wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"bb" wrote

Your strangle hold on the amateur service may not
end until the actuarial tables kick in, but they will end.

Jim has a "strangle hold" on ham radio?

That claim is incorrect.

Probably. And you've probably never hammered a rivet into place,
either.

Gee, I didn't know!

Me neither.

Hey, Jim --- loosen up and let me breathe!

;-)

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

So, did you have a right opinion about the elimination of El. 1? Or
was it the latter?

If it were up to me, all amateur radio licenses would require
at least a 5 wpm code test. And they'd all have better (not
harder) written tests too.

I'm going to recommend 60wpm for the Extra exam, everyone retests, no
waivers.

But it's not up to me.

It's up to some of your PCTA Cronies employed by the FCC.

So I'll continue to give FCC my thoughts, ideas and opinions
on the issues, and my reasons behind them. Maybe FCC will
agree, maybe not. Hardly a "stranglehold". Just democracy
in action.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I hope you're prepping for that 60wpm exam. You could start by not
wasting your time here.

bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..", yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

So either way you look at it, you're wrong. You are either so
blissfully ignorant of the enviroment you're in that it manifests as
"stupid", or you're intentionally being deceitful, in which case you're
the liar I have claimed you to be.

In either case, you're the loser.

Oh well.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

Let me put it another way:

When a statement reads as a fact, with no qualifiers like "I think" or
"IMHO" or such most people read it that the writer
is stating a fact.

A person can hold whatever opinions they like. That does not
mean all opinions are equally valid. A person's opinions can
be based on true facts and valid logic, or not. Doesn't make
the person a liar, just a poor thinker.

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..",
yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items
on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

So either way you look at it, you're wrong. You are either so
blissfully ignorant of the enviroment you're in that it
manifests as
"stupid", or you're intentionally being deceitful,
in which case you're
the liar I have claimed you to be.

There's a third possibility, Steve:

That statement could simply be an opinion. The person starting
it has chosen not to back up that opinion with facts. Doesn't
make them a liar. It does show that they can't back up their
opinion with facts, that's all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

Let me put it another way:

When a statement reads as a fact, with no qualifiers like "I think" or
"IMHO" or such most people read it that the writer
is stating a fact.

So when you stated that the Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to CW
use, was that an opinion or was that a statement of fact?

A person can hold whatever opinions they like. That does not
mean all opinions are equally valid. A person's opinions can
be based on true facts and valid logic, or not. Doesn't make
the person a liar, just a poor thinker.

You might want to explain it to Robeson. Be gentle.

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..",
yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items
on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

So either way you look at it, you're wrong. You are either so
blissfully ignorant of the enviroment you're in that it
manifests as
"stupid", or you're intentionally being deceitful,
in which case you're
the liar I have claimed you to be.

There's a third possibility, Steve:

That statement could simply be an opinion. The person starting
it has chosen not to back up that opinion with facts. Doesn't
make them a liar. It does show that they can't back up their
opinion with facts, that's all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

It only took you a year to explain that one to Steve. Good going Jim.

sorryJim but failing to back up an opinion doesn't mean they can't, may
mean they simply choose not to bother

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

You obviously didn't either. During your three week lying spree, not
once did you say "In my opinion..." Hi!

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..", yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

So?

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

Is that what I said? You're welcome to quote it at any time.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

You're the original Dodgeful Arter.

What seven hostile actions? Where is your documentation for your
claims of "A" NCOIC of Okinawa MARS?

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

You obviously didn't either. During your three week lying spree, not
once did you say "In my opinion..."

What lying spree?

No lies were stated.

YOU are welcome to post my comments, along with YOUR
substantiation of your claim of mistruth

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..", yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

So?

"So" indeed.

It was one of your many unsubstantiated assertions.

Evidence that your statement was obviously flawed was provided.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

Is that what I said? You're welcome to quote it at any time.

Already did that.

You refuse to be the man you claim to be and fix it.

The refusal keeps you in the group "chronic unrepentant liar"

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

You're the original Dodgeful Arter.

And you're a chronic liar.

What seven hostile actions?

I didn't tell you?

Where is your documentation for your claims of "A" NCOIC of Okinawa MARS?

You keep asking for "documentation of "A" NCOIC.

What's an "A" NCOIC...?!?!

You mean ANCOIC...?!?!

It's on Okinawa waiting for you to write a letter to the source I
ceted and verify it.

Failure to do so manifests you as a coward.

Denying that I provided you adequate information to verify my
claims continues to render you a chronic liar.

Do you lie like this to your wife? Your kids? Your extended
family?

Do you not know how to tell the truth, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote


It was one of your many unsubstantiated assertions.


Rrap is like the bible .... it's all unsubstantiated .... just take it "on
faith".

K=D8HB wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote


It was one of your many unsubstantiated assertions.


Rrap is like the bible .... it's all unsubstantiated .... just take it "on
faith".

Steve takes nothing on faith. I don't even want to think what he would
call those who penned the Bible.

bb wrote:
K=D8HB wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote


It was one of your many unsubstantiated assertions.


Rrap is like the bible .... it's all unsubstantiated .... just take it =
"on
faith".

Steve takes nothing on faith.

Not from you and Lennie. You're proven liars. Why would I take
anything on "faith" from a proven liar, Brain?

What have YOU done to disprove my allegations of your dishonesty?

I don't even want to think what he would call those who penned the Bible.

I call them "men". Why? What do YOU call them?

Steve, K4YZ