RadioBanter - View Single Post - A Special Reply to a Private E-Mail Threat

April 19th 05, 06:40 PM

In . com writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:32 pm

In .com
writes:

Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome
e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently
long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't
answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on
those "canned" welcome messages. ???

I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have
something original to say.

Wise procedure from one who is not quite a moderator here.

What an obviously self-evident thing to say. I would also post
judiciously about military matters, not being a General, about legal
matters, not being a member of the bar, and about technical matters, not
being a P.E. or PhD.

However, those replies SEEM to begin as a result of
automatic comparison against a list of those who had
previously been sent such messages. That is based on
my use of the IEEE address instead of the AOL one (AOL
has dropped access to newsgroups) when using Google.

Yes, you described how the setup works fairly accurately. The Perl
script that is used can only distinguish users by E-mail address. If
you post from a different E-mail address, that it hasn't seen before,
you will get the welcome message. It's an admitted technical
limitation, but one that is probably not easily overcome, and doesn't
seem to bother most people too much.

I always respond to replies to my welcome message. In fact, the text
of
the message itself invites such replies:

'The author welcomes any and all constructive feedback. Please direct

all such feedback to and retain the original
subject
(e.g., " WELCOME to rec.radio.amateur.*") in your reply.'

I have NO problems with that. Please do not assume I do.

I didn't. I followed up to rebut your fairly plain statement above that
'He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those
"canned" welcome messages.' Please don't assume that because I haven't
posted recently, that I am not reading, or not in positive control of
the welcome message service, or that I wouldn't respond to any E-mail
replies.

Automatically-generated messages are very common on the
Internet.

The last time someone complained about bounces (someone named Andreas
"Tekman"), it was due to a SPAM blacklist filtering out their message
at
the ISP level because they were posting from a site identified as a
significant source of SPAM.

I am NOT that person, have NO complaints about that in
this thread or any other.

I did wonder, however, on what basis you were making the statement about
me not replying. Was it based on personal experience, as I asked below:

Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer, does

or was it based on hearsay that you read on the newsgroups? The only
hearsay I can recall is that of Andreas "Tekman," and I explained in my
previously reply that his assertions are contradicted by evidence, and
his behavior on the matter calls his reliability into question.

Since I have successfully rebutted your assertion (or hypothesis, or
assumption, or whatever) that I do not respond to E-mail, would you now
be willing to do the honorable thing, and retract your original
statement? I really don't care very much either way, but I, and others,
would recognize such a retraction as honorable.

that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on newsgroup
subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in no
uncertain terms that you did not.

I am NOT interested in discussing any "policy matter" on
amateur radio with anyone who is biased, coarse, cannot
accept any viewpoint different from their own, or who
becomes petulant and abusive when "not accepted," nor
anyone who attempts to command anything when NOT in any
position of authority to force such commands.

I don't see how that describes me. Even you have described my E-mail
communications to you as suggestions or advice.

If this PUBLIC venue is insufficient to "discuss"
matters about Rec.radio.amateur.policy, then it is
not productive to consider that private correspondence
is also "useful." I've received quite enough of those
in the past. I've received some angry, petulant
responses while engaged in Instant Messaging with my
wife who was visiting up north while our niece was
undergoing a risky corrective operation. I had neglected
to set my AOL blocking controls fully and now have to
allow only certain screen names through. I have
received a couple of telephone messages from irate
individuals. That was during a trip, were duly
recorded along with their desitination number, all
forwarded to telephone company security people and
the LAPD Stalking unit (LAPD does not consider ANY
form of stalking as minor or trivial). Neither do I
live in any form of "fear" of anything...it is tiring
to see so many wanting to "fight" via messages as if
they could "accomplish" anything that way.

That wasn't me. Just give your consent, and I can make public (on a web
page, no need to annoy the newsgroup), our entire E-mail conversation
and allow others to judge its content.

27 Jan 04 was nearly 15 months ago. That is VERY late
to assume any sort of "remedial action from authority"
communications. However, anyone is still "free" to
send me any sort of e-mail. I have the perfect
freedom to ignore such or to respond in any way I
choose. I have not sent any messages to you since
27 Jan 04.

Nor have I to you, except for the automated welcome message. Did you
wish to reply to my welcome message, did you have any questions about
how it works and why you got the message, or did you want to resume
having an E-mail conversation about other newsgroup subjects?

If you have ANY complaints about my personal e-mails
then you can either exercise your newsgroup authority
by stating so plainly in private e-mail. That should
be clear enough...

I have no rank, commission, or authority here, as you take pains to
point out (except maybe as a peer-recognized "authority" on Usenet
history, as well as on posting practices that have proven over time to
foster effective communications, as opposed to non-productive
arguments).

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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