-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In (Jeffrey Herman) writes:

John Smith I wrote:
Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical
standards", etc. Now, doesn't it?

Your impression of Paul is completely wrong. He is singlehandedly
responsible for the creation of the entire rec.radio hierarchy. He
wrote the charters, solicited the calls for discussions and calls
for votes for each and every rr ng.

Oh, let's not forget Brian Kantor WB6CYT (Info-Hams administrator), Jay
Maynard K5ZC (1991 rec.radio.amateur.* reorg proponent), Ian Kluft KO6YQ
(1993 rec.radio.amateur.* reorg proponent), Mark Salyzyn AG4YD/ex-VE3MGS
(rec.radio.info proponent and moderator), Ralph Brandi
(rec.radio.shortwave proponent/FAQ maintainer and originator of the
rec.radio.* hierarchy), Rick Stealey K2XT (rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
proponent), Richard Eckman KO4MR (rec.radio.amateur.dx proponent) and
many others, I'm sure. I've mostly felt like I've just come along for
the ride, or at best, "stood on the shoulders of giants" like Jonathan
Kamens, Tim Skirvin, Ron Dippold, et al.

It was either Paul or Brian who wrote the Usenet software that's
universally used to carry the newsgroups. (Paul, help me out
here; that seems like a century ago...)

Alas, the only software that's used regularly on Usenet that I had a
hand in was auto-faq:

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/auto-faq/

Though Brian did have a big hand in the early history of the Info-Hams
mailing list, from which the amateur radio newsgroups owe their origin
via a gateway.

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFFvYRE6Pj0az779o4RAhotAJ9LFVWMBeisgUqVMh7iS0 rn82y9GACgmMrZ
quwL+mmuM5FAOXKLv5Oc/vE=
=Jc5q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

So, all this bluster boils down to your opinion?

Do you have any proof that Paul has lied or is this just rhetoric
designed to sway folks away from the Moderated group?

You insist on painting with a wide brush too and would try to sling
mud on all of the proponents named in the RFD (which includes me by
the way..) so I would ask for more proof and a lot less of your
opinions here.

You are entitled to have your opinions and voice them, just don't try
to maintain them as facts until you can offer proof.

In MY opinion, Paul is who he claims to be and the intent of the
proposed moderated group is what the moderation team and advisers have
agreed it would be. It will be fairly moderated but kept on topic and
it will eliminate the constant barrage of personal attacks and the
other garbage that does nobody any good. Of course, this is just
opinion and will have to remain so until we have the new group to
demonstrate that we are being fair.

By the way... I've personally known past members of the US Senate, and
I'd not be too quick to paint them all as liars. The man I knew was
very much the same in person in public as he was in private and he had
no need to lie about anything to get elected. The people elected him
to as many terms as he was able to serve because I believe that in the
long run principle, morals and ethics matter to the average person,
not rhetoric.

-= bob =-

On Jan 28, 10:29 am, John Smith I wrote:

What part of "LIAR" don't you understand, I don't believe I have miniced
my words when it comes to "Paul W. Schleck."

The man has NO credibility with me,
I think he would brow beat the new licensees who pass a no code exam, I
think he supports henchmen would would do this also. I think past posts
can be dug up to support that rather nicely! I think the man is all
about a world where "EXTRAS RULE" the school yard!