bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had
that
young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem
selling
SOMEthing!

But not radios, huh???

Only radios.

You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track,
race to evil conclusions minds.

Bad thing to have.

The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling
SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever
seen
on rrap.

Not really, but it is true to Steve's style.

What style?

I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by
the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments
to
Michele and Jim.

Unlikely.

Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in
private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was
expressed.

The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't
one.

The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no
other reason than it WAS me making the comments.


You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do
that
people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments
all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off
thier
backs. This is one of those moments.

Have a nice day.

Steve, K4YZ

Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo.

The "innuendo" was the respondants.

If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant.

What's to "call", Brain?

He's always the victim.

Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be
a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese.

Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100% disability
hearing.

And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never
substantiate.

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:


Do you and Robeson share an e-mail account?

Nope. but the person involved emailed me also. And since it was
private
email, I won't divulge the name.

As for the content of Steve's post, a person can either take it to
mean
that an attractive person used in an advertisement is a successful
tactic ala "must be selling something", or that an attractive person
in
an advertisement is selling sex. I chose to read it as being a
successful tactic, because most ads with attractive people are
selling
other things.

But that requires a patient, mature mind, Mike...Not one ready to
jump to conclusions or always scratching for a fight.

Too bad, that. Otherwise I might have a career as a
supermodel......... ;^)

You and me both, Brother...You and me both!...!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Who is it?
Brain or Brian?

"there goes Brain with yet another lie..."

You really should get this right. If you don't, that oddball 'Not Roger'
miscreant will take you to task.

Of course nobody gives a healthy hoot what 'Not Roger' has to say. The guy
is a Bottom Feeder who ranks in the lower world of Nowhere.
Poor 'Not Roger' has been thrashing about in his own self-made cesspool
version of Purgatory for most of his adult life.

--
"The funny thing is, you don't know your fat ass from a whole in
the ground, ****-for-brains."
Roger Wiseman







"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has had
that
young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem
selling
SOMEthing!

But not radios, huh???

Only radios.

You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track,
race to evil conclusions minds.

Bad thing to have.

The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling
SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've ever
seen
on rrap.

Not really, but it is true to Steve's style.

What style?

I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by
the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy comments
to
Michele and Jim.

Unlikely.

Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in
private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was
expressed.

The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't
one.

The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no
other reason than it WAS me making the comments.


You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I do
that
people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments
all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off
thier
backs. This is one of those moments.

Have a nice day.

Steve, K4YZ

Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo.

The "innuendo" was the respondants.

If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant.

What's to "call", Brain?

He's always the victim.

Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to be
a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese.

Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100% disability
hearing.

And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never
substantiate.

Steve, K4YZ

It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this "private"
real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike but doesn't
have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the embarassing
position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who
threatened them.

Strangerer and strangerer!

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has
had
that
young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem
selling
SOMEthing!

But not radios, huh???

Only radios.

Obviously "something" that radio sellers sell is radios.

So why make such an obvious statement?

You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A one-track,
race to evil conclusions minds.

Bad thing to have.

And so you try to make others the deviants. Isn't working.

The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling
SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've
ever
seen
on rrap.

Not really, but it is true to Steve's style.

What style?

True enough in the usual sense.

I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by
the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy
comments
to
Michele and Jim.

Unlikely.

Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in
private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was
expressed.

The respondant failed to do so...That being because there wasn't
one.

The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no
other reason than it WAS me making the comments.

I see no attack. (S)he asked you to apologize for an off comment. I
certainly have no problem with that person forwarding your comments to
the young lady and her father whether you apologize or not. You made
your comments in a public forum, right?

Maybe you'd like to have 30 minutes at the Dayton Hamvention banquet to
explain yourself, your view of how people are always misunderstanding
what you say, and why you are the victim.

You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I
do
that
people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments
all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll off
thier
backs. This is one of those moments.

Have a nice day.

Steve, K4YZ

Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo.

The "innuendo" was the respondants.

If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant.

What's to "call", Brain?

He's always the victim.

Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE to
be
a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese.

I am no victim of yours. You would have to matter for that to happen,
and you just don't matter. You simply have an emotional defect and you
cannot help yourself.

Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100%
disability
hearing.

And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never
substantiate.

Steve, K4YZ

So you're not disabled?

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this
"private"
real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike but
doesn't
have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the
embarassing
position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who
threatened them.

Strangerer and strangerer!

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

Strangereer indeed.

You know, Mel, if that real but anonymous person had suggested in
his/her quasi-"private" email with CC's to Mike and who knows else,
that brick would fly through windows, tires would be slashed, and wives
terrorized, I could see Steve Robeson/K4YZ characterizing the email as
a threat. But the person merely indicated that Steve's publicly made
inuendo would reach the person to whom he made the comments about. I
see no threat. I see Robeson posturing and pretending to be a victim
himself. At best he's merely a #1 jerk who may have once worn a marine
uniform. At worst he needs to seek counseling.

Mel A. Nomah wrote:

It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this "private"
real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike

No one threatened me, Mel. I was just cc'd in the reply the person made
to Steve.


but doesn't
have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the embarassing
position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who
threatened them.

Strangerer and strangerer!

And how!

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

I do like that quote........

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mel A. Nomah wrote:
It get's more confusing every morning Brian. Now it appears this
"private"
real but anonymous person has threatened both Steve and Mike but
doesn't
have the decency to do it in public, forcing them into the
embarassing
position of publicly exposing their victimization without knowing who
threatened them.

Neither of us were vicitimized. The person making the "threats"
didn't have the "stuff" to make the threat he claimed he would. And if
s/he carried out the intended threat, s/he would have looked sillier
than the quotes s/he was claiming to be inappropriate.

And if you had paid attention to previous posts, YOU would know
that we know exactly who the third person is. The comments were
discussed here since they related to an on-going post.

Just as I expected, no one perceived the same "impropriety" that
the un-named author did.

Steve, K4YZ

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Hey Mike...It's not THAT far fetched...Burghardt in NY has
had
that
young lady in the tight fitting sweater for years...Musta beem
selling
SOMEthing!

But not radios, huh???

Only radios.

Obviously "something" that radio sellers sell is radios.

So why make such an obvious statement?

You and the e-mailer have the same problem, Brain. A
one-track,
race to evil conclusions minds.

Bad thing to have.

And so you try to make others the deviants. Isn't working.

I don't make anyone anything, Brian. I may hold a mirror up to
them, but anything they "are" is of thier own doing.

The sleazy nudge-nudge insinuation in your "Musta beem seeling
SOMEthing!" comment is one of the lowest forms of attack I've
ever
seen
on rrap.

Not really, but it is true to Steve's style.

What style?

True enough in the usual sense.

I'll expect to see a sincere unconditional apology on rrap by
the end of today, or I'll consider forwarding your trashy
comments
to
Michele and Jim.

Unlikely.

Absolutely unlikely. The respondant was asked both here and in
private e-mail to show where an "attack" or an intent to attack was
expressed.

The respondant failed to do so...That being because there
wasn't
one.

The "attack" was the respondant picking a fight with me for no
other reason than it WAS me making the comments.

I see no attack. (S)he asked you to apologize for an off comment. I
certainly have no problem with that person forwarding your comments
to
the young lady and her father whether you apologize or not. You made
your comments in a public forum, right?

I did. And why would I apologize for an "attack" that didn't
occur?

Maybe you'd like to have 30 minutes at the Dayton Hamvention banquet
to
explain yourself, your view of how people are always misunderstanding
what you say, and why you are the victim.

(1) I am not a victim

(2) It seems there are only three people here who have a problem
with what I say, and that would be you, Lennie, and the person in the
e-mail. I'm not impressed that any "explanation" needs to occur.

And what would you care anyway? You said you had other plans much
too important to atttend Dayton.

You took offense...Too bad for you. You know as well as I
do
that
people can "take offense" at the most innocent of comments
all-the-while letting morbid profanity and bold threats roll
off
thier
backs. This is one of those moments.

Have a nice day.

Steve, K4YZ

Innocent comments - hi, hi! Robeson likes to make inuendo.

The "innuendo" was the respondants.

If you call him on it, he'll try to turn you into the deviant.

What's to "call", Brain?

He's always the victim.

Unlike you or Lennie who always have to be a victim, I REFUSE
to
be
a victim. That's probably what grates your cheese.

I am no victim of yours.

I didn't say you were. I said that my failure to BE victimized
irritates (grates your cheese) you.

You would have to matter for that to happen,and you just don't
matter.

Obviously not true, since responding to posts I make accounts for
over 85% of YOUR posts.

You simply have an emotional defect and you cannot help yourself.

What emotional defect, Brian?

Probably learned that tactic while rehearsing for his 100%
disability
hearing.

And there goes Brain with yet another lie that he'll never
substantiate.

Steve, K4YZ

So you're not disabled?

I didn't say I wasn't...However YOU claimed that I "rehearsed for
(my) 100% disability hearing". I have NEVER participated in ANY
hearing for ANY degree of disability. And I am certainly NOT "100%"
disabled.

Try again, Brian...

Steve, K4YZ

bb wrote:

Strangereer indeed.

You know, Mel, if that real but anonymous person had suggested in
his/her quasi-"private" email with CC's to Mike and who knows else,
that brick would fly through windows, tires would be slashed, and
wives
terrorized, I could see Steve Robeson/K4YZ characterizing the email
as
a threat.

Glad you brought that up, Brian.

You've claimed that I have made such threats.

I have asked you over and over to quote the posts wherein I
allegedly made such threats, but all you do is continue to make the
insinuation.

Of course you and I both know the threats were never made...I just
enjoy rubbing your nose in your frequent retelling of already disposven
lies.

But the person merely indicated that Steve's publicly made
inuendo would reach the person to whom he made the comments about.

The statement was made that this was an "attack", and
characterised as such. The respondant was asked to demonstrate where
the "attack" was. S/he did not...COULD not, since one was not made.

I see no threat.

Claiming to be ready to tell third parties that they were
"attacked" in a public forum when no auch attack occured could be a
threat...However no such "attack" was ever made.

I see Robeson posturing and pretending to be a victim himself.

I'm not a victim. I refuse to be one. That's why YOU can't get
away with your misrepresentations about Amateur Radio. I AM a
licensed Amateur, and such misrepresentations necessarilly include me.

I refuse to allow you to lie about me.

At best he's merely a #1 jerk who may have once worn a marine
uniform.

"May have"...?!?!

At worst he needs to seek counseling.

Still waiting for you to ante up those healthcare licenses or
certifications, Brian.

Try again.

Steve, K4YZ