From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 05:54

On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 21 Jun 2005 02:49:00 -0700, wrote:

etc

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.

I think you're going to be accused of putting "spin" on it...

Don't diddle his driedel or Dremel his Drexel.



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

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

Every so often "Godwing's" law must be featured from the pulpit.

Phoenix/Icarus...to take "wing."


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).

You should have seen the AOL ham radio group way back...:-)



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!

[not counting the AOL ham radio group, of course...]


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

It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret!

Literal...literary...literati...litorati. All fused together in
some minds. That, of course, leads to mental lithiasis. :-)

As Obi Wan said later, "may the aphorisms be with him..."


"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!

Tsk, he should be working on the "Four Morsemen of the
Apocalypse" phrase...


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?

He honors me? :-) Nahhhhh...

Outside of having a nosh now and then in Kantor's in Hollywood,
I'm not daily involved with any Yiddish phrases and never grew
up with such ethnic toys. [excellent pastrami there] Contact
diminished remarkably about 41 years ago...BTASE (But That's
Another Story Entirely).


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.

SOP of "Tormentors International," a conspiracy group.

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

"Oooooo...lookit all dat roadkill!!" Hahahahahha...etc.

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.

Would I buy a used opinion from this man? No. :-)


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.

Actually, considerably more. I consider myself a "WMD" (Weapon
of Morse Destruction). Low-yield, of course, not bearing the
imprimateur of that "federally-authorized" callsign. As such,
ANY pro-morse position gets boresighted and locked-on for a
full magazine and semi/full auto mode as needed. Tsk.

Progress is very slow, but there IS progress. The U.S. ham
regs dropped to 5 WPM for all classes a while back...before
S25 got rewritten at WRC-03.


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

Citius, fortius, altius, followed by "obsessius."

I rather like the soft-drink commercial using "Spartacus"
clips on TV instead. :-)

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.

Oooooo...lookit all dat roadkill!


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

Nope.

Yup. In Technicolour.

Well, no.

Panavision then? With DTS sound.

Wide-screen, anamorphic lens, HDTV compatible format...but the
sound is narrowband beeping quality.


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!

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do." SPQR.

"Citius, morseus, hameous."

Ave, imperator! :-)


You didn't understand the analogy I made.

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

Tsk. Unlike Lamont Cranston, "Shadow Jim" didn't stay long
enough in the Far East to learn ALL the lessons...tsk, tsk.



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.

The FBI has a warrant out on me and I'm currently #8 on the
USPS offices all over the USA. I am posting this from an
"undisclosed location" near Cheney's place...

Ain't easy being a hijacker! [no morsemanship required, tho...]


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.

"Throughout the land there shall be but ONE voice and that of
the prophet Morse, hollowed be his name." - the league

[or was that in the Vulgate? I forget...]


Maybe I will.

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

He be typing from a TERMINAL. Name sayeth all. No hope.


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

Okay, let's get out the flares and warning triangles and the
Highway Patrol notified. 10-4, 10-4 Broderick.
Phlegm at eleven.

"Pass me the CHPs, dear, there's another breaking news on the tube."

"What, AGAIN?"

On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote:

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.

I didn't have to tell the audience, Jim - just you!


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

Is that the best you can do?

Heh heh heh....

Anti-semetic - no.

Anti-Semitic. More accurately, anti-semantic.

There you go. Good description.


It rhymes (well, sort of)

Not really

Close enough for humour!


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?

Let me guess - it's still all about Len, isn't it!

tsk.


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.

Ain't up to you to interpret, Jim. It's the way it was written.

It's a law. Not a guideline.


BTW, "it's" is a contraction for "it is", not the possessive form of
"it".

Heh heh heh. A typo - nice catch!

Didn't they teach you that at *your* alma mater, Leo?

Nope - basic grammar is taught in public school. Just like in the
U.S. system.

You should know that! That's basic stuff, Jim.


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?

Duh!


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.

A quite logical choice indeed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it is one available to you....


- 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.

Heh. 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.

Your research is incomplete, then.

We don't all take vacations, 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?

Of course not! You could go on indefinitely.....as Einstein once
said, only intelligence is finite


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?

Heh. Are you saying that you had difficulty figuring out what I
meant?


"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?

Heh. Not a 'read between the lines' type of guy, huh?


"- 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.

Heh heh. You too, on occasion.

Look at the little digs that you have tried to get me with in this
thread.

Without success, of course.


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?

For seven and a half (plus) years? As frequently as you do?

Nah...of course not. That's just normal everyday behaviour.....


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.

I'm sure that Len knows that he was wrong, Jim. Maybe he was just
trying to get you going? Heh heh heh....


The frequency over time is.

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

Um - that's what I said, Jim - didn't think you needed it in such
technical language.

It wasn't a division problem....


Please try to comprehend.

I comprehend more than you realize, Leo.

Sorry - not much evidence to support that claim so far, Jim.


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.

Who cares? That is not the issue.


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.

Who cares? That is not the issue.


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.

Who cares? That is not the issue.


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.

Who cares? That is not the issue.


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.

That is indeed an interesting point.

Unfortunately - well, no again.

Your statement was something like "his hobby is wasting time - your
time."

I really don't think that 'wasting time' is what it's all about, Jim.
Do you?

It's about control. Specifically, controlling you. And making you
squirm and dance.

Unless you are saying that you actually understand that you are being
abused intentionally by others. And have done so since 2003. And if
so....you continue to post the same "wrong, wrong, wrong" garbage here
- knowing full well that you will continue to be abused for the
pleasure of others.

Does that seem like particularly sane bahaviour to you?

Are you a fool? Or a masochist? Or both?



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...

If by "inferior" you mean "controlled by someone in a superior
position" (i.e. boss, tormentor, etc.) - then he is correct.

You jump on command. Every time.

You can't help yourself.


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.

Of course I don't speak for everybody. Nor do you, although you seem
to envision yourself as on some sort of a crusade to defend the
'truth'. In an impossible situation. Cast in a role as a playtoy.

I see.


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"

Well, no.

Wasting time, and being abused, are two different things.

Aren't they?


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?

Rhetorical question - ignored.


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?

Wake up, maybe - I don't recall inferring that you should shut up!


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

Real sad.

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

Apparently not. No evidence exists to support that claim.


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.

Heh heh heh. Y'think?


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.

Not at all - just a statement. You're whining.

On and on and on. Even when you know that you cannot win.

That's normal behaviour, alright!


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.

Heh heh heh. That's funny, Jim!


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.

This is a text-only newsgroup, Jim. We don't see the plumage - all we
hear is the noise! Squawk squawk squawk.....for almost 8 years now!


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?

You have achieved nothing. You tormentor is still here - and you are
still being controlled.

Heh. Nice victory!


Are you incapable of controlling yourself?

I've got plenty of self-control.

LOL!


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.

Then why did you get it wrong twice in this thread?


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?

Ask me again in 8 years! Heh.


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.

You most certainly are - you are performing a valuable role for some
folks on the group.

As Shakespeare wrote in his play "As You Like It":

"Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits."

Hear that stropping noise, Jim? That's somebody sharpening up on
you.....


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

Nope.

Yup. In Technicolour.

Well, no.

Panavision then? With DTS sound.

Nope. Not once.

So it only consumes your waking hours, then?

Perhaps there is hope.


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..

Heh heh - "there are none so blind as those who will not see....."



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.

I most assuredly do.


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.

Heh. "To thine own self be 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.

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

Well, no.

Well, obviously - yes.

And you just missed another typo....


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....

I fully agree!



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.

Heh.


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.

That box you're thinking outside might be a bit too big, Jim.

Please explain why someone would go to all of that trouble simply to
fool you.

Unless thay are as OC as you...


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.

Not a simple matter at all - lots of work involved!


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?

Not at all. Please continue!


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!

Heh.


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.

Say what? You don't see it?

Heh heh.


You have me confused with Len.

You have you obsessed with Len. You have confused yourself.


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

Heck no.

You mean you are being hijacked willingly?

A bit psychotic, 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.

LOL! That's funny, Jim!


And educate.

And research before I post.

Feb 10, 2003.

Well, no. Different issue in that post - as stated above!


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.

Heh heh heh.....not much time, eh?

Any idea how many posts you write in a day? A week? a year?

Each may be small, but they add up....!


- 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.

Absolutely - if you are willing to submit to being used for
entertainment, then of course - that has value. To others - and
perhaps to you too in some odd way.....painful to watch, though!

Nice try with the nine years mistake, though.

Things have been like this on the group for the last nine yearrs - the
arguements do pre-date you, Jim.

You weren't the first.....just the next.....


You got an F.

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

Lucky you!


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....

Who cares who was right? That's not the issue, Jim.


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

Every time.

Without question.

That's why my posts are calm and reasoned.

Um - calm and reasoned? You must be a riot at parties, Jim.

"No Fred, you're wrong....Betty, that's just incorrect....Hey, Sam,
that's not how you do that!...Say, Charlie......"

Heh heh.


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?

No, Jim....please continue!


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

Your call.

My call is N2EY. What's yours?

Unlisted.


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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were
smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what
is being done to you.

But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of
them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!!

73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!)

wrote

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.

No, it's not a fact; it's just your opinion.

In my opinion (and in the opinion of FCC) here are tens of thousands of fully
qualified radio amateurs who have not demonstrated any Morse skills.

73, de Hans, K0HB

From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 19:15

On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote:

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

plus 8 more back-and-forths

gigantic snip

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were
smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what
is being done to you.

But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of
them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!!

73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!)

Shhhh. Don't tell him we are really all AI constructs living
in his computer!

ooops, here come da bells....WRRRONNNNNNNNNG....WRRRONNNNNNNG...
WRRRONNNNNNNGGG...WRRRONNNNNNGGGGG... [has a ring to it...]

The "beat" goes on. :-)




WRRRONNNNNGGGGGGGGGnnnngggnnnnggggnnnngggg... [forgot that one]

On 23 Jun 2005 21:56:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 19:15

On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote:

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

plus 8 more back-and-forths

gigantic snip

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were
smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what
is being done to you.

But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of
them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!!

73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!)

Shhhh. Don't tell him we are really all AI constructs living
in his computer!

Dang! I think he's beginning to believe that there are! Heh heh.

I might not even be me anymore!


ooops, here come da bells....WRRRONNNNNNNNNG....WRRRONNNNNNNG...
WRRRONNNNNNNGGG...WRRRONNNNNNGGGGG... [has a ring to it...]

Hmmm - that reminds me of the sound my old outboard makes when it's
just above idle ... add a few 'blurbles' in there, and that's it!


The "beat" goes on. :-)

Hey - thanks for 'Cher'-ing, Len!





WRRRONNNNNGGGGGGGGGnnnngggnnnnggggnnnngggg... [forgot that one]

Blurblewrooooonnnnnnnggggggggblurbleblurbleblurble wrrrrrrrrrooooonnnnnnnnnnggggggPFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTT TT.......

Pull.....sputter

Pull.....sputter cough

Pull.....sputter


73, Leo

From: Leo on Fri 24 Jun 2005 14:21

On 23 Jun 2005 21:56:47 -0700, wrote:
From: Leo on Thurs 23 Jun 2005 19:15
On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 03:58:55 -0700, wrote:

plus 8 more back-and-forths

gigantic snip

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were
smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what
is being done to you.

But, Hey - have fun at the newsgroup beatings! Hope you get out of
them what you need! Go get 'im, Jim! He's wrong!!!!!

73, Leo (or am I? Hmmm........(paranoia setting in....aaaaaah!)

Shhhh. Don't tell him we are really all AI constructs living
in his computer!

Dang! I think he's beginning to believe that there are! Heh heh.

I might not even be me anymore!

Well, I ain't you... :-)

FWITW, I'm waiting for a response from Steven Spielberg on the
sequel to "AI." Maybe he will include us AIs in the newsgroup?

Joel Haley Osment (or whatever his name) can be the 13 year old
kid going for his ham radio license and then encountering all
us mean old AI robots who don't give him no respect.


ooops, here come da bells....WRRRONNNNNNNNNG....WRRRONNNNNNNG...
WRRRONNNNNNNGGG...WRRRONNNNNNGGGGG... [has a ring to it...]

Hmmm - that reminds me of the sound my old outboard makes when it's
just above idle ... add a few 'blurbles' in there, and that's it!

The "beat" goes on. :-)

Hey - thanks for 'Cher'-ing, Len!

"I got you, babe..." :-)

bit, bit

Leo wrote:
On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote:

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!!! :-)

A quite logical choice indeed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it is one
available to you....

What would you suggest?

It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret!

Why not say what you mean?

Heh. Are you saying that you had difficulty figuring out what I meant?

Why not say what you mean, Leo?

"- 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?

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?

For seven and a half (plus) years? As frequently as you do?

Nah...of course not. That's just normal everyday behaviour.....

What do you suggest?


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.

I'm sure that Len knows that he was wrong, Jim. Maybe he was just
trying to get you going? Heh heh heh....


The frequency over time is.

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

Um - that's what I said, Jim - didn't think you needed it
in such technical language.

It wasn't a division problem....


Please try to comprehend.

I comprehend more than you realize, Leo.

Sorry - not much evidence to support that claim so far, Jim.

Not to you, perhaps...

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.

Who cares? That is not the issue.

Yes, it is.


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.

That is indeed an interesting point.

Unfortunately - well, no again.

Your statement was something like "his hobby is wasting time - your time."

And that sums it up quite well.

I really don't think that 'wasting time' is what it's all
about, Jim.
Do you?

That's exactly what it's about.

It's about control. Specifically, controlling you. And
making you squirm and dance.

Except I do neither.

Unless you are saying that you actually understand that you are being abused intentionally by others.

Hmmmm...so you consider the way Len treats me to be abuse.

Now we're making progress.

What do you suggest?

And have done so since 2003. And if
so....you continue to post the same "wrong, wrong, wrong"
garbage

Why is what I wrote "garbage", Leo? Len posts things which are
provably untrue in a public debate forum. I point out those
things and you call my doing so "garbage" - why?

here
- knowing full well that you will continue to be abused for the
pleasure of others.

What do you suggest I do instead?

Does that seem like particularly sane bahaviour to you?

Are you a fool? Or a masochist? Or both?

What do you suggest I do instead?

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...

If by "inferior" you mean "controlled by someone in a superior
position" (i.e. boss, tormentor, etc.) - then he is correct.

You jump on command. Every time.

You can't help yourself.

Then what do you suggest I do?

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.

Of course I don't speak for everybody.

But you used the phrase "Nobody....cares that you think that he is
'wrong'".

If even one other person cares, your statement is false.

And unlike the soft sciences, the errors I point out are
provable.

Nor do you, although you seem
to envision yourself as on some sort of a crusade to defend the
'truth'.

Do you think truth si subjective or objective?

In an impossible situation. Cast in a role as a playtoy.

I see.

What do you suggest I do instead?

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"

Well, no.

Well, yes.

Wasting time, and being abused, are two different things.

Aren't they?

So you call what Len does here "abuse".

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?

Rhetorical question - ignored.

Not rhetorical at all. I think you just call it that to avoid
answering.

What do you suggest I do?

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?

Wake up, maybe - I don't recall inferring that you should shut up!

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

Real sad.

Let's say, for sake of discussion, that you're right about what Len is
doing and why he's doing it. What do you suggest I do about it?

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

Apparently not. No evidence exists to support that claim.

There's plenty of evidence, but you refuse to see it.

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.

Heh heh heh. Y'think?


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.

Not at all - just a statement. You're whining.

On and on and on. Even when you know that you cannot win.

What would you suggest?

That's normal behaviour, alright!


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.

Heh heh heh. That's funny, Jim!


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.

This is a text-only newsgroup, Jim. We don't see the plumage - all we
hear is the noise! Squawk squawk squawk.....for almost 8 years now!


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?

You have achieved nothing. You tormentor is still here - and you are
still being controlled.

Heh. Nice victory!


Are you incapable of controlling yourself?

I've got plenty of self-control.

LOL!


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.

Then why did you get it wrong twice in this thread?


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?

Ask me again in 8 years! Heh.


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.

You most certainly are - you are performing a valuable role for some
folks on the group.

As Shakespeare wrote in his play "As You Like It":

"Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits."

Hear that stropping noise, Jim? That's somebody sharpening up on
you.....

What do you suggest I do, Leo?



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..

Heh heh - "there are none so blind as those who will not see....."



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.

I most assuredly do.


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.

Heh. "To thine own self be 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.

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

Well, no.

Well, obviously - yes.

And you just missed another typo....

Not my job to correctg *every* mistake...


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....

I fully agree!



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.

Heh.


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.

That box you're thinking outside might be a bit too big, Jim.

Please explain why someone would go to all of that trouble simply to
fool you.

Unless thay are as OC as you...

I'm simply pointing out that if someone wants to disguise the point of
origin of an email or NG posting, it's very easy to do. Doesn't take
lots of skills or knowledge, just access to a remote computer.


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.

Not a simple matter at all - lots of work involved!

If a little cut and paste is "a lot of work" to you....

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?

Not at all. Please continue!

What do you suggest?


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!

Heh.

Exactly.


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.

Say what? You don't see it?

Heh heh.

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?



You have me confused with Len.

You have you obsessed with Len. You have confused yourself.


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

Heck no.

You mean you are being hijacked willingly?

A bit psychotic, 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.

LOL! That's funny, Jim!


And educate.

And research before I post.

Feb 10, 2003.

Well, no. Different issue in that post - as stated above!


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.

Heh heh heh.....not much time, eh?

Any idea how many posts you write in a day? A week? a year?

Each may be small, but they add up....!

And your suggestion is?

- 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.

Absolutely - if you are willing to submit to being used for
entertainment, then of course - that has value. To others - and
perhaps to you too in some odd way.....painful to watch, though!

Nice try with the nine years mistake, though.

Things have been like this on the group for the last nine yearrs - the
arguements do pre-date you, Jim.

You weren't the first.....just the next.....


You got an F.

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

Lucky you!


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....

Who cares who was right? That's not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. Too bad you can't see that.

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

Every time.

Without question.

That's why my posts are calm and reasoned.

Um - calm and reasoned? You must be a riot at parties, Jim.

"No Fred, you're wrong....Betty, that's just incorrect....Hey, Sam,
that's not how you do that!...Say, Charlie......"

Heh heh.

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?

No, Jim....please continue!


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

Your call.

My call is N2EY. What's yours?

Unlisted.


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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were
smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what
is being done to you.

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote:



Leo wrote:
On 23 Jun 2005 14:36:54 -0700, wrote:

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!!! :-)

A quite logical choice indeed.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it is one
available to you....

What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?


It wasn't a literal, Jim - interpret!

Why not say what you mean?

Heh. Are you saying that you had difficulty figuring out what I meant?

Why not say what you mean, Leo?

"- 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?

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?

For seven and a half (plus) years? As frequently as you do?

Nah...of course not. That's just normal everyday behaviour.....

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?



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.

I'm sure that Len knows that he was wrong, Jim. Maybe he was just
trying to get you going? Heh heh heh....


The frequency over time is.

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

Um - that's what I said, Jim - didn't think you needed it
in such technical language.

It wasn't a division problem....


Please try to comprehend.

I comprehend more than you realize, Leo.

Sorry - not much evidence to support that claim so far, Jim.

Not to you, perhaps...

Heh heh heh.


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.

Who cares? That is not the issue.

Yes, it is.

Well, no. Again.



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.

That is indeed an interesting point.

Unfortunately - well, no again.

Your statement was something like "his hobby is wasting time - your time."

And that sums it up quite well.

There is a big difference between 'wasting time' and what is happening
here!

Duh.


I really don't think that 'wasting time' is what it's all
about, Jim.
Do you?

That's exactly what it's about.

Well, no.


It's about control. Specifically, controlling you. And
making you squirm and dance.

Except I do neither.

ROTFLMAO! You, Sir, would put Gene Kelly to shame, "Singin' In The
Acid Rain" of this group!

Heh heh heh,


Unless you are saying that you actually understand that you are being abused intentionally by others.

Hmmmm...so you consider the way Len treats me to be abuse.

Duh!


Now we're making progress.

Well - not we, exactly - but you are! Good for you!


What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?


And have done so since 2003. And if
so....you continue to post the same "wrong, wrong, wrong"
garbage

Why is what I wrote "garbage", Leo? Len posts things which are
provably untrue in a public debate forum. I point out those
things and you call my doing so "garbage" - why?

Because, what you post in response if no consequence. Who cares - the
object of the exercise was to *get* you to post in the first place!

Duh again.....


here
- knowing full well that you will continue to be abused for the
pleasure of others.

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?


Does that seem like particularly sane bahaviour to you?

Are you a fool? Or a masochist? Or both?

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?


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...

If by "inferior" you mean "controlled by someone in a superior
position" (i.e. boss, tormentor, etc.) - then he is correct.

You jump on command. Every time.

You can't help yourself.

Then what do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?


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.

Of course I don't speak for everybody.

But you used the phrase "Nobody....cares that you think that he is
'wrong'".

If even one other person cares, your statement is false.

Heh - here's that old "gotta be correct" obsession again.......


And unlike the soft sciences, the errors I point out are
provable.

Of course they are - but who cares?


Nor do you, although you seem
to envision yourself as on some sort of a crusade to defend the
'truth'.

Do you think truth si subjective or objective?

In an impossible situation. Cast in a role as a playtoy.

I see.

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?


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"

Well, no.

Well, yes.

Not wasting time, Jim. That ain't the hobby here.

Perhaps you are? Heh heh heh...


Wasting time, and being abused, are two different things.

Aren't they?

So you call what Len does here "abuse".

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?

Rhetorical question - ignored.

Not rhetorical at all. I think you just call it that to avoid
answering.

Not at all - "rhetorical" sounds so much more polite than
"stupid"....heh


What do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?


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?

Wake up, maybe - I don't recall inferring that you should shut up!

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

Real sad.

Let's say, for sake of discussion, that you're right about what Len is
doing and why he's doing it. What do you suggest I do about it?

Isn't that rather obvious?


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

Apparently not. No evidence exists to support that claim.

There's plenty of evidence, but you refuse to see it.

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.

Heh heh heh. Y'think?


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.

Not at all - just a statement. You're whining.

On and on and on. Even when you know that you cannot win.

What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?


That's normal behaviour, alright!


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.

Heh heh heh. That's funny, Jim!


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.

This is a text-only newsgroup, Jim. We don't see the plumage - all we
hear is the noise! Squawk squawk squawk.....for almost 8 years now!


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?

You have achieved nothing. You tormentor is still here - and you are
still being controlled.

Heh. Nice victory!


Are you incapable of controlling yourself?

I've got plenty of self-control.

LOL!


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.

Then why did you get it wrong twice in this thread?


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?

Ask me again in 8 years! Heh.


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.

You most certainly are - you are performing a valuable role for some
folks on the group.

As Shakespeare wrote in his play "As You Like It":

"Always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits."

Hear that stropping noise, Jim? That's somebody sharpening up on
you.....

What do you suggest I do, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?




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..

Heh heh - "there are none so blind as those who will not see....."



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.

I most assuredly do.


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.

Heh. "To thine own self be 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.

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

Well, no.

Well, obviously - yes.

And you just missed another typo....

Not my job to correctg *every* mistake...

Good thing, too, judging by that sentence....! LOL!



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....

I fully agree!



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.

Heh.


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.

That box you're thinking outside might be a bit too big, Jim.

Please explain why someone would go to all of that trouble simply to
fool you.

Unless thay are as OC as you...

I'm simply pointing out that if someone wants to disguise the point of
origin of an email or NG posting, it's very easy to do. Doesn't take
lots of skills or knowledge, just access to a remote computer.


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.

Not a simple matter at all - lots of work involved!

If a little cut and paste is "a lot of work" to you....

....and a "remote computer"...heh


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?

Not at all. Please continue!

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?



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!

Heh.

Exactly.

Agreed - that is indeed a laughable point!



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.

Say what? You don't see it?

Heh heh.

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?




You have me confused with Len.

You have you obsessed with Len. You have confused yourself.


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

Heck no.

You mean you are being hijacked willingly?

A bit psychotic, 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.

LOL! That's funny, Jim!


And educate.

And research before I post.

Feb 10, 2003.

Well, no. Different issue in that post - as stated above!


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.

Heh heh heh.....not much time, eh?

Any idea how many posts you write in a day? A week? a year?

Each may be small, but they add up....!

And your suggestion is?

Isn't that rather obvious?


- 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.

Absolutely - if you are willing to submit to being used for
entertainment, then of course - that has value. To others - and
perhaps to you too in some odd way.....painful to watch, though!

Nice try with the nine years mistake, though.

Things have been like this on the group for the last nine yearrs - the
arguements do pre-date you, Jim.

You weren't the first.....just the next.....


You got an F.

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

Lucky you!


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....

Who cares who was right? That's not the issue, Jim.

Yes, it is. Too bad you can't see that.

Really? That ain't true, Jim.... heh heh


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

Every time.

Without question.

That's why my posts are calm and reasoned.

Um - calm and reasoned? You must be a riot at parties, Jim.

"No Fred, you're wrong....Betty, that's just incorrect....Hey, Sam,
that's not how you do that!...Say, Charlie......"

Heh heh.

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?

No, Jim....please continue!


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

Your call.

My call is N2EY. What's yours?

Unlisted.


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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Actually, Jim, I have probably overestimated you. Thought you were
smarter than that - and hoped that you might see the reality of what
is being done to you.

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

Y'know, for a smart feller like yourself, you just don't get it. So...

Don't do anything different, Jim. Just keep up the good fight - and
let those who wish to get their kicks watching you behave so
predictably....and foolishly....you don't seem to mind serving as the
entertainment, so hey - why not?

Looks like you get exactly what you want here - you are owned!

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote:
What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

Then what do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?
What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?
What do you suggest I do, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

And your suggestion is?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

In a word: No.

It's not rather obvious, Leo.

What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than
answering a question with another question, or a zinger.

What's your suggestion?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote:
What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

Then what do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do instead?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do?

Isn't that rather obvious?
What would you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?
What do you suggest I do, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

And your suggestion is?

Isn't that rather obvious?

What do you suggest I do differently, Leo?

Isn't that rather obvious?

In a word: No.

It's not rather obvious, Leo.

Sorry to hear that, Jim. How simplified do you need things to be?


What *do* you suggest? Just speak plainly rather than
answering a question with another question, or a zinger.

What's your suggestion?

The way I see it, you have two options:

1. Continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments.
2. Do not continue to be suckered in to foolish arguments.

Option 1 is expensive - you become a possession of those who goad you
in to responding. A puppet, as it were, dancing at the end of
someone's strings....

Option 2 is much more difficult than Option 1 - it requires the
intelligence to recognize a legitimate argument from bait, and
considerable inner strength to resist the drive to respond, even when
you know you are in the right.

Owned or free.

The path you choose will be entirely up to you.

Choose wisely!


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo