[Jack]

"Paul W. Schleck" 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]

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm

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,

[[email protected]]

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm

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

"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 wrote in
:

In writes:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" wrote:


wrote in message
groups.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]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:25 -0400, Jack wrote:

"Paul W. Schleck" 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.

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 ****ing 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]

Nice try, but you will have to come up with a much better
*FORGERY* of Paul. In Schleck's defense shudder
he comports himself in a rational adult manner.

Jack


"Paul W Schleck" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:25 -0400, Jack wrote:

"Paul W. Schleck" 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.

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 ****ing 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.

[Paul W. Schleck]

In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm

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?

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]

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,



--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

[[email protected]]

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?

--

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

[[email protected]]

From: "Paul W Schleck" on Fri, Sep 22 2006 3:21 pm
Email: (Paul W Schleck)
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

Note the " email location indicating this may be
a forgery of Paul Schleck's email address which is ".

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 ****ing 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.