In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

K4YZ wrote:
By the way, under Lennie's own "Rules of Engagement", typos
represent "anger" or "madness"...

In my case it is forgetting to use the spell checker. My speling is bad

whether I'm angey or in a state of bliss!


Funny then that he'd suffer a case of typoglycemia about "smoldering"... !
!


HAR!. Steve, yer on a roll! 8^)

Tsk. He slipped on his butt-er.

What "medical terminology" is "typoglycemia?"

What is "angey?"



Posted on 18 Jan 05

Lenof21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


K4YZ wrote:

By the way, under Lennie's own "Rules of Engagement", typos
represent "anger" or "madness"...

In my case it is forgetting to use the spell checker. My speling is bad


whether I'm angey or in a state of bliss!



Funny then that he'd suffer a case of typoglycemia about "smoldering"... !

!


HAR!. Steve, yer on a roll! 8^)


Tsk. He slipped on his butt-er.

What "medical terminology" is "typoglycemia?"

None that I know of. It is one of those words similar to what
Blackguard once used in here, "Diarrhetoric".

A neologism, as it were.

Another name for such words is "sniglets", especially if of the
humorous variety. You enjoy wordplay, try it out. Wikipedia has some
examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniglet


What is "angey?"

I'll explain that too..... Some times when making a comment about
spelling, a person purposely slips in a few typos of their own on
purpose, such as "angey" and "speling".

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Lenof21 wrote:

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way:

Unfortunately, it does NOT.

Yes it does! ;-)

All it points out is that you are using
this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject
instead of focussing on amateur radio policy.

I think you don't like the fact that it does relate.

In the end, Who cares?

Len obviously cares a lot.

It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to
talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria wants
to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about sphinctors,
then "it's all good, man".

I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This is
an
unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he
just
isn't.

I like the little side trips. It allows us to
get to know each other better.


I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It
allows
us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a
reality
check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows
for
getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few
cases.

Astute observation, Kim! :-)

The "getting to know each other better" phrase is part of the 'standard
boilerplate' of PC phrasing done to make the writer appear like they
know much more than they do, yet tolerate all others in some
curious fashion of the nobility. [i.e., they are "better" because they
tolerate the "inferiors" :-) ]

For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest
playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or
inciting "a riot" so to speak! I know I can get certain people going in a
heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look
pretty
darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously...

Heh heh heh. The beauty of computer-modem communications
have been demonstrated time and time again since ARPANET
evolved to allow messaging, thus creating the original USENET
(acronym for 'university network').

"Source: Jargon File (4.3.1, 29 Jun 2001)

Usenet /yoos'net/ or /yooz'net/ n. [from `Users' Network'; the original
spelling was USENET, but the mixed-case form is now widely preferred] A
distributed bboard (bulletin board) system supported mainly by Unix
machines. Originally implemented in 1979-1980 by Steve Bellovin, Jim
Ellis, Tom Truscott, and Steve Daniel at Duke University, it has swiftly
grown to become international in scope and is now probably the largest
decentralized information utility in existence. As of early 1996, it
hosts over 10,000 newsgroups and an average of over 500 megabytes (the
equivalent of several thousand paper pages) of new technical articles,
news, discussion, chatter, and flamage every day (and that leaves out
the graphics...)."

Don't you get anything right, Len?

now you've done it...

What everyone can get is much of the slanted propagandizing of
various organizations and groups, parroted phrasing repeated by
some others as if they were the blessed sayings of the divine.
That is carried over to all forms of beliefs from hobbies to politics.

You left out "individuals", Len. We've seen countless examples of your
output concerning amateur radio, a hobby in which you do not
participate.

Yep.

Some of the Believers can get Outraged at any negativisms of the
Belief System they have bought (or been psychologically
purchased) into and seem to want to Fight To The Death about it.
Computer-modem communications allows them to express their
Compleat Anger quickly...and so the infamous Flame Wars begin.

You Get Outraged Regarding Morse Testing. You Snipe At The ARRL. You
Snipe At Radio Amateurs. You Want To Fight About It. You Express Your
Anger. You Partipate In Flame Wars (But Not In Amateur Radio).

The unfortunate side of the coin is that the same technology that
allows widespread textual communications also allows storage
of all the communiques for a long time, reproduction of content
possible (in many cases) by anyone with access.

Why is that unfortunate?

Those that
dared to speak their mind "in public" should remember that their
words - en toto - are still out there and could be retrieved for some
"moot court" proceedings by Outraged "barracks lawyers" in a
newsgroup.

I know - Len has been proved to be mistaken many times by means
of his posts being retrieved from archive. You'd think he'd be more careful
about what he writes....

Such is a many-edged sword waiting to be drawn by
anyone...it can cut every which way and results only in more
useless energy-expenditure by all concerned.

Why is it useless if it proves a point?

An usual term, "the unfortunate side of the coin". I'm sure that the
Google archives are, for you, the unfortunate side of the coin.

Yep.

Anyone with some experience, practice, and observation of the
various human beans roaming the planet can do "button-
pressing" of others. Those who are pressed may escalate their
frustrations and anger into kiloton explosive rages. Those can
smoolder for years and erupt into conflagrations of righteous fire
(with brimstone) at any moment. Examples abound in this
newsgroup as well as many others.

Yeah, watch that "smooldering".

Len has more buttons than anyone.

The curiosity (to me) is the steadfast Righteousness of some in
their Beliefs, specifically in a hobby activity done (supposedly) for
individual enjoyment and general recreation.

How is that any more curious than one who is not involved in a hobby who
maintains a Righteousness In His Beliefs over a hobby activity in which
he is not involved?

Bingo.

btw, it's been exactly five years since Len said he was going for Extra right
out of the box.

(check Google - it's hilarious)

He said maybe he'd make it, maybe he wouldn't. He hasn't made it. Yet.

Perhaps we should all clap our hands about that. ;-) ;-) ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Excellent post, Len.


"Lenof21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way:

Unfortunately, it does NOT.

Yes it does! ;-)

All it points out is that you are using
this newsgroup as a general chat room to talk about ANY subject
instead of focussing on amateur radio policy.

I think you don't like the fact that it does relate.

In the end, Who cares?

Len obviously cares a lot.

It is our newsgroup, and if you and I want to
talk about politics or an obscure Kert Vonnegut story, or if Bria
wants
to talk about the boy scouts, or if Len wants to talk about
sphinctors,
then "it's all good, man".

I don't know if "it's all good", but that doesn't really matter. This
is
an
unmoderated newsgroup, and while Len may want to be the moderator, he
just
isn't.

I like the little side trips. It allows us to
get to know each other better.


I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It
allows
us to get to know each other better" may need just a little bit of a
reality
check. This is an "online" venue, and I don't believe that this allows
for
getting to "know" anyone. OK, maybe slightly...and then only in a few
cases.

Astute observation, Kim! :-)

The "getting to know each other better" phrase is part of the 'standard
boilerplate' of PC phrasing done to make the writer appear like they
know much more than they do, yet tolerate all others in some
curious fashion of the nobility. [i.e., they are "better" because they
tolerate the "inferiors" :-) ]

For instance, the internet, chat rooms, and newsgroups are the greatest
playground for playing Devil's Advocate or even downright antagonism, or
inciting "a riot" so to speak! I know I can get certain people going in
a
heart beat of a stroke of a few keys of my keyboard, and they'll look
pretty
darned idiotic to most who may have been taking them seriously...

Heh heh heh. The beauty of computer-modem communications
have been demonstrated time and time again since ARPANET
evolved to allow messaging, thus creating the original USENET
(acronym for 'university network').

Isolated by time and space, anyone can "let their hair down" and
feel free to vent all their frustrations, spleens, and (sometimes)
waste-management organs on others. They can do so in the
apparent "safety" of the time and space isolation provided by the
computer-modem linkage. None of it is real-time communications.

The examples are ripe/rife in this newsgroup when it comes to
highly-polarized issues. :-)

In a short, don't ever think that this (the internet) is the medium of
humanism, or personalization, or "knowing" others. It just ain't so...

Those few of us who had been a part of the "social" Bulletin
Board Systems (as I had beginning 20 years ago) learned very
quickly that the computer personna of some individuals was
quite different from the in-person one.

Computer-modem communications is only slightly less devoid of
the very impersonal radiotelegraphy contact that offers none of
the sensory clues of in-person acquaintenceship...no sight, sound,
or anything else about the other person. With the computer-modem
linkage one gets to see the other's ability to put words together (in
varying degreees of coherency), some slight picturing of education
experience.

What everyone can get is much of the slanted propagandizing of
various organizations and groups, parroted phrasing repeated by
some others as if they were the blessed sayings of the divine.
That is carried over to all forms of beliefs from hobbies to politics.
Some of the Believers can get Outraged at any negativisms of the
Belief System they have bought (or been psychologically
purchased) into and seem to want to Fight To The Death about it.
Computer-modem communications allows them to express their
Compleat Anger quickly...and so the infamous Flame Wars begin.

The unfortunate side of the coin is that the same technology that
allows widespread textual communications also allows storage
of all the communiques for a long time, reproduction of content
possible (in many cases) by anyone with access. Those that
dared to speak their mind "in public" should remember that their
words - en toto - are still out there and could be retrieved for some
"moot court" proceedings by Outraged "barracks lawyers" in a
newsgroup. Such is a many-edged sword waiting to be drawn by
anyone...it can cut every which way and results only in more
useless energy-expenditure by all concerned.

Anyone with some experience, practice, and observation of the
various human beans roaming the planet can do "button-
pressing" of others. Those who are pressed may escalate their
frustrations and anger into kiloton explosive rages. Those can
smoolder for years and erupt into conflagrations of righteous fire
(with brimstone) at any moment. Examples abound in this
newsgroup as well as many others.

The curiosity (to me) is the steadfast Righteousness of some in
their Beliefs, specifically in a hobby activity done (supposedly) for
individual enjoyment and general recreation. The Believers MUST
triumph their Causes or (apparently) die trying to do so. Sort of
a Masada falling/failing again and again and again. :-)

Given enough exposure over years of messaging by Believers
(and "heretics"), one gets a glimpse of the Believers' states of mind
no longer fettered by in-person facades or necessities of social or
employment-hierarchy behavior. Unafraid of direct face-to-face
confrontation (and possible physical retribution), they can Vent.
Perhaps it is a catharsis to vent. Such is difficult to do in-person
without danger of direct harm. Messaging by computer lets us
look behind the in-person behavioral mask...but only somewhat.
Their reaction to comments in opposition to them tells us more.
Adding different catalysts lets us see even more reactions. Given
time their personal dossier almost writes itself. :-)

So...I'd say we DO have a means to see inside others' thinking
(or lack of it) which is not quite possible in-person. On the other
hand, we have no body language responses nor tone of voice nor
facial expressions present on in-person encounters.

One thing for su The common Territorial Imperative will lead many
to Claim Turf for themselves and "buddies." They "own" what goes
on and what should go on...even if they have no separate authority
to do so. They tenaciously hold fast to their Turf (especially the
Beliefs therein) since it is "theirs." :-)



Posted on 17 Jan 05

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:


But I have found that it's usually the case that the online or onair
personality
isn't *that* much different. There are exceptions, of course, but if a
person
acts like a complete @#$% online, there's a very good chance you won't
like their "in person" personality either.

It they didn't have those particular thoughts and feelings, they
wouldn't write them.

Just IMHO

It is not only MHO, it is a fact.


Having come from one line of great debaters (when I was in school) you'd be
hard pressed to "know" the real Kim coming out of a debate arena--and I
consider this newsgroup as a great arena for debate. And, my--IMHO--6th
Grade teacher went about enhancing our debating abilities by making us take
an opposing point of view from one we'd rather have taken. So, I learned to
play Devil's Advocate and have--in my adult life--been known to appear to be
thinking along the lines of one way but what I was actually doing was
testing the convictions of another's beliefs. I actually (for real) enjoy
that very much--for real.

So, I have written things here that are quite, quite different from how I
really feel. Why? Testing the waters, bringing out the worst and/or best
in someone, etc. The one thing I have never lied about is that I never lie.
(GRIN)


Much can be learned by those who sit back , watch, and listen.

I think Kim might be thinking that I am acting the chat-room romantic.
(correct me if I'm wrong, Kim)


Don't know that you need correcting, Mike, in fact I haven't thought much
about your acting (uh, no pun intended).


But our writing tells much about us. When we purposely set out to
decieve, we are eventually outed.

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -



Hmmmm, isn't that rather psychotic of you, Mike. OOoops, I mean, er,
analytical...LMAO!!!!

Kim W5TIT

Kim wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

N2EY wrote:



But I have found that it's usually the case that the online or onair
personality
isn't *that* much different. There are exceptions, of course, but if a

person

acts like a complete @#$% online, there's a very good chance you won't
like their "in person" personality either.

It they didn't have those particular thoughts and feelings, they
wouldn't write them.


Just IMHO

It is not only MHO, it is a fact.



Having come from one line of great debaters (when I was in school) you'd be
hard pressed to "know" the real Kim coming out of a debate arena--and I
consider this newsgroup as a great arena for debate. And, my--IMHO--6th
Grade teacher went about enhancing our debating abilities by making us take
an opposing point of view from one we'd rather have taken. So, I learned to
play Devil's Advocate and have--in my adult life--been known to appear to be
thinking along the lines of one way but what I was actually doing was
testing the convictions of another's beliefs. I actually (for real) enjoy
that very much--for real.

So, I have written things here that are quite, quite different from how I
really feel. Why? Testing the waters, bringing out the worst and/or best
in someone, etc. The one thing I have never lied about is that I never lie.
(GRIN)


Much can be learned by those who sit back , watch, and listen.

I think Kim might be thinking that I am acting the chat-room romantic.
(correct me if I'm wrong, Kim)



Don't know that you need correcting, Mike, in fact I haven't thought much
about your acting (uh, no pun intended).


But our writing tells much about us. When we purposely set out to
decieve, we are eventually outed.


73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -




Hmmmm, isn't that rather psychotic of you, Mike. OOoops, I mean, er,
analytical...LMAO!!!!

Hah! It is possible, I suppose! Am I as I post, or am I a weirdo? Or
does the way I post indicate that I AM a weirdo? I've posted enough in
this newsgroup that an observer should be able to tell a lot about my
actual personality. Granted, I don't try to hide it or blast people for
stress relief, so I should be easy.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

btw, it's been exactly five years since Len said he was going for
Extra right
out of the box.

(check Google - it's hilarious)

I don't know if "hilarious" was the right adjective, Jim.

I think "pitiful" is more like it.

I am sure that you, like I, have seen people with NO experience in
ANY discipline of radio communication, take a week or two of study and
walk away from a VE session with a CSCE in hand for a new license.

Pity that, then, that a person with Lennie's alleged education and
experience hasn't been able to accomplish it in five YEARS, let alone
weeks.

He said maybe he'd make it, maybe he wouldn't. He hasn't made it.
Yet.

Oh, I don't thing there was ever ANY doubt as to Lennie's
inability to take and pass an Amateur examination.

Perhaps we should all clap our hands about that. ;-) ;-) ;-)
Absolutely.

73

Steve, K4YZ