Gerritsen Sentenced
N2...@aol.com
(top two stories)
More detail at:
nwx
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1158706655.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Seven years in prison, plus fines.
WHO CARES? beside you.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of
the posting lately
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
K4YZ
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????
Steve, K4YZ
Paul W. Schleck
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" <n...@nnnwxyznet.net> wrote:
>>
>><N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>news:1158706655.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>> Seven years in prison, plus fines.
>>
>>
>>
>>WHO CARES? beside you.
>well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of
>the posting lately
>http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations,
including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup?
I fear that it may just feed the trolls, as well as open myself up to
further retaliatory forgeries, to spell out the obvious, but here
goes...
With respect to the previous question about "Who cares?" I, and many
others, care about protecting public resources like radio spectrum. I,
and many others, are greatly concerned that public safety officials and
auxiliary volunteers are able to do their jobs, and make use of vital
tools like communications equipment, without interference. The
individual being sentenced was a persistent, serious, repeat offender
who targeted both amateur and professional radio frequencies, likely
with a drug or alcohol problem considering the judge's order for him to
enter rehab. Taking a radio microphone out of his hands for at least
another 7 years should be good news to any serious, law-abiding, radio
amateur, as well as any other concerned citizen.
--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
Herb
"Paul W. Schleck" <psch...@novia.net> Whined & Cried in a message:
>
> Since when is discussion of amateur radio
Get a Life Schleck!
Herb
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
awful thin skin Paul.
Paul W. Schleck
Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
just the trolls, seemed appropriate.
I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.
I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of
Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Nor does he need to be a
clone of me.
(I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.)
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
wrote:
>In <aonj9.v...@news.alt.net> "Herb" <t...@herbtomptrs.org> writes:
>
>>The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
>>showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
>>to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
>>Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
>>misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
>>model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
>>no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
>>reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
>>at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
>>when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
>>stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
>>No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
>>vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
>>awful thin skin Paul.
>
>Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
>rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
>the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
>chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
>just the trolls, seemed appropriate.
agreed
>
>I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
>The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
>me. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
>arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.
agreed
>
>I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of
>Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum. Nor does he need to be a
>clone of me.
well given Dave Heil support of exclusionary tacti c in the NG that
was not a good admssion to make
>
>(I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.)
Herb
"Paul W. Schleck" <psch...@novia.net> wrote in message
news:4511bc8a$0$89635$540e...@novia.net...
>
> Since when is politely stating an obvious,
Your problem is obvious & easily solved. Bend over, firmly
grasp your shoulders, pull firmly until a loud "pop" sound is
heard, now stand up straight, your problem is repaired.
It was obvious to everyone else but you that your head was
stuck up your ass.
Herb
even Mark thinks you are doing a good job!
Atta Boy Paul!
<Ma...@kb9rqz.com> wrote in message
news:e8g3h2pss8ljdnm4b...@4ax.com...
>>>awful thin skin Paul.
Slow Code
> In <lsf1h2h98vvql1mig...@4ax.com> Ma...@kb9rqz.com writes:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" <n...@nnnwxyznet.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>><N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>>news:1158706655.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Seven years in prison, plus fines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WHO CARES? beside you.
>>well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of
>>the posting lately
>>http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
>
> Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations,
> including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup?
Paul,
Ignore Mark Morgan, he ain't playing with a full deck.
It's not off-topic for any radio group. I'm hoping to make this group
respectable again, and you can help. If K3LT would would come back and
other past RRAP CW supporters, we can kick out the anti-CW Homophiles
like Woger, Mark & Lloyd, and make this group respectable again. I'd even
get rid of SC and start using my callsign here again once the trash is
taken out.
73 de Slow Code
Keep up the good work.
Slow Code
news:1158738134.1...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
I didn't hear Omega One today.
Either the band is bad or Todd got a Pink-slip and cut power.
SC
Dave Heil
...and I do agree with you. The more rational people we have posting in
this newsgroup, the better it is and the more irrelevant those mentally
unstable types become.
Dave K8MN
an_old_friend
Slow Code wrote:
>
gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names
like Slow Code
LenAn...@ieee.org
>In <aonj9.vl5.1...@news.alt.net> "Herb" <t...@herbtomptrs.org> writes:
>
>>The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
>>showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
>>to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
>>Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
>>misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
>>model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
>>no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
>>reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
>>at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
>>when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
>>stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
>>No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
>>vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
>>awful thin skin Paul.
Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. <shrug>
One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
years.
>Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
>rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
>the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
>chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
>just the trolls, seemed appropriate.
That is remarkable naivete!
Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
here. You should KNOW that by now.
>I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
>The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
>me.
It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"
>Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
>arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.
"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"
Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"
The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.
>I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of
>Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum.
Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
poor choice of words...
>Nor does he need to be a clone of me.
Now THAT is ripe for discussion! [but, I digress...]
Paul, face the cold, hard, cruel facts. This newsgroup has
lost its purpose and meaning. Years ago. It's time to face
the facts that it needs to be dissolved. Or perhaps to be
shut down for an indefinite period.
N2...@aol.com
> With respect to the previous question about "Who cares?" I, and many
> others, care about protecting public resources like radio spectrum. I,
> and many others, are greatly concerned that public safety officials and
> auxiliary volunteers are able to do their jobs, and make use of vital
> tools like communications equipment, without interference.
I'm one of those concerned others.
> The
> individual being sentenced was a persistent, serious, repeat offender
> who targeted both amateur and professional radio frequencies, likely
> with a drug or alcohol problem considering the judge's order for him to
> enter rehab. Taking a radio microphone out of his hands for at least
> another 7 years should be good news to any serious, law-abiding, radio
> amateur, as well as any other concerned citizen.
>
To me it's a mixed bag...
It's definitely good news that such an offender has been taken off the
air and received serious penalties.
But it's less-than-good news that it took so long for it to happen. The
deliberate and malicious interference to amateurs was going on for
*years*, and was extensively documented and reported. The interference
to other radio services was, IMO, the last straw - but even those
incidents weren't recent. Perhaps the FCC and law enforcement proceeded
as slowly and carefully as they did in order to build an absolutely
air-tight case, with stiff penalties and a clear precedent. I hope that
is the case.
It's also less-than-good news that the offender was a licensed radio
amateur. While *we* all know that he's a rare case, and that the
efforts of other radio amateurs were a big part of getting him
convicted, the general image to the public may be less clear. We need
good publicity for amateur radio, not 'Radio Ham Runs Amok On The Air,
Interferes With Army and Police' headlines. (not an actual headline,
but you see the point).
How do we deal with similar cases in the future?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Not Cocksucker Lloyd
Fuck off, faggot!
Marky confirms he married a shemale in
<1154036039.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
"posted you can prove it for yourself anytime you can catch him at
home"
Mark Morgan replied "yes I did. your point?" when confessing publicly
to having been sodomized in
<1150581379.052544.216...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>.
xray
important role in some undefined national picture......
get real, ham radio is waaaaaaay past its prime, and its
ranks consist of heavy-set old white men who dream
of yesteryear. Haaaayooooo Silver....awaaaaay
Tonto......the Lone Ranger rides again.......straight out of
the 50s, when ham radio was on the cutting edge.
LOL
Paul W. Schleck
>From: Paul W. Schleck on Wed, Sep 20 2006 3:14 pm
>>In <aonj9.vl5.1...@news.alt.net> "Herb" <t...@herbtomptrs.org> writes:
>>
>>>The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
>>>showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
>>>to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
>>>Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
>>>misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
>>>model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
>>>no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
>>>reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
>>>at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
>>>when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
>>>stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
>>>No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
>>>vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
>>>awful thin skin Paul.
> Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
> he "enjoys" what goes on in here. <shrug>
You're really torturing my words into a misquote here. What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.
My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.
> One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
> filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
> Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
> years.
I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you.
>>Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
>>rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
>>the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
>>chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
>>just the trolls, seemed appropriate.
> That is remarkable naivete!
> Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
> and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
> get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
> here. You should KNOW that by now.
As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience,
some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups.
If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
many, many such words?
>>I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
>>The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
>>me.
> It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
> since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
> fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
> amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"
Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a
few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population.
>>Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
>>arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.
> "Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"
> Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"
> The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
> Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
> to know that.
I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.
Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.
>>I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of
>>Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum.
> Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
> poor choice of words...
Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).
Nevertheless, if you feel that I owe some credit to the Senator for my
wording above, I don't think it's fair to conclude that he was
unsuccessful, and thus not worth paraphrasing, because he ran in an
election that was substantially not his to lose (Hint: It was arguably
more the responsibility of the individual at the *top* of the ticket.)
Many would credit his statement as underscoring a specific perceived
weakness in the opposing ticket, one that arguably was successfully
exploited in his party's 1992 victory.
In addition to serving 4 terms as Senator, including re-election to the
office at the same time his running-mate for the *other* election lost,
his nomination to be Secretary of the Treasury was voted out of the
confirmation committee by acclimation (and standing applause). After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.
>>Nor does he need to be a clone of me.
> Now THAT is ripe for discussion! [but, I digress...]
> Paul, face the cold, hard, cruel facts. This newsgroup has
> lost its purpose and meaning. Years ago. It's time to face
> the facts that it needs to be dissolved. Or perhaps to be
> shut down for an indefinite period.
For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?
Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.
an_old_friend
LenAn...@ieee.org
><LenAn...@ieee.org> writes:
> Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
> he "enjoys" what goes on in here. <shrug>
>You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.
"Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]
>What I said to
>you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
>newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
>exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
>present state.
So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"
You are imagining things which aren't there.
Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.
>My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
>here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.
Not necessary. :-)
You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
in the modern sense. :-)
>> One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
>> filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
>> Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
>> years.
>
>I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you.
I am happy that you are happy.
I am NOT happy that some are acting as military veteran
imposters. Extremely few REAL veterans are happy about
imposters.
>> Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
>> and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
>> get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
>> here. You should KNOW that by now.
>
>As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience,
>some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups.
What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?
>If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
>many, many such words?
Because I can! :-) Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions,
there are very few UNBIASED venues for speaking one's mind
on any amateur radio policy issues.
>>>I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
>>>The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
>>>me.
>
>> It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
>> since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
>> fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
>> amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"
>
>Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a
>few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population.
I do not have to "stereotype, or overgeneralize" anything by
such individuals (trolls, misfits, anonymous cowards, and
identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men").
THEY mark themselves.
Yes, there are only a very few "representatives" of a "much
larger population" (of radio amateurs) in here. But, those
that do put themselves on public view do not always reflect
well on a pleasureable radio activity hobby enjoyed by
thousands. Rather they reflect mostly personal preferrences
within their hobby. "Objective" applies to little of what
is written.
>>>Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
>>>arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.
>
>> "Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"
>
>> Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"
>
>> The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
>> Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
>> to know that.
>
>I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
>of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
>should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
>righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.
Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.
> Since Dave Heil has now
>followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
>Herb was talking through his hat.
Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."
I do not use hats.
>Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
>that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
>specific.
How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?
Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
"action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.
>>>I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of
>>>Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum.
>
>> Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
>> poor choice of words...
>
>Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
>rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
>short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
>dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
>Countrymen!" etc.).
Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost
that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words
became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after
that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers.
>... After
>his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
>anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.
I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I
remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul.
I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected
John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go
out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years
before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to
do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd
Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR
words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found
in here...nor is it necessary]
>For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
>awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
>before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
>continuing participation here?
It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."
Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]
Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
going to believe my words or the words of others on my
"motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
only those others.
What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random)
participation in here?
>Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
>(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
>I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
>announcement sometime this fall.
I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.
Beep, beep,
Jack
"Paul W. Schleck" <psch...@novia.net> wrote in message
//drivel flushed//
Cutting out all your bullcrap, Schleck, here's the bottom line,
you used to send out your infamous "welcome letters," which
made you feel *In Charge* You are a control freak, and your
ego was bruised badly.....no more "welcome letters." Get a
grip Paul, move on. Your "moderated group"? I will
believe it when I see it.....history is against you.
an_old_friend
> >Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
> >(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
> >I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
> >announcement sometime this fall.
>
> I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
> newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
> matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
> subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.
I suspect it will be better than that after all Paul does know he can't
behead those that disagree, and that is clearly the wish of most of MMM
>
> Beep, beep,
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
LenAn...@ieee.org
"Beheading?" Hardly. Perhaps doing-in some no-code-test
advocate as was done to William Wallace of Scotland long ago:
"Quartering" with all parts buried in different locations. :-)
It will probably be a la the ARRL "sinning by omission." A simple
deletion and ignoring of any non-MMM poster. That way only
ONE way or viewpoint is visible to the public. The public will then
assume that the MMM view prevails. No problem...
The FCC regulates US amateur radio, not the "participants" in it.
Some "participants" think they rule, but they don't.
"Give a ham an inch and they think they are rulers!" :-)
Beep, beep,
Not Cocksucker Lloyd
an_old_friendless kiddie diddler wrote:
> Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:
> >
> gay bashers are not welcome anywhere
Neither are perverted pedophiles like you!
Not Cocksucker Lloyd
Slow Code wrote:
> Paul W. Schleck <psch...@novia.net> wrote in
> news:4511786a$0$89631$540e...@novia.net:
>
> > In <lsf1h2h98vvql1mig...@4ax.com> Ma...@kb9rqz.com writes:
> >
> >>On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" <n...@nnnwxyznet.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>><N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> >>>news:1158706655.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Seven years in prison, plus fines.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>WHO CARES? beside you.
> >>well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of
> >>the posting lately
> >>http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
> >
> > Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations,
> > including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup?
>
>
>
> Paul,
> Ignore Mark Morgan, he ain't playing with a full deck.
PKB, Toad.
> It's not off-topic for any radio group. I'm hoping to make this group
> respectable again, and you can help. If K3LT would would come back and
> other past RRAP CW supporters, we can kick out the anti-CW Homophiles
> like Woger,
Hey Stupid, Roger is pro-CW. He pased 13 wpm code to get his General!
>Mark & Lloyd, and make this group respectable again. I'd even
> get rid of SC and start using my callsign here again once the trash is
> taken out.
Toad, you spam right along with Marqueer!
Paul W Schleck
You are one of the reasons we are working on a moderaded news group.
Posters like you will not be allowed to post in the new group unless you
show some civility in your posts.
The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group
within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for
rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this
year, and eat your mother fucking heart out because you won't be able to
goddamn post.
Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can
go pound salt.
Jack
*FORGERY* of Paul. In Schleck's defense <shudder>
he comports himself in a rational adult manner.
Jack
"Paul W Schleck" <pwsc...@novena.net> wrote in message
news:4511bc8a$0$89635$540e...@novena.net...
Paul W. Schleck
>From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>><LenAn...@ieee.org> writes:
>> Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
>> he "enjoys" what goes on in here. <shrug>
>>You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.
> "Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]
>>What I said to
>>you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
>>newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
>>exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
>>present state.
> So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"
"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
have used the word "enjoy." I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below). You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?
> You are imagining things which aren't there.
> Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.
>>My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
>>here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.
> Not necessary. :-)
> You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
> vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
> in the modern sense. :-)
You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
understanding that "this is not a court of law." Rather, it seems to be
one where the only acceptable evidence in Len's mind is that which
advances Len's arguments.
I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?
>>> Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and
>>> anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away
>>> with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should
>>> KNOW that by now. >> >>As I noted in my previous followup, I was
>>> speaking to a wider audience, >>some of whom expressed their
>>> agreement with me in further followups.
> What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?
I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
and problem users.
>>If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
>>many, many such words?
> Because I can! :-)
I guess I can't argue with that. I can't make sense of it, but I can't
argue with it.
> Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED
> venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues.
Well, at least you're willing to admit that the FCC Comments and
Petitions process is unbiased to submitters. We have/had some on this
newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that.
>>>>Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
>>>>arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.
>>
>>> "Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"
>>
>>> Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"
>>
>>> The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
>>> Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
>>> to know that.
>>
>>I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
>>of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
>>should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
>>righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.
> Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.
I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be
arbitrary, and said so.
>> Since Dave Heil has now
>>followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
>>Herb was talking through his hat.
> Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
> that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."
> I do not use hats.
Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted
him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being
disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him.
>>Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
>>that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
>>specific.
> How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?
> Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
> "action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.
How about this, Len:
I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
not contributing to this problem through my inaction.
Would that satisfy you?
Let's recap:
Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."
Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
choice of words..."
Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?
Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've
allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a
quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in
his goals?
You made your argument above appear stronger by conveniently deleting
the quoted paragraphs in your latest followup where I do acknowledge
multiple possible credits for my wording, and where I also argue that
the Senator's quote helped win the 1992 election. It's reasonable to
argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a
conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using,
and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that
existed well before our times. If I wanted to crib the Senator's words,
I may as well have copied them exactly:
"Herb, I served with Dave Heil, I knew Dave Heil, Dave Heil was a friend
of mine. Herb, you are no Dave Heil."
but that would have been a very different quote, now wouldn't it?
Shakespeare is useful to mention here because he is viewed as one of the
first writers to really wield modern English deftly, including its
iambic pacing for dramatic effect, and leave a surviving record of his
writing. Even centuries later, we can all learn from his example.
>>For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
>>awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
>>before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
>>continuing participation here?
> It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
> of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
> that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."
> Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]
> Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
> trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
> of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
> going to believe my words or the words of others on my
> "motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
> only those others.
> What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random)
> participation in here?
Among other issues, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse
code test in US amateur radio licensing."
Since your stated goal above is also one of mine, why are there
arguments, attacks, etc., directed by you against me? Do you feel that
only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
forum, and no one else? Do you still not "give a flying fig" about
others' positions, even when they agree with yours? That's solipsism.
Here's a challenge to you, Len. I respectfully request that you
publicly make the following, objectively true, statement:
"Paul and I share a common goal to advocate the elimination of the
manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing."
If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to come up with some of
your own.
>>Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
>>(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
>>I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
>>announcement sometime this fall.
> I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
> newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
> matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
> subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.
I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
existence on the first attempt. Specific approval/disapproval of
articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.
However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:
- Provocation/Prevarication
- Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake
of arguing)/Filibustering/"Grease" (extending debate by avoiding
direct rejoinder)
- Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants
- Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to
yourself versus others
- Trying to justify the above behavior with, "But *he* started it!"
In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing
newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification.
> Beep, beep,
N2...@aol.com
>
> I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
> newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
> participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
> not contributing to this problem through my inaction.
Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a
moderator.
Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give
a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No
anonymous stuff.
The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is
reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector
guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it
too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens
very rarely.
That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with
civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results.
The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who
has email.
Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by
email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector?
--
And to get back on topic:
1) I think it would be useful to the amateur radio community for us to
know the involvement of local amateurs in bringing Gerritsen to
justice. IOW, what worked and what didn't, what hams can do and what
they should not do in such cases, etc.
2) "Amateur Radio Policy" goes far beyond the Morse Code test issue.
Sooner or later, the FCC will announce what it will do wrt the recent
NPRM.
IMHO, FCC may do the following:
A) Increase code testing (chances of that are infinitesimal)
B) Leave the present requirement unchanged (possible but unlikely)
C) Eliminate code test for General but keep it for Extra (majority of
commenters want this, but it's not very likely)
D) Combine code and written testing in such a way that the code test
still exists, but there are other testing options, so that the Morse
Code test is no longer an absolute, no-other-option requirement for any
class of amateur license. This has been done in Canada and was
suggested in my comments. (Possible)
E) Completely eliminate Morse Code testing. (Most likely)
If the FCC does A, B or C, the Morse Code test debates will probably
continue.
But if FCC does D or E, what policy issues should be on the table next?
73 de Jim, N2EY
LenAn...@ieee.org
Email: pwschl...@novena.net (Paul W Schleck)
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Note the "@novena.net" email location indicating this may be
a forgery of Paul Schleck's email address which is "@novia.net".
If it IS a forgery, then the Google newsgroup procedures
need some serious surgery and repair.
If it is NOT a forgery, then there is even more serious
surgery needed to remove cancers like the following:
>The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group
>within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for
>rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this
>year, and eat your mother fucking heart out because you won't be able to
>goddamn post.
>
>Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can
>go pound salt.
QED.
LenAn...@ieee.org
><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
>my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
>have used the word "enjoy."
"Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?
I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
read minds of others.
>I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
>behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
>(see below).
Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)
> You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
>retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
>clear enough?
Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
any minute? :-)
Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!
Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)
>You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
>assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
>convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
>understanding that "this is not a court of law."
This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.
>I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
>2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
>temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?
I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
so disturbed by things in here. :-)
[I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]
I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I? After all,
those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
expect ME to "control them?" :-)
>I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
>have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
>and problem users.
Small Freudian slip there. "Individuals" who you think are
surnamed by call letters are rather blatant pro-morse-code-
test fanatics. The "Old Friend" is also a licensed US
radio amateur but you fail to note his call and name. Mark
Morgan is a no-code-test advocate. See the relationship?
The probable (note supposition, not fact) "moderation" to
be seems evident.
>>>If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
>>>many, many such words?
>
>> Because I can! :-)
>
>I guess I can't argue with that.
Right! Now you are beginning to see the problem! :-)
This newsgroup has been out of control for a long time.
Anyone can post anything, including someone who forges
your name "@novena.net".
That's the reason that I recommend Total Dissolution of
this newsgroup. Elimination. For an indefinite period
of time.
>I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it.
Then you would be a poor choice for moderator. I've had
experience as a BBS public board moderator for several
years. It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone
but its the only way to do effective moderation. You
CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in
such an environment. That would be subjective bias.
Such as what you want to do in here...
>> Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED
>> venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues.
>
>Well, at least you're willing to admit that the FCC Comments and
>Petitions process is unbiased to submitters.
"Admit?!?" [bad choice of a word, Paul]
I have STATED what I wrote before. The FCC has stated that.
The Communications Act of 1934 that established the FCC must
accept commentary from all citizens on radio regulations,
ALL radio regulations. It is STATED in law.
>We have/had some on this
>newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that.
NOT my problem, NOT my words you talk about. "You want to
make unproven assertions, then if the accused want to
defend themselves and ..." Do not blame me for "others
words."
>I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be
>arbitrary, and said so.
So noted. Now what, another knock on the door by
"officials" for partially agreeing with him?
>Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted
>him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being
>disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him.
Heil frequently "chimes in" about others and others'
words, even taking it upon himself to "answer" replies
made to another. He does this mostly to no-code-test
advocates who are replying to amateur extra morsemen.
Google is full of his posts in that manner. QED.
["Chimes?" A whole table full of ringing bells manned
by morsemen ringers...and ding-alingers]
>I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
>newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
>participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
>not contributing to this problem through my inaction.
As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend
Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite
time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that]
This newsgroup does not serve its original purpose, that
of arguing the morse code test retention or elimination
in US amateur radio regulations. It has become a sewer
of filthy outpourings from trolls, sociopaths, misfits,
some of whom are identifiable as having amateur radio
licenses...very few engaging in an approximation of
"debate." It is a travesty of its intended purpose.
>Would that satisfy you?
Why do you ask? I am a no-code-test advocate. My FCC
license is a Commercial one. I don't parrot ARRL maxims.
I am merely a US citizen, one who has made a career in
electronics-radio, and served his country honorably in
the US military. Why ask ME? I'm not a "participant"
in licensed amateur radio...the kind where all the
licensees think they "run" it. I'm not one to slavishly
hold to old standards and practices in amateurism when
they are out of date. I don't need the emotional
sustenance of rank-status-title for "privileges" that
were lobbied for by older rank-status-title amateurs.
If you need to ASK someone, look to the public, to those
who WILL inherit the future involving radio. They will
outlive the rest of us. Will those of the near-future
look on US amateur radio as a quaint anachronism of
ancient times if it is frozen in place? I am willing
to bet they will but I'm hopeful to be proven wrong
on that statement. Only time will tell...
Life Member, IEEE (a professional association with 397
thousand members worldwide)
Arf! Arf!
stated in one sentence.
Brevity is NOT one of Len's strong points.
Prattle on, Len. Thank you for the <left eye wink> humor.
K4YZ
>
> (top two stories)
>
> More detail at:
>
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1
And on my birthday! Happy Happy BD to me!
Why does Morkie keep insisting that I am "lying" when all I am
doing is quoting HIM verbatim?
I'm not.
Here's YOUR words AGAIN, Morkie:
Message-ID: <1158542716.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
KB9RQZ Said: "oh learning code is easy"
There you have it, folks! Morkie says learning code is easy!
Quoted Word For Word!
Steve, K4YZ
LenAn...@ieee.org
><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>Let's recap:
Why? :-)
>Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
>clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."
>
>Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
>choice of words..."
>
>Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
>advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
>dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?
Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)
>Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've
>allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a
>quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in
>his goals?
You are building a Mount Everest out of an anthill. :-)
Try to remember that ANY public posting in any computer-
modem venue, from early BBS to the Internet, is OPEN for
"commentary" by ANYONE. If you take offense at every
negative comment that you perceive is directed at you,
you are already in trouble. But, that trouble is only
yours, your perception.
["Been there, done that," got lots of moderator T-shirts]
>You made your argument above appear stronger by conveniently deleting
>the quoted paragraphs in your latest followup where I do acknowledge
>multiple possible credits for my wording, and where I also argue that
>the Senator's quote helped win the 1992 election.
This newsgroup is not a national political election forum.
Really.
>It's reasonable to
>argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a
>conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using,
>and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that
>existed well before our times.
Try to concentrate on amateur radio policy matters in this
newsgroup. If you want to do Literary Review things, I'm
sure there is some kind of newsgroup for that somewhere.
This newsgroup is not a debate forum for national politics
of the USA of the past millennium. Really.
>Shakespeare is useful to mention here because he is viewed as one of the
>first writers to really wield modern English deftly, including its
>iambic pacing for dramatic effect, and leave a surviving record of his
>writing. Even centuries later, we can all learn from his example.
Should I bring that up at the next Writer's Guild meeting
in North Hollywood? How about the ABA in NYC? :-)
If you wish to admonish someone on use of the English
language a la the academia way, try hundreds of postings
by OTHERS in this newsgroup for the past week. :-)
Oh, and in passing, academia itself is divided on this
Shakespeare thing, especially on so few (read almost
none) original manuscripts surviving and scant factual
information about his life. BTASE, carry on with what
you want to discuss in a Literary Review forum someplace
else.
>>> What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random)
>>> participation in here?
>
>>Among other issues, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse
>>code test in US amateur radio licensing."
>
>Since your stated goal above is also one of mine, why are there
>arguments, attacks, etc., directed by you against me?
Please, turn DOWN your Personal Sensitivity control. If you
continue with it fully clockwise, your life as a moderator
will be very short indeed. Moderators need armor-plated
stainless steel cojones on the job, plus emotional shielding
to protect their sense of self.
> Do you feel that
>only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
>forum, and no one else?
Tsk, I state my opinions directly. If those collide with
others, then they collide. TS.
I will also make commentary about things and persons as I
would do in person. No formality is required, although
the self-righteous in here seem to think that de rigeur.
[i.e., "the court of law" syndrome of the overly
sensitive to any negative against Theirs...:-) ]
> Do you still not "give a flying fig" about
>others' positions, even when they agree with yours?
Yes. "Carbon copies" of what Others say aren't required.
>That's solipsism.
No, that's just the way computer-modem communications
work in public access. It was that way when ARPANET
got big, it was that way when it morphed into USENET,
and was that way when it was picked up on BBS networks.
And it remains that way on the Internet in those forums
called "Usenet." <shrug>
You have to realize that not all people agree on things.
Really. That's what makes us all unique...with some
possible exceptions of certain membership organizations
in the NE USA...but that is more religion than anything
else. :-)
>Here's a challenge to you, Len.
I've had thousands of "challenges" in my time. I do not
need any from anyone in this group.
Remember what happended to STS 51J?
>I respectfully request that you
>publicly make the following, objectively true, statement:
I decline. There is little proof available of this
alleged "objectiveness." :-)
>If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to come up with some of
>your own.
Thank you ever so much, your worship. ["highness?"]
Condescenion does not become you.
Oh, I feel perfectly free to come up with whatever I want
whether you like it or not. :-) Just as you are
perfectly free to express the usual disdain, condescension,
elitism of the federally-licensed high-born as practiced
by others in here. :-) All that and more have been
going on in here for years.
>I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
>moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
>existence on the first attempt.
Ah, so the "voters" (in whatever Mt. Olympus like domain
of the newsgroup powers-to-be) haven't got a clue as to
what to do? Certainly sounds like that.
Hint: Do NOT advertise possibilities of the future in
regards to "actions" of moderation. Just DO it. You
don't even have to wear Nikes on that job. :-)
>Specific approval/disapproval of
>articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
>have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.
Oh, goodie, it sounds like it will be weeks before someone
considered offensive will be dealt with. Meanwhile, their
offensive words will remain in view of all with access.
Remember what happened to the fabled Maginot Line? :-)
>However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
>usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
>permanent ban:
Why do you address that to me? "Been there, done that" in
computer-modem comms, remember? :-)
You WILL find that true moderator tasks will have to be
more draconian. But, you seem to think that the powers-
that-be invented moderating. <shrug>
That's like the myths held (dearly by some) by amateurs
that amateurs invented radio. :-)
>- Provocation/Prevarication
[such as "here's a challenge for you..."?]
>- Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake
> of arguing)/Filibustering/"Grease" (extending debate by avoiding
> direct rejoinder)
[all march to the same drum beat?]
>- Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants
[such as "little red-hatted monkey?"]
>- Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to
> yourself versus others
[such as "We amateur extras are better than you!"]
>- Trying to justify the above behavior with, "But *he* started it!"
[tsk, "it" was started with the Incestuous Licensing Plan...]
>In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing
>newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification.
Heh heh heh, you (as a member of the moderating team) have to
get the last little "dig" in? :-)
---
Tscha, my suggestion is still there: For an indefinite
period of time DELETE this newsgroup. Put it on a hold,
whatever. Let the sociopaths, misfits, the emotionally-
disturbed malcontents go somewhere else for their filthy
perverted jollies. You (and the newsgroup powers-that-
be) cannot control them now, what makes you think you
can control them with group "moderating?"
You have been a victim of forgery in here, an insidious
little malignancy of a URL modification is all that was
needed. What is there to stop forgeries in the future?
"Noble intentions?!?" <raucous laughter elided>
N2...@aol.com
> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
> ><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> >>From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
> >>><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
> radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I?
Heck, Len, you don't seem to be able to control your *own* actions
here...;-)
> This newsgroup has been out of control for a long time.
> Anyone can post anything, including someone who forges
> your name "@novena.net".
Gee, Len, you've posted here under at least seven different screen
names - probably more. Sometimes you don't identify yourself anywhere
in your posting. And you once denied posting here under a certain
screen name ("Averyfine" or "Averyfineman") but then were shown to have
been mistaken.
> That's the reason that I recommend Total Dissolution of
> this newsgroup. Elimination. For an indefinite period
> of time.
Why? If what goes on here bothers you too much, just leave. There are
other forums.
> >I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it.
>
> Then you would be a poor choice for moderator.
I think Paul W. Schleck would be a great choice for moderator, even
though I disagree with him on many amateur radio policy issues. K2UNK
and K2ASP would be excellent, too. There are lots more - most of whom
don't post here anymore.
> I've had
> experience as a BBS public board moderator for several
> years.
BBS's are old technology, Len. Does anybody even use them anymore?
> It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone
> but its the only way to do effective moderation.
Len, you're not polite in here to anyone who disagrees with you.
> You
> CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in
> such an environment. That would be subjective bias.
That's simply not true.
All the moderator has to do is to point out when someone is beginning
to push the group rules too far. If that person persists, they're
banned from posting for a time.
Of course, that means things like name-calling would not be allowed.
Making fun of someone's gender, ethnicity, work experience or
education, religion, etc., would get people kicked out.
> Such as what you want to do in here...
Seems to me that what Paul really wants is to discuss amateur radio
policy without all the shenanigans.
> >I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
> >newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
> >participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
> >not contributing to this problem through my inaction.
>
> As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend
> Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite
> time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that]
Why? If it's that bad, why are you here at all, Len? There are other
forums - but most of them are moderated.
> This newsgroup does not serve its original purpose, that
> of arguing the morse code test retention or elimination
> in US amateur radio regulations.
It's also a forum for the discussion of other amateur radio policy
issues, such as the number of license classes, the written exams,
subband allocations, amateur radio license numbers, and much more. Most
of which is being lost in the noise now.
> . It has become a sewer
> of filthy outpourings from trolls, sociopaths, misfits,
> some of whom are identifiable as having amateur radio
> licenses...very few engaging in an approximation of
> "debate." It is a travesty of its intended purpose.
Agreed!
> If you need to ASK someone, look to the public, to those
> who WILL inherit the future involving radio.
Who are "the public", Len? Why would they want radio for its own sake?
The appeal of amateur radio has always been to the few.
> They will
> outlive the rest of us.
Not all of them. "The public" keeps getting older and older....
btw, it was *you* (Leaonard H. Anderson) who suggested in official
comments to FCC that there be an age requirement for all classes of
amateur radio license. You specifically requested that the FCC keep
anyone under the age of 14 years out of amateur radio. You wanted to
ban some of the very people who would inherit the future involving
radio.
> Will those of the near-future
> look on US amateur radio as a quaint anachronism of
> ancient times if it is frozen in place? I am willing
> to bet they will but I'm hopeful to be proven wrong
> on that statement. Only time will tell...
We do know this: Lowering the code and written test requirements back
in 2000 has not brought about sustained growth in the number of
licensed US radio amateurs. The number of amateurs today is more than
15,000 lower than it was in 2000.
And on the subject of Mr. Gerritsen:
The Morse Code test did not "filter" him out of amateur radio. He never
took one!
Jim, N2EY
Paul W. Schleck
>Paul W. Schleck wrote:
>>
>> I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
>> newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
>> participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
>> not contributing to this problem through my inaction.
>Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a
>moderator.
>Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give
>a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No
>anonymous stuff.
>The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is
>reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector
>guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it
>too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens
>very rarely.
>That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with
>civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results.
>The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who
>has email.
>Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by
>email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector?
Good questions!
Some of the answers are in the article "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons":
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.misc/msg/2c5a58c8d3396e17
that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as
useful reading to our proposed moderation team.
Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of
subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming.
Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual
assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up
SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from
automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients.
Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of
bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing
lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they
send the same message over and over and over and ...
Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as
mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups.
As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a
user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to
ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow
base of expertise then results. There are arguably many more
"unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this
specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many
fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of
the administrative burdens.
Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a
distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares
communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well,
still nearly so). It is publicly archived at Google. All forums are
indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is
a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The
newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user
consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official"
newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official"
replacement mailing lists?
I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):
http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.
All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.
--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
LV
"Paul W. Schleck" <psch...@novia.net> wrote nothing of any
importance, as usual, in a message:
////remaining drivel flushed/////
Moderated Group?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
N2...@aol.com
> >Paul W. Schleck wrote:
I'll take a look!
>
> Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of
> subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming.
> Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual
> assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up
> SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from
> automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients.
> Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of
> bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing
> lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they
> send the same message over and over and over and ...
Agreed to a point.
Part of the question is size. How many people will really read a
moderated policy group? The number of posters here has always been
pretty small, and when you eliminate the anonymous, the people using
multiple IDs and the noise, the numbers may be smaller than many
reflectors I know of.
> Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as
> mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups.
> As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a
> user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to
> ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow
> base of expertise then results.
Agreed to a point. But at the same time, how much use does Usenet get
anymore? For example, some time back, AOL discontinued direct access,
citing low usage.
> There are arguably many more
> "unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this
> specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many
> fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of
> the administrative burdens.
Maybe. The irony of the "information superhighway"
> Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a
> distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares
> communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well,
> still nearly so).
I see access going down, though. Besides AOL's discontinuance, Google
has moved it to a back page, as it were. Website-based forums like
qrz.com and eham.net seem much more active nowadays.
> It is publicly archived at Google.
To the chagrin of some posters to rrap.....;-)
> All forums are
> indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is
> a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The
> newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user
> consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official"
> newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official"
> replacement mailing lists?
All I'm saying is that I've seen email reflectors work well with
several hundred subscribers. How many people actually read rrap?
> I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
> thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
> Program (STUMP):
>
> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
- is that true?
> Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
> would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
> misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
> be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
> submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
> submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
> workload will drop over time.
>
> All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.
Thanks for the info!
---
And I'll repeat my other question:
If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?
73 de Jim, N2EY
LV
VERY doubtful, will consist of him and maybe a half dozen
or less other people, with OF COURSE, Schleck as the
*CENSOR-IN-CHARGE* <drum rolls> <bugles>
eham, qrz.com, qth.com and others have multiple ham
forums, with thousands of participants. You are only about
two decades behind times Schleck. Nevertheless, have fun
building your tiny little empire. It will do wonders for your
thin skin and ego. ROTFLMAO!
Dave Heil
> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
> Email: Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@novia.net>
>
>
>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> Let's recap:
>
> Why? :-)
>
>> Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
>> clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."
>>
>> Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
>> choice of words..."
>>
>> Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
>> advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
>> dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?
>
> Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
> Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
> radio license? :-)
Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
>
>> Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've
>> allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a
>> quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in
>> his goals?
>
> You are building a Mount Everest out of an anthill. :-)
>
> Try to remember that ANY public posting in any computer-
> modem venue, from early BBS to the Internet, is OPEN for
> "commentary" by ANYONE.
Just a couple of days ago, you made a post where you felt compelled to
state that I reply to posts not directed to me. You've gotten yourself
into a little dilemma, old boy.
> If you take offense at every
> negative comment that you perceive is directed at you,
> you are already in trouble. But, that trouble is only
> yours, your perception.
Then why do you feel the necessity of going to ALL CAPS and raving of
PERSONAL denigration, especially after you've engaged in personal
denigration?
> ["Been there, done that," got lots of moderator T-shirts]
You certainly have been there and done that, t-shirts not withstanding.
>> It's reasonable to
>> argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a
>> conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using,
>> and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that
>> existed well before our times.
>
> Try to concentrate on amateur radio policy matters in this
> newsgroup. If you want to do Literary Review things, I'm
> sure there is some kind of newsgroup for that somewhere.
Please remember that you wrote the above words. You are very likely to
see them again.
> This newsgroup is not a debate forum for national politics
> of the USA of the past millennium. Really.
Is it about your military escapades of better than a half-century back?
Does it concern itself with your PROFESSIONAL experience?
>> Do you feel that
>> only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
>> forum, and no one else?
>
> Tsk, I state my opinions directly. If those collide with
> others, then they collide. TS.
And if others react to your direct opinions and to the manner in which
they are presented?
> I will also make commentary about things and persons as I
> would do in person.
If you had said some of the things in a face-to-face encounter that
you've written here, odds are that you'd find yourself on the seat of
your pants fairly often.
> Tscha, my suggestion is still there: For an indefinite
> period of time DELETE this newsgroup. Put it on a hold,
> whatever. Let the sociopaths, misfits, the emotionally-
> disturbed malcontents go somewhere else for their filthy
> perverted jollies. You (and the newsgroup powers-that-
> be) cannot control them now, what makes you think you
> can control them with group "moderating?"
That should be easy to figure out, Len. Their posts don't appear.
Dave K8MN
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Dave Heil wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
> > Email: Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@novia.net>
> >
> >
> >> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> >>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
> >>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> >
> >> Let's recap:
> >
> > Why? :-)
> >
> >> Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
> >> clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."
> >>
> >> Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
> >> choice of words..."
> >>
> >> Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
> >> advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
> >> dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?
> >
> > Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
> > Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
> > radio license? :-)
>
> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
Robesin did.
Dave Heil
How do you put it--take a WAG?
> Robesin did.
I don't know anyone named Robesin.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>
>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> "Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
>> my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
>> have used the word "enjoy."
>
> "Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?
>
> I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
> read minds of others.
>
>> I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
>> behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
>> (see below).
>
> Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)
>
>> You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
>> retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
>> clear enough?
>
> Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
> any minute? :-)
Wouldn't it be easier to acknowledge it and apologize to the man?
> Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
> context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
> take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!
Is it true? If not, did you retract it?
> Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
> to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)
It looks like you fired.
>> You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
>> assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
>> convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
>> understanding that "this is not a court of law."
>
> This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.
>
>> I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
>> 2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
>> temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?
>
> I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
> short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
> so disturbed by things in here. :-)
>
> [I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
> and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]
Why, Leonard, you have often committed libel and outrage and you are
known to be one who cannot control himself in here!
> I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
> radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I?
It isn't likely; you can't even control yourself.
> After all,
> those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
> in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
> and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
> expect ME to "control them?" :-)
Your standards swing widely. You have recently expected me to control a
regular poster here. You demanded that I condemn him.
Remember your words. You are very likely to seem them again in the near
future. In fact, you'll see them when you next decide that Jim or I
should be responsible to something Steve Robeson writes.
>
>> I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be
>> arbitrary, and said so.
>
> So noted. Now what, another knock on the door by
> "officials" for partially agreeing with him?
>
>
>> Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted
>> him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being
>> disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him.
>
> Heil frequently "chimes in" about others and others'
> words, even taking it upon himself to "answer" replies
> made to another. He does this mostly to no-code-test
> advocates who are replying to amateur extra morsemen.
> Google is full of his posts in that manner. QED.
Len, tell us about how this is usenet and that anyone is free to comment
on anything posted here. I really liked that one.
> ["Chimes?" A whole table full of ringing bells manned
> by morsemen ringers...and ding-alingers]
>
>
>> I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
>> newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
>> participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
>> not contributing to this problem through my inaction.
>
> As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend
> Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite
> time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that]
You recommend? That's pretty presumptuous of you. You aren't a radio
amateur.
> LenAn...@ieee.org
>
> Life Member, IEEE (a professional association with 397
> thousand members worldwide)
Len, I'm a little confused about some IEEE matters. How do you justify
a number of your posts in light of the IEEE Code of Ethics?
http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.xml
I was puzzled when I read:
7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to
acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the
contributions of others;
8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race,
religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;
9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment
by false or malicious action;
Dave K8MN
Arf! Arf!
that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as
useful reading to our proposed moderation team.
Bottom line? Paul wants a "moderated" (translation...Censored) group that
He, Paul will be in total control of.
Yes, as said by another, this proposed group will most likely consist of
Paul and one or two others at most and I predict that the Newsgroup will not
get off the ground.
Paul, do yourself a favor and double check your ego. To be blunt? Nobody
really cares, Paul. Save for yourself.
I suggest you forge ahead with your proposed *moderated* group. Please do
so! Then, after several weeks of nobody joining same, perhaps you will then
come to the stark realization that nobody is interested and that you have no
like-minded disciples.
But of course Paul is already aware of the above and my bet is that Paul
will not proceed with his *moderated* group so as to spare himself any
further embarrassment. Paul's proposal is akin to, I Gave A Party And Nobody
Attended.
Don't give up the concept, Paul. There are many *moderated* forums
worldwide. China has many, as do any number of one horse dictatorships
around the globe. Yours won't be any different.
Paul W. Schleck
>Paul W. Schleck wrote:
[...]
>> In <1158968847.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> N2...@AOL.COM writes:
>> I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
>> thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
>> Program (STUMP):
>>
>> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
>Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
>through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
>- is that true?
There's several modes that STUMP can operate in. It can always pass
articles to a moderator for full review. It can also operate against a
white-list of approved users and pass their articles on directly to the
newsgroup without moderator intervention. STUMP has some sanity
checking against forgeries and other inappropriate content, and this can
be reinforced with other mail-filtering front-ends such as Procmail (not
white-listing posts from known open/rogue news sites would be the main
enhancement we would add).
The misc.kids.moderated team figured that if a poster was able to submit
three unique, timely, and on-topic articles that would otherwise be
approved by the moderation team based on other factors like civil tone
and respect for others' opinions, then that person could be trusted to
be white-listed in the future. Of course, there is always the option to
yank that white-listing if there is future misbehavior. White-listed
users would have to identify with what we reasonably believe to be an
unforged "Last Name or Callsign."
Incorrigible users with demonstrated and ongoing records of simply not
being able to respect, or debate fairly with, others could easily be
locked out of the newsgroup. Their articles wouldn't even be considered
by the newsgroup, as they would be bounced back without being viewed by
a moderator. Such permanent blacklisting should only be done in
exceptionally grave cases. We're contemplating starting everyone out
with a "clean" record, then applying a sliding scale of warnings and
temporary bans up to that ultimate penalty based on future behavior.
Specifics will be in the RFD.
And of course, there would be the gray areas such as submitters who can
contribute positively but need every article scrutinized for lapses, new
submitters without an established three-article track record for
white-listing, articles coming through open news servers such as Google
Groups or aioe.org where the source cannot be reasonably authenticated
by automated means, as well as other things that may require moderator
review such as SPAM that got through other filters, off-topic
submissions, etc. These will be directed to a queue for prompt review
by a member of the moderation team. Over time, the gray area should get
smaller and smaller, and thus our workload should reduce.
>> Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
>> would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
>> misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
>> be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
>> submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
>> submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
>> workload will drop over time.
>>
>> All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.
>Thanks for the info!
>---
>And I'll repeat my other question:
>If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
>did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?
>73 Dee Jim, N2EE
Probably some of things I mentioned in a previous reply to Len that
rebutted his assertion that the "sole purpose" of the newsgroup was to
debate Morse code testing:
In addition to the examples I mentioned, probably also the following:
- Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.
- Ongoing FCC attempts at mode-agnostic bandplanning, such as that
put forward in RM 11306.
- How to do this without overruning the amateur radio bands with closed,
proprietary systems being used as telecommunications substitutes, such
as ocean sailors' use of WinLink 2000.
SS
because they too demand total control of what news is
published?
LenAn...@ieee.org
>Dave Heil wrote:
>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> > From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>> >> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>> >>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>> >>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>> > Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
>> > Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
>> > radio license? :-)
>
>> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
>
>Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
>
>Robesin did.
They are birds of a feather, Brian. The only difference
between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
is evident in both.
Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]
Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
is faulty.
Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
others.
The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license. In any discussion with others about a singular
test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.
That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(
N2...@aol.com
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
> In <1159046048.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> N2...@AOL.COM writes:
>
> >Paul W. Schleck wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> In <1158968847.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> N2...@AOL.COM writes:
> >> I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
> >> thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
> >> Program (STUMP):
> >>
> >> http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/
>
> >Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
> >through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
> >- is that true?
>
> There's several modes that STUMP can operate in. It can always pass
> articles to a moderator for full review. It can also operate against a
> white-list of approved users and pass their articles on directly to the
> newsgroup without moderator intervention. STUMP has some sanity
> checking against forgeries and other inappropriate content, and this can
> be reinforced with other mail-filtering front-ends such as Procmail (not
> white-listing posts from known open/rogue news sites would be the main
> enhancement we would add).
OK so far - all ways that reduce the number of posts a moderator has to
read.
>
> The misc.kids.moderated team figured that if a poster was able to submit
> three unique, timely, and on-topic articles that would otherwise be
> approved by the moderation team based on other factors like civil tone
> and respect for others' opinions, then that person could be trusted to
> be white-listed in the future. Of course, there is always the option to
> yank that white-listing if there is future misbehavior. White-listed
> users would have to identify with what we reasonably believe to be an
> unforged "Last Name or Callsign."
Sounds like a lot of rules but OK.
It seems to me that such a complex system would be needed for groups
with lots of different contributors. Does rrap really have that many
people reading it?
> >Thanks for the info!
>
> >---
>
> >And I'll repeat my other question:
>
> >If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
> >did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?
>
> Probably some of things I mentioned in a previous reply to Len that
> rebutted his assertion that the "sole purpose" of the newsgroup was to
> debate Morse code testing:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.amateur.policy/browse_thread/thread/3b366517f88490e/744a8a9165697020?lnk=st
Regardless of the original purpose of rrap, its charter has broadened
to meet the name "policy"
>
> In addition to the examples I mentioned, probably also the following:
>
> - Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.
>
> - Ongoing FCC attempts at mode-agnostic bandplanning, such as that
> put forward in RM 11306.
>
> - How to do this without overruning the amateur radio bands with closed,
> proprietary systems being used as telecommunications substitutes, such
> as ocean sailors' use of WinLink 2000.
>
Seems the right direction to me.
It also seems to me that such a moderated group could exist in parallel
with rrap as we know it today. Let those who do not want moderation
have their unmoderated forum, and those who can live with the
moderation rules have theirs.
73 de Jim, N2EY
an old friend
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>
> >Dave Heil wrote:
> >> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> > From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
> >> >> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> >> >>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
> >> >>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
> >> > Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
> >> > Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
> >> > radio license? :-)
> >
> >> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
> >
> >Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
> >
> >Robesin did.
>
> They are birds of a feather, Brian. The only difference
> between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
> the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
> is evident in both.
>
> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
> at the same time logic...]
>
> Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
> to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
> REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
> is faulty.
>
> Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
> the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
> amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
> but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
> does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
> others.
>
> The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
> but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
> license. In any discussion with others about a singular
> test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
> assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
> hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.
>
> That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
> US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
> has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(
yep and they whine about thee hobby dying around them slowly too
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>From: "Paul W Schleck" on Fri, Sep 22 2006 3:21 pm
>Email: pwschl...@novena.net (Paul W Schleck)
>Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
>
> Note the "@novena.net" email location indicating this may be
> a forgery of Paul Schleck's email address which is "@novia.net".
>
> If it IS a forgery, then the Google newsgroup procedures
> need some serious surgery and repair.
Google makes it easy to forge and Google does nothing to even monitor
its own posters
>
> If it is NOT a forgery, then there is even more serious
> surgery needed to remove cancers like the following:
>
>>The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group
>>within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for
>>rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this
>>year, and eat your mother fucking heart out because you won't be able to
>>goddamn post.
>>
>>Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can
>>go pound salt.
>
> QED.
>
>
> LenAn...@ieee.org
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>
>><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>>"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
>>my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
>>have used the word "enjoy."
>
> "Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?
>
> I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
> read minds of others.
no realy I would have thought not being burdened with Morse Code you
could manage that
>
>>I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
>>behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
>>(see below).
>
> Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)
>
>> You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
>>retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
>>clear enough?
>
> Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
> any minute? :-)
nah just Robeson who with his seaul issues likely wants sex from you
but can't admit it
>
> Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
> context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
> take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!
direferent rules apply
>
> Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
> to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)
>
>
>>You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
>>assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
>>convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
>>understanding that "this is not a court of law."
>
> This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.
thank God
>
>>I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
>>2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
>>temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?
>
> I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
> short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
> so disturbed by things in here. :-)
>
> [I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
> and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]
>
> I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
> radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I? After all,
> those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
> in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
> and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
> expect ME to "control them?" :-)
>
inded we are expected to control the extras and are not worthy of
being in the same NG
>
>>I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
>>have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
>>and problem users.
>
> Small Freudian slip there. "Individuals" who you think are
> surnamed by call letters are rather blatant pro-morse-code-
> test fanatics. The "Old Friend" is also a licensed US
> radio amateur but you fail to note his call and name. Mark
> Morgan is a no-code-test advocate. See the relationship?
indeed it is telling the deferent way the Techs are treated in the ARS
very telling
indeed edefening one name is all but a crime in his eyes
I hope the FCC wil soon get of it duff do it job and let Nodocde ars
try to repair the damage of "pur Beters"
LenAn...@ieee.org
Ma...@kb9rqz.com wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2006 20:17:44 -0700, "LenAn...@ieee.org"
> <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
> >
> >><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> >>>From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
> >>>><LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> >
> >>"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
> >>my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
> >>have used the word "enjoy."
> >
> > "Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?
> >
> > I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
> > read minds of others.
>
> no realy I would have thought not being burdened with Morse Code you
> could manage that
Well, I might try making a time machine later. I'm having trouble
with my anti-gravity project: Something is holding me down. :-)
> >>I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
> >>behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
> >>(see below).
> >
> > Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)
> >
> >> You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
> >>retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
> >>clear enough?
> >
> > Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
> > any minute? :-)
>
> nah just Robeson who with his seaul issues likely wants sex from you
> but can't admit it
Really? Is he THAT hard up? Yuck...!
> > Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
> > context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
> > take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!
>
> direferent rules apply
Of course they do. In order to get into amateur radio one has
to be already-licensed in amateur radio! :-)
> > Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
> > to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)
> >
> >
> >>You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
> >>assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
> >>convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
> >>understanding that "this is not a court of law."
> >
> > This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.
>
> thank God
Careful, Mark. Some in here think they ARE God...
> >>I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
> >>2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
> >>temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?
> >
> > I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
> > short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
> > so disturbed by things in here. :-)
> >
> > [I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
> > and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]
> >
> > I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
> > radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I? After all,
> > those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
> > in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
> > and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
> > expect ME to "control them?" :-)
> >
>
> inded we are expected to control the extras and are not worthy of
> being in the same NG
Amateur extra morsemen are the elite, answerable only to
themselves.
> >> >>I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
> >>have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
> >>and problem users.
> >
> > Small Freudian slip there. "Individuals" who you think are
> > surnamed by call letters are rather blatant pro-morse-code-
> > test fanatics. The "Old Friend" is also a licensed US
> > radio amateur but you fail to note his call and name. Mark
> > Morgan is a no-code-test advocate. See the relationship?
>
> indeed it is telling the deferent way the Techs are treated in the ARS
> very telling
>
> indeed edefening one name is all but a crime in his eyes
What did you expect from the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society
(ARS) ?
>> I hope the FCC wil soon get of it duff do it job and let Nodocde ars
>> try to repair the damage of "pur Beters"
The "betters" (amateur extra morsemen) say "it isn't broke, doesn't
need fixing." US amateur radio below 30 MHz seems to be made
for the amateur extra morsemen...natuarlly they don't want a thing
altered in there...they have a "home" at the lower end of all HF
bands, claim they "own" it. At least one thinks he is chief of
Zoning there, gets mad when his comparison to real living is
destroyed. <shrug>
The FCC has a lot to do with regulating ALL US civil radio. It will
get around to ruling on last year's NPRM when it wants to. We
have to be patient with the FCC. Not to worry, the ARRL and
amateur extra morsemen think they are running US amateur
radio. :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
> Len, I'm a little confused about some IEEE matters. How do you justify
> a number of your posts in light of the IEEE Code of Ethics?
>
> http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.xml
>
> I was puzzled when I read:
The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a
PROFESSIONAL Association.
If you have "confusion" about it, feel free to write them at:
IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA
If your haughtiness has a problem with my PROFESSIONAL
membership, take it up with the IEEE directly. You can include
"questions" on NON-work "conduct" all you want.
To carry your threat further, I'll remind you that I have negatively
criticized (at times) the President of the United States, the
Vice-President (at his undisclosed location), the Secretary of
State, the FCC, the Department of Defense, FEMA, IRS, NTIA,
FBI and all branches of the US military. In addition, I have, at
times, criticized the California state government and individual
elected and non-elected officials there, the cities and city
governments within California, Illinois, New York, Texas.
Now, if you wish to have me "investigated" for some reason,
feel free to place a single telephone call to "authorities" to
have me "picked up." Your buddie, the USMC Imposter has
threatened that in the past. You HAVE the connections,
don't you? You WERE on the famous "key lists" weren't
you? You ARE very important because you are an amateur
extra morseman, the elite of the amateur radio service...
Until then I will remain an independent citizen of the USA, a
veteran of US military service, a commercial radio operator
licensee and will freely engage in the FREEDOMS guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States, one of those being
FREEDOM of EXPRESSION.
If you don't like that sort of attitude, go back to the Waffen SS
or invoke the famous phrase of the ByteBrothers.
[goodnight, Jimmy Pearson, wherever you are...]
Dave Heil
> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>
>> Dave Heil wrote:
>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
>>>> Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
>>>> Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
>>>> radio license? :-)
>>> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
>> Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
>>
>> Robesin did.
>
> They are birds of a feather, Brian. The only difference
> between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
> the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
> is evident in both.
I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.
Do you have anything else to share with the group?
> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
> at the same time logic...]
You've talked. You've commented to the FCC. You've commented, ranted,
railed and have generally acted like a small child here. What next?
> Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
> to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
> REGULATE US amateur radio.
No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license. You don't work
at the DMV or the FCC.
> Heil's concept of who rules
> is faulty.
You don't regulate. You aren't a radio amateur. You have no stake in
amateur radio.
> Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
> the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
> amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
> but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
> does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
> others.
I'm fully aware that I don't "rule" amateur radio. I'm fully aware that
the FCC does "rule" amateur radio. I'm fully aware that you aren't the
FCC or a radio amateur.
> The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
> but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
> license.
When it comes to amateur radio, you are not bound by FCC regulations
unless you decide to take to the air illegally.
I'm quite happy to observe the regulations governing amateur radio in
this country. I've received not as much as a single warning letter from
the FCC in nearly 43 years.
> In any discussion with others about a singular
> test to ENTER amateur radio,
You aren't entering amateur radio.
> Heil does not play well...
I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.
> ...and
> assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
> hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.
Tell you what to do, Len? I've not ordered you to obtain an amateur
radio license or not to obtain an amateur radio license. I've not told
you to comment to the FCC or not to comment to the FCC. If you don't
like my "smug arrogance", change your own tactics.
> That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
> US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares.
Len, why don't you address the IEEE Code of Ethics?
> Heil
> has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(
Anyone who chooses to obtain an amateur radio license may do so without
any interference from me. You've been braying in this newsgroup for
better than a decade. You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur
radio license. I had nothing to do with your failure to do so. You're
a victim of inertia.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>>> Dave Heil wrote:
>>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.
Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test? No harm will come
to you if the test is eliminated.
>> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
>> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
>> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
>> at the same time logic...]
>
>You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.
Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
regulations.
>You've commented, ranted,
>railed and have generally acted like a small child here.
Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
again. :-)
>No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license.
WRONG. Driving inspectors MUST hold valid drivers
licenses in Illinois and California.
>You don't work at the DMV or the FCC.
Clear something up for us: Do you REQUIRE that anyone
work at a Department of Motor Vehicles in order to talk
and discuss US amateur radio regulations?!?
A most irrational statement you made.
Here's a plain and simple fact: The FCC does NOT require
any commissioner or staffer to be granted amateur radio
licenses in order to regulated US civil radio. Really.
>You don't regulate.
Regulate WHAT? There are many many things that I
regularly regulate. :-) US civil radio regulations
are NOT something I regulate.
>You aren't a radio amateur.
True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?
>You have no stake in amateur radio.
Now, now, Count Dracula, don't get worried. :-)
Tsk, you are still angry and petulant. NOT a good
attitude.
YOU are an amateur extra but YOU do NOT regulate US
amateur radio. The FCC does that, grants amateur
radio licenses, shuts down amateur radio stations for
rules violations, can even establish federal fines for
such violations.
>I'm fully aware that I don't "rule" amateur radio.
You don't rule there. You don't regulate amateur radio.
>I'm fully aware that the FCC does "rule" amateur radio.
Are you SURE about that? You vacillate back and forth
so much...
>I'm fully aware that you aren't the FCC or a radio amateur.
Remarkable 'awareness!' Do you think that will get you
a cookie? :-)
>> The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
>> but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
>> license.
>
>When it comes to amateur radio, you are not bound by FCC regulations
>unless you decide to take to the air illegally.
Tsk, angry, petulant, and now ACCUSATORY of something you
state "I am going to do!"
You ARE wrong about FCC regulations. I am very much bound
by FCC regulations, both by radio but also for certain
wireline communications. You really need the entire Title
47 C.F.R. to confirm that (for your own edification).
>I'm quite happy to observe the regulations governing amateur radio in
>this country. I've received not as much as a single warning letter from
>the FCC in nearly 43 years.
Marvelous! Should we chip in get you a nice little gold
star for your report card?
I don't recall that anyone was accusing you of anything
other than a bad temper, irrational behavior, or trying
to imitate some Waffen SS offizier in here. FCC doesn't
regulate behavior.
>You aren't entering amateur radio.
I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?
>I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
>others than Leonard H. Anderson.
Now, now, you are adding a mean streak to your bad temper,
petulance, and irrationality. Try playing "nice." :-)
>I've not ordered you to obtain an amateur
>radio license or not to obtain an amateur radio license.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You certainly gone on and on and on and
on about my "not having one!" Why is that?
>I've not told
>you to comment to the FCC or not to comment to the FCC.
You've certainly gone on and on and on and on and
on about attempting ridicule of what I've written
to the FCC. :-)
>If you don't like my "smug arrogance", change your own tactics.
Now, now, you ARE telling me what to do! Hypocrite.
>Len, why don't you address the IEEE Code of Ethics?
Oh, but I DID! Here is the address again:
IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscatawny, NJ 08855-1331
USA
I apologize for not giving the web address: www.ieee.org
You are free to talk all you want with the IEEE Ethics
Committee.
You might even consider membership in the IEEE, but you
will have to get three IEEE members to vouch for you.
You probably won't live long enough to qualify for a
Life Member status (it is a free upgrade and doesn't
require dues payments after that).
>Anyone who chooses to obtain an amateur radio license may do so without
>any interference from me.
How wonderfully magnanimous of Heil! :-)
>You've been braying in this newsgroup for better than a decade.
"Braying?" Neighhhh, Wilbur. :-)
>You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.
Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!
>I had nothing to do with your failure to do so.
"Failure?!?" Tsk, tsk, never tried.
I've had a Commercial radio operator license since 1956.
Why do you insist I have an AMATEUR license?
Tsk, Heil is exhibiting irrationality again.
>You're a victim of inertia.
Must be that why my anti-gravity project failed; Something
was holding me down! Should I channel Isaac N. for a cure?
Well, maybe you're right. I've had an abiding interest,
indeed a GREAT interest in women since the beginning of
my teens...but, never ONCE had I any interest in BECOMING
one! How about that?
Beep, beep,
LenAn...@ieee.org
Life Member
IEEE is a Professional Association with 397 thousand members
worldwide.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
wrote:
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>> Email: Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@novia.net>
>>
>>
>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>> Let's recap:
>>
>> Why? :-)
>>
>>> Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
>>> clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."
>>>
>>> Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
>>> choice of words..."
>>>
>>> Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
>>> advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
>>> dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?
>>
>> Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
>> Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
>> radio license? :-)
>
>Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
so?
>
>>
>>> Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've
>>> allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a
>>> quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in
>>> his goals?
>>
>> You are building a Mount Everest out of an anthill. :-)
>>
>> Try to remember that ANY public posting in any computer-
>> modem venue, from early BBS to the Internet, is OPEN for
>> "commentary" by ANYONE.
>
>Just a couple of days ago, you made a post where you felt compelled to
>state that I reply to posts not directed to me. You've gotten yourself
>into a little dilemma, old boy.
"felt compelled" what delimma pointing out your actions does not
create any delimma in pointing out your motives says nothing about Len
>
>> If you take offense at every
>> negative comment that you perceive is directed at you,
>> you are already in trouble. But, that trouble is only
>> yours, your perception.
>
>Then why do you feel the necessity of going to ALL CAPS and raving of
>PERSONAL denigration, especially after you've engaged in personal
>denigration?
when was the last time Len threatened to murder some one or insited
that his oppepent was homosexaul or a child molestor
I doubt it
>
>
>> Tscha, my suggestion is still there: For an indefinite
>> period of time DELETE this newsgroup. Put it on a hold,
>> whatever. Let the sociopaths, misfits, the emotionally-
>> disturbed malcontents go somewhere else for their filthy
>> perverted jollies. You (and the newsgroup powers-that-
>> be) cannot control them now, what makes you think you
>> can control them with group "moderating?"
>
>That should be easy to figure out, Len. Their posts don't appear.
>
>Dave K8MN
Paul W. Schleck
>Dave Heil wrote:
>> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> > From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>> Len, I'm a little confused about some IEEE matters. How do you justify
>> a number of your posts in light of the IEEE Code of Ethics?
>>
>> http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.xml
>>
>> I was puzzled when I read:
> The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a
> PROFESSIONAL Association.
> If you have "confusion" about it, feel free to write them at:
> IEEE
> 445 Hoes Lane
> Box 1331
> Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
> USA
> If your haughtiness has a problem with my PROFESSIONAL
> membership, take it up with the IEEE directly. You can include
> "questions" on NON-work "conduct" all you want.
So, Len, your personal morality makes a distinction between how you
treat people in professional vs. personal life. In your personal,
non-professional life, you feel that it is acceptable and defensible:
7. to avoid, refuse, and withhold honest criticism of technical work, to
deny and ignore errors, and to credit improperly the contributions of
others;
8. to treat unfairly all persons particularly of such factors as race,
religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;
9. to seek injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment
by false or malicious action;
--
Dave Heil
> From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
>
>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>>>> Dave Heil wrote:
>>>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
>> I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.
>
> Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
> us who want to eliminate the code test?
You keep making the same mistake, over and over. I'm not angry. I'm
ridiculing you, Len Anderson.
> No harm will come
> to you if the test is eliminated.
Any change made to regulations dealing with amateur radio effect me and
all others current licensees.
>
>>> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
>>> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
>>> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
>>> at the same time logic...]
>> You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.
>
> Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
> WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
> regulations.
My stance isn't illogical at all. It can't begin to compare to a fellow
who spends ten years of his life obsessed with something in which he has
no involvement. You're amateur radio fetish is beyond compare.
>> You've commented, ranted,
>> railed and have generally acted like a small child here.
>
> Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
> again. :-)
I'm not at all angry. I'm pointing out a fact.
>
>> No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license.
>
> WRONG. Driving inspectors MUST hold valid drivers
> licenses in Illinois and California.
Great. I'll grant that those administering actual driving tests are
quite likely to need a driving license. Those who work inside, the
clerks who transfer titles, issue licenses and such, don't need such a
license.
>> You don't work at the DMV or the FCC.
>
> Clear something up for us: Do you REQUIRE that anyone
> work at a Department of Motor Vehicles in order to talk
> and discuss US amateur radio regulations?!?
Clear something up for "us": Do you have anything at all to do with any
state DMV or the Federal Communications Commission?
> A most irrational statement you made.
>
> Here's a plain and simple fact: The FCC does NOT require
> any commissioner or staffer to be granted amateur radio
> licenses in order to regulated US civil radio. Really.
And? If any of those FCC employees or commissioners want to take part
in amateur radio, they need to obtain a license in the same manner as
anyone else who becomes licenses. Really.
>
>> You don't regulate.
>
> Regulate WHAT? There are many many things that I
> regularly regulate. :-)
Oh, yes. When a man gets to a certain age, he is likely to need more
fiber in his diet. :-)
> US civil radio regulations
> are NOT something I regulate.
I thought I said that.
>> You aren't a radio amateur.
>
> True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
> US amateur radio regulations?
Nobody has stopped you from talking. What you want is a quiet audience.
You aren't entitled to that.
>> You have no stake in amateur radio.
>
> Now, now, Count Dracula, don't get worried. :-)
I'm not at all worried, Len.
> Tsk, you are still angry and petulant. NOT a good
> attitude.
You make the same mistake over and over and over.
> YOU are an amateur extra but YOU do NOT regulate US
> amateur radio.
I recall saying that.
> The FCC does that, grants amateur
> radio licenses, shuts down amateur radio stations for
> rules violations, can even establish federal fines for
> such violations.
That's right. You have the hang of it. I've not been shut down nor
fined. You, on the other hand, aren't involved in amateur radio.
>
>> I'm fully aware that I don't "rule" amateur radio.
>
> You don't rule there. You don't regulate amateur radio.
I used the term which was stated by Leonard H. Anderson.
>> I'm fully aware that the FCC does "rule" amateur radio.
>
> Are you SURE about that? You vacillate back and forth
> so much...
I haven't stated that I'm going to obtain an Extra right out of the box,
then that I have no intention of obtaining an amateur radio license and
then that I am getting into amateur radio and then that I have no desire
to obtain an amateur radio license. Now *that* is vacillation!
>> I'm fully aware that you aren't the FCC or a radio amateur.
>
> Remarkable 'awareness!' Do you think that will get you
> a cookie? :-)
It already did.
>
>>> The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
>>> but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
>>> license.
>> When it comes to amateur radio, you are not bound by FCC regulations
>> unless you decide to take to the air illegally.
>
> Tsk, angry, petulant, and now ACCUSATORY of something you
> state "I am going to do!"
Are you familiar with the term "unless"?
> You ARE wrong about FCC regulations. I am very much bound
> by FCC regulations, both by radio but also for certain
> wireline communications. You really need the entire Title
> 47 C.F.R. to confirm that (for your own edification).
The point is, Leonard, that you aren't going to run afoul of Part 97
regs unless you're a radio amateur. You aren't a radio amateur.
>
>> I'm quite happy to observe the regulations governing amateur radio in
>> this country. I've received not as much as a single warning letter from
>> the FCC in nearly 43 years.
>
> Marvelous! Should we chip in get you a nice little gold
> star for your report card?
Who is "we"? Do you have a Vibroplex in your pocket? I don't feel the
need for any special recognition from you. After all, you aren't involved.
> I don't recall that anyone was accusing you of anything
> other than a bad temper, irrational behavior, or trying
> to imitate some Waffen SS offizier in here. FCC doesn't
> regulate behavior.
If it did, you wouldn't be here. If you have nothing to say, you resort
to the Nazi stuff. That makes you look foolish.
>
>> You aren't entering amateur radio.
>
> I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
> Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?
I can only go by your last definitive statement on the subject. There
have been reversals in the past though. What's your stand this week?
>
>> I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
>> others than Leonard H. Anderson.
>
> Now, now, you are adding a mean streak to your bad temper,
> petulance, and irrationality. Try playing "nice." :-)
I provided an exceptionally frank opinion based upon years of
observation. There wasn't a hint of temper, petulance or irrationality,
Leonard.
>
>> I've not ordered you to obtain an amateur
>> radio license or not to obtain an amateur radio license.
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk. You certainly gone on and on and on and
> on about my "not having one!" Why is that?
It is because you'd have radio amateurs believe that an inexperienced
fellow who has never obtained an amateur radio license knows what is
best for amateur radio. Tsk, tsk, poor baby, toad-in-a-hole and Bob's
your uncle.
>> I've not told
>> you to comment to the FCC or not to comment to the FCC.
>
> You've certainly gone on and on and on and on and
> on about attempting ridicule of what I've written
> to the FCC. :-)
I surely have. Then again I've never tried to disparage your views by
ridiculing you *to* the FCC in official comments. You have done that to
others.
>> If you don't like my "smug arrogance", change your own tactics.
>
> Now, now, you ARE telling me what to do! Hypocrite.
Can you understand the words, "if you don't like"? I've let you know
how to play nicely with others.
>
>> Len, why don't you address the IEEE Code of Ethics?
>
> Oh, but I DID! Here is the address again:
No, you didn't. Aren't you bound by that code of ethics?
> IEEE
> 445 Hoes Lane
> Box 1331
> Piscatawny, NJ 08855-1331
> USA
>
> I apologize for not giving the web address: www.ieee.org
>
> You are free to talk all you want with the IEEE Ethics
> Committee.
You're an IEEE member. I asked you. After all, I haven't seen the IEEE
violating its code of ethics.
> You might even consider membership in the IEEE, but you
> will have to get three IEEE members to vouch for you.
> You probably won't live long enough to qualify for a
> Life Member status (it is a free upgrade and doesn't
> require dues payments after that).
I haven't expressed any desire to join the IEEE. I'm not an engineer.
Would you like to join the ARRL? You can write them at:
The American Radio Relay League
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111
Alternatively, you can find them at http://www.arrl.org
>
>> Anyone who chooses to obtain an amateur radio license may do so without
>> any interference from me.
>
> How wonderfully magnanimous of Heil! :-)
I'm not being magnanimous, Len. I'm stating a fact.
>> You've been braying in this newsgroup for better than a decade.
>
> "Braying?" Neighhhh, Wilbur. :-)
When you aren't braying, you are often to found acting like a horse.
Usually you act like the other end.
>> You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.
>
> Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
> terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
> talk about amateur radio!
No temper was exhibited. I made a statement of fact. You've talked
about amateur radio. That doesn't make you a radio amateur.
>> I had nothing to do with your failure to do so.
>
> "Failure?!?" Tsk, tsk, never tried.
You've expressed a decades-long interest in amateur radio. You told us
that you were going to get an "Extra right out of the box". You have
posted to this newsgroup for better than ten years. You have failed to
obtain an amateur radio license. It doesn't matter if you tried once or
several times and failed or if you failed by never trying.
> I've had a Commercial radio operator license since 1956.
You're in the wrong newsgroup. This one concerns amateur radio and Mark
Morgan's fetishes.
> Why do you insist I have an AMATEUR license?
I've never insisted that you have to have one. In fact, I rather hope
that you never get one.
> Tsk, Heil is exhibiting irrationality again.
If I'd insisted that you obtain an amateur radio license, that might be.
I didn't do so. Your statement is absurd.
>> You're a victim of inertia.
>
> Must be that why my anti-gravity project failed; Something
> was holding me down! Should I channel Isaac N. for a cure?
You keep using the same purloined Stephen Wright joke as if it'll get
funnier through repetition.
> Well, maybe you're right. I've had an abiding interest,
> indeed a GREAT interest in women since the beginning of
> my teens...but, never ONCE had I any interest in BECOMING
> one! How about that?
And so it is in your relationship to amateur radio.
> Beep, beep,
Tisket, tasket
> LenAn...@ieee.org
> Life Member
k8...@arrl.org
Life Member
> IEEE is a Professional Association with 397 thousand members
> worldwide.
You'd think that being a PROFESSIONAL organization which grants FREE
life membership under certain conditions, it could do better than that.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
>
>>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>>>> Dave Heil wrote:
>>>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
>>I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.
>
> Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
> us who want to eliminate the code test? No harm will come
> to you if the test is eliminated.
the question answers itself almost becuase he snob world shatters
>
>
>>> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
>>> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
>>> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
>>> at the same time logic...]
>>
>>You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.
>
> Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
> WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
> regulations.
>
>>You've commented, ranted,
>>railed and have generally acted like a small child here.
>
> Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
> again. :-)
>
>
>>No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license.
>
> WRONG. Driving inspectors MUST hold valid drivers
> licenses in Illinois and California.
>
>>You don't work at the DMV or the FCC.
>
> Clear something up for us: Do you REQUIRE that anyone
> work at a Department of Motor Vehicles in order to talk
> and discuss US amateur radio regulations?!?
any retriction will do
Karak
thin skin & ego, before you criticize other people
Censor-Boy! LOL
73,
Karak
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
wrote:
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
>>
>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>>>>> Dave Heil wrote:
>>>>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.
>>
>> Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
>> us who want to eliminate the code test?
>
>You keep making the same mistake, over and over. I'm not angry. I'm
>ridiculing you, Len Anderson.
your tone seems angery it is certainly antagonistic
>
>> No harm will come
>> to you if the test is eliminated.
>
>Any change made to regulations dealing with amateur radio effect me and
>all others current licensees.
yes true enough
your point?
>
>>
>>>> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
>>>> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
>>>> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
>>>> at the same time logic...]
>>> You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.
>>
>> Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
>> WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
>> regulations.
>
>My stance isn't illogical at all. It can't begin to compare to a fellow
>who spends ten years of his life obsessed with something in which he has
>no involvement. You're amateur radio fetish is beyond compare.
sure it ilogical or at least antipatriotic Len is doing his duty as a
Citzen and you object for some reason
>
>>> You've commented, ranted,
>>> railed and have generally acted like a small child here.
>>
>> Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
>> again. :-)
>
>I'm not at all angry. I'm pointing out a fact.
you act angry and petualant
wether you are just acting or are realy angy hardly matters
LenAn...@ieee.org
><LenAn...@ieee.org> writes:
>>Dave Heil wrote:
>>> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> > From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>> The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a
>> PROFESSIONAL Association.
>
>> If you have "confusion" about it, feel free to write them at:
>
>> IEEE
>> 445 Hoes Lane
>> Box 1331
>> Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
>> USA
>
>> If your haughtiness has a problem with my PROFESSIONAL
>> membership, take it up with the IEEE directly. You can include
>> "questions" on NON-work "conduct" all you want.
>
>So, Len, your personal morality makes a distinction between how you
>treat people in professional vs. personal life.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Personal morality..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tsk, the Torquemadas are in a conclave now? :-) :-)
Too funny, really...but tragic in the obvious state of
mind of a future newsgroup moderator...and a possible
course of action of future newsgroup "moderation."
Here's a plain and simple fact: Heil, unable to control
hisself, searched and searched for a weapon of anti-morse
destruction and seized the IEEE Code of Conduct...saying
he "addressed it." Not fully, so I merely listed the
IEEE mailing address for his convenience.
David Heil is perfectly free to communicate with the IEEE
and bring his CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT against me to the
attention of the Membership Committee of the IEEE, the
Ethics Committee, whatever IEEE official, other IEEE
members he wants to vent to. So are you. Go ahead.
As I've said, as the IEEE says, it is a Professional
Association. It has no direct bearing on AMATEUR RADIO
other than some of its thousands of members no doubt
do professional work on designing, manufacturing, and
selling of amateur radio equipment. The IEEE makes
available a forwarding alias for e-mail to members and
I use that free service, hence the "signature" I use.
Some have great difficulty with that "signature,"
demanding I either drop it or get an amateur radio
license and use that (as "official?"). Now that
"signature" (or "ID" or just an e-mail address) has
become a Cause Celebre' of yourself and someone who
has an obsession of villifying his newsgroup enemies?
Here's another plain and simple fact: There are dozens
of daily postings by anonymous individuals in THIS
newsgroup spewing hateful filth about others. A simple
search of Google archives will turn up "responsible"
(Ha!) "names" such as "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" and "Billy
Shittydrawers" yet THEY are NOT made a target of this
Inquisition into the "Morality" of their postings.
Why IS that? They do not have any identifiable
connection with amateur radio, but you seem to avoid
them in favor of direct (snide) "attacks" on certain
others such as myself. That is hypocrisy in action,
demonstratable in things like the insinuation below:
>In your personal,
>non-professional life, you feel that it is acceptable
>and defensible:
What I do in my "personal, non-professional life" is
none of your concern. Neither you nor David Heil
can control that, modify it, or make judgements on
it leading to cessation of my rights to free speech
as a citizen of the USA and as a military veteran of
the USA. Yet, you actively seek to CONTROL it. Why?
Because you are PERSONALLY upset by my words? You
feel you are such a supreme ruler that you can
CONTROL opposing opinions or wish to delete all
postings which are not to some arbitrary standard of
protocol demanding obediance to some self-righteous
opinions held by a ruling clique?
If you wish to delve into my "personal, non-professional"
life, get together an Investigative Team. You can use
those that Hewlett-Packard did (their business may have
slowed since HP is under investigation and no doubt have
some free time). Feel free to start with my Pastor,
Ralph Midtlyng, at All-Saints Community Church three
blocks away from my house. It is principally a Lutheran
church but does not bar others about their "personal,
non-professional life." [recall that Martin Luther was
no shrinking violet on matters theological?]
Interrogate my immediate neighbors about my "personal,
non-professional life." The Topalians are right across
the street, Hurleys and Brunos on either side, the
Gonzalez family up on the corner. Consult old issues
of Ham Radio for my address; it hasn't changed since
May of '63. Try my city councilmember's office (Wendy
Gruel, real name). Or possibly the Los Angeles Police
Department, Foothill Division. Maybe you can extract
juicy little tidbits of "scandal" to use in here to
actively engage in vituperative attacks who don't fit
your mold? Since you won't find any, feel free to
MANUFACTURE some. Others do it, therefore it is okay?
Yes, I suppose there is some great (grate?) significance
about "personal, non-professional life" that the outraged
wish to use as weapons of anti-morse destruction (see
Heil's vituperation in here) against me. Try my Sex
Life (heterosexual). My wife is also my high school
sweetheart. I would suggest you NOT consult my wife on
"personal, non-professional life" for your own emotional
safety. Her name? Hundreds of our school classmates
know it. Sorry, you'll have to find that out yourself
but your Investigative Team will know the correct
government agency to find that out...and many more items
of "personal, non-professional life" data.
I've tried to help you out here on "personal, non-
professional life" items as a courtesy to your apparent
Inquisition of a single individual. You really can't
ask more than that, can you? :-)
Why do you feel that AMATEUR radio activity is to
be taken the SAME as Professional Activity? Why do
you side with the allegations of "misconduct" in
"personal, non-professional life" by someone who is
a known personal attacker of those he does not like.
Do you wish to add more spotlights to some imagined
"dispute" between a Professional Code of ETHICS, not
"morality?" Make this into a "federal case?" Why?
Personality conflict? My failure to "pop to" and pay
some kind of "respect" you feel "owed" to you? I am
NOT OBLIGATED to do that, except in a few individual's
fantasies or imaginations.
I am NOT OBLIGATED to "pay respect" to some olde-tyme
radio amateur just because they have some federal
license in amateur radio. I was IN radio communications
on HF full-time before some of these self-styled "rulers"
of the amateur waves were born, using techniques that
persist in amateur radio HF communications today. With
the exception of manual radiotelegraphy which wasn't used
a half century ago but persists in the mythical "standards"
of US amateur radio today.
I am NOT OBLIGATED to ANYONE who insists on calling every
statement I make "wrong" or others with some smug,
arrogant attitudes that they are "superior." My opinions
are my opinions, those of a free and independent US
citizen who has taken an Oath to preserve the Constitution
of the United States.
I am NOT OBLIGATED to ANYONE who cannot personally stand
opposition to self-righteous opinions of theirs. I am
NOT OBLIGATED to "stand on an outside" on any subject that
some alleged "insiders" say I do.
I am NOT OBLIGATED to any would-be moderator who wants to
both moderate and to engage in one-sided behavior in the
newsgroup.
ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.
N2...@aol.com
> From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
> >>> Dave Heil wrote>
>
>
> Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
> us who want to eliminate the code test?
Dave's not angry. Neither am I.
You sure seem to be angry, Len.
As for "antagaonistic", we're just opposing what we think is a bad
idea. You seem to have a very difficult time with disagreement - your
behavior rapidly deteriorates when someone here disagrees with you.
> No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.
Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.
The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.
Worst of all, he did a lot of damage to the public image of amateur
radio.
Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
the air.
One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.
If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed. Those like you who are
not involved in amateur radio will not be affected.
btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
house. He's pretty close to your age, too.
It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
people.
Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
to *your* age.
> >You aren't a radio amateur.
>
> True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
> US amateur radio regulations?
You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.
The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well. You don't
want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
examined, criticized, or refuted.
> FCC doesn't regulate behavior.
Actually, they do.
> >You aren't entering amateur radio.
>
> I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
> Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?
Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
right out of the box". Hasn't happened - in fact, you have not obtained
an amateur radio license of any kind. Almost 8 years and you haven't
taken the first step.
The Technician class license has not required a code test since
February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
step.
It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license, Len.
> >I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
> >others than Leonard H. Anderson.
Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?
>
> >You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.
>
> Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
> terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
> talk about amateur radio!
You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
about it.
Slow Code
news:1159220086....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
If bullshit were music, you'd be brass bands of America.
SC
Dave Heil
I thought it was kind of funny too--the idea that you'd demonstrate some
personal morality.
> Tsk, the Torquemadas are in a conclave now? :-) :-)
>
> Too funny, really...but tragic in the obvious state of
> mind of a future newsgroup moderator...and a possible
> course of action of future newsgroup "moderation."
>
> Here's a plain and simple fact: Heil, unable to control
> hisself, searched and searched for a weapon of anti-morse
> destruction and seized the IEEE Code of Conduct...saying
> he "addressed it." Not fully, so I merely listed the
> IEEE mailing address for his convenience.
I said I addressed the IEEE Code of Ethics? I could have sworn that I
said you had *not* addressed it despite your claim of doing so. I've
controlled myself very well, Len. The sheer length of your post and the
angst contained therein demonstrates that you aren't in control of yourself.
I didn't need to "seize the IEEE Code of Conduct". You post with an
IEEE address. You told us of your membership in the IEEE. The IEEE has
a Code of Ethics. You obviously do not behave in a manner outlined by
that code. Here I thought you were only against the Morse Code.
> David Heil is perfectly free to communicate with the IEEE
> and bring his CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT against me to the
> attention of the Membership Committee of the IEEE, the
> Ethics Committee, whatever IEEE official, other IEEE
> members he wants to vent to. So are you. Go ahead.
I don't need a go ahead from you.
> As I've said, as the IEEE says, it is a Professional
> Association. It has no direct bearing on AMATEUR RADIO
> other than some of its thousands of members no doubt
> do professional work on designing, manufacturing, and
> selling of amateur radio equipment.
Then why, pray tell, do you start posting with an IEEE address and
braying about your membership here? This isn't a PROFESSIONAL
newsgroup. You're quite right that the IEEE has no more direct bearing
on amateur radio than your repeated tales of how long you've held a
COMMERCIAL license.
> The IEEE makes
> available a forwarding alias for e-mail to members and
> I use that free service, hence the "signature" I use.
> Some have great difficulty with that "signature,"
> demanding I either drop it or get an amateur radio
> license and use that (as "official?"). Now that
> "signature" (or "ID" or just an e-mail address) has
> become a Cause Celebre' of yourself and someone who
> has an obsession of villifying his newsgroup enemies?
Someone who has an obsession with villifying his newsgroup enemies?
That sounds like you! Are you demanding that you drop your IEEE sig?
> Here's another plain and simple fact: There are dozens
> of daily postings by anonymous individuals in THIS
> newsgroup spewing hateful filth about others.
Oh, you've noticed, have you?
> A simple
> search of Google archives will turn up "responsible"
> (Ha!) "names" such as "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" and "Billy
> Shittydrawers" yet THEY are NOT made a target of this
> Inquisition into the "Morality" of their postings.
The hell they aren't. You aren't paying attention. The individual
posting as "Not Cocksucker Lloyd", "Billy Shittydrawers", "Markie Rapes
(whatever" and many others is, as I've frequently pointed out, noted
sociopath, scofflaw, mental case Roger L. Wiseman AB8MQ, formerly KC8JBO
of Glen Dale, West Virginia--right here in my county. Local law
enforcement personnel are quite aware of him and have had encounters
with him.
> Why IS that? They do not have any identifiable
> connection with amateur radio, but you seem to avoid
> them in favor of direct (snide) "attacks" on certain
> others such as myself.
Roger has an identifiable connection with amateur radio. He also
crossposts many of his responses, drawing in others. Pay attention.
His posts do not excuse your posts. After all, he is mentally ill. Are
you claiming a mental exemption?
> That is hypocrisy in action,
> demonstratable in things like the insinuation below:
>
>> In your personal,
>> non-professional life, you feel that it is acceptable
>> and defensible:
>
> What I do in my "personal, non-professional life" is
> none of your concern.
The behavior you exhibit here is certainly part of your "personal,
non-professional life", Leonard.
> Neither you nor David Heil
> can control that, modify it, or make judgements on
> it leading to cessation of my rights to free speech
> as a citizen of the USA and as a military veteran of
> the USA.
At ease, Sarge.
1. This isn't a military newsgroup.
2. I am free to make judgments (not judegements) on anything you write here.
3. Nobody has done anything to abrogate your rights to free speech. You
simply don't understand that while you are free to speak or write, no
one must listen. No one must refrain from heckling. No one must agree
with you. No one must show deference to you.
The balance of your rant snipped.
Dave K8MN
an old friend
> 3. Nobody has done anything to abrogate your rights to free speech.
lying again Nursie soory Heil
> You
> simply don't understand that while you are free to speak or write, no
> one must listen.
I am sure len agrees
> No one must refrain from heckling.
I have never seen him say any such thing
> No one must agree
> with you. No one must show deference to you.
what you over look is that the SAME rules apply to you
>
> The balance of your rant snipped.
and yours
>
> Dave K8MN
K4YZ
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
> > >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
> > >> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
> > >>> Dave Heil wrote>
> >
> > >I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.
> >
> > Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
> > us who want to eliminate the code test?
>
> Dave's not angry. Neither am I.
>
> You sure seem to be angry, Len.
>
> As for "antagaonistic", we're just opposing what we think is a bad
> idea. You seem to have a very difficult time with disagreement - your
> behavior rapidly deteriorates when someone here disagrees with you.
Which is pretty much everyone except for Morkie, Toiddie and Brain.
Those three options in and of themselves ought to "say something"
about the company he keeps, though.
> > No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.
>
> Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.
Sure it will.
Lennie keeps uttering that silliness as if "coded licensees" would
never share the same bandwidth as these folks. How idiotic.
> The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
> former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
> area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
> interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.
Lennie is a Gerritsen without the mic. Imagine what he could do
if he go ahold of one...?!?!?
> Worst of all, he did a lot of damage to the public image of amateur
> radio.
>
> Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
> place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
> follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
> the air.
Amateur Radio...flying...model rockets...skateboarding...
There's always ONE putz that wants to ruin things for everyone
else.
Amateur Radio had one and a half...One still doesn't have a
license...
> One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
> test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
> Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.
>
> If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
> us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed. Those like you who are
> not involved in amateur radio will not be affected.
>
> btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
> house. He's pretty close to your age, too.
And temperment...and responsibility....and maturity...
> It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
> anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
> without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
> people.
>
> Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
> to *your* age.
I wonder how well it would have sat if Lennie had proposed an age
CAP...?!?!
> > >You aren't a radio amateur.
> >
> > True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
> > US amateur radio regulations?
>
> You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.
>
> The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well. You don't
> want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
> examined, criticized, or refuted.
Bingo.
> > FCC doesn't regulate behavior.
>
> Actually, they do.
Guess Lennie's not been paying attention to all those efforts to
"can" the licenses of persons who have non-radio-related legal issues.
Personally, I think the FCC needs to be put in thier place for
that.
> > >You aren't entering amateur radio.
> >
> > I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
> > Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?
>
> Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
> right out of the box". Hasn't happened - in fact, you have not obtained
> an amateur radio license of any kind. Almost 8 years and you haven't
> taken the first step.
He can't. He can't retain the knowledge long enough to get to the
front door...And they won't let him take his computer into the test
exam with him.
> The Technician class license has not required a code test since
> February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
> step.
>
> It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
> license, Len.
There is a god.
> > >I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
> > >others than Leonard H. Anderson.
>
> Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?
Why should we presume he was talking about himself... OUR "Leonard
H Anderson" does NOT "play well" with ANYone, let alone anyone in this
forum.
> > >You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.
> >
> > Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
> > terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
> > talk about amateur radio!
>
> You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
> about it.
Biut only those who ARE licensed and DO have some PRACTICAL
EXPERIENCE are in a position to make INFORMED opinions. Lennie is NOT
licensed and hs NO practical experience as a radio OPERATOR.
73
Steve, K4YZ
markie_morg...@yahoo.com
And if a measure of intelligence were music, you'd be the Milli Vanilli
group.
an old friend
K4YZ wrote:
>
YOU-ARE-A-PUTZ" says Steve the sex feind
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
>> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>> >>> Dave Heil wrote>
>> No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.
>
>Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.
Did you think some no-coder would meet you outside the
school and beat you up if the code test is eliminated?
Not to worry, Jimmy, David Heil will protect you! :-)
David Heil served in the USAF! In a country AT war!
Poor Jimmy NEVER served, volunteered for military
service nor civil government.
>The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
>former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
>area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
>interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.
Why so long? Weren't there enough David Heils to
handle the task right away?
>Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
>place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
>follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
>the air.
So, what are YOU doing about it?
Have you Petitioned the FCC for rough, tough Test regulations?
Have you communicated with the VEC QPC? No? Are you still
waiting for someone to "serve you" instead of the other way
around?
>One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
>test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
>Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.
Tsk, tsk, starting in with "guilt by association?" :-)
Gerritsen got his ham license under the EXISTING rules,
Jimmy.
>If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
>us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed.
Irrational fear of the future, Jimmy?
What have you done about keeping the regulations the
way they were when you were young? What, no Petitions
or Kvetching the QPC?
>btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
>house. He's pretty close to your age, too.
Ah, yes, you ARE doing the Guilt by Association thing!
BTW, Jimmy, Bell is farther away than what you say...unless
one has a helicopter. :-)
>It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
>anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
>without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
>people.
Oh, my, you should have heard me years and years ago when I
was a bachelor...I was propositioning all over the place! :-)
Sometimes it worked! :-)
Go get laid, Jimmy. It will improve your disposition.
>Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
>to *your* age.
Tsk, are you proposing euthanasia or something?
"Never trust anyone over 30?"
No, not that one, you are 20 past the limit...:-)
Did you watch some old rerun of "Logan's Run" on TV?
The stars were all Brits and you love Brits...
>You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.
How magnanimous of you! :-)
>The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well.
Whatever. :-)
>You don't
>want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
>examined, criticized, or refuted.
Now now Mother Superior, I'm not trying to take away
your job at the convent school and you can keep your
ruler for spanking the little kiddies.
You ARE going to continue to LECTURE everyone (after telling
them they are "wrong") on the Right and Proper Way of Life
in everything, including history, world affairs, aero-
space, and, especially, the Military!
Go ahead and continue with your "military personnel are
'subsidized' for their service." You've never served,
never volunteered to serve, never took the Oath...yet
you LECTURE everyone on some hilarious "why" of your
words "not being insulting" (they are definitely
insulting to veterans) and supposedly'correct' use
of your words.
>Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
>right out of the box".
Yes. Well, I must have changed my mind. :-)
Did I make some kind of "solemn promise?" Swear to St. Hiram
on a stack of Handbooks?
>Almost 8 years and you haven't taken the first step.
Tsk, tsk, I took the first step back in infancy. :-)
>The Technician class license has not required a code test since
>February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
>step.
Now, now, I TOLD you I took the first step way back
in time...in fact before you were conceived. :-)
>It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
>license, Len.
Am I supposed to attend the Church of St. Hiram and get
converted? Or are you saying I've been ex-communicated? :-)
Guess I'll have to study radio theology some more...like
how one becomes a Priest of the Order of St. Hiram and
promises lifelong devotion to the Church and always,
always fulfilling one's "promises!"
>Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?
Oh, my, Jimmy want a "sanity clause" in here?
Tsk, tsk, you'll have to wait for Christmas time... :-)
Act nice, "sanity" is making a list, checking it twice.
>> >You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.
>
>> Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
>> terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
>> talk about amateur radio!
>
>You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
>about it.
No? If I believed what you said I would have been a
Val Germann.
Remember to act nice, Jimmy, "sanity clause" is coming to
town in a few months.
Try not to INSULT so many military VETERANS or the military
still serviing.
And, as always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked!
["signature" omitted due to hissy fits of Paul Schleck]
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>From: N...@AOL.COM on Mon, Sep 25 2006 3:45 pm
>
>>LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
>>> >LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> >> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>>> >>> Dave Heil wrote>
>
>
>>> No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.
>>
>>Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.
>
> Did you think some no-coder would meet you outside the
> school and beat you up if the code test is eliminated?
len you should offered your personal guarantee
>
> Not to worry, Jimmy, David Heil will protect you! :-)
>
> David Heil served in the USAF! In a country AT war!
>
> Poor Jimmy NEVER served, volunteered for military
> service nor civil government.
>
>
>>The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
>>former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
>>area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
>>interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.
>
> Why so long? Weren't there enough David Heils to
> handle the task right away?
likely becuase the FCC had to sort though all the reports made By
Steve and the restthat sos and so is bad orperator and pedophile he
just got lost in all the flase charges
indeed
>
>>Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
>>to *your* age.
>
> Tsk, are you proposing euthanasia or something?
>
> "Never trust anyone over 30?"
>
> No, not that one, you are 20 past the limit...:-)
>
> Did you watch some old rerun of "Logan's Run" on TV?
> The stars were all Brits and you love Brits...
I think Dave names can be be distorted to what he wants what most
people seem to want Dictaorship as long as they are the Dictator
remeber the firstrom when Bush (who always lies ) dared to utter that
truth?
an old friend
N2...@aol.com
> Did you think some no-coder would meet you outside the
> school and beat you up if the code test is eliminated?
>
> Not to worry, Jimmy, David Heil will protect you! :-)
>
> David Heil served in the USAF! In a country AT war!
>
> Poor Jimmy NEVER served, volunteered for military
> service nor civil government.
>
> Why so long? Weren't there enough David Heils to
> handle the task right away?
>
> So, what are YOU doing about it?
>
> Have you Petitioned the FCC for rough, tough Test regulations?
> Have you communicated with the VEC QPC? No? Are you still
> waiting for someone to "serve you" instead of the other way
> around?
>
> Tsk, tsk, starting in with "guilt by association?" :-)
>
> Gerritsen got his ham license under the EXISTING rules,
> Jimmy.
>
> Irrational fear of the future, Jimmy?
>
> What have you done about keeping the regulations the
> way they were when you were young? What, no Petitions
> or Kvetching the QPC?
>
> Ah, yes, you ARE doing the Guilt by Association thing!
>
> BTW, Jimmy, Bell is farther away than what you say...unless
> one has a helicopter. :-)
>
> Oh, my, you should have heard me years and years ago when I
> was a bachelor...I was propositioning all over the place! :-)
> Sometimes it worked! :-)
>
> Go get laid, Jimmy. It will improve your disposition.
>
> Tsk, are you proposing euthanasia or something?
>
> "Never trust anyone over 30?"
>
> No, not that one, you are 20 past the limit...:-)
>
> Did you watch some old rerun of "Logan's Run" on TV?
> The stars were all Brits and you love Brits...
>
> How magnanimous of you! :-)
>
> Whatever. :-)
>
> Now now Mother Superior, I'm not trying to take away
> your job at the convent school and you can keep your
> ruler for spanking the little kiddies.
>
> You ARE going to continue to LECTURE everyone (after telling
> them they are "wrong") on the Right and Proper Way of Life
> in everything, including history, world affairs, aero-
> space, and, especially, the Military!
>
> Go ahead and continue with your "military personnel are
> 'subsidized' for their service." You've never served,
> never volunteered to serve, never took the Oath...yet
> you LECTURE everyone on some hilarious "why" of your
> words "not being insulting" (they are definitely
> insulting to veterans) and supposedly'correct' use
> of your words.
>
> Yes. Well, I must have changed my mind. :-)
>
> Did I make some kind of "solemn promise?" Swear to St. Hiram
> on a stack of Handbooks?
> Tsk, tsk, I took the first step back in infancy. :-)
>
> Now, now, I TOLD you I took the first step way back
> in time...in fact before you were conceived. :-)
>
> Am I supposed to attend the Church of St. Hiram and get
> converted? Or are you saying I've been ex-communicated? :-)
>
> Guess I'll have to study radio theology some more...like
> how one becomes a Priest of the Order of St. Hiram and
> promises lifelong devotion to the Church and always,
> always fulfilling one's "promises!"
>
> Oh, my, Jimmy want a "sanity clause" in here?
>
> Tsk, tsk, you'll have to wait for Christmas time... :-)
>
> Act nice, "sanity" is making a list, checking it twice.
>
> No? If I believed what you said I would have been a
> Val Germann.
>
> Remember to act nice, Jimmy, "sanity clause" is coming to
> town in a few months.
>
> Try not to INSULT so many military VETERANS or the military
> still serviing.
> And, as always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked!
>
>
> ["signature" omitted due to hissy fits of Paul Schleck]
Well, Len, you've convinced me.
Any doubt I had has vanished.
I'm completely convinced.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> >> >>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
> >> >>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>
> >> > Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
> >> > radio license? :-)
> >
> >> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
> >
> >
> >Robesin did.
>
> They are birds of a feather, Brian.
They might share a brain...
At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
as Robesin has.
> The only difference
> between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
> the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
> is evident in both.
I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
into a great big pissing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
"you're 59."
> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
> at the same time logic...]
>
> Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
> to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
> REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
> is faulty.
They tend to ignore facts.
> Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
> the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
> amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
> but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
> does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
> others.
>
> The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
> but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
> license. In any discussion with others about a singular
> test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
> assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
> hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.
>
> That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
> US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
> has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(
>
Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong. Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way. Like Robeswine's present antics, no
one said a word...
N2...@aol.com
> Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
> decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
> wrong.
If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.
How many newcomers actually read rrap?
How many *people* actually read rrap?
> Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
> couldn't have ham radio his way.
When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
> Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...
Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.
---
You've convinced me too, Brian.
Any doubts I had have been laid to rest.
I'm completely convinced, now.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>>
>> >Dave Heil wrote:
>> >> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> > From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>> >> >> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>> >> >>> From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>> >> >>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>
>>
>> >> > Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
>> >> > Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
>> >> > radio license? :-)
>> >
>> >> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
>> >
>> >Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
>> >
>> >Robesin did.
>>
>> They are birds of a feather, Brian.
>
>They might share a brain...
>
>At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
>as Robesin has.
in exercises as usless you mean
>
>> The only difference
>> between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
>> the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
>> is evident in both.
>
>I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
>into a great big pissing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
>that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
>annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
>"you're 59."
indeed
>
>> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
>> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
>> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
>> at the same time logic...]
>>
>> Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
>> to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
>> REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
>> is faulty.
>
>They tend to ignore facts.
not merely ignore but deny the facts
>
>> Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
>> the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
>> amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
>> but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
>> does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
>> others.
>>
>> The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
>> but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
>> license. In any discussion with others about a singular
>> test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
>> assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
>> hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.
>>
>> That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
>> US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
>> has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(
>>
>> LenAn...@ieee.org
>
>Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>wrong. Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
>couldn't have ham radio his way. Like Robeswine's present antics, no
>one said a word...
except to attack anyone that stands up to Robeson
Robeson is certainly making that a dauting task these days
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
then when are you jioing NCI
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>> decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>> wrong.
>
>If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
>and attack the person who points out their mistake.
>
>How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>
>How many *people* actually read rrap?
juding by email box between 750 and 1000 at least givne the number of
tracable I get that find my real account rather than the spam traps
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
> > decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
> > wrong.
>
> If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
> and attack the person who points out their mistake.
Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
> How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>
> How many *people* actually read rrap?
Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
> > Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
> > couldn't have ham radio his way.
>
> When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
Do your own homework.
> > Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...
>
> Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
> of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
> on all sides of various issues.
Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
isn't even a RRAP issue.
> ---
>
> You've convinced me too, Brian.
>
> Any doubts I had have been laid to rest.
>
> I'm completely convinced, now.
As Heil says, "Bully for you."
The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get.
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>
>N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>> > decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>> > wrong.
>>
>> If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
>> and attack the person who points out their mistake.
>
>Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
better bring a masonry drill to get through his skull
>
>> How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>>
>> How many *people* actually read rrap?
>
>Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
Id settle for a senere sounds pormise to repate his sins and
adknowledge he was lying
>
>> > Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
>> > couldn't have ham radio his way.
>>
>> When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
>
>Do your own homework.
>
>> > Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...
>>
>> Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
>> of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
>> on all sides of various issues.
>
>Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
>isn't even a RRAP issue.
but what is topicality here
>
>> ---
>>
>> You've convinced me too, Brian.
>>
>> Any doubts I had have been laid to rest.
>>
>> I'm completely convinced, now.
>
>As Heil says, "Bully for you."
>
>The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
K4YZ wrote:
> There's always ONE putz that wants to ruin things for everyone
> else.
>
> 73
>
> Steve, K4YZ
The spoiler?
His name is Steve. His call sign is K4YZ.
His face story can be read on QRZ.com.
His heinous acts can be read in the Google archives.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>> >Dave Heil wrote:
>> >> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>> >> > Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>> >> >> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>> >> >>> Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>> >> >>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>> >> > Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
>> >> > Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
>> >> > radio license? :-)
>> >
>> >> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
>> >
>> >Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
> >
>> >Robesin did.
>
>> They are birds of a feather, Brian.
>
>They might share a brain...
>
>At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
>as Robesin has.
I will dispute that. Very little of Heil's messaging in
here appears useful...except to him. It is almost
entirely about demeaning lots of others. He only makes
nice-nice to other pro-coders.
>> The only difference
>> between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
>> the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
>> is evident in both.
>
>I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
>into a great big pissing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
>that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
>annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
>"you're 59."
Har! Yes, good old "you are 5-9-9!" :-)
...even if a repeat is requested on half of what the
other station transmitted. :-)
>> Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
>> getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
>> amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
>> at the same time logic...]
>
>> Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
>> to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
>> REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
>> is faulty.
>
>They tend to ignore facts.
"Tend?" Hell, no, they OUTRIGHT ignore them.
>> Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
>> the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
>> amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
>> but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
>> does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
>> others.
>
>> The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
>> but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
>> license. In any discussion with others about a singular
>> test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
>> assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
>> hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.
>
>> That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
>> US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
>> has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(
>
>Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>wrong. Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
>couldn't have ham radio his way. Like Robeswine's present antics, no
>one said a word...
Hypocrisy in action.
However, Hans Brakob told the Robeswine off several times.
Hans is about the oldest tymest ham in this newsgroup, a
morseman, but one who doesn't think the morse code test
is necessary. Hans earned that right.
The key ingredient is always that morse code test. Anyone
against it are always "wrong" but those for it are always
"right"...in the pro-code-test morsemen's definition of
truth, justice, and the morse way.
["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]
LenAn...@ieee.org
>N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>> > decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>> > wrong.
>
>> If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
>> and attack the person who points out their mistake.
>
>Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.
Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.
To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
Never mind that several hundred have already seen
the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
quotes in here! :-)
Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
for anything in the military or in one of his
governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
who wants to demean military that are serving (or
veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
doesn't give a shit if he insults 99.99% of everyone
else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
same syndrome as that sick Robesin.
>> How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>
>> How many *people* actually read rrap?
>
>Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.
>> > Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
>> > couldn't have ham radio his way.
>
>> When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
>
>Do your own homework.
Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION. Everyone
will be busy arguing and arguing over the OLD post and
Jimmy can simply ignore the current post. :-)
>> > Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...
>
>> Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
>> of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
>> on all sides of various issues.
>
>Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
>isn't even a RRAP issue.
Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult
about a million members of the United States military?
I don't understand that. It must be some twisted so-and-so
who never volunteered for any military service and thinks
they are so much better than any service person...
>As Heil says, "Bully for you."
>
>The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get.
It's the Robeswine syndrome in Jimmy's posts again...going
deeper and deeper and deeper until, like falling into a
Black Hole, they can never get out.
---
I stopped by the Armed Forces Career office on the 3rd floor
of the Media City Mall in Burbank, CA, today. It's next to
the 3rd floor entrance to Sears at the south end of the Mall.
Nice place. Very attractive, really. Not busy today. Had
a nice chat with an Army E-5 there. He got some information
(on you-know-who) and we traded a few items of personal info.
He got a kick out of my miniature DD-214 photocopy. [no
background check of me was necessary, Paul Schleck]
You might note that Robesin's QRZ bio has been altered. He
doesn't mention his "USMC career" at all now! Wonder why?
:-)
["signature" omitted here due to hissy fits of the
'moderator team' or whatever]
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
>
>>N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> > Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>>> > decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>>> > wrong.
>>
>>> If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
>>> and attack the person who points out their mistake.
>>
>>Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
>
> Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.
only has a lag of about 7 years on the long slide of robson
>
> Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
> both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
> so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
> to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.
>
> To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
> demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
> to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
> Never mind that several hundred have already seen
> the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
> quotes in here! :-)
again on his way being the new Robeson
>
> Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
> for anything in the military or in one of his
> governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
> who wants to demean military that are serving (or
> veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
> that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
> doesn't give a shit if he insults 99.99% of everyone
> else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
> on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
> same syndrome as that sick Robesin.
>
>
>>> How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>>
>>> How many *people* actually read rrap?
>>
>>Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
>
> I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
> stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
> period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
> not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
> the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
> Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
> me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
> check.
it might work
I just noticed that )having checked on it interesting it still shows
up on his home page
>
> ["signature" omitted here due to hissy fits of the
> 'moderator team' or whatever]
N2...@aol.com
> > > Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
> > > decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
> > > wrong.
> > If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
> > and attack the person who points out their mistake.
> Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
Who is "Robesin"?
It's something several people need to understand. However, those who
most need to understand it are those who reject it the loudest.
> > How many newcomers actually read rrap?
> > How many *people* actually read rrap?
>
> Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
Think about when things really went downhill....
>
> > > Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
> > > couldn't have ham radio his way.
> >
> > When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
>
> Do your own homework.
Brian, *you* made the claim. You wrote: "Proof?"
which means you are claiming you have proof of something.
You made the claim - you back it up. Show us where the person in
question:
"said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he couldn't have ham radio his
way."
You said you had proof. This sort of thing is what Usenet archives are
for. If he really wrote something like that, show us where he wrote it.
If you don't, or can't, why should anyone believe your claim? You've
made mistakes here before, like the part about "liberal'" FDR and the
Bonus Marchers, when it was really "conservative" Herbert Hoover who
ordered troops to disperse them. You were wrong about FDR, maybe you're
wrong about the "proof" you claimed.
Telling me "Do your own homework" is a clear indication that you don't
really have any proof, and that you're misquoting a dead person.
> > > Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...
Who is "Robeswine"?
> > Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
> > of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
> > on all sides of various issues.
> > ---
> >
> > You've convinced me too, Brian.
> >
> > Any doubts I had have been laid to rest.
> >
> > I'm completely convinced, now.
>
> As Heil says, "Bully for you."
You don't have to keep trying to convince me, Brian. I'm already
convinced!
Ma...@kb9rqz.com
>hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> > hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> > > Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>> > > decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>> > > wrong.
>
>> > If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
>> > and attack the person who points out their mistake.
>
>> Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
>
>Who is "Robesin"?
you don't know
just have nnot been reading RRAP except selectively
he is the fellow that threatens to murder me if I travel south of
detroit but that is all raaight with you
>
>It's something several people need to understand. However, those who
>most need to understand it are those who reject it the loudest.
>
>> > How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>
>> > How many *people* actually read rrap?
>>
>> Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
>
>Think about when things really went downhill....
bout 6 years when I let Stve drive me out after the last R&O
>>
>> > > Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
>> > > couldn't have ham radio his way.
>> >
>> > When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
>>
>> Do your own homework.
>
>Brian, *you* made the claim. You wrote: "Proof?"
>
>which means you are claiming you have proof of something.
no it is a request for prof did you see the question mark you typed it
>Telling me "Do your own homework" is a clear indication that you don't
>really have any proof, and that you're misquoting a dead person.
>
>> > > Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...
>
>Who is "Robeswine"?
you don't know
just have nnot been reading RRAP except selectively
he is the fellow that threatens to murder me if I travel south of
detroit but that is all raaight with you
>
>> > Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
>> > of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
>> > on all sides of various issues.
>> > ---
>> >
>> > You've convinced me too, Brian.
>> >
>> > Any doubts I had have been laid to rest.
>> >
>> > I'm completely convinced, now.
>>
>> As Heil says, "Bully for you."
>
>You don't have to keep trying to convince me, Brian. I'm already
>convinced!
hardly Jim
N2...@aol.com
> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
>
> >N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
> demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
> to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?
> who wants to demean
...
> with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
> that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."
Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?
I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:
"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"
What is demeaning about that?
"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"
Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.
OTOH, governments subsidize all kinds of things. Why do you think the
word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?
>
> >> How many newcomers actually read rrap?
> >
> >> How many *people* actually read rrap?
> >
> >Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
>
> I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
> stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
> period.
How would that be done, Len? Who has the authority to shut down rrap?
Obviously you do not, because you would have done it by now.
No, wait, that's not right. You don't always do what you say you are
going to do.
Len, if you want rrap to go silent, why don't you lead the way?
Perhaps you want rrap to continue, because without it, you'll not be
able to rant the way you have for the past decade or so.
> Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
> not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
> the anony-mousies in here.
Not even you, Len.
> I've suggested it to Paul
> Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
> me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
> check.
You mean he's pointed out how *your* behavior doesn't meet IEEE
standards....
I see a contradiction, Len.
On the one hand you want rrap shut down.
On the other hand, you don't want a moderated newsgroup, and you attack
the person who wants to set one up.
Sounds like you have issues with control, Len. Self-control, that is.
You realize that your postings are buried in the noise here, but on a
moderated newsgroup they'd not be allowed. You'd have to control your
behavior on a moderated newsgroup, and that's a problem for you.
> >> > Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
> >> > couldn't have ham radio his way.
> >
> >> When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
> >
> >Do your own homework.
>
> Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION.
How is it misdirection?
Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?
--
btw, Len, you don't have to keep trying to convince me. I'm convinced!
kb9rqz_chi...@yahoo.com
an old friendless cocksucker wrote:
> show-
Markie wants us to show him our dicks, gents!
LenAn...@ieee.org
><LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
>>>N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> > Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>>>> > decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>>>> > wrong.
>>
>>>> If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
>>>> and attack the person who points out their mistake.
>>
>>>Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
>
>> Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.
>
>only has a lag of about 7 years on the long slide of robson
No, Mark. Jimmie was on AOL on one of their ham radio
"discussion" boards (exclusive of Usenet), sounding like
the 120-year-old 1x1 superextra clone of the ARRL,
parroting their phrases like he was a paid PR pro from
Newington on commission. Someone apparently tipped him
off on Usenet back then and he showed up in here. Same
PR phrasing, same braggadoccio about amateur radio as on
AOL's board, same talking-down with smug arrogance
to anyone not embracing Jimmie's vision of the
All-Codah Heaven (but no mention of "virgins").
The Robeswine is a relative latecomer to RRAP, but he
initially came on trying to out-do Chesty Puller, USMC,
but coming out more like Gomer Pyle. The Robeswine must
have spent days collecting all the emotionally-loaded
catch-phrases of the USMC and generally speaking like
left-over sound bites from TV's JAG (now a "defunct"
series).
>> Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
>> both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
>> so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
>> to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.
>>
>> To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
>> demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
>> to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
>> Never mind that several hundred have already seen
>> the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
>> quotes in here! :-)
>
>again on his way being the new Robeson
Jimmie cries out "You have no proof!" when others don't
care to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue old posts by
MISDIRECTION of quoting them. It is like he desperately
must "win" old arguments he never won.
The Robeswine used to do that but lost it a few years
ago, preferring to directly insult his challengers...in
everything from their sexual preferences to practicing
pedophilia to claims of odd anti-patriotism for honoring
deceased members of one's military unit. In addition,
the robeswine pretended to be some kind of "authority"
who could have anyone "picked up" after making a single
telephone call. I'm leaving out the sick desires of
his to "talk" to spouses.
>> Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
>> for anything in the military or in one of his
>> governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
>> who wants to demean military that are serving (or
>> veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
>> that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
>> doesn't give a shit if he insults 99.99% of everyone
>> else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
>> on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
>> same syndrome as that sick robeswine.
With Jimmie it gets WORSE in my opinion. He is so
confused about "service to the country" that he doesn't
hesitate to engage in sick wordplay about servicemenbers
being "subsidized" by taxpayers.
How can OFFERING ONE'S LIFE be "subsidized?!?" That is
implicit in EVERY military servicemember's Oath on first
joining any branch. [in my day it was direct, not
implicit, but I have been "told" that the exact wording
has changed since then] Is that in the Oath spoken by
police, firemen, paramedics, forest service rangers,
jailhouse guards? I've never heard of that, but it might
be so. Just the same, NO police, firemen, etc., ever
have to face artillery, strafing from aircraft, salvos
and torpedoes on open ocean and deliberate open warfare
on land. Jimmie just doesn't understand that. He's
never tried to. He READS about it and then says he
"knows all about it" (and is the "expert" on it).
>>>> How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>>
>>>> How many *people* actually read rrap?
>>>
>>>Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
>>
>> I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
>> stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
>> period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
>> not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
>> the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
>> Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
>> me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
>> check.
>
>it might work
I don't say it will "work." I can't see any other choice.
It doesn't provide a TRUE discussion forum about policy
matters now.
The newsgroup has been infected with a cancerous growth
of filthy sayings by those who truly "can't play well
with others." This cancer has metastasized into most
threads. The newsgroup is already terminal. Parts of it
have already died. It is best to just BURY it and hope
for some "ressurection" much later, perhaps after the FCC
makes some decision on last year's NPRM about eliminating
the code test for amateur licenses.
>>>> > Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
>>>> > couldn't have ham radio his way.
>>>
>>>> When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
>>>
>>>Do your own homework.
>>
>> Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION. Everyone
>> will be busy arguing and arguing over the OLD post and
>> Jimmy can simply ignore the current post. :-)
That's a constant with Miccolis. Feigned outrage and demand
to "show us the posting." Actually a good ploy to avoid
answering the basic challenge. But, it is old, trite, used
by many since old days of ARPANET and useless as a "reply."
>>>> > Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...
>>>
>>>> Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
>>>> of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
>>>> on all sides of various issues.
>>>
>>>Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
>>>isn't even a RRAP issue.
>>
>> Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult
>> about a million members of the United States military?
>>
>> I don't understand that. It must be some twisted so-and-so
>> who never volunteered for any military service and thinks
>> they are so much better than any service person...
I'm going to hold to what I wrote. Every military veteran I
know will agree with me. If some never-serving sonnovawhich
wants to argue that "subsidy" thing they can shove it.
Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal,
non-professional life" background checks on me they want. They
won't turn up anything heroic (no "seven hostile actions"), just
doing my job(s) as best I could, following the rules, getting
paid regularly, never being fired for cause.
From Jimmie Miccolis we don't have enough hints that he DOES
have a "personal, non-professional life" to DO a full back-
ground check. He is proud of doing nothing at work. Hans
Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we
did and what we do for a living. So have others. But not
Jimmie M. All we hear from Jimmie are his amateur radio
adventures. He may have no other life. But, he is THE
'expert' on ALL matters, never ever hesitating to call
others "wrong" when they are in disagreement with him.
Jimmie's latest, his infamous "military persons get
'SUBSIDIZED' by taxpayers" is perhaps his crowning
achievement in looking down at all others. About a
million 'others.' How is a LIFE 'subsidized?'
That is NOT an amateur radio subject, certainly not policy.
Plain and simple fact: It is out of line, INSULTING to
anyone who is or has been in the United States military.
Miccolis won't apologize for that insult. He is always
"right." QED.
>> You might note that Robesin's QRZ bio has been altered. He
>> doesn't mention his "USMC career" at all now! Wonder why?
>> :-)
>>
>I just noticed that )having checked on it interesting it still shows
>up on his home page
That's how it goes with the robeswine, HIS words are the ONLY
"facts" we can get. NO documented proof from real official
sources, not even a snapshot of him in that alleged 18-year
military career. Just His words.
["signature" omitted due to not receiving a "subsidy" for
posting in here...to those who object to what I wrote, the
ByteBrothers' famous phrase is invoked]
Dave Heil
> From: hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm
>
>> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
>>>> Dave Heil wrote:
>>>>> LenAnder...@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>>> Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>>>>>> Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
>>>>>>>>> <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>>>>>> Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
>>>>>> Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
>>>>>> radio license? :-)
>>>>> Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.
>>>> Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?
>>>> Robesin did.
>>> They are birds of a feather, Brian.
>> They might share a brain...
>>
>> At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
>> as Robesin has.
>
> I will dispute that. Very little of Heil's messaging in
> here appears useful...except to him. It is almost
> entirely about demeaning lots of others. He only makes
> nice-nice to other pro-coders.
Wowsers, Len. If we change the bit about "pro-coders" to "no-coders",
it fits you to a T.
>
>>> The only difference
>>> between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
>>> the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
>>> is evident in both.
>> I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
>> into a great big pissing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
>> that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
>> annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
>> "you're 59."
>
> Har! Yes, good old "you are 5-9-9!" :-)
Good old Len. Nobody but a rank greenhorn would issue a statement in
morse like "you are 5-9-9". A phone op wouldn't do it at all.
> ...even if a repeat is requested on half of what the
> other station transmitted. :-)
You didn't get the first half right so I have doubts as to your second
statement. After all, you aren't involved and aren't sitting around
monitoring CW QSOs with your trusty Icom receiver.
> ["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
> about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]
That's your story and you may or may not stick to it. I think you've
gotten a little nervous about using the sig in light of your actions.
Dave K8MN
LenAn...@ieee.org
Dave Heil wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > From: hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm
> > ["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
> > about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]
> That's your story and you may or may not stick to it. I think you've
> gotten a little nervous about using the sig in light of your actions.
So, how are things in the Waffen SS? Jimmie should be
happy You Are On The Job protecting Him...
Have you and Paul had a difficult time on my "personal, non-
professional life" background check? Have you contacted the
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers yet? I gave
you their address. It's in all the better trade magazines.
I'm not worried. Are you worried that I'm not worried?
Or do you want me to be worried about your being worried
about my not being worried? :-)
So, when are the moderator police going to show up at my
house? I can put on a bigger pot of coffee. Is that a "service"
to the country? Or would you call that a "country crock?"
I think of most of your little endearing messages as a country
crock. Really spreads greasy stuff in here.
As ever, to you, the famous ByteBrothers phrase invoked.
Dave Heil
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
>>
>>> N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
>> demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
>> to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
>
> Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
> If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
> with asking to see the original?
The only logical explanation I can see for Brian's refusal is that he
now isn't so sure that his claim is accurate.
>> who wants to demean
> ...
>> with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
>> that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."
>
> Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?
>
> I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
> Dictionary:
>
> "a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
> advantageous to the public"
>
> What is demeaning about that?
>
> "subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"
>
> Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
> government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
> really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.
> OTOH, governments subsidize all kinds of things. Why do you think the
> word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?
Len was recently attempting to cast aspersions on my U.S. Department of
State employment so it is interesting to look at the line he spouted:
On Sunday, Sept. 10, 2006 he wrote:
"Tsk, all those years in the State Department (paid for by the
US taxpayer) and he picked up NOTHING on diplomacy."
and
"Tsk, and all those Department of State years and
you never learning any diplomacy skills paid for by the US
taxpayer..."
He didn't write that I was paid by the U.S. Government. He wrote that
my years were paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
>>>> How many newcomers actually read rrap?
>>>> How many *people* actually read rrap?
>>> Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.
>> I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
>> stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
>> period.
>
> How would that be done, Len? Who has the authority to shut down rrap?
> Obviously you do not, because you would have done it by now.
Len thinks he is in charge of the newsgroup now. He is a self-appointed
advocate for something-or-other, dontcha know?
> No, wait, that's not right. You don't always do what you say you are
> going to do.
>
> Len, if you want rrap to go silent, why don't you lead the way?
>
> Perhaps you want rrap to continue, because without it, you'll not be
> able to rant the way you have for the past decade or so.
>
>> Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
>> not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
>> the anony-mousies in here.
>
> Not even you, Len.
>
>> I've suggested it to Paul
>> Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
>> me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
>> check.
>
> You mean he's pointed out how *your* behavior doesn't meet IEEE
> standards....
>
> I see a contradiction, Len.
>
> On the one hand you want rrap shut down.
>
> On the other hand, you don't want a moderated newsgroup, and you attack
> the person who wants to set one up.
>
> Sounds like you have issues with control, Len. Self-control, that is.
> You realize that your postings are buried in the noise here, but on a
> moderated newsgroup they'd not be allowed. You'd have to control your
> behavior on a moderated newsgroup, and that's a problem for you.
Problem? He can't control his behavior. He is the way he is.
>>>>> Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
>>>>> couldn't have ham radio his way.
>>>> When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.
>>> Do your own homework.
>> Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION.
>
> How is it misdirection?
>
> Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
> If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
> with asking to see the original?
It simply isn't misdirection. After all, Brian stated something without
proof. You asked to see the proof and Len accused you of misdirection.
The misdirection is Len's.
> --
> btw, Len, you don't have to keep trying to convince me. I'm convinced!
I've been convinced for years.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
> Dave Heil wrote:
>> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>>> From: hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm
>
>>> ["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
>>> about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]
>
>
>> That's your story and you may or may not stick to it. I think you've
>> gotten a little nervous about using the sig in light of your actions.
>
> So, how are things in the Waffen SS?
I haven't the slightest idea, Len. Is it your belief that it is still
in existence?
> Jimmie should be
> happy You Are On The Job protecting Him...
Remember your recent words where you state that this is a public
bulletin board that anyone may comment on anything? Why Are You Using
Caps To Begin Words? dOES yOUR kEYBOARD hAVE A sTICKY cAPS kEY?
> Have you and Paul had a difficult time on my "personal, non-
> professional life" background check?
Why no, Len. Much of your "personal, non-professional life" can be
found right on usenet. It is plain for anyone to see.
> Have you contacted the
> Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers yet?
No, not yet.
> I gave
> you their address.
Why yes, you did. I'd already found it though. It is on the web site.
> It's in all the better trade magazines.
I couldn't find it in "Farm Industry News" or "Guitar Player".
> I'm not worried. Are you worried that I'm not worried?
Thou dost protest too much.
> So, when are the moderator police going to show up at my
> house?
Moderator police? What are you going on about, Leonard?
> I can put on a bigger pot of coffee. Is that a "service"
> to the country?
What do you think, Len? Is it?
> Or would you call that a "country crock?"
> I think of most of your little endearing messages as a country
> crock. Really spreads greasy stuff in here.
What do you think of your own little endearing messages, Len? What are
they?
> As ever, to you, the famous ByteBrothers phrase invoked.
Do you think that violates the IEEE Code of Ethics?
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
> From: Ma...@kb9rqz.com on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am
>
>> <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
>>>> N...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>>> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
>>>>>> decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>> If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
>>>>> and attack the person who points out their mistake.
>>>> Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.
>>> Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.
>> only has a lag of about 7 years on the long slide of robson
>
> No, Mark. Jimmie was on AOL on one of their ham radio
> "discussion" boards (exclusive of Usenet), sounding like
> the 120-year-old 1x1 superextra clone of the ARRL,
> parroting their phrases like he was a paid PR pro from
> Newington on commission. Someone apparently tipped him
> off on Usenet back then and he showed up in here. Same
> PR phrasing, same braggadoccio about amateur radio as on
> AOL's board, same talking-down with smug arrogance
> to anyone not embracing Jimmie's vision of the
> All-Codah Heaven (but no mention of "virgins").
Did someone tip you off to amateur radio, Len? You haven't shown up on
the bands yet.
> The Robeswine
Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len?
> is a relative latecomer to RRAP, but he
> initially came on trying to out-do Chesty Puller, USMC,
> but coming out more like Gomer Pyle. The Robeswine must
> have spent days collecting all the emotionally-loaded
> catch-phrases of the USMC and generally speaking like
> left-over sound bites from TV's JAG (now a "defunct"
> series).
> Jimmie cries out "You have no proof!" when others don't
> care to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue old posts by
> MISDIRECTION of quoting them. It is like he desperately
> must "win" old arguments he never won.
Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that
he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the
fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was
accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection".
> The Robeswine
Who?
> ...used to do that but lost it a few years
> ago, preferring to directly insult his challengers...in
> everything from their sexual preferences...
Is that like "smoking preference"? The fellow with numerous issues
wrote about his sexual desires in another newsgroup. We already know
what they are.
> How can OFFERING ONE'S LIFE be "subsidized?!?"
Ask Saddam Hussein. He was in the business of subsidizing the lives of
bombers some years back.
> Just the same, NO police, firemen, etc., ever
> have to face artillery, strafing from aircraft, salvos
> and torpedoes on open ocean and deliberate open warfare
> on land. Jimmie just doesn't understand that. He's
> never tried to. He READS about it and then says he
> "knows all about it" (and is the "expert" on it).
You read about amateur radio and claim to know all about it. You set
yourself up as an expert. Go figure.
Your blurb on artillery reminds me: That sphincter post of yours--where
and when did you undergo the artillery barrage? Was your friend Gene
there to confirm it? Did his sphincter tighten too?
Dave K8MN
kb9r...@hotmail.com
> > The Robeswine
>
> Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len?
he is the guy that makes death threats with your blesing Dave
> > The Robeswine
>
> Who?
he is the guy that makes death threats with your blesing Dave
>
> > ...used to do that but lost it a few years
> > ago, preferring to directly insult his challengers...in
> > everything from their sexual preferences...
>
> Is that like "smoking preference"? The fellow with numerous issues
> wrote about his sexual desires in another newsgroup.
note your own words In another Newsgruop
thus you agree and makethe case the your friend Robeson stlked me and
my discussion which were in the right NG for thing to make an issue
here
>We already know
> what they are.
thanks you robeson stalking
which you are support and aid
LenAn...@ieee.org
kb9r...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dave Heil wrote:
> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > From: Ma...@kb9rqz.com on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am
>
> > > The Robeswine
> >
> > Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len?
>
> he is the guy that makes death threats with your blesing Dave
...not to mention the many years he posed as a USMC
veteran and has never offered any proof whatsoever of
that. But, that's okay since the robeswine is an amateur
extra and that's okay...
> > Is that like "smoking preference"? The fellow with numerous issues
> > wrote about his sexual desires in another newsgroup.
>
> note your own words In another Newsgruop
>
> thus you agree and makethe case the your friend Robeson stlked me and
> my discussion which were in the right NG for thing to make an issue
> here
Mark, does that mean that Heil wants to talk about 'smoking?'
I wonder why?
For my part, I only smoke DURING sex... :-)
---
Hey, Mark, have you heard the new technology discovery?
Electronics works on smoke! Yes, if the smoke leaks
out, the electronics won't work! :-)
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Dave Heil wrote:
> Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len?
"Red-hatted monkey..."
Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others.
> Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that
> he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the
> fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was
> accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection".
The above is wishful thinking. Jim has the memory of an elephant.
> Dave K8MN
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > From: hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
> >
> > >N...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > >> hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
> > demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
> > to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.
>
> Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
> If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
> with asking to see the original?
There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question.
There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as
Heil has - "do your own homework."
> > who wants to demean
> ...
> > with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
> > that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer."
>
> Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len?
>
> I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
> Dictionary:
>
> "a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
> advantageous to the public"
A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private
company.
Do you even know what they are?
> What is demeaning about that?
What isn't demeaning about it?
> "subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"
So?
> Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
> government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
> really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.
You don't say.