Leo wrote:
On 7 Jul 2005 16:09:07 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


So here goes:

Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 09:59:04 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 18:08:19 -0700, wrote:
Leo wrote:
On 26 Jun 2005 11:19:31 -0700, wrote:
You must decide!
You must decide.
You must.

You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.

You missed the reference completely, then.

You cannot answer a question with a question.

I didn't!

Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.

Some would say since Arrival

Decide!
Break free.
Decide.

Why?

You must.

Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil

That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C


There are only two choices available to you.

Says who?

There are two.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.

There's always a C.

Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.

Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?

Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)

Sounds like an order from The General..
If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.

Not true.

That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.

Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?

No.

Why?

Polish - or Avoid.

I'm not Polish.

You are polishing. Turds.

Not me!


That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Sure it can: the two words "shut up"

Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.

Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.

Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.

How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.

But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!

Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.

Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."

Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.

So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!

Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.

So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.

--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent
-


????

Where'd the rest of it go?

I edited it out as being redundant.

Fair enough - as long as you get the idea!

Exactly!

Your basic message was that the way to deal with
certain.....unpleasant items....that one may encounter,
is to simply avoid them completely, rather than picking them
up and fooling with them (which you refer to as
"polishing" - an illustrative description!)

This course of action is particularly appropriate
if the....unpleasant items....were intentionally
placed for you to find, in the hopes you would
react to them in a certain way.

That's really what you've been trying to tell me
all along, isn't it, Leo?

That's it - you have it!

Of course it could be argued that what I was doing was
not "polishing" but pointing out the...unpleasant items...
but that's a minor issue. The decision to be made is the
same.

That course of action (avoidance) does make a lot of sense.

However, it occurs to me that the nature of
the...items...tells us something about the
person who created them.

If you encounter a watch, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a watchmaker.

If you encounter a loaf of bread, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a baker.

And if you encountered the....unpleasant items...
you describe as being unpolishable, you would
logically conclude that is was made by an

There you go.

So you agree!

And, from what I've read over the last week or so,
you have discovered
that application of this philosophy does not limit your posts
very much at all!

Of course it limits my posts - to a very great degree. However,
that's not really the issue, is it?

The lack of "polishing" does not seem to have reduced the
production of said ...unpleasant items...though.


Well done.

TNX

There's always the possibility that I might decide to
....point out...one of those....unpleasant items....

Who knows?


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28


Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo

Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.

Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp

I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.

I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?

I think that Jim was bottle fed.

Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.

Ah! The organization in Newington, the one with the "milk
of ham-an kindness?" :-)

"Polish, polish, polish he goes, and where he stops, nobody
knows..." with some hat tips to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour

bit bit


When the Mad LaLeche reLay League Mothers discover all of the K5TIT
haters in here...

b.b. wrote:
wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28


Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo

Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.

Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp

I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.

I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?

I think that Jim was bottle fed.

Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.

Ah! The organization in Newington, the one with the "milk
of ham-an kindness?" :-)

"Polish, polish, polish he goes, and where he stops, nobody
knows..." with some hat tips to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour

bit bit


break


When the Mad LaLeche reLay League Mothers discover all of the K5TIT
haters in here...

oh that could be painfull to watch

From: b.b. on Jul 9, 1:04 pm

wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28
Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.

Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp

I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.

Well, that's what he gets for spending less than $100 and
designing it with vacuum tubes in the 1990s...


I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?

I think that Jim was bottle fed.

That would explain much! :-)

bit bit

b.b. wrote:
wrote:
From: "b.b." on Thurs 7 Jul 2005 15:28


Leo wrote:
On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:

I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo

Jim ran the entire text through his DaVinci Code Reader. The part
snipped spelled out K5TIT, so he very well couldn't have quoted it.

Mighty Macho Morsemen will have none of women? gasp

I think his DaVinci Code reader malfunctioned.

I wonder if all those "children he parented" (implied) were
by Immaculate Conception?

I think that Jim was bottle fed.


So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?


Rest assured that the LaLeche reLay League has been informed.

Ah! The organization in Newington, the one with the "milk
of ham-an kindness?" :-)

"Polish, polish, polish he goes, and where he stops, nobody
knows..." with some hat tips to Major Bowes' Amateur Hour

bit bit


When the Mad LaLeche reLay League Mothers discover all of the K5TIT
haters in here...

wrote:
Leo wrote:

On 7 Jul 2005 16:09:07 -0700, wrote:


Leo wrote:

On 5 Jul 2005 17:44:07 -0700, wrote:


I thought I'd answered this one, but apparently not.

You still haven't, actually - 2/3 of the original post is missing....

73, Leo


So here goes:

Leo wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:

On 29 Jun 2005 02:34:17 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:

On 27 Jun 2005 19:12:17 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:

On 27 Jun 2005 09:59:04 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:

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

Leo wrote:

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

You must decide!

You must decide.

You must.

You sound like the chimes of Big Ben.

You missed the reference completely, then.

You cannot answer a question with a question.


I didn't!


Heh heh heh......you have been a puppet for a long time.

Some would say since Arrival

Decide!

Break free.

Decide.

Why?

You must.

Sounds like a Hammer pounding Into an Anvil


That's your spin on it - does not address what actions you
suggest *I* take.

That is your current reality.

That's your soft-science psychobabble spin, then. ;-)

Not at all.

I have decided that it is. Simple as A, B and C

There are only two choices available to you.

Says who?

There are two.

A and B. Option 1 - or Option 2.

There is no C.

There's always a C.

Not in a two variable equation.

Such as this.

Do you want me to deny the truth just to permit Living in Harmony?


Owned. Or Free.

Wimp. Or Strong.

Dit. Or Dah. (mandatory radio content hi hi)

Sounds like an order from The General..

If I respond to Len in any way, you say I have taken Option 1.
Therefore the only way to take Option 2 is for me to shut up.

Not true.

That's what it all boils down to.

All your blathering psychobabble comes down to your trying to tell me to shut up without using those words.

Not true.

Are you hoping that someone will tell you to shut up?

No.

Why?

Polish - or Avoid.


I'm not Polish.

You are polishing. Turds.

Not me!

That's what you're telling me to do.

You could just be clear about it. But that's not your way.

It cannot be simplified any further, Jim.

Sure it can: the two words "shut up"

Do you feel that this is your only logical option, then?

Is there no other way?


Owned - or Free.

Speak out - or Shut Up.

That's what it means.

Be trolled - or not.

That's what it means.


How is one different from the other?


The series "Kung Fu" was set in the American Southwest in the 1870s.

Before radio was invented.

But not before callsigns were invented!

Wow! That's one five star education yer packin there,
podner......yee haw!

Do you think callsigns were invented for radio? Think again.


Your current situation requires a different metaphor:

"A man walking along discovers a turd in the middle of his
path. What should he do?

If he is wise, he would step around it and go along his
way. But, if
he should pick it up and begin polishing it, in the
expectation that
it would somehow gain value as a result of his effort, he
would be quite foolish indeed."

Agreed!

He could also avoid the hazard, and point it out to others so
they do not trod in it.


So you're saying that the posts of Len and some others here
are turds.

I think you have a point there!

Hope springs anew!

That's why the polishing isn't going too well sometimes.


So you agree! Excellent!

Now let us consider.....

If your description of Len's posts (the product) is accurate, what does
that make the producer of said product?

That pretty much sums it up, I think.


--

Psychotics build castles in the air
Neurotics live in them
Shrinks collect the rent

-


????

Where'd the rest of it go?

I edited it out as being redundant.

Fair enough - as long as you get the idea!


Exactly!


Your basic message was that the way to deal with
certain.....unpleasant items....that one may encounter,
is to simply avoid them completely, rather than picking them
up and fooling with them (which you refer to as
"polishing" - an illustrative description!)

This course of action is particularly appropriate
if the....unpleasant items....were intentionally
placed for you to find, in the hopes you would
react to them in a certain way.

That's really what you've been trying to tell me
all along, isn't it, Leo?

That's it - you have it!


Of course it could be argued that what I was doing was
not "polishing" but pointing out the...unpleasant items...
but that's a minor issue. The decision to be made is the
same.

That course of action (avoidance) does make a lot of sense.

However, it occurs to me that the nature of
the...items...tells us something about the
person who created them.

If you encounter a watch, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a watchmaker.

If you encounter a loaf of bread, you would
logically conclude that it was made by a baker.

And if you encountered the....unpleasant items...
you describe as being unpolishable, you would
logically conclude that is was made by an

There you go.


So you agree!

And, from what I've read over the last week or so,
you have discovered
that application of this philosophy does not limit your posts
very much at all!


Of course it limits my posts - to a very great degree. However,
that's not really the issue, is it?

The lack of "polishing" does not seem to have reduced the
production of said ...unpleasant items...though.


Well done.


TNX

There's always the possibility that I might decide to
...point out...one of those....unpleasant items....

Who knows?


I must say, this thread has just about crapped out, eh guys?

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?

While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.

As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.

The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Leo wrote:


.. . . .
Well done.

As if.



TNX

There's always the possibility that I might decide to
...point out...one of those....unpleasant items....

Who knows?


I must say, this thread has just about crapped out, eh guys?

It crapped out less than 24 hours after Hans tossed out his post about
how smelly diesel summarine bug slappers always won their bets on
ballgame scores.

WTF where you been??


- Mike KB3EIA -

Red Velvet

wrote:
wrote:

So what's wrong with being fed bottles of Bud?

While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.

As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.

The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY

And now we have a whole generation of hams who hate K5TIT's.

wrote in message
oups.com...

While I wouldn't turn down a Bud, I much prefer a
Yuengling Black & Tan or a Guinness Stout. Or a
Genessee Cream Ale.


PAH!!!! Genny Cream Ale. Long, long time since I sipped an ice cold one of
them. Hey, they still brewing the 10-Horse Ale? Or, is my memory fuzzy and
Genny Cream IS the 10-Horse Ale. I remember the 10-Horse nearly when it was
new, I was up there for a visit. It was stout, but it'd give a grin on 1/2
a one!


As for what is fed to babies, it should be remembered
that for a couple of decades in the middle of the
20th century, the "professionals" and "experts" told
us that bottle-feeding was *better* for infants than
the "old-fashioned way". The newfangled "formula"
and all the attendant apparatus was "scientific" and
"progressive", they said. Of course it took a whole
pile of hardware (bottles, sterilizer pot with lid and
bottle rack, nipples, nipple rings, seals, bottle tops,
tongs) the formula itself, and a kitchen to do all the
processing to do what "the old fashioned way" did semi-
automatically.


Whatever's the advertising win for the "period" is what is supposed to be
*ahem* healthy.


The "old-fashioned way" was
put down as being vaguely third-world, Luddite,
"horse and buggy" and inferior both physically
and psychologically. Moms who tried to keep the
old ways met with resistance, opposition and
insults.

After all, the "professionals" and "experts" knew
best, right?

As if!

73 de Jim, N2EY


Heh, adverstisers.

Kim W5TIT