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...

Len Over 21 wrote:
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...

And the proof of the point is here.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

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...

KB3EIA "has it", Len.
You have clearly "lost it".

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

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

- Mike KB3EIA -

Incorrect.

If there is no disagreement, then anonymity is just peachy.

But it is their anonymity that is -attacked- when there is a
disagreement, i.e., Steve calls them cowardly scum for hiding behind a
mask.

William wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

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

- Mike KB3EIA -


Incorrect.

If there is no disagreement, then anonymity is just peachy.

But it is their anonymity that is -attacked- when there is a
disagreement, i.e., Steve calls them cowardly scum for hiding behind a
mask.

But I am not Steve!

What a broad paintbrush we paint with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
William wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

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

- Mike KB3EIA -


Incorrect.

If there is no disagreement, then anonymity is just peachy.

But it is their anonymity that is -attacked- when there is a
disagreement, i.e., Steve calls them cowardly scum for hiding behind a
mask.

But I am not Steve!

What a broad paintbrush we paint with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

You tolerate it, even condone it.

What a broad zone of tolerance you have for the PCTA, and how narrow it gets...

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. :-)

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 -

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.

:-)

Len Over 21 wrote:

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.

Since when does "der uber-oberst's" commands affect me? Or you for that
matter?

For an ostensibly smart fella, you fall into categorization pretty
easily. I'll post what I want, and if you don't post because of some
"command" given by someone else here, you are the victim. But since you
do post whatever you want, it shows the fallacy of your statement, so
why do you keep posting that?

Of course you know! ;^)

I am,

The fifth wheel
of the four Morsemen
of the Apocalypse *80)

- Mike KB3EIA -