Ultimate digital caliper for modelers.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:41:12 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Yet you use the same defense by others as an excuse to do the attacking when it suits you. That's hypocrisy.

You are a hypocrite. That's not an attack That's reality.

You can attack. Others can't. That's hypocrisy in action. Deal.

Your advice often is wrong. It can also be dangerous when you delve into the areas of electrical power. When it comes to train operation, you have died in a ditch defending your theories which have been proven wrong. When others DO prove you wrong, you switch into the personal attack mode while crying about others attacking your theories. Wrong is wrong, Greg. You can't make it right by pretending outrage when you aren't entitled to outrage.

Greg, I'm not the one complaining about personal attacks. YOU are. It's not my image in question here. If you are behaving rationally here, it would be a first but you're not being rational. You're denying a personal behavior of yours to be hypocritical. That's not rational. That's denial.

You're wise. There's no defense for the truth as I presented it.

-- Ray

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:42:21 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Yep. That's the end of the sheep you Kiwi's are interested in.

-- Ray

The attacker sets the level for the defender.

I see, you still prefer personal attack to rational discussion. At least we all know.

It's entirely your construct. Cite where I attacked other than in response to attack. (that's sometimes called 'defense' by the way)

Isn't everyones? I've never claimed perfection. OTOH I'd be very interested to hear when or where I've offered advice that might fall into the 'dangerous' category! If I have done that then I need to re-examine my own procedures so your advice rather than insults would be welcome.

Where was I wrong? - Mark bleating "you're wrong - you're wrong!" interminally doesn't make me wrong, Mark finding an exception may well show that I'm not 100% right but that doesn't make me 100% wrong, it means I don't know every single fact and exception to the general rule.

I'm complaining about posts whose only (new) content is a personal attack - I'm responding to you now because there is reasoned content contained.

Sorry but the moment you post here you set yourself up to be judged, just as I do.

I'm sure you will be judged by others for those irrational and hypocritacal comments, just as I will be for pointing them out in this manner. =8^)

LOL. This reminds me of an occassion at a party (1970) when I argued nuclear physics with someone who turned out to be a university lecturer in that subject - now I'm arguing hypocracy with God!

Regards, Greg.P.

You revert to form!

Regards, Greg.P.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:17:25 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

It was a joke, Greg. A joke. Has your sense of humor gland dried up and died?

-- Ray

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:16:47 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

It doesn't matter WHY you use personal attacks, Greg. The fact that you DO it makes it hypocrisy since you spend time showing your scorn for OTHERS doing it. You can do it. You have a right to do it because you have free speech in New Zealand. That you DO attack others is proven daily when you post here. The reason is completely and unalterably irrelevant. Defense or offense. It doesn't matter. It's STILL a personal attack.

If you really believed that a personal attack was a bad thing, you'd avoid doing it even when someone else does it to you. Instead, you use it as an excuse to do the very thing you declare as evil. Thus, when you declare it bad for others while doing it yourself, you become a hypocrite by that act.

-- Ray

You obviously can't discern between attacking the messenger and attacking the message.

When I'm personally maligned I have four main options:

1- attack back at the person. 2- attack the statement. 3- defend a position I shouldn't have to defend. (ie prove my innocence) 4- ignore the attack and wear the mud thrown.

My preference is for the second of those options, one which you seem to be unable to separate from the first, either deliberately or through stupidity. I shan't post my opinion on that point.

Regards, Greg.P.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:22:25 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg . . .

Seriously. Read this carefully. I don't disagree that you CAN use personal attack to argue here. What I am pointing out to you is your hypocrisy in declaring personal attack wrong when someone ELSE does it while YOU do it yourself. Go ahead and do it. Just don't malign anyone else for doing it.

Have you got that yet? Are you still so hard headed and dimwitted that you really can't understand that?

The real issue here has so far gone unmentioned. Why is it SO important for you to "win" so many discussions on a newsgroup? What flaw in your makeup forces you to continue a discussion beyond the point where you have been shown wrong?

-- Ray

Ray, Ray, Ray, Ray ... If someone attacks me personally and I attack that person's message I am _not_ making a personal attack on that person.

I know that's tough for people like you to comprehend, but there is a major distinction.

The flaw in my makeup is that I dislike giving in to idiots, particularly those who are totally clueless and can only "win" when those they pick on finally give up in disgust - It looks like you are going to win this one.

Regards, Greg.P.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:03:25 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

Aw, did I leave my WebCam on again?

-- Ray

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:59:06 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and Greg Procter instead replied:

That's not what you do, Greg. You make personal attacks in retaliation then moan when others do it to you. Grow up. 'k?

-- Ray

I already told you Ray - I give up - you win - you can lie down and sleep now!

Regards, Greg.P.

Don't stop now; sheep from Perth to Christchurch have been able to breathe easy and not walk bowlegged while you lot were occupied.

For what it's worth, Greg, I agree 100% with you that the suggestion critics of US politics are motivated by envy is unreasoning stupidity.

*BUT*

You've been repeatedly wrong in your assertions about US railroad operating rules, practices and procedures. You've been corrected by people who are railroad operating professionals, and you've had numerous rules and documents cited by myself and others that explicitly show where you are mistaken.

I don't know whether you simply don't understand the underlying concepts, you can't think beyond your limited knowledge of German practice, or you deliberately choose to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts your position. Whichever way, you're consistently wrong on this topic.

And then there's the operating rules, practices and procedures of the railway I work for. All of the above comments apply here, as well.

And then there's loco operation and train handling, steam loco basics, and so on...

You've repeatedly shown that you don't know much in the way of any general rules for any of the railways usually discussed in r.m.r.

You reckon you "dislike giving in to idiots". In my book someone who is as inexperienced as you are in railway operations, but insists he knows more, and is more correct than those who are professionals, is an idiot.

Cheers,

Mark.

Gunna wrote: >> >

Still none the wiser. But then again, who gives a toss?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!

Stop pretending to be some kind of ex-military hard-man - you're nothing nore than a poser and a wannabe, little man.

As W C Fields said, you don't buy beer, you only rent it.

Blink blink...I take it you have no clue as to the history of the area called Vietnam, once known as French IndoChina, or the land of the river people...

Bummer, then you really shouldnt be posting on stuff you are so blatantly butt ignorant about.

So you are cross posting. Fascinating. Are you pestering the railroad people intentionally?

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Oh like fursure dude. Totally awesume laugh thing there. Like..like farmout that you got all those "h"s and "a"s all lined up in a row like that.

Ex military (true) hardman? Im simply a big harmless lovable fuzzball. Though Ive been told Im delightfuly hard when Im with the sheilas. Shrug...its just a knack..the result of years of practice and good genes.

Everyone knows Im just a big fuzzywuzzy hugable teddybear. Why would you think otherwise?

Im still curious though..what beer DID you use to soak your brain? As Im a nondrinker, what sort of brew do drunks prefer to use in Oz? Its obvious you are the best person to ask. Inquiring minds want to know.

Gunner Asch

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Chalk that one up - we both agree!

Where did I make assertions about "US railroad operating rules"????

This might very well be to point where we have been at cross purposes. I've made assertions about the safety _of_ "US railroad operating rules" which is rather different.

I've never commented on "the general rules of the railways usually discussed in r.m.r."

You think I'm an idiot - I think you're an idiot - we're equal on that point. You think I'm inexperienced - I think your experience is limited to a specific limited operating situation.

Regards, Greg.P.