Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Subject: Jim = Quitefine?
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 9/10/2004 10:40 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Okay folks,

We have a few posters here that are anonymous.

I decided to look into the N2EY-Quitefine connection

What is your evidence for Jim being Quitefine?


Most of Jim's posts - interestingly enough with his callsign - are
posted from google, whereas Quitefine's are all posted from AOL. A small
number of Jim's are posted from AOL, although from the headers,
Quitefine could also be Steve too.


Not I, kindly Sir!

I know that too. But from just a cursory glance at header info, one
could get the impression.


But I do know who!

And I'm not telling!

I hope not!

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Quitefine could also be Steve too.


Only if you decide to suspend credulousness. Quitefine engages in
debates with manners, and does not try to win them by pure weight of
pejoratives and name calling. That easily distinguishes him(her?) from
Steve. If Quitefine is the space-shuttle of civility, then Steve is a
paper airplane.

I was talking about header info, and definitely not posting styles. I
doubt that Steve's innate posting style would adapt to Quitefine's.
Certainly he wouldn't have any fun with it, since his style is more the
head-on, call ya out sort of thing.

I don't condone everything that Steve posts, but I respect him
nonetheless. And after his description of himself being the guy
"whacking at the Pinata,"

Remember that there are equal and opposite antagonists for him, which is
to say that I don't see him treating any of us in the same manner as he
does them. He doesn't even treat you as he does them. But I suspect that
if you started calling him "gunnery nurse, Nursie, or any of the other
dumb names he's called by some, he would reply in kind.

And I suspect that his lack of condemnation of Quitefine or Blackguard
is that they are not doing what a lot of anonymii do, which is to post
libelous and extremely insulting material.

There is a difference between civil anonymity and non-civil anonymity.
To not get that is to not get it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Okay folks,

We have a few posters here that are anonymous.

I decided to look into the N2EY-Quitefine connection

What is your evidence for Jim being Quitefine?


Most of Jim's posts - interestingly enough with his callsign - are
posted from google, whereas Quitefine's are all posted from AOL. A small
number of Jim's are posted from AOL, although from the headers,
Quitefine could also be Steve too.

But I doubt it is either of them.

More importantly, it is of interest that some of the people that are so
concerned about these anonymii are more concerned about that anonymity.
not either one is engaging in name calling, although Blackguard seems a
bit coarser.

Can't you guys handle it?


I am -
at least
I think I am -

- Mike KB3EIA -

I think! ;^)


You put Descarte before de horse... :-)

Oh, and the anonymousies are anonymous because they can't
handle it under their own identity. Think of that. :-)

Dunno. I don't see anything either of them have posted that is
particularly "non-handlable".

Perhaps answers to their questions fit better into that category.

- Mike KB3EIA -

KØHB wrote:

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote:


And of course THIS was NOT a "perjorative" on your part, Hans...



The word is pejorative, Steve, not "perjorative", so of course it was
not "perjorative" on my part.

Sunuvagun!

72.5,

de Hans, K0HB

PS: Unlike the rather civilized "Quitefine", I give as good as I get.
Sorry if you can't handle that, but try to get used to it.


Funny that I see this right after I post that that is what Steve does!

go figure!

- Mike KB3EIA -

William wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Okay folks,

We have a few posters here that are anonymous.

I decided to look into the N2EY-Quitefine connection

What is your evidence for Jim being Quitefine?


Most of Jim's posts - interestingly enough with his callsign - are
posted from google, whereas Quitefine's are all posted from AOL. A small
number of Jim's are posted from AOL, although from the headers,
Quitefine could also be Steve too.

But I doubt it is either of them.

More importantly, it is of interest that some of the people that are so
concerned about these anonymii are more concerned about that anonymity.
not either one is engaging in name calling, although Blackguard seems a
bit coarser.

Can't you guys handle it?


I am -
at least
I think I am -

- Mike KB3EIA -

I think! ;^)


I'm merely amused by the lack of consistency with which Steve
approaches the anonymii.

Call it PCTA double standard if you will - all perfectly acceptable on
RRAP.

You are taking in the data, and coming to the wrong conclusion.

It isn't the base content but the underlying tone which gets the
response. I simply look at Steve as a feedback generator. Feedback is
derived from input, as it were.

The objections to Quitefine and Blackguard are their anonymity, not
their content. Okay. Your answer to all their questions is "you're
anonymous"

Clever answer, that! And not an answer at all.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Subject: Jim = Quitefine?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 9/10/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


It's just a matter of trying to determine which face you're presenting
with any given topic.


What you see is what you get, Steve. Just to clear up any confusion on
your part, here are my thoughts on the predominate topics regularly
discussed here on rrap.

1 -- I think that Morse (CW) is a fun operating mode, sort of like
restoring old-time automobiles.
2 -- I do not think that Morse testing ought to be required to obtain an
amateur radio license of any class.
3 -- I think that you, Len, and Brian are a modern-day reincarnation of
the Three Stooges. You guys ought to petition NBC or CBS to revive that


When I was refering to your multiple faces, I was refering to the one
where in one breath you chastise others for name calling, flaming, personal
attacks and other such conduct, then turn right around and do it yourself.

And we can include you as the fourth Stooge.

Would that be Joe? ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Jim = Quitefine?
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 9/11/2004 9:56 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:



Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Subject: Jim = Quitefine?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 9/10/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


It's just a matter of trying to determine which face you're presenting
with any given topic.


What you see is what you get, Steve. Just to clear up any confusion on
your part, here are my thoughts on the predominate topics regularly
discussed here on rrap.

1 -- I think that Morse (CW) is a fun operating mode, sort of like
restoring old-time automobiles.
2 -- I do not think that Morse testing ought to be required to obtain an
amateur radio license of any class.
3 -- I think that you, Len, and Brian are a modern-day reincarnation of
the Three Stooges. You guys ought to petition NBC or CBS to revive that


When I was refering to your multiple faces, I was refering to the one
where in one breath you chastise others for name calling, flaming, personal
attacks and other such conduct, then turn right around and do it yourself.

And we can include you as the fourth Stooge.

Would that be Joe? ;^)

Ooooops....forgot him...Shemp too.

That would make Hans the sixth.

He keeps moving on down the rungs!

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Oh, and the anonymousies are anonymous because they can't
handle it under their own identity. Think of that. :-)

Dunno. I don't see anything either of them have posted that is
particularly "non-handlable".

Both are NOT INVOLVED!

No ID, nothing.

Follow der uber-oberst's commands given in here. He is PCTA extra.

:-)

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

William wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

I'm merely amused by the lack of consistency with which Steve
approaches the anonymii.

Call it PCTA double standard if you will - all perfectly acceptable on
RRAP.

You are taking in the data, and coming to the wrong conclusion.

No. Brian isn't reaching the conclusion YOU want.

It isn't the base content but the underlying tone which gets the
response. I simply look at Steve as a feedback generator. Feedback is
derived from input, as it were.

Classic case of a servo loop with too much gain...results in
oscillation and instability.

Nursie's loop filter is way off what it should be. More oscillation.

The objections to Quitefine and Blackguard are their anonymity, not
their content. Okay. Your answer to all their questions is "you're
anonymous"

Tsk.

The anonymousies are NOT INVOLVED! No ID, nothing. [see the
commands uff das uber-oberst...]

Clever answer, that! And not an answer at all.

You've not made any "answer" in your posting. Nothing at all.

What you've demonstrated is just another item in the becoming-
clear PCTA extra Double Standard: Anyone attacking NCTAs
is "OK." Anyone against PCTA extras should be forbidden
everything. :-)

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

And I suspect that his lack of condemnation of Quitefine or Blackguard
is that they are not doing what a lot of anonymii do, which is to post
libelous and extremely insulting material.

There is a difference between civil anonymity and non-civil anonymity.
To not get that is to not get it.

You ain't got it yet...