Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:
(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com...

(Brian) wrote in message om...

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Hans K0HB wrote:

"Len Over 21" wrote



If you are not a registered voter in California, then you have no cause to
carry on as if you were nor have you any authority whatsoever on
California politics.



That sword cuts in both directions, sir.

If you are not a registered voter in California (licensed operator
in the Amateur Radio Service), then you have no cause to carry on
as if you were nor have you any authority whatsoever on California
politics (Amateur Radio Service policy).


Game, Set, Match!


Squelch of the week.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, you almost got it. Len -was- using the back of the blade.
Maybe if he had used the flat side...

Brian, as usual you didn't quite get it. Len just got the blade stuffed up his nose.


DICK, you almost got it. Len -was- using the back of the blade. Maybe
if he had used the flat side... and slapped you with it.

Lessee, he told me to take the post out of here, and that it was noe of
my business because I'm not a registered voter in California.


Let us say that is a valid argument.

Let's not because everyone is entitled to their own opinion and
they're entitled to voice it per the articles of the US Constitution.

However, what Len has heard from the rrap peanut gallery is that he
doesn't have a ham license, therefore his opinions are wrong and/or
don't count.

He's playing a little TIT for TAT in his California Voting analogue.

It's really not so hard to see that.

So Hans simply substitutes the related words, turning it into what I
consider a perfect squelch.

Was Hans not relevent?

Hans is ocassionally relevant, but not on this ocassion. He's much
better at playing a Master Chief.

It's a good squelch, unless you subscribe to the dictum that that other
guy wins, always.

Not at all. Len was just giving a little of it back. Are you not big
enough to accept it?

And certainly, I only refer to squelching in the normal sense. Some
people are not accepting of squelchification, as it were.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Squelchification of free speech is now a good thing?

bb

Brian wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

It's a good squelch, unless you subscribe to the dictum that that other
guy wins, always.


Not at all. Len was just giving a little of it back. Are you not big
enough to accept it?

Problem is, Brian, that beyond an inquiry as to what his interest was
in ham radio, I never said his opinions don't count. That's someone
elses argument. I'm quite neutral on what he posts. Post or don't, no
problem.

That's painting with a very broad brush.


Squelchification of free speech is now a good thing?

Being squelched is not denial of free speech. The choice to respond
after being squelched is always there.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

It's a good squelch, unless you subscribe to the dictum that that other
guy wins, always.

Not at all. Len was just giving a little of it back. Are you not big
enough to accept it?

Problem is, Brian, that beyond an inquiry as to what his interest was
in ham radio, I never said his opinions don't count.

Others have repeatedly.

That's someone
elses argument. I'm quite neutral on what he posts. Post or don't, no
problem.

That's painting with a very broad brush.

It helps to use a broad brush when you want to cover a large area.

Squelchification of free speech is now a good thing?

Being squelched is not denial of free speech. The choice to respond
after being squelched is always there.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Unless the squelchers "moderate" the newsgroup as they've brought up before.