Len:

Don't know about you, but this bunch is driving me to drink... let's go
have a beer! evil-grin

John

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm

On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:

With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't
refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition
of
the word.

I disagree!

There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no
avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem!

Just 11 more steps to go!

Antabuse might be quicker...? :-)


I am simply persistent.

Or persistently simple. Time will tell!

Obsessively persistent? :-)


I offer strong opposition to some of
the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others.

Oh, that's nice. How's that working out for you? Changed anybody's
mind lately?

:-) [with all that "parenting" he implies he's had you'd
think he changed SOMETHING at one time...]

Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me).

You don't really believe that, do you? You're not the entertainer -
you're the entertainment! He pokes and prods, and you sing and dance
- been that way for 8 long years now.

"Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer.


Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting
some
things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can
renew and modify their licenses without retesting)?

I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types
of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in
the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing
your buttons.....for fun.....y'think?

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too,
didn't you?

?

I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning
that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic,
and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO.

You can only control your own postings. You may also refute and argue
points. That is not obsesssive.

To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is
very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL!

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was
mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that
the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was
that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence
in getting something right.

In a way, yes.

I asked you several times if being correct was important to you.

You replied that it was.

I asked if being correct was very important to you.

You replied that it was.

I confirmed this again, and you agreed that it was very important to
you.

So, I spent about 20 minutes on Google and provided you with the
correct info and a few references for you to read.

That's what you said that you wanted - and that's what I provided.

Obsessive? No. Persistent? Not really - it wasn't a lot of work -
and I knew the correct answers before Googling the references - so I
wouldn't say persistent exactly.

However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no
success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be
wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways
back there or something.....

I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!"

[that kind of says it all...maybe...]

Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ]

Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications
and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up
and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and
everyone else always "wrong!"



73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo (is it just me, or is there a diss aimed at me again in ol'
Jim's sig above? heh heh)

Heh heh heh heh heh.....

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:43:40 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:42:31 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:


Leo wrote:


How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len. I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

The word is "obsessive". Jim's treatment of Len isn't.


Thanks, Dave. You are correct - my spelling of the word "obsessive"
was incorrect. Appreciate the help!

You're welcome. I spotted it the first time you used it but didn't
comment on it then.

Yeah, I should have caught it myself - didn't seem right when I wrote
it, but too lazy to look it up, I guess!



With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I don't see evidence of any *pursuit* of Len by Jim, much less
"relentless pursuit".


Not sure I can agree with you on that point, Dave. It's been going on
for years on a pretty frequent basis - see my reply to Jim elsewhere
in this thread....

Dave K8MN

73, Leo

On 21 Jun 2005 17:02:04 -0700, wrote:

From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm

On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:

With regard to your second point, though - 'obsessive' wouldn't refer
to Jim's 'treatment' of Len - it is in the relentless pursuit of
proving the individual wrong that we would find the true definition of
the word.

I disagree!

There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no
avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem!

Just 11 more steps to go!

Antabuse might be quicker...? :-)

Hmmm - I wonder if there's a Usenet version of that!



I am simply persistent.

Or persistently simple. Time will tell!

Obsessively persistent? :-)

That works too!



I offer strong opposition to some of
the errors of fact and reasoning presented here by Len and others.

Oh, that's nice. How's that working out for you? Changed anybody's
mind lately?

:-) [with all that "parenting" he implies he's had you'd
think he changed SOMETHING at one time...]

Len gets all upset by that, and attacks the messenger (me).

You don't really believe that, do you? You're not the entertainer -
you're the entertainment! He pokes and prods, and you sing and dance
- been that way for 8 long years now.

"Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer.

Heh - I remember those commercials - good rewrite!



Is it unacceptable behaviour for me to be persistent about getting some
things right (such as whether or not Novices and Advanceds can
renew and modify their licenses without retesting)?

I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types
of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in
the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing
your buttons.....for fun.....y'think?

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

Nahhhh - you're right. I didn't think so either!


Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too,
didn't you?

?

It's from another reply in this thread - made more sense back there, I
reckon!


I can't control someone else's posting of information and reasoning
that is in error. But I can refute it with facts and clear logic,
and resources permit I do just that. Hardly obsessive, IMHO.

You can only control your own postings. You may also refute and argue
points. That is not obsesssive.

To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is
very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL!

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

Not even a teensy bit?


You were quite persistent in coming up with proof that I was
mistaken about the use of the word "feldwebel". It's clear that
the person to whom that rank was attributed never held it. Was
that "obsessive" on your part? I don't think so, just persistence
in getting something right.

In a way, yes.

I asked you several times if being correct was important to you.

You replied that it was.

I asked if being correct was very important to you.

You replied that it was.

I confirmed this again, and you agreed that it was very important to
you.

So, I spent about 20 minutes on Google and provided you with the
correct info and a few references for you to read.

That's what you said that you wanted - and that's what I provided.

Obsessive? No. Persistent? Not really - it wasn't a lot of work -
and I knew the correct answers before Googling the references - so I
wouldn't say persistent exactly.

However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no
success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be
wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways
back there or something.....

I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!"

[that kind of says it all...maybe...]

Something pretty compelling drives this sort of behaviour - that's
probably the seed, all right!


Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ]

Ouch!


Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications
and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up
and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and
everyone else always "wrong!"

That pretty much sums up my experience over the last twenty years
online as well - unlike in real life arguements - things are very
black-or-white in the newsgroups.....with little compromise. Didn't
seem quite as bad on the BBS systems, though - Usenet really seems to
bring out the big egos. YMMV, of course!

I find it continually amazing what people will argue over - or how
passionate they'll get over the most simple and unimportant issue.
I'm sure that there's a group somewhere on Usenet where death threats
are exchanged over whether rotary dial phones are superior to
TouchTone phones...

Can you imagine if real-life arguements played out like some of the
ones in this little alternate reality? Somebody would end up doing
some time for assault...or worse...

But here, in Fantasyland (not the one near you - this one...heh heh),
everyone feels safe and secure, so the inhibitions drop. Look at the
folks wrassling with some tool in another thread here for the last few
days, for example - if that 'discussion' took place in a bar, he'd
probably be waking up in Emergency somewhere early tomorrow morning.
But, because it's here, and that possibility doesn't exist, it's no
holds barred. Even the most bookish guy is Tyson when he's on
here.....ding ding!

Funny thing is - people are trying to convince the guy that he's
wrong, or heartless, or insensitive, or cruel - duh, it's obviously
intentional trolling, but somehow, that got missed by several
otherwise savvy folks..... Guess some peoples' radar doesn't work
when the face-to-face interpersonal aspect is isolated from the
conversation.

I will probably never fully understand the psychology of this.....

But, I suppose, as Barnum said..."There's a sucker born every minute."

Hey - maybe that's the psychology of this!



73 (to all hams) de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo (is it just me, or is there a diss aimed at me again in ol'
Jim's sig above? heh heh)

Heh heh heh heh heh.....

He's doing it - I know he is..... and he knows that I know he's doing
it too

Oh well - that's enough bashing at this for now....have a great
evening, Len!




73, Leo

PS - before the Usenet police come to correct me on that Barnum quote
(it's controversial whether he actually said it or not...), here's a
reference:

http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/P.-T.-Barnum/1/

From: Leo on Jun 21, 11:51 pm

On 21 Jun 2005 17:02:04 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Jun 21, 6:54 pm
On 21 Jun 2005 09:13:41 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:


There you go - you've finally got it! You've been disagreeing to no
avail for eight years here, on and on and on - that's the problem!

Just 11 more steps to go!

Antabuse might be quicker...? :-)

Hmmm - I wonder if there's a Usenet version of that!

Hardly, ARPA's original USENET was the start of it all!

I saw it begin, clickety-clacking on a Model 33 wasting lots
of paper (that a corporation bought). Pages of sound and fury
signifying nothing much. Incurable mental disease infecting
all terminals!


I am simply persistent.

Or persistently simple. Time will tell!

Obsessively persistent? :-)

That works too!

OK.


"Poke, poke, prod, prod, oh what a fun it is," sang Seltzer.

Heh - I remember those commercials - good rewrite!

Alka-Seltzer would cure one headache, then induce millions to
have more with that commercial! It should still be in the
collection of famous commercials over at the Television Academy
on Lankershim Blvd in North Hollywood. Haven't been there for
a while...


I submit that those who need to know the correct answer to those types
of questions probably already do - if they are actually interested in
the answer, then they would listen. The rest might just be pushing
your buttons.....for fun.....y'think?

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

Nahhhh - you're right. I didn't think so either!

nodding in agreement Nudge, nudge, wink, wink...


Let me guess - you opted out of Psych 101 at good ol' Dreidel U too,
didn't you?

?

It's from another reply in this thread - made more sense back there, I
reckon!

Got it! :-) Didn't see the previous post until this download
arrived in my mail box from Google.

[Oy veh, I wasn't wearing my yarmulke...]


To do so fruitlessly for eight years, on a nearly weekly basis, is
very likely just - weeeelll - a tad obsessive.....! LOL!

Nahhhhhh..... :-)

Not even a teensy bit?

Not for a boneheadedly stubborn true morse Believer fedayin!

I liken it to an excrutiatingly slow "suicide bomber" act.

Only thing is, only the "bomber" will destruct. It's like that
Opel (?) TV ad that was circulating around the net, the one
demonstrating the "great German engineering!" Funny!


However - If I kept doing it every week or so for eight years, with no
success, over and over again - yup, that might be a problem - I'd be
wondering if some parts fell off the ol' brainpan on a curve a ways
back there or something.....


I suspect it could be summed-up simply: "They are always right!"

[that kind of says it all...maybe...]

Something pretty compelling drives this sort of behaviour - that's
probably the seed, all right!

"R U Siriusly" speaking (I'm a fan of Brewster Rockit, Space Guy),
it's the time-space insulation of the simplex communications via
computer-modem medium. Nearly everyone beginning that sort of
comms takes every word on the screen at face value...at first.

Some figure out that they can actually say ANYTHING they want
in a message (especially with no moderator there to censor them)
and they go bananas. They can say anything without fear of
reprisal. It's amazing the false courage these mighty message
warriors display! :-)

Or: "Leggo my ego!" [and I'm not 'waffling' around :-) ]

Ouch!

The pun is mightier than the sword? :-)

"When puns are outlawed, only outlaws will have puns!"

etc.

Twenty years doing this kind of computer-modem communications
and it is endlessly fascinating to watch the egos jumping up
and down in high agitation! Everyone always "right" and
everyone else always "wrong!"

That pretty much sums up my experience over the last twenty years
online as well - unlike in real life arguements - things are very
black-or-white in the newsgroups.....with little compromise. Didn't
seem quite as bad on the BBS systems, though - Usenet really seems to
bring out the big egos. YMMV, of course!

No moderator present. All can drop their social conventions and
BE "all that they can (imagine) be." War heroes, sex kittens,
"doctors" (with PhDs from a correspondence "college"), all kinds
of better-than-everyone-else! :-)

As a co-sysop on a "social" BBS, actually a couple of them,
there was a chance to meet the real person in-person and find
out some were really what they said they were while others
were totally unlike their screen personna or just total flake
faux pas-sers. Lots of stories on that subject in this ultimate
geographical collection of really-real hams (in entertainment
industry). :-)

I find it continually amazing what people will argue over - or how
passionate they'll get over the most simple and unimportant issue.
I'm sure that there's a group somewhere on Usenet where death threats
are exchanged over whether rotary dial phones are superior to
TouchTone phones...

Can you imagine if real-life arguements played out like some of the
ones in this little alternate reality? Somebody would end up doing
some time for assault...or worse...

Actually I was once quite close to a real-life argument going
on live. Was along one side of a mini-mall in Burbank, CA,
that had the local HRO outlet (now moved to the other side).
Two hams (apparently) were into the finger-in-the-chest sort
of fight foreplay when I passed close to them with some
finished dry-cleaning (neatly wrapped). Not wanting to go
through the dry-clean cycle again, I avoided the heating-up
situation. A third (ham?) guy came out and spoke to both
and I drove off to home without seeing any fracas. Something
about "sub-bands" and individual license classes seemed to be
the main thesis of the testosterone-adrenaline-pumping exchange.

Once, on a social BBS, a group of "avenger" males decided to
"change the mind" of a womanizing schmuck. They did and said
schmuck later departed for other sites of conquest. Younger
type males, one a reservist (military) helo driver. Heard from
him what went down. Not pretty.

But here, in Fantasyland (not the one near you - this one...heh heh),
everyone feels safe and secure, so the inhibitions drop. Look at the
folks wrassling with some tool in another thread here for the last few
days, for example - if that 'discussion' took place in a bar, he'd
probably be waking up in Emergency somewhere early tomorrow morning.
But, because it's here, and that possibility doesn't exist, it's no
holds barred. Even the most bookish guy is Tyson when he's on
here.....ding ding!

It's like a real macho tuffy sauntering into a bar and
announcing "he'll lick any man in the joint!" All the
patrons smile in his direction. Doesn't realize he walked
into a gay bar...

Funny thing is - people are trying to convince the guy that he's
wrong, or heartless, or insensitive, or cruel - duh, it's obviously
intentional trolling, but somehow, that got missed by several
otherwise savvy folks..... Guess some peoples' radar doesn't work
when the face-to-face interpersonal aspect is isolated from the
conversation.

I liken it to morse code mode communications. Monotonic
arrhythmic tone bursts representing words and phrases. NO
tone of voice clues, no real emotion, no body language clue,
just the beeping. The beeper could be male, female, or
some unknown species...no way to tell for sure. Some hams
say they "make lifelong friends this way." OK for them, but
that's a bit like buying a used car sight unseen.

I will probably never fully understand the psychology of this.....

Ah, but the field observation can be totally fascinating! :-)

But, I suppose, as Barnum said..."There's a sucker born every minute."

Er, you weren't IN that bar I mentioned, were you?



He's doing it - I know he is..... and he knows that I know he's doing
it too

Tsk, tsk. :-)

Oh well - that's enough bashing at this for now....have a great
evening, Len!

Thank you and you too. Re-runs on the tube now that summer ist
a cumin' in, and HBO hasn't got anything tonight that we
haven't seen. :-(

From: John Smith on Jun 21, 10:08 pm

Len:

Don't know about you, but this bunch is driving me to drink... let's go
have a beer! evil-grin

John

wrote in message

oups.com...

Thanks for the invite, John, but I already have a date with
a gal from East McKeesport to go out to the junkyard and
watch the cars rust...gonna be an exciting evening! :-)

Well, it's either than or watch my hard disk defrag.

Either one is more exciting than this "discussion" about
late leaders of a national socialist partei or the
Pennsylvanians are always right, no matter what!

Epoxy is curing in the workshop. Maybe I'll go in there and
watch it set up instead...

Len:

That girl you are taking out, does she have a sister with most of her
teeth still?

If so, I got a bottle of vodka and some orange juice--we could make it
four-some!!!

Gawd, been awhile since I have seen cars rust up close!

Any still have some backseats in 'em? grin

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: John Smith on Jun 21, 10:08 pm

Len:

Don't know about you, but this bunch is driving me to drink... let's
go
have a beer! evil-grin

John

wrote in message

roups.com...

Thanks for the invite, John, but I already have a date with
a gal from East McKeesport to go out to the junkyard and
watch the cars rust...gonna be an exciting evening! :-)

Well, it's either than or watch my hard disk defrag.

Either one is more exciting than this "discussion" about
late leaders of a national socialist partei or the
Pennsylvanians are always right, no matter what!

Epoxy is curing in the workshop. Maybe I'll go in there and
watch it set up instead...

Leo wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Oh. OK then. That matters a lot.

Glad you agree!

Guess that makes you 'right', then.

Yes, it does.

That's important!

Len was 'wrong', and you were
'right'.

Yep.

That's important!

Feel better now?

Sure. How about you?

Just fine, thanks! Glad you're feeling better!

I was pretty good before. How about you?

The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1

Godwin invoked.

For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone
involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact
that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1.

I see.

You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all?

Nope. With good reason.

I'm sure that we'd all love to hear your good reason for
resurrecting
the work history of the long departed Fuhrer back there, Jim - please share!

It shows that the word "feldwebel", when it was used in connection with
a specific person, has Godwin connections.

Oh. I see.

I was wondering, because - well, there are a couple of errors with
your statement .

Let's have a look:

1. "The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1".

Well, no. According to several historical references, our friend
Adolf never achieved a rank higher than the equivalent of Lance
Corporal by the end of WW I. Several translation facilities available
on the Web (see below) translate "Feldwebel" to "Sergeant". This was
a rank senior to his.

Other references refer to him as "feldwebel" as in "feldwebel
schikelgruber. However, it appears that, in fact, he never actually
held that rank.

Well, no. That would be a reference to another person entirely.
Although "Schicklgruber" was Adolf's mother's maiden name, it was
never given to him. He went by his father's now-famous last name for
his entire time on this Earth.

Same references should yield this information.


So it comes down to whether the original writer of the sentence "shut
the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" knew those facts or not.

That was not a part of our discussion - as such, it is irrelevant in
this context.


2. "It shows that the word "Feldwebel", when it was used in connection
with a specific person, has Godwin connections."

Well, no. Even if Mr. Hitler had indeed held that rank in the German
(Bavarian, actually) Army during WW I, that was before the creation of
the Nazi party in 1920. Bu that time, he had left that rank and
entered politics.

Not at all. Some people are still addressed by their rank long after
their
military service is done, such as "Captain" Peacock and "General"
Sarnoff.

Well, no.

Although that is certainly true in many instances, I am unaware of any
historical references which refer to Mr. Hitler continuing to use the
prefix "Corporal" (in German, of course) at any time following his
departure from the Army. I would suggest that is indeed quite
unkilely as it is a very low rank - and I would expect that anyone
addressing the man in that fashion would have had some serious
explaining to do.....



All you would have proven was his rank in the Army during WW I - just
like thousands of other soldiers - none of whom attained the level of
notoriety that Adolf did.

Not exactly Godwin invokable stuff at all!

A few references for you:

FELDWEBEL
http://odge.info/german-english/Feldwebel+%7Bm%7D.html
http://www.silentwall.com/LuftwaffePortraits9.html
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

ADOLF
http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler/warone.htm

NAZI PARTY
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...ziorigins.html

And, if one of your electives at good ol' Dreidel U was 20th Century
World History, you should give them a call and see if you can still
get your money back!


Dreidel U? Where's that?

I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges.....


(apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!)

Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo.

I didn't take any 20th Century World History courses.

Heh...I'm pretty sure that we are all aware of that now, Jim!


You of course realize that there is a school of thought that
invocation of Godwin's Law can be interpreted to include any
such
reference to that - um - Teutonic regime of the 1930's and
1940's? Especially the Big Guy himself?

Oh sure - but the classic interpretation is that Godwin only
applies when someone refers to another in such terms. Which
I have not done.

I see...we'll deal with that next!


That school of thought reminds me of the episode of "Blackadder III" in
which two characters are superstitious about the name of
a particular play by Shakespeare - supposedly, saying the name brings
bad luck. They refer to it as "the Scottish play", and if
someone says the actual name, they have to do an elaborate ritual to
excise the evil spirits.

Of course Blackadder says the name of the play for them at every
opportunity.

Oh - I forgot - you said you use another interpretation of that
rule.......

The correct one..

Well, no.

Well, yes.

Well, no - you are not following all of it - just the part that suits
your purpose.

Well, no.

Has an invocation of Godwing *ever* ended a thread on rrap?


Part of it - but not all. The intent of Godwin's Law was
to provide an upper limit for the length of a Usenet thread - he
theorized that, eventually, someone would make reference to the Nazis,
and that would be that. End of thread.

That may have been the original intent, but it doesn't usually work
that
way.

Disagree - unless someone repealed or amended it, the law is still the
Law....

Not enforced here, however.

I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful
by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your
response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred
to the Nazis.

And I did.

Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please....

Why?

Mr. Godwin would disagree - if the thread continues, then the
invocation of his law has failed.

Do you know Mr. Godwin?

Rhetorical question, not relevant. Ignored.


You can't use the 'correct' version if you don't use it all!


Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.

And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len".

How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len.

Len can do no wrong by you.

Well, no. That just ain't so Google back a couple of years ago, and
you'll see that Len and I haven't always been at peace......

Len has done no wrong to me

Not "to" you - "by" you. Different thing entirely.

Not at all. I personally deal with those who do wrong 'to' me. Doing
wrong 'by' me is subjective - not my problem unless it impacts me
directly.

In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong
'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you!

Well, no.

According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative
reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his
behalf
show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong
by you" means.

That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental.


- giving me no reason to do any wrong to
him.

Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his
professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that
acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without
Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every
chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it.

I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been
telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in
error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly
frequency (at minimum).

Well, no.

I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago.

There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from
rrap.

As for:

"telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth
anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional
knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and
that is a fact.

"acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from
me.

"a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I
have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully
qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact.

"- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong'
about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes,
when he
has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed?

.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when
someone
catches him in an error and points it out.

A few Google examples:

Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998
"Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the
issue."

What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it?

Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001
"No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:"

What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not?

Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003
"So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong."

Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong?

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004
(Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all!

Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"?

You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..."
wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive?

Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error
about the subjects discussed.

Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken
about something?

LOL!


All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test,
defend
that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his
postings.

An inconsistency or two? For eight years?

I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing
and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will
go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in
a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode.

Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are
going to change anything by whining on?

"Whining on"?

btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at
greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes
here than
I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you.

Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife....

Well, no.

Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh.

I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

You can't join what doesn't exist.

Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write?

I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len?

I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change?

Probably not. So what?

Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with?

"ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!"

Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy!

Nope.

Yup. In Technicolour.

Well, no.

Heh. "Those who ain't with me are agin' me....!"
- what movie was that from again???

Not a movie - a good description of Len's newsgroup behaviour,
though!

A pretty accurate description of your behaviour too, sadly enough.

That claim is incorrect. Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting
discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of
issues,
including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and
K2UNK,
for example.

Agreed.

So there *is* a difference!

So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues
that the folks you are arguing with will never agree?

Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer.

Jeez. Even Ghandi would have taken up golf by now.

In other words, you won't answer the question.

That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject.

That's a contradiction. You just answered the question.

"I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer.

Thanks!

Actually, it is neither an answer nor a refusal to answer. It is nothing at all.

No, it's a valid answer. Look at the way opinion polls are
usually structured - they often have a six-choice scale, to be applied
to each statement:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree (no opinion)
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No answer

Often the last is implied - if the respondent doesn't choose any of the
first five choices, the sixth is applied.

Oh - I see - it was an opinion poll and not a question. Sorry then -
I thought is was a question!

It's a question.

X Strongly Disagree


"Is this the right room for an argument?"


If thaat's true, though - "no answer" is a valid answer - it's right
there on your list. But, you said that I had to have an answer, and
that 'no answer' was not an answer. Waaaah!

I'll pick that one then. No answer.


In short, I have
no answer to your (rhetorical) question.

Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no
opinion one way or the other.

Heh heh.

Which is a valid answer.

Heh heh is never a valid answer! Heh heh.


Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't
answer mine?

Well, that's a bit childish, but it is Fathers' Day, so I'll
help you out a bit here.

Because you should!

Why?

Because I said so! Now go outside and play!

Hehheh

Why should you let the behaviour of others
negatively influence yours?

It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with
what is done with the information provided.

If Johnny jumped in the mud, would you jump in the mud?

Not a valid analogy. Try this one:

A neighbor is always asking to borrow your tools, but won't lend
you any of his. If you get a tool back, it's dirty, broken or both.
Meanwhile he keeps his tools in perfect condition.

Should you keep lending him your tools?

Actually, my analogy was right on the money. exactly two variables
(jump / not jump) just like your option regarding the question (answer
/ don't answer). Yours has a few more variables.

The number of variables is irrelevant in this case.

Not true.

True.

In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow
the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of
them back.

Nope.

The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no).

Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You didn't fully understand the analogy.

Who didn't understand what, Jim?

You didn't understand the analogy I made.

You avoided my question, threw in
your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding?

Not gonna happen, Bud!

The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't
lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but
won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the
neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave
that way?


After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and
equality. Also experience with what is done with the information
provided."
Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You're absolutely correct.

You should steal the tools instead.

Well, no.

In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!

None of the above.

Not true.

That claim is incorrect.

I don't think so!

If you know the answer, why ask the question?

....now that's one question that you really should have an answer to,
Jim - that's something you do quite frequently?

Or was that another rhetorical question?



Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?

Not at all.

Well, impolite at least....nah, I'll stick with lid-like.


The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting
between operators". In the context of amateur radio,
this means between amateur radio operators.

In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious!

Most people don't know the original meaning.

In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever
you say.

Did *you* know the original meaning?

I did indeed - it's not exactly a secret.....didn't I quote you
something from the "92 code" a while back?

You probably got the quote from me!

Well, no. I got it on the Net - from this site:

http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html

As I recall, it was late last year, when you first began questioning
whether I was really me

I sent you ""134, Leo" instead of 73 - a literal Internet-era
translation of which would be "Who is at the key(board)?


It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to
someone who is not an amateur radio operator.

Which I am. And have stated many times before.

And your callsign is?

Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained
earlier.

Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio
operator, perhaps not.

Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002.

Maybe...

There you go again - not believing!

Perhaps I should tap my shoes together and say "there's no place like
Ontario"...

Well, if you think it would help........if you want a VE3 or VA3
licence, you'll need to come here for sure - but I'd try and find a
more efficient method of transportation. That one only worked once -
in 1939

(thinking to self: say, was that an attempt to insult me? nah,
couldn't have been!) LOL!



Poor memory? Google 'er up.....

I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.

You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence
of that either!

Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult?

Of course not!

Heh heh.

Simply an illustration that, in the absence of
conclusive and irrefutable proof, one has no other means to ascertain
whether another individual is misrepresenting themselves other than
the evidence that they present in their posts over a period of time.

So far, we haven't seen much of anything posted that would support
your claims of post-grad education - no thesis references, no detailed
insight which would require that level of training, no written
expressions of advanced theoretical knowledge.

All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another
source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway.

...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you
can't trust anybody these days....!

You misunderstand.

It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one
location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your
postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who
their author is.

That's all.

A few moderately
complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a long shot.

In short - your word is all we have.

That applies to you as well. I can include "u" in certain words -
doesn't make me Canadian...

True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio,
you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove
my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical
origin of the posts!

Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location.
Easy to do.

Oh yeah. Forgot.

Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake
references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign
countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials......

Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you?

ROTFLMAO!

See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in
one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That
your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or
who their author is.

That's all.






One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can.
Anyone can.

We call it "reasonable doubt"...

Reasonable is judgemental - we just call it "doubt".


But to choose to doubt someone simply because they no longer
appear to
agree with you or support your views - doesn't seem particularly
brainy, now does it?

Nope - but that's not what I'm doing.

Not correct. Again.

Your claim is incorrect.

Really? Most of the things that you posted in this thread are - to
use your word - incorrect.

Sunnavagun! (Sorry again, Hans - stole that too!)



73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)

73, Leo (nothing condescending in my sig! heh heh)

73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)

73, Leo (trying hard to believe you're educated - but I promised I
would so I will!)

It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a
disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes
and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do.

Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you,
Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment.

Maybe I will.

From: "John Smith" on Tues 21 Jun 2005 23:20

Len:

That girl you are taking out, does she have a sister with most of her
teeth still?

If so, I got a bottle of vodka and some orange juice--we could make it
four-some!!!

Gawd, been awhile since I have seen cars rust up close!

Any still have some backseats in 'em? grin

Heh heh heh...I'm just waiting around to see who takes my
message and yours seriously. :-)

Some WILL and they will want to word-fight at the drop of
a keystroke! :-)

A few others will become quietly enraged and demand SERIOUSNESS
in responses...which are those wonderful irregulars in here
who take themselves wayyyyy too seriously. :-)

On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote:



Leo wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Oh. OK then. That matters a lot.

Glad you agree!

Guess that makes you 'right', then.

Yes, it does.

That's important!

Len was 'wrong', and you were
'right'.

Yep.

That's important!

Feel better now?

Sure. How about you?

Just fine, thanks! Glad you're feeling better!

I was pretty good before. How about you?

The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1

Godwin invoked.

For what? I did not use Hitler/Nazi references to anyone
involved in the discussion. I simply stated the fact
that ol' Adolf was a feldwebel in the German Army in WW1.

I see.

You just felt it necessary to blurt that out, for no reason at all?

Nope. With good reason.

I'm sure that we'd all love to hear your good reason for
resurrecting
the work history of the long departed Fuhrer back there, Jim - please share!

It shows that the word "feldwebel", when it was used in connection with
a specific person, has Godwin connections.

Oh. I see.

I was wondering, because - well, there are a couple of errors with
your statement .

Let's have a look:

1. "The Fuhrer was a feldwebel in WW1".

Well, no. According to several historical references, our friend
Adolf never achieved a rank higher than the equivalent of Lance
Corporal by the end of WW I. Several translation facilities available
on the Web (see below) translate "Feldwebel" to "Sergeant". This was
a rank senior to his.

Other references refer to him as "feldwebel" as in "feldwebel
schikelgruber. However, it appears that, in fact, he never actually
held that rank.

Well, no. That would be a reference to another person entirely.
Although "Schicklgruber" was Adolf's mother's maiden name, it was
never given to him. He went by his father's now-famous last name for
his entire time on this Earth.

Same references should yield this information.


So it comes down to whether the original writer of the sentence "shut
the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" knew those facts or not.

That was not a part of our discussion - as such, it is irrelevant in
this context.


2. "It shows that the word "Feldwebel", when it was used in connection
with a specific person, has Godwin connections."

Well, no. Even if Mr. Hitler had indeed held that rank in the German
(Bavarian, actually) Army during WW I, that was before the creation of
the Nazi party in 1920. Bu that time, he had left that rank and
entered politics.

Not at all. Some people are still addressed by their rank long after
their
military service is done, such as "Captain" Peacock and "General"
Sarnoff.

Well, no.

Although that is certainly true in many instances, I am unaware of any
historical references which refer to Mr. Hitler continuing to use the
prefix "Corporal" (in German, of course) at any time following his
departure from the Army. I would suggest that is indeed quite
unkilely as it is a very low rank - and I would expect that anyone
addressing the man in that fashion would have had some serious
explaining to do.....



All you would have proven was his rank in the Army during WW I - just
like thousands of other soldiers - none of whom attained the level of
notoriety that Adolf did.

Not exactly Godwin invokable stuff at all!

A few references for you:

FELDWEBEL
http://odge.info/german-english/Feldwebel+%7Bm%7D.html
http://www.silentwall.com/LuftwaffePortraits9.html
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

ADOLF
http://www.remember.org/guide/Facts.root.hitler.html
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...ler/warone.htm

NAZI PARTY
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/...ziorigins.html

And, if one of your electives at good ol' Dreidel U was 20th Century
World History, you should give them a call and see if you can still
get your money back!


Dreidel U? Where's that?

I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges.....


(apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!)

Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo.

Nope - it was a joke. A 'Top" college - Dreidel (a child's toy top) -
get it? Anti-semetic - no. It rhymes (well, sort of) with Drexel -
your good ol' alma mater.

Heh heh.

It was a zing, though - you are right about that. Not sure what they
teach there, but research skills and accuracy don't appear to be
weighted very heavily...unless you picked up those bad habits after
you left.....

Good catch, though!



I didn't take any 20th Century World History courses.

Heh...I'm pretty sure that we are all aware of that now, Jim!


You of course realize that there is a school of thought that
invocation of Godwin's Law can be interpreted to include any
such
reference to that - um - Teutonic regime of the 1930's and
1940's? Especially the Big Guy himself?

Oh sure - but the classic interpretation is that Godwin only
applies when someone refers to another in such terms. Which
I have not done.

I see...we'll deal with that next!


That school of thought reminds me of the episode of "Blackadder III" in
which two characters are superstitious about the name of
a particular play by Shakespeare - supposedly, saying the name brings
bad luck. They refer to it as "the Scottish play", and if
someone says the actual name, they have to do an elaborate ritual to
excise the evil spirits.

Of course Blackadder says the name of the play for them at every
opportunity.

Oh - I forgot - you said you use another interpretation of that
rule.......

The correct one..

Well, no.

Well, yes.

Well, no - you are not following all of it - just the part that suits
your purpose.

Well, no.

Oh, yeah!


Has an invocation of Godwing *ever* ended a thread on rrap?

No - it has failed every time. Completely and utterly useless, I'd
say.



Part of it - but not all. The intent of Godwin's Law was
to provide an upper limit for the length of a Usenet thread - he
theorized that, eventually, someone would make reference to the Nazis,
and that would be that. End of thread.

That may have been the original intent, but it doesn't usually work
that
way.

Disagree - unless someone repealed or amended it, the law is still the
Law....

Not enforced here, however.

Not enforceable outside a moderated group, Jim - perhaps you would be
more comfortable in one of those?

Heh heh.


I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful
by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your
response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred
to the Nazis.

And I did.

Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please....

Why?

Because you have not completed your research on the topic. You fail
to have grasped it's essence.


Mr. Godwin would disagree - if the thread continues, then the
invocation of his law has failed.

Do you know Mr. Godwin?

Rhetorical question, not relevant. Ignored.


You can't use the 'correct' version if you don't use it all!


Not my job to judge that, Jim. That's apparently your role.

And apparently your role has become "defender of the Len".

How so? I have neither defended nor attacked Len.

Len can do no wrong by you.

Well, no. That just ain't so Google back a couple of years ago, and
you'll see that Len and I haven't always been at peace......

Len has done no wrong to me

Not "to" you - "by" you. Different thing entirely.

Not at all. I personally deal with those who do wrong 'to' me. Doing
wrong 'by' me is subjective - not my problem unless it impacts me
directly.

In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong
'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you!

Well, no.

Oh, yeah! for seven and a half years now! (corrected per your
timeline).


According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative
reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his
behalf
show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong
by you" means.

That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental.

By your logic, then, I should ccontinue to disagree with him even
though he has provided me no direct reason to do so?

....wouldn't that be a bit psychotic, eh? LOL!



- giving me no reason to do any wrong to
him.

Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his
professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that
acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without
Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every
chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it.

I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been
telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in
error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly
frequency (at minimum).

Well, no.

Oh, yeah!


I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago.

Sorry - you're correct - make that seven and a half years then. LOL!


There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from
rrap.

Yup - we all take vacations. On average, though, I'd estimate a
frequency of (conservatively) once per week. That means three times
this week, and none over the next two, et. etc. equals an average
frequency of approximately weekly. Actually, I have probably given
you the advantage here - it may be even more.....

They taught averages at Dreidel, didn't they?


As for:

"telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth
anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional
knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and
that is a fact.

"acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from
me.

It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret!


"a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I
have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully
qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact.

It wasn't a literal, Jim - come on, guy - use that education!


"- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong'
about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes,
when he
has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed?

.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when
someone
catches him in an error and points it out.

Once again - a reference back to Len. Does your whole world revolve
around this guy? Why?


A few Google examples:

Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998
"Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the
issue."

What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it?

Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.


Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001
"No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:"

What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not?

Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.


Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003
"So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong."

Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong?

Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.


Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004
(Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all!

Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"?

Not the issue, Jim. The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.

In each example, do you believe that your opponent could care less
whether he was wrong?

Might there be an ulterior motive? Heh heh heh.


You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..."
wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive?

Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error
about the subjects discussed.

Therein lies the nature of the affliction. Nobody, least of all Len,
cares that you think that he is 'wrong''. It's being done to torment
you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure.

The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers
looking at an accident on the highway.

You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'.
(oh, how I loathe that expression....! ).

You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it.

Real sad.


Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken
about something?

Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the
distance! Heh heh heh.


LOL!


All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test,
defend
that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his
postings.

An inconsistency or two? For eight years?

I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing
and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will
go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in
a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode.

To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing
more.


Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are
going to change anything by whining on?

"Whining on"?

Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something?


btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at
greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes
here than
I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you.

I could personally care less. I am not obsessed.


Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife....

Well, no.

Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum.
like a demented parrot.


Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh.

I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

You can't join what doesn't exist.

Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write?

I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len?

I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change?

Probably not. So what?

So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on? Are you
incapable of controlling yourself?

Find The Strength!


Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with?

"ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!"

um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie
"Gladiator" - well, no.

The correct quote is "Are you not entertained"

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes

If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the
answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as
the next guy - it's human nature!

Heh heh heh.


Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy!

Nope.

Yup. In Technicolour.

Well, no.

Panavision then? With DTS sound.

The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period.

We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake....


Heh. "Those who ain't with me are agin' me....!"
- what movie was that from again???

Not a movie - a good description of Len's newsgroup behaviour,
though!

A pretty accurate description of your behaviour too, sadly enough.

That claim is incorrect. Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting
discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of
issues,
including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and
K2UNK,
for example.

Agreed.

So there *is* a difference!

Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice
guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no.


So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues
that the folks you are arguing with will never agree?

Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer.

There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you.

All roads lead to Len!

LOL!


Jeez. Even Ghandi would have taken up golf by now.

In other words, you won't answer the question.

That is correct - I have no opinion on the subject.

That's a contradiction. You just answered the question.

"I have no opinion on the subject" is a simple, direct answer.

Thanks!

Actually, it is neither an answer nor a refusal to answer. It is nothing at all.

No, it's a valid answer. Look at the way opinion polls are
usually structured - they often have a six-choice scale, to be applied
to each statement:

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree (no opinion)
Disagree
Strongly disagree
No answer

Often the last is implied - if the respondent doesn't choose any of the
first five choices, the sixth is applied.

Oh - I see - it was an opinion poll and not a question. Sorry then -
I thought is was a question!

It's a question.

X Strongly Disagree


"Is this the right room for an argument?"

Not at all - I was marking my selection from your list directly above
with an "X".

Your comment was a bit apocryphal, though.....



If thaat's true, though - "no answer" is a valid answer - it's right
there on your list. But, you said that I had to have an answer, and
that 'no answer' was not an answer. Waaaah!

I'll pick that one then. No answer.


In short, I have
no answer to your (rhetorical) question.

Yes, you do! Your answer is that you have no
opinion one way or the other.

Heh heh.

Which is a valid answer.

Heh heh is never a valid answer! Heh heh.


Why should I answer the questions of others, when they don't
answer mine?

Well, that's a bit childish, but it is Fathers' Day, so I'll
help you out a bit here.

Because you should!

Why?

Because I said so! Now go outside and play!

Hehheh

Why should you let the behaviour of others
negatively influence yours?

It's a question of fairness and equality. Also experience with
what is done with the information provided.

If Johnny jumped in the mud, would you jump in the mud?

Not a valid analogy. Try this one:

A neighbor is always asking to borrow your tools, but won't lend
you any of his. If you get a tool back, it's dirty, broken or both.
Meanwhile he keeps his tools in perfect condition.

Should you keep lending him your tools?

Actually, my analogy was right on the money. exactly two variables
(jump / not jump) just like your option regarding the question (answer
/ don't answer). Yours has a few more variables.

The number of variables is irrelevant in this case.

Not true.

True.

Not at all - the situation had two - I provided two. To add more is
simply obfuscation - which tou do well. If you were Hindu, I would
suspect that you were a squid in a previous life....! Heh heh heh.


In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow
the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of
them back.

Nope.

The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no).

Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You didn't fully understand the analogy.

Who didn't understand what, Jim?

You didn't understand the analogy I made.

I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to
understand.


You avoided my question, threw in
your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding?

Not gonna happen, Bud!

The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't
lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but
won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the
neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave
that way?

Rhetorical question - ignored.



After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and
equality. Also experience with what is done with the information
provided."
Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You're absolutely correct.

You should steal the tools instead.

Well, no.

Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh.


In a fit of pique? As an insult? Forgot, maybe!

None of the above.

Not true.

That claim is incorrect.

I don't think so!

If you know the answer, why ask the question?

....now that's one question that you really should have an answer to,
Jim - that's something you do quite frequently?

Or was that another rhetorical question?



Lid-like behaviour, wouldn't you think?

Not at all.

Well, impolite at least....nah, I'll stick with lid-like.


The original meaning of "73" is "a friendly greeting
between operators". In the context of amateur radio,
this means between amateur radio operators.

In the words of Hans - thank you, Captain Obvious!

Most people don't know the original meaning.

In an Amateur Radio newsgroup? Heh heh. OK, Jim - whatever
you say.

Did *you* know the original meaning?

I did indeed - it's not exactly a secret.....didn't I quote you
something from the "92 code" a while back?

You probably got the quote from me!

Well, no. I got it on the Net - from this site:

http://scard.buffnet.net/pages/tele/...66/92code.html

As I recall, it was late last year, when you first began questioning
whether I was really me

I sent you ""134, Leo" instead of 73 - a literal Internet-era
translation of which would be "Who is at the key(board)?


It would be inappropriate to use the greeting to
someone who is not an amateur radio operator.

Which I am. And have stated many times before.

And your callsign is?

Not going to be used in this newsgroup. For reasons explained
earlier.

Then there's room for doubt. Perhaps you are an amateur radio
operator, perhaps not.

Starts with VE3, though - issued in 2002.

Maybe...

There you go again - not believing!

Perhaps I should tap my shoes together and say "there's no place like
Ontario"...

Well, if you think it would help........if you want a VE3 or VA3
licence, you'll need to come here for sure - but I'd try and find a
more efficient method of transportation. That one only worked once -
in 1939

(thinking to self: say, was that an attempt to insult me? nah,
couldn't have been!) LOL!



Poor memory? Google 'er up.....

I know what you claimed. But there's no independent
evidence.

You claim to be an educated guy, Jim, there isn't much evidence
of that either!

Zing! Was that written in a fit of pique? As an insult?

Of course not!

Heh heh.

Simply an illustration that, in the absence of
conclusive and irrefutable proof, one has no other means to ascertain
whether another individual is misrepresenting themselves other than
the evidence that they present in their posts over a period of time.

So far, we haven't seen much of anything posted that would support
your claims of post-grad education - no thesis references, no detailed
insight which would require that level of training, no written
expressions of advanced theoretical knowledge.

All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another
source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway.

...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you
can't trust anybody these days....!

You misunderstand.

Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt
- and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition.
I merely stated it in conclusion.

You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir.


It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one
location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your
postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who
their author is.

That's all.

Well, no. Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup
messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers
(i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) -
this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for
transmission of massive volumes of SPAM.

If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that
is not an ISP.

I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is
significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the
Internet.


A few moderately
complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a long shot.

In short - your word is all we have.

That applies to you as well. I can include "u" in certain words -
doesn't make me Canadian...

True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio,
you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove
my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical
origin of the posts!

Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location.
Easy to do.

Oh yeah. Forgot.

Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake
references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign
countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials......

Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you?

ROTFLMAO!

See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in
one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That
your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or
who their author is.

That's all.

Not necessarily - please see above.







One can choose to doubt anything at all, Jim. You can. I can.
Anyone can.

We call it "reasonable doubt"...

Reasonable is judgemental - we just call it "doubt".


But to choose to doubt someone simply because they no longer
appear to
agree with you or support your views - doesn't seem particularly
brainy, now does it?

Nope - but that's not what I'm doing.

Not correct. Again.

Your claim is incorrect.

Really? Most of the things that you posted in this thread are - to
use your word - incorrect.

Sunnavagun! (Sorry again, Hans - stole that too!)



73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)

73, Leo (nothing condescending in my sig! heh heh)

73 de Jim, N2EY (I'll believe you're really a VE3)

73, Leo (trying hard to believe you're educated - but I promised I
would so I will!)

It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a
disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes
and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do.

Not at all. It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant
battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in
what you say. His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy
to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently
displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when
pressed: your ire, passion and rage.

In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will.


Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you,
Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment.

I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate.

And educate.

And research before I post.


Maybe I will.

God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you
can break free.

Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted
here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what
could you have accomplished?

That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all
modes, all bands perhaps?) - or a second degree at night school (we're
talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new
car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here,
over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those
who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements
- no progress. Zilch.

You got an F.

The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago.

What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is.

And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this
thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you
ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone
else that they are wrong. When your emotions gain control over your
intellect - you will lose.

Every time.

Without question.

If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to
educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and
avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll
be better off.

Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM!

Your call.

73, Leo (hmmm - 73 de N2...etc sig missing yet again - wonder what's
the deal this time?)

Leo wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 03:09:46 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 18:58:24 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 09:50:58 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 07:19:22 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 19 Jun 2005 04:48:01 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Seig Heil!!! :-)
Irrelevant - Len has lost the argument.

Dreidel U? Where's that?
I of course assumed that you attended one of the 'top' colleges.....


(apologies for the abuse of Hebrew here...!)

Looks like an anti-Semitic zing at one of my alma maters, Leo.

Nope - it was a joke.

Well, no. It was actually a failed attempt at a joke. If
you have to tell the audience that something is a joke,
it isn't one.

A 'Top" college - Dreidel (a child's toy top) -
get it?

Is that the best you can do?

Anti-semetic - no.

Anti-Semitic. More accurately, anti-semantic.

It rhymes (well, sort of)

Not really

with Drexel - your good ol' alma mater.

One of them.

Heh heh.

It was a zing, though - you are right about that.

Yeah, yeah, make cutesy nicknames in an attempt to rile others...where
have I seen that before?

That school of thought reminds me of the episode of "Blackadder III" in
which two characters are superstitious about the name of
a particular play by Shakespeare - supposedly, saying the name brings
bad luck. They refer to it as "the Scottish play", and if
someone says the actual name, they have to do an elaborate ritual to
excise the evil spirits.

Of course Blackadder says the name of the play for them at every
opportunity.

MACBETH!


I pointed out earlier that you really hadn't achieved anything useful
by invoking Godwin, as the arguement would continue - your
response,was that you had "won the arguement" because Len had referred
to the Nazis.

And I did.

Not according to Godwin's law.....Google it up, please....

Why?

Because you have not completed your research on the topic.

No I haven't.

You fail to have grasped it's essence.

Well, no. I just don't agree with your interpretation, that's all.

BTW, "it's" is a contraction for "it is", not the possessive form of
"it".
Didn't they teach you that at *your* alma mater, Leo?

In society, we have police who deal with issues where people do wrong
'by' others. in here, apparently, we have you!

Well, no.

Oh, yeah! for seven and a half years now! (corrected per your
timeline).

Why is that a problem?

According to your behaviour here, nothing Len does warrants a negative
reaction from you. In fact, your interactions with him and on his
behalf
show you approve of his behaviour here. That's what "he can do no wrong
by you" means.

That you disagreed with him in the past is incidental.

By your logic, then, I should ccontinue to disagree with him even
though he has provided me no direct reason to do so?

It's your choice.

- giving me no reason to do any wrong to
him.

Now, if I was to get on the keyboard and tell him that his
professional knowledge and experience isn't worth anything, or that
acquiring a ham license is better than sex, or that a Ham without
Morse is like a day without sunshine - or worse - rag on him every
chance that I get that he is 'wrong' about something.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

You don't need to do all that. I haven't done any of it.

I suggest that you may want to rethink that statement - you have been
telling Len (and others) that they have been "wrong", Incorrect, "in
error", etc. for at least the last eight years, with almost weekly
frequency (at minimum).

Well, no.

Oh, yeah!

Oh no.

I first showed up on rrap in late 1997, less than 8 years ago.

Sorry - you're correct - make that seven and a half years then. LOL!

There have been periods of much longer than a week when I was gone from
rrap.

Yup - we all take vacations.

Your research is incomplete, then.

On average, though, I'd estimate a
frequency of (conservatively) once per week. That means three times
this week, and none over the next two, et. etc. equals an average
frequency of approximately weekly. Actually, I have probably given
you the advantage here - it may be even more.....

So? Is there a limit?

As for:

"telling him that his professional knowledge and experience isn't worth
anything" - I haven't done that. I have said that his professional
knowledge and experience don't qualify him for an amateur license, and
that is a fact.

"acquiring a ham license is better than sex" - You won't hear that from
me.

It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret!

Why not say what you mean?

"a Ham without Morse is like a day without sunshine" - Not me again. I
have said that a ham who doesn't have any Morse skills is not fully
qualified as a radio amateur, and that is a fact.

It wasn't a literal, Jim - come on, guy - use that education!

Why not say what you mean?

"- or worse - rag on him every chance that I get that he is 'wrong'
about something" - Not me! I have pointed out *some* of Len's mistakes,
when he
has been in error - wrong - about something. Is that not allowed?

.......well, then
Len and I might have a problem getting along here.

The references to "Dreidel U." are very like Len's reactions when
someone catches him in an error and points it out.

Once again - a reference back to Len.

Because you act like him sometimes.

Does your whole world revolve
around this guy?

Not at all. I spend a few minutes here and there writing a post, and
you
interpret that as an obsession?

A few Google examples:

Subject: Keep the quality, lose the spectrum Jul 17 1998
"Len, you are just plain wrong here. You just don't understand the
issue."

What *was* the issue? Was Len wrong about it?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

The frequency over time is.

"Frequency over time"? Frequency is events per unit time. Didn't they
teach that at your alma mater?

Please try to comprehend.

I comprehend more than you realize, Leo.

Subject: Who Is What? Feb 9 2001
"No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:"

What *did* Len write? Was he correct or not?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.


Subject: ARS License Numbers Mar 4 2003
"So you are incorrect again, Len. Mistaken. Just plain wrong."

Was Len correct that time? Or was he mistaken - just plain wrong?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

The frequency over time is. Please try to
comprehend.


Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power) Mar 18 2004
(Hmmm - that was your thread - quote not required for that one at all!

Well - was he right or wrong about "Communicator Power"?

Not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. You're avoiding the fact that Len was, in fact, wrong then.

In each example, do you believe that your opponent could care less
whether he was wrong?

Doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact is that in all of the
above cases, and many more, Len posted information that wasn't true.

You avoid that fact for some reason.

Might there be an ulterior motive?

Of course. I realized that long ago. In fact I mentioned it here
back on Feb 10, 2003. Your research is very incomplete, Leo.


You don't think that eight years of "you're wrong, you're wrong..."
wouldn't be deemed by a reasonable man to be a bit excessive?

Well, no. Not if the person really *is* wrong - mistaken - in error
about the subjects discussed.

Therein lies the nature of the affliction.

Yes, Len is afflicted by the inability to admit a mistake
when it is pointed out by someone he considers an inferior, like me...

Nobody, least of all Len,
cares that you think that he is 'wrong''.

Why not be honest, Leo?

*You* don't care. Maybe Len doesn't care. You don't speak for
everybody.

It's being done to torment
you and get you to respond, for the other person's pleasure.

Well DUH!

"His hobby is wasting time. Your time"

Guess who wrote that?

The fact is that Len spends much more time and effort posting here than
I. Always has. Gets all upset and outraged over any opposition. Now you
may say it's all an act, but so what?

The rest of the folks here will watch - much like rubberneckers
looking at an accident on the highway.

Do you speak for everyone who reads rrap? Or just for you?

You have become just that - a tragedy on the 'Information Highway'.
(oh, how I loathe that expression....! ).

Sounds like another disguised way of you telling me to shut up.

Why not be honest and just say it?

You're being used, Jim. Sad you cannot see it.

Real sad.

It may appear that way to you. The truth is very different.

Is there a time limit beyond which I cannot tell Len he's mistaken
about something?

Sure -to infinity and beyond, if your are OC enough to go the
distance! Heh heh heh.

All you have to do is disagree with him about the Morse Code test,
defend
that opinion, and then point out an incosistency or two in his
postings.

An inconsistency or two? For eight years?

I'm saying that if someone disagrees with Len about Morse Code testing
and then points out some incosistencies in Len's postings, Len will
go off in his typical fashion. Even if the errors are pointed out in
a courteous way, Len will go into attack mode.

To turn your crank, and get you dancing and hopping again - nothing
more.

Look at his postings compared to mine. It's not me who is dancing and
hopping.

Do you actually believe that, after all of this time, that you are
going to change anything by whining on?

"Whining on"?

Whining on. Correct. Did I not spell that right or something?

You mistake my persistent strong opposition with "whining". Another
attempt to get me worked up. Doesn't work. Leo.

btw, Len's been posting to rrap longer than I have, posts more and at
greater length than almost anyone else in rrap, and makes more mistakes
here than
I do as well. But I guess that's OK with you.

I could personally care less. I am not obsessed.

Yes, you are.

Jeez, you'd make somebody a great ex-wife....

Well, no.

Hell, yes! wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong -- on and on ad infinitum.
like a demented parrot.

Norwegian Blue. Beautiful plumage.

Wonder why that would be? Heh heh heh.

I simply refuse to
join you in your obcessive crusade against him.

You can't join what doesn't exist.

Oh, it's there, all right. You read some of the stuff you write?

I read all of it. Do you read the responses I get from Len?

I certainly do. Do you think that will ever change?

Probably not. So what?

So why contimue? If you will achieve nothing, why go on?

Who says I'm achieving nothing? Who are you to judge, Leo?

Are you incapable of controlling yourself?

I've got plenty of self-control.

Find The Strength!

Or do you enjoy being used for entertainment - laughed at, not with?

"ARE YOU BEING ENTERTAINED?!"

um - if you are still going ahead with this quote from the movie
"Gladiator" - well, no.

The correct quote is "Are you not entertained"

I know.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes

Now who is obsessive, Leo? You had to go look that up and correct me -
just
couldn't help yourself, could you?

If you are asking, however, if i am entertained by your antics - the
answer is no. And yes. I like to watch a good accident as much as
the next guy - it's human nature!

Heh heh heh.

Then I am achieving something.

Jeez, I'll bet you dream about the guy!

Nope.

Yup. In Technicolour.

Well, no.

Panavision then? With DTS sound.

Nope. Not once.

The sad truth is - you are obsessed with the guy. Period.

The real truth is that if anyone is obsessed, it's Len. And/or Brian,
N0IMD. Not me.

We see it - you should try to do so as well, for you own sake....

Who is "we"? Are you the Pope? Lots of Pope Leos, btw..


Unlike Len, I have many civil, uninsulting
discussions here with those who disagree with me on a variety of
issues,
including the Morse Code test. Google up any exchange between N2EY and
K2UNK,
for example.

Agreed.

So there *is* a difference!

Sure is - take away the obsessive behaviour, and you are a pretty nice
guy! Add it in, however - and.....well, no.

Well, there you have it.

So why bother ragging on for eight solid years about issues
that the folks you are arguing with will never agree?

Ask Len the same question. He's been at it longer.

There's the old obsesssion again - everything is Len-centric to you.

Nope.

In your example, the correct answer (following your logic) is: Borrow
the neighbour's tools, break them and get them dirty, and give some of
them back.

Nope.

The question was whether to keep lending him your tools (yes/no).

Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You didn't fully understand the analogy.

Who didn't understand what, Jim?

You didn't understand the analogy I made.

I understood it's purpose - to cloud the issue. That's all I ned to
understand.

Well, no.

One of the limitations of online communication is that it's difficult
or
impossible to tell when someone is pretending to be dense and when
someone
really *is* dense....


You avoided my question, threw in
your own to obfuscate the issue, and blamed it on my understanding?

Not gonna happen, Bud!

The neighbour who borrows your tools and treats them badly but won't
lend you any of his is just like the person who asks you questions but
won't answer your questions. Why should you continue to lend the
neighbour tools - or answer someone's questions - when they behave
that way?

Rhetorical question - ignored.

One of the limitations...

After all, like you said, "It's a question of fairness and
equality. Also experience with what is done with the information
provided."
Note that it was already stated that the neighbour won't lend you any
of his, so your solution is not feasible.

You're absolutely correct.

You should steal the tools instead.

Well, no.

Makes as much sense as any.... Heh heh heh.

No, it doesn't.

All of which could be ghostwritten or cut-and-pasted from another
source. So they wouldn't be proof anyway.

...Patent application, published article - nah, you're right - you
can't trust anybody these days....!

You misunderstand.

Misunderstand what? You as much as said that you can't trust anybodt
- and provided several valid arguements to support that supposition.
I merely stated it in conclusion.

You are, again, -um-, in error, Sir.


It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in one
location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That your
postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or who
their author is.

That's all.

Well, no.

Well, yes.

Most commercial ISPs block rebroadcast of newsgroup
messages from sources not directly connected to their NNTP servers
(i.e. their subscribers direct links from their homes to the ISP) -
this is done to prevent their networks being used illegally for
transmission of massive volumes of SPAM.

If you post to the groups through Google, this does not apply - that
is not an ISP.

I sincerely hope that your comprehension of the radio arts is
significantly superior to your knowlege of the mechanics of the
Internet.

Think outside the box, Leo.

Someone in Location A writes a newsgroup post. Sends the post as a
textfile to
someone else in Location B. Someone else then posts it to Usenet. Looks
like
it came from Location B but it didn't.

A few moderately
complex calculations, perhaps - some correct, at least one not by a long shot.

In short - your word is all we have.

That applies to you as well. I can include "u" in certain words -
doesn't make me Canadian...

True. Were you as adept at the Internet as you are with your radio,
you could trace the message header to my ISP up here - wouldn't prove
my nationality, but it would certainly nail down the geographical
origin of the posts!

Which proves nothing, since they could be remailed from that location.
Easy to do.

Oh yeah. Forgot.

Let's see...Rebranding of published articles...fake
references...newsgroup postings spirited across the ether to foreign
countries...clandestine Amateur Radio credentials......

Um, wouldn't that be an awful lot of effort just to fool you?

ROTFLMAO!

See above:It would be a simple matter for someone to write postings in
one location and have them posted to usenet from somewhere else. That
your postings to rrap originate where they do is not proof of where or
who their author is.

That's all.

Not necessarily - please see above.

Well, no.

One of the limitations...

It appears that this whole exchange about obsession is really just a
disguised way of telling me to shut up and let Len post his mistakes
and attacks without challenge. That's really what you want me to do.

Not at all.

Yes, it is. Do you not want me to shut up?

It is indended to illustrate to you that your valiant
battle is in vain - your opponent is not interested in the least in
what you say.

Of course he's interested - otherwise he wouldn't respond!

His only goal is to control you - which is pretty easy
to do. You have all of your hot buttons proudly and prominently
displayed - and every bloody one elicits a predictable response when
pressed: your ire, passion and rage.

Well, no.

You have me confused with Len.

In short - you, Sir, are being hijacked against your will.

Heck no.

Maybe you have a point. Perhaps I should simply step back and let you,
Len, Brian/N0IMD, and "John Smith" rant on without comment.

I, kind Sir, do not rant. I communicate.

You've ranted on here at great length, Leo. Much longer than me.

And educate.

And research before I post.

Feb 10, 2003.

Maybe I will.

God grant you the strength. I, however, am not optimistic that you
can break free.

Think about it - if you spent all of the time that you have wasted
here being a playtoy for others on more productive activities, what
could you have accomplished?

That would have been a lot to extra hours on the radio (DXCC, all
modes, all bands perhaps?)

Not really - not that much time to write these posts, you see.

- or a second degree at night school (we're
talking a lot of hours, as you well know) - built yourself a brand new
car entirely out of spare parts, or many other useful things. Here,
over the last nine years, in all of your attempts to 'correct' those
who 'play' with you, you have accomplished: Nothing. Same arguements
- no progress. Zilch.

You forget the entertainment value. Nice try with the nine years
mistake, though.

You got an F.

You're not the teacher, Leo. Deal with it.

The song remains the same as it did nine long years ago.

What a colossal waste of talent! Yours, that is.

And, of course, as I have also illustrated quite clearly in this
thread - well, with your level of accuracy and depth of research, you
ain't really the guy who should be running around telling everyone
else that they are wrong.

I see. Personal attack rather than looking at the facts. Was Len right
in
the cases you cited above? Or was I? Look them up and see. Do *your*
research....

When your emotions gain control over your
intellect - you will lose.

Every time.

Without question.

That's why my posts are calm and reasoned.

If you stick to areas where you are a subject matter expert, try to
educate only those who are truly interested in learning ffrom you, and
avoid those who will prey upon your obsessive personality - and you'll
be better off.

IOW, you want me to shut up. Why not be honest and say it straight out?

Or don't. Either way, we'll all watch! Screeeeeeeeeeech...BAM!

Your call.

My call is N2EY. What's yours?

You really underestimate me, Leo. If that's your real name.

73 de Jim, N2EY