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.


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.


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.


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

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

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

You've got to define sound first. For example if you simply define it as
waveforms in the air, then yes it does make a sound. However if you define
it as the result when waveforms in the air are converted to a form that can
be interpreted by the brain, then it doesn't make a sound.

Either way though you are right that the tree is still there.

There is NO such person in any QRZ listing of Canadian or USA radio
amateurs. Ergo, that person doesn't exist.

Why do you believe that spectres or the imagination are "rational,
civil" persons?

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

Yep, Dick. It's starting to look like that's what I'll have to do.

Maybe you can get an RM going for a new "Ostrich class" license?

Got your blinders on?

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? ;-)

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right opinion?

;^) Brian

Not a troll at all, Sir.

I merely came to this group to post the results of the RAC Morse
survey - which I did in an impartial manner. This is the policy group
- thought it would be a good place to post it.

Very shortly after that, I was attacked by several of the menbers of
the group, for entirely nonsensical reasons. I then tried to clarify
my points for all concerned, and received another barrage of crap from
a copule of simians (that means monkeys, Clint - don't look it up) who
assumed that I was pro code, or not pro code, not a ham, and some
moronic 'terrorists come from Canada' inferences, which were way out
of line (say, didn't the US Air Force discover that they had a
Syrian-born airman in their ranks spying in the secure prisoner area
in Quantico recently - did he come from Canada too? Jeez.....)

I have made my position known very clearly - but there are still a few
folks in this group who incorrectly assume that someone has to be
Pro-this, or Anti-that. Perhaps my language was too erudite for those
folks - I'll try again, in plain English:

I learned Code to get on HF. It was the law, so I did it.

I use it more than I thought I would (I like it!)

Many people operate on HF and never use CW - so it isn't really a
functional requirement any more. It is a strong tradition, however,
dating back to the beginning of the hobby. As Len will tell you,
Marine officers don't really need swords anymore - but they all get
one, its tradition.

I don't believe that everyone should be forced to learn it. If
someone is interested enough to do so, however, they should be
encouraged.

If the Amateur community wants to keep it as a requirement, that's OK
with me. If tradition is that important to the community, I'll respect
that. I have it, I'm in. If the vote says that it goes, then I'm
cool with that too. Doesn't mean that I can't continue to use it.

Clear?

73, Leo

Or is a troll just someone who won't agree with you, Sir?

On 25 Sep 2003 03:34:56 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right opinion?

;^) Brian

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right opinion?

Yep, you and Len sure defended "vshah101" in here...

Leo wrote:
Absolutely correct, N2EY - for these folks, the message is everything.
Agree, or be attacked personally.

You know, being a member of this group is a lot like adopting a pet
porcupine. For the most part, it's an intelligent and good natured
animal - but you do have to watch out for the pricks....

73, Leo


Interesting, I have a "Porky-Pine" on my QSL card. I don't know what
the significance of that is, but I like the critters.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Me too.

Say, maybe that could be the official mascot of this group? A
Porky-Pine.....; )

73, Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:47:07 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

Interesting, I have a "Porky-Pine" on my QSL card. I don't know what
the significance of that is, but I like the critters.

- Mike KB3EIA -