In article , "Kim"
writes:

I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows
us to get to know each other better"

That was Mike, KB3EIA

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.

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...

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...

Kim W5TIT

I agree in some ways, Kim, and disagree in others. And it's not a new
phenomenon - it goes back at least to the days of the landline telegraph
operators.

I've met more than a few folks "in person" after first encountering them
online, or on the air. In some cases, the personality you meet on line or
on air is very much the same as the one you meet in person. In others,
the personalities are very different. There's really no 100% sure way to
know ahead of time. The person who is a real %^&# online may be
very nice in person, and vice versa.

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.

Just IMHO

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Lenof21 wrote:
In article , "Kim"
writes:

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

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!

Actaully a very cynical observation.

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" :-) ]

A lot of adjectives come to mind over this bit of bileish tripe,
but "Scrooge" fits it best.

But coming from a guy who couldn't laid in a cat house if he had a
$100 taped to his forehead, why should I have been surprised to see
something as deceitful as " 'standard boilerplate' of PC phrasing..."

It was nothing of the sort.

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.

That's only because you populate the wrong forums and happen to BE
one of those perersons who has a NEED to be something other than what
you are.

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.
Rest of assinine post snipped. What a putz. Again.

Steve, K4YZ

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" :-) ]

If you wanted to state that I "tolerate" you, I guess you could say
that without me getting riled. But to try to say I am tolerating
"inferiors", well that is just not the case. There isn't anyone in here
that I consider inferior.

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.

Yup. It also shows a lot about the person that they are. DO people
think that comparing others with the Nazis or to call each other an
endless barrage of names is not showing a personality trait?

It is.


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. :-)

Ain't that the Truf?


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.

But that does not mean that the computer persona is not a part of the
person's whole persona.

It is. If the personas are radically different, it simply shows that
there are some issues that should be dealt with.

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.

Some of us would think that is a good thing. I do.



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.

Good to see you agree. That doesn't stop an astute person from making
deductions based on what other people write.



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." :-)




- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Kim"
writes:


I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It allows
us to get to know each other better"


That was Mike, KB3EIA


Lil 'ol me!


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.

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...

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...

Kim W5TIT


I agree in some ways, Kim, and disagree in others. And it's not a new
phenomenon - it goes back at least to the days of the landline telegraph
operators.

I've met more than a few folks "in person" after first encountering them
online, or on the air. In some cases, the personality you meet on line or
on air is very much the same as the one you meet in person. In others,
the personalities are very different. There's really no 100% sure way to
know ahead of time. The person who is a real %^&# online may be
very nice in person, and vice versa.

Although most of the time, you can still find the person out.


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.

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)

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Kim"
writes:

I couldn't follow who posted what above, but I think whoever said "It
allows us to get to know each other better"

That was Mike, KB3EIA

Lil 'ol me!

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.

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...

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...

Kim W5TIT

I agree in some ways, Kim, and disagree in others. And it's not a new
phenomenon - it goes back at least to the days of the landline telegraph
operators.

I've met more than a few folks "in person" after first encountering them
online, or on the air. In some cases, the personality you meet on line or
on air is very much the same as the one you meet in person. In others,
the personalities are very different. There's really no 100% sure way to
know ahead of time. The person who is a real %^&# online may be
very nice in person, and vice versa.

Although most of the time, you can still find the person out.

If you wait long enough, their patterns become clear.

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.

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)

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

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: What does it say about a
person whose online personality appears to be different from their
"in person" one? Which is an act, and which is real? And why bother
with the deception?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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?


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.

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. 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.

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.

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".

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?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

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?

Why should he start today, Dave?

It's yet another claim of his "seniority" in another
technically-related "career" that he's obviously NOT very competent at.

We're STILL awaiting his retraction of his assertions about the
legality of operating a radio station beyond the expiration date of the
license.

Odd he'd make that claim since EVERY federal examination, Amateur
or Commercial, has questions specifically addressing the subject of
license terms and limits.

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.

Nor is he very knowledgeable. Example after example of his
INcompetence abound.

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).

We're also still awating his delivery of evidence to support his
claim of dishonesty of the ARRL in general and the Board members in
particular.

I am also curios to see his supporting evidence of HIS claim of
radio services specifically enacted for "purely recreational" uses.
That's not been forthcoming either.

He also got off on a tangent trying to humiliate me over Civil Air
Patrol and started in on CAP's AT-6 and other alleged warbird fleet
that I was an "ace aviator" of... (yet another field of knowledge for
which Lennie has no experience...) I am still waiting for his
supporting evidence on THOSE claims... CAP's only "warbird" remenants
are an O-1 Birddog on a pedestel outside it's offices in Alabama.

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.

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.

As were Deja before it, etc etc etc...As I said in another post,
Lennie is his own worst enemy.

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".

Seems to me that Lennie is the only one with any "smooldering"
going on.

By the way, under Lennie's own "Rules of Engagement", typos
represent "anger" or "madness"...Funny then that he'd suffer a case of
typoglycemia about "smoldering"... ! !

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?

Even more so where there is not a single line of federal
regulation within any of the FCC's rules and regulations that addresses
"hobby activity" or "general recreation" within Part 97. That it may
be used for such is obvious, however there are people who view
Emergency Medical Services, criminal forensics and domestic abuse
intervention advocacy as "hobbies" too. His "point" about "hobby" is
irrelevent..in spades...

73

Steve, K4YZ

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^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:03:24 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

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

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

There have been times that my "soldering" has resulted in something
"smoldering".....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane