RadioBanter - View Single Post

Dave Heil · April 18th 07, 05:14 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:15�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:36?am, "Dudley" anon@anon wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
.net...
Dudley wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
. net...
AF6AY wrote:
On Apr 12, 1:59?pm, wrote:
Any way one slices that it is olde-tyme "snake oil
salesman" BS.
If you slice it correctly, it means you don't know much of anything
about my military service. ?It bugs you.
Len appears to presume that anyone who has
done something honorable will tell all about it in
a public forum like this. He also appears to presume
that failure to do so means the person has something
to hide.

Then again, if someone who has done something
honorable does tell about
it in this forum, Len will belittle him or call him a liar.

Only if that person expresses disagreement with any
of Len's statements.

I think there's precedent for a little leeway, Jim. A person doesn't
necessarily have to disagree with Len. We've seen examples of Len
biting the hand of one who is in basic agreement with him. There are
also examples where Len has lashed out at someone he perceives as having
higher rank, status or class than Leonard.

In my experience, both those presumptions are
simply incorrect as general rules. Often a person
who has done something honorable does not feel
the need to blab it all over the place.

...or at very least, does not feel compelled to document it by providing
Len Anderson scans of orders, documents or photographs.

Only if that person expresses disagreement with any
of Len's statements.

....is perceived by Len to have higher rank, status or class than Len
*or* if Len suddenly decides to bite the hand which feeds him.

There is also the fact that if someone is on Len's
enemies list, what they have done makes no
difference in how Len will treat them. He will use
his attack techniques on them regardless of, say,
their actual military/combat experience.
Precisely!

So there's no point in giving any information.

Right. It prevents *some* of the behavior listed in the profile *and*
it drives Len nuts.

This has been demonstrated so many times that
anyone with sense whom Len considers an "enemy" doesn't bother to tell
Len anything about their life
experience.

Woe betide any man whose experience in any area
exceeds that of Leonard Anderson.

Only if that person expresses disagreement with any
of Len's statements.

....is perceived by Len to have higher rank, status or class than Len
*or* if Len suddenly decides to bite the hand which feeds him.

I can think of many areas where my experience
exceeds that of Len Anderson. Most of those areas
have nothing to do with Morse Code or amateur radio.

It doesn't matter to him. Len has attacked my work in the Foreign
Service. Len has no experience whatever in that area. He knows little
of State Department communications techniques and practices of the past
or present. He knows little of the workings of the diplomatic community
in general. I can easily guess what he'd do with detailed information
about my Air Force service, based upon what he has written about my
State Department employment.

My curiousity is piqued. Why does Len feel that you how HIM any bits of
history or personal details regarding YOUR military service?

Len wants me to provide the information so that he can live up to the
terms of the very accurate profile of his actions which N2EY wrote some
years back. ?It says:
"No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors,
ethnic/racial/religious slurs, excessive emoticons and/or general
infantile behavior."
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? --N2EY
Yep. But that's an old version of the profile, which has been refined
and updated over the years.
Here's the latest version, straight from the author:
"No matter what employment, education, life
experience or government/military service someone
has, if that person disagrees with any of Len's views,
or corrects any of Len's mistakes, s/he will be the
target of Len's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual
errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs, excessive
emoticons, orders to shut up and/or general
infantile behavior."
Sums it all up in one long but accurate sentence.
I keep forgetting about the newer version. �I'll save it for future use.

Think of it as a living document, like the Constitution. Refined
and revised, but essentially the same over time.

You could always add amendments when the need arises.

You are correct. It clearly bothers Len that you are mum on this topic,
as
well you should be. What will Len next do? Issue another, more serious
challenge and "double dog dare you" to satisfy his perverse curiousity?
That's one possibility. Another is to accuse the
person of having something to hide, being ashamed,
or outright lying.

Len, with an amateur radio license, acts no differently
than Len without
an amateur radio license.

Here on rrap, at least.

Of course.

We do not know how he behaves away from Usenet.

I'm really beyond caring. This is where I encounter him.

Which reminds me that I have had QSOs on the amateur
bands with at least 10 hams who have also posted to RRAP.

Len, otoh....

That isn't something I find myself looking forward to.

Keep
him guessing. It gives Len something to further grouse about...as if he
needs same.
Len lives up to the N2EY profile of his actions today as he did for all
of those years during which he had no amateur radio license. What he
claims to decry in others, he does himself.
That's what the shrinks call "projection". Len also
exhibits classic textbook "transference" behavior,
where he attributes to one person the actions of
someone completely different.

...and not just one time. �He has done so over and over and over.

A clear and consistent pattern over time.

That time now exceeds ten years. That's a pretty good baseline.

Then there's the inclusion of obviously intentional
mistakes in Len's posts, as a way of getting attention
from those who correct those mistakes. That one
presents a bit of a moral dilemma, because to leave
the mistakes uncorrected may cause some to be
deceived by them.

IMHO, it's all about Len somehow "proving" he is
better than anyone who disagrees with him.

Right. �Len's inferiority complex crops up frequently. �He certainly
doesn't like having it pointed out that he is a beginner in something or
that he has less experience than another. �

Yet there is no shame in being a beginner, novice, neophyte,
greenhorn, tyro, wet-behind-the-ears newcomer.

I freely admitted that I'd been a beginner. You've admitted to being a
beginner. Every new ham has to start somewhere.

But for some
reason Len takes offense at those words.

I think it for reasons of rank, status or class. Len does not want to
be seen as junior to anyone.

He has difficulties with
anything he perceives to be rank, class or status, but he's the first
guy to do a "look what *I've* done."

You don't see the pattern, Dave?

Len is all about rank, class and status - as long as the system
used puts *him* at the top of the list.

I've been aware of it for years.

Len is apparently self-absorbed and,
as noted, becomes somewhat disgruntled when his diatribes go unanswered.
Len desires attention...nay...NEEDS attention as evidenced by his lengthy
posts. To ignore Len is to insult Len. He needs you far more than you need
him.

Compare the number, length and tone of Len's posts
(under a variety of screen names) and the truth
of your statements becomes apparent.

There are times when I'd swear that he sees himself as a short story
writer, getting paid by the word.

A PROFESSIONAL short story writer...

Heh.

I look at Len with a sidewards, understanding glance. His comments are
bolstered by but a few in these groups and if his supporters, such as the
Myna Bird are any indication of his standing...well, that pretty much sums
it up.

I'm not sure who "Myna Bird" is, but I think you are
on target.

Indded...er indedd...um...indeed!

Something like that. When did it become unreasonable to
expect proper spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation?

About the same time as educators adopted the view that we shouldn't do
anything to harm a student's self-esteem.

Seems to me that something worth doing is worth doing right.

Ah, Jim, 'tis a brave new world.

Dave K8MN