including adults who are concerned
about the exposure of young children, particularly young boys, to things
which tend to create negative sexual stereotypes.


You are too wrapped up in disliking my callsign, Larry. It is not for me to
prove anything about it to you. I like it and that is as logical as it can
get.


I hope this is "intelligent" enough for you. Quite frankly, I don't think
you
can handle it. Prove me wrong, if you can.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Kim:

One hundred percent of my postings provide what you call "literate,
logical, and intelligent" arguments for you and others to respond to in
the same manner.


Now, Larry, if that were true, then we'd be having intelligent
communication
rather than this blather. You are about as bright as a 2-watt light
bulb.


Yet, you usually just toss dismissive one-liners,
or, just a simple "ROFLMAO." You have never demonstrated any
capability to produce "literate, logical, or intelligent" commentary in
this newsgroup whatsoever.


The reason you have missed it is because you are incapable of recognizing
anything intelligent, Larry. Like I said you're about as bright as a
2-watt
lightbulb.


And it's not just my postings which you
seem incapable of dealing with in an intelligent manner. You are
universally childish, immature, and just plain dumb in all of your
replies to each and every participant in this newsgroup -- and this
includes those with which you merely indicate agreement and call
it "participation."


You are not worthy to judge my posts, Larry. They are far superior to
your
poor intellect.

Kim:

You are truly amazing. Amazingly predictable, that is. In this last
round
of responses, all you've done is prove me right by simply parroting things
I've already said -- about you! No original thought whatsoever. Nothing
new, nothing original. Ever.

You are so completely out of your intellectual depth that it is truly
a sad thing to witness on a daily basis. Have you no pride, woman?

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, at least you can spell the word "intellectual." Now, could you
start
practicing it? Go ahead, challenge me. I'd like to see something
intelligent from you for a change. When you do that, I will respond in
kind...

Ok, Kim, that's easy. Please provide a logical, rational, and convincing
argument justifying your call sign, giving proof that it is not demeaning
to women, and that it cannot possibly give a negative image of amateur
radio operators to the general public, including adults who are concerned
about the exposure of young children, particularly young boys, to things
which tend to create negative sexual stereotypes.

I hope this is "intelligent" enough for you. Quite frankly, I don't think
you
can handle it. Prove me wrong, if you can.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I got one for you, Larry. Here we go: the next time I see something logical
and intellectual from you, I'll respond, OK?

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
Ok, Kim, that's easy. Please provide a logical, rational, and
convincing
argument justifying your call sign, giving proof that it is not
demeaning
to women, and that it cannot possibly give a negative image of amateur
radio operators to the general public, including adults who are
concerned
about the exposure of young children, particularly young boys, to things
which tend to create negative sexual stereotypes.


You are too wrapped up in disliking my callsign, Larry. It is not for me
to
prove anything about it to you. I like it and that is as logical as it
can
get.

So does that mean that since my call is WB5RUE I should have to prove that I
am built like a road?

For those of you who missed that, "Rue" is the French word for road.

Kevin, WB5RUE

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Ok, Kim, that's easy. Please provide a logical, rational, and convincing
argument justifying your call sign, giving proof that it is not demeaning
to women, and that it cannot possibly give a negative image of amateur
radio operators to the general public, including adults who are concerned
about the exposure of young children, particularly young boys, to things
which tend to create negative sexual stereotypes.

I hope this is "intelligent" enough for you. Quite frankly, I don't think
you
can handle it. Prove me wrong, if you can.

73 de Larry, K3LT


I got one for you, Larry. Here we go: the next time I see something logical
and intellectual from you, I'll respond, OK?

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

You haven't responded to anything ANYONE has said that is "logical and
intellectual," so why should you start now? You'll just do what you always
do, such as with my "challenge" offered in this thread. You'll simply
dismiss it, without making an effort to take it seriously. No, AFAIC, there
is never going to be a "next time" as far as YOU'RE concerned. You
cannot handle me, and you know it; therefore, you simply run home to
Momma whenever the going gets rough. Care to prove me wrong?
Respond to my challenge. It's as simple as that.

73 de Larry, K3LT