Ross Cassell -> Bob Klahn wrote:

 BK>>>>  Then let's go into Hulett's embellishments, and see how that
 BK>>>>  plays out.

 RC>>> Ok, what has Ed embellished?

I have embellished nothing.

 BK>>  When he claimed understanding of several Radio topics, and when
 BK>>  he explained how they work he even got that wrong.

I have a background in electronics and am an Amateur Radio Operator. Klahn
claims I'm wrong about everything he disagrees with me on which is
everything.

 RC> This is a amatuer messaging network, I dont think anyone needs a college
 RC> degree to spout off on a topic, being that the case, if they are wrong
 RC> they are wrong, correct them and move on. That does not mean one has to
 RC> accept your correction..

His "correction" was merely to reword what I had already said.

 RC> I have seen you state inaccuracies from time to time, no big deal.

Klahn doesn't have the ability to admit error. His ego would suffer
irreparable damage.

 RC> Now how does Eds so called embellishment reach back and attain the level
 RC> of Sauers embellishments?

There is no comparison. Sauer's entire life has been nothing but embellishment.

I haven't embellished anything.

 BK>>  When he pretended to understand military aviation communications
 BK>>  and operations. When he pretended to understand how the military
 BK>>  works in general.

 RC> Your understanding might be superior to his, but I bet your
 RC> understanding is inferior to others.

I didn't pretend anything.

 RC> Has his embellishments led to him stating that he was in the military
 RC> and again, did it reach the levels of Sauers own embellishments?

Again, I didn't embellish anything. I have never claimed I was ever in the military.

 BK>>>>  And Hulett is dispicable. Which is a whole nother level.

It must suck for Klahn to be consumed with such hate.

 RC>>> So you now want to ferment dissension Sauer/Hardegree style
 RC>>> between you and him?

 BK>>  He has already done that. He can end it anytime he wants. He is
 BK>>  the one who has thought he was superior to anyone who dares
 BK>>  disagree with him. He has displayed that since the very first
 BK>>  msg of mine he replied to.

That is a lie.

 RC> Good Gawd man, you struck me as a pompous ass the first time I read your
 RC> messages and this is before I bothered to exchange any with you. That
 RC> does not mean to say that you are [insert any negative attribute here].

My first reply was to a message of his Mimi cross posted from Debate into
Politics. His post was that of an arrogant and pompous jerk. My entire
reply was basically "Who is Bob Klahn and why should anyone listen to
him?" He replied back with his usual pompous nonsense and the rest is
history.

 RC> Let me ask you this, should Hardegree and Hulett be banned from Fidonet
 RC> because of your dislike of them?

Heh heh...

 RC> If so why?

 RC> If not, why?

 RC> These questions are real, however the answers will not jeopardize their
 RC> access.

Of course Klahn would have us banned.


 RC>>> Show me the law that requires people to think and do like
 RC>>> yourself?

 BK>>  Show me one single instance where I have shown any inclination
 BK>>  in that direction.

 RC> Its written in every message you write, some might call it megalomania.

Might?

 RC> Outside of being a conference moderator, when was the last time you
 RC> defended a ideological opposite, I have, can you say the same?

No.

Ed

-- 
"[T]he government of the United States is a definite government,
confined to specified objects. It is not like the state
governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part
of the legislative duty of the government."

-- James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, 10
January 1794)

Linux User# 416016
Linux Machine# 323569

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)