Hello Bob!

18 Jun 08 13:16, you wrote to me:


 RC>> I see him often attacking people in message replies when
 RC>> the only offense was a different opinion..

 BK>  For their service? Someone who does not have a history of
 BK>  attacking Ross?

He attacks Stan's service all the time, referring to him as a coward, now
how can Sauer extrapolate that considering he left after 65 days?

If Sauers logic provides for Stan to be a coward, and Stan served 3 to four
times or more longer than you, what by golly does Sauer think of your
service?

Wait, rhetorical.

We will never know the answer to that question unless you and Sauer find
another on opposite sides of the ideological fence.

 RC>> Like I was telling Wilson in your echo, Sauer has a
 RC>> sufficient amount of guilt himself that he must bear for
 RC>> all the crap he has taken and takes, rather attracts.

 BK>  Not near enough to justify what I am seeing.

Look at the big picture and look at it over time..

I have been in Fidonet for many moons and just using its hallowed halls as
a observation ground, I have seen personalities clash to the point of it
being called pure unadulterated hate and these things cannot be blamed on
only one person.

If you think the political echoes are full of bile, you have no clue when
it comes to fathoming the stuff that went on in the sysop only echoes. That
is all gone now, but when you bottom line it, you havent seen anything and
neither Stan or Sauer are without culpability.

Sauer has burned down his share of bridges, quit making excuses for him and
let him bathe in that guilt.

 RC>> and those whom served less than one full commitment
 RC>> shouldnt be whining about another whom did but didnt go
 RC>> Rambo and request duty in a couple punative actions that
 RC>> utilized forces already on station.

 BK>  Like I said, I don't see it happening to those who don't strike
 BK>  first.

Look dammit, we have spent two days with you expressing outrage about your
service being questionned, dont go making excuses for someone being allowed
to do so towards another, simply because their service just happens to be
inferior and this someone also embellished it. If Sauers service could
stand on its own merits, he would not have had to embellish it and perhaps
he would have a greater understanding about the service of others and this
would never have been a topic to begin with.

 RC>> He needs to jump on topics he has standing to comment on.

 BK>  Ok, I will quote that to Hulett, Mimi, and the rest of the
 BK>  chickenhawks when they jump all over anyone else's service.

Just be sure you hold Sauer to the same standard or you can withdraw from
the conversation.

A bank robber has no business calling a shoplifter a thief.

If someone has a less than stellar military record, the person doing the
calling out better have a leg of his own to stand on.

 RC>> Yes he will, the anomosity between them two runs deep.

 BK>  With Hardegree, that's not hard. He contributes nothing but
 BK>  hate. He is incapable of having a decent exchange with anyone
 BK>  who disagrees with him.

You want to look at yourself long and hard in the mirror?

How many times have you responded to a non-adversarial exchange by mimicing
your opponents words with a little editting?

 BK>  You accuse me of looking down on those
 BK>  who disagree with me, yet I continually have reasonable and
 BK>  decent discussions with those who do. Yet Hardegree turns every
 BK>  single disagreement into a trash fest.

Then twit him.

If you cant will yourself to twit or ignore him, the failing is your own.

 RC>> This is evident when nothing is being said negative to him
 RC>> about him, with the only sin being a different opinion.

 BK>  Which I do not see happening. And this is all a digression to
 BK>  divert from your defense of the smear job pulled by Massey.

No, I aint going to beat that dead horse, you wont see it from my POV and I
am not seeing it from yours, so pray tell, why would I continue or rather
why would we continue arguing with brick walls?

As far as what you dont see happening, of course you dont, but I dont have
to tell you why.

 RC>> The onus isnt solely on Hardegree's shoulders and you know
 RC>> it or have you forgotten that it takes two to tango?

 BK>  It takes two to tango, it takes one to attack. Dumb comparison
 BK>  on your part.

Only your brick wall uses the finest mortar.

 RC>> You need to look at the entire history, not just last week,
 RC>> month or year.

 BK>  No, I do not need to. Looking at a year back is more than
 BK>  enough. I have seen it for years back. How long does Hardegree
 BK>  intend to continue his attacks? Forever? Ross *NEVER* did
 BK>  anything to justify that.

Of course he didnt, Sauer never did a single thing wrong, did he Mr Klahn?

 RC>> Curing the sore doesnt eliminate the rash.

 BK>  Wow! Cliche city! Gonna invent any more?

I would but you would cry and challenge me to say it to your face, I would
but couldnt get close enough.

 RC>>>> Just so you are clear, Raymond Yates.. (Jacks brother)

 BK>>>  Don't recall him. Either him.

 RC>> Then you are senile, I seen you converse with both in the
 RC>> WHAT'S_HOT! echo.

 BK>  I don't even recall being in the WHAT'S_HOT echo. How long ago
 BK>  was that?

About 5 years or so back.

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

 RC>> Ok, what has Ed embellished?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 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.

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

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

If so why?

If not, why?

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


 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.

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

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


==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Blogs/Other Places: http://links.cassell.us
... Martin Luther King Jr, was a Republican!
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20070503