"rickman" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately there are some who have legitimate gripes with Gareth.

Untrue.
Those who he has sought to harm.

I have never sought to harm anybody. I have, however, used the Internet
to assert the right of reply when that same Internet has been used to
blacken my name.

They feel compelled to share their trouble in no small part to warn
others how dangerous he can be.

I am not dangerous. I am a peace-loving pacifist. Are you making this up as
you go along?

Then there are others who just can't resist piling on because it is fun.

We agree on one thing

Then there is the ongoing discussion of how to deal with him.

No-one who is decent and proper and endeavouring to promote these
NGs as technical fora needs to be "dealt with".

Perahps it is a discredit to you that you have sided with the gratuitously
abusive children?

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...

You continue to prove to be the disruptive element for which
you seek to blame me.

I have never, in 21 years been the originator of personal abuse on Usenet,
and I
am confident that whatever it is that you have stalked me for to cite below
will not be origination from me, and only asserting the right of reply.

En el artículo , gareth
escribió:

Amateur radio has twin traditions of gentlemanly conduct and technical
motivation and you would do well to recognise that.

Both totally lacking in your case, as a cursory examination of your
posting history will demonstrate.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...o.amateur.ante
nna/CDDAgURmCgAJ

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 15:16:15 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

On 05/12/15 15:07, Phil Kyle wrote:
On 05/12/15 12:32, Jimbo in the Borders ... wrote:
"Phil Kyle" wrote in message
web.com...
On 05/12/15 12:16, Jimbo in the Borders ... wrote:

I admit it ....I wasn't beat up ...


I suggest ignoring Gareth for the rest of Dec. Not crowing about
shunning,
or talking around him, just plain ignoring his posts.

why?...


Because he's shown time and time again that he's unwilling to listen to
reason, so any reply just gives him an excuse to post even more
hysterical nonsense. I don't think that he's as technically inept as he
like us to believe


The evidence doesn't support that.

I'm gald to hear that you believe Gareth listens to reason, adoesn't
post nonsense. Perhaps you could follow his example.


- he only posts his bizarre theories because he knows
that a number of people can't resist correcting them¹ which does nothing
to educate him and just gives him a reason to squeal "abuse".


¹ https://xkcd.com/386/

He will invent abuse even if there is none. It is one of his few skills.

Oh and of course you never make any allegations ad hominem against
any-one do you?

On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 16:16:55 +0000, gareth wrote:

"rickman" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately there are some who have legitimate gripes with Gareth.

Untrue.
Those who he has sought to harm.

I have never sought to harm anybody. I have, however, used the Internet
to assert the right of reply when that same Internet has been used to
blacken my name.

It's a real travesty of justice that the judge didn't agree with you,
Gareth.

"This email was sent with the sole intent of getting Mr Reay removed from
his position because you and you alone deemed him to be unsuitable as a
teacher. In that sense this was offensive to Mr Reay. "

He even went as far as suggesting that you're not of "right mind"

"This is childish, humorous banter that no one in their right mind would
take seriously. "

How are the preparations for the appeal coming along, Gareth? You haven't
mentioned it in quite some time.

"gareth" wrote in message
...
If you really must disrupt these NGs with page after page of unnecessary
and gratuitous abuse, abuse which is largely confabulated and
entirely false, then please at least have the decency to acknowledge
that the fault lies in your own personality for your own atrocious
behaviour
and your own need for attention and do not try to justify the
unjustifiable
by confabulating that the victim of your spleen is seeking that abuse.

Amateur radio has twin traditions of gentlemanly conduct and technical
motivation and you would do well to recognise that.


It is to be expected that the abusers would respond to the above challenge
by originating further abuse, and as such, such behaviour is a condemnation
of them.

What is interesting, though, is that the 8 NGs that I frequent using this
ID, all attract
the same Mongolian Hordes of attention-seeking abusive grown-ups who,
although
their bodies might be wearing long trousers, their minds still seem to be
wearing
babies' nappies, and yet the other 9 NGs to which I subscribe with a
different ID
via aioe are peaceful places of discussion with absolutely no criticism of
my position,
and yet. unlike those who are nonces because they change their personalities
with their
NGs, I behave the same in all Usenet NGs.

On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:14:22 +0000, gareth wrote:

"gareth" wrote in message
...
If you really must disrupt these NGs with page after page of
unnecessary and gratuitous abuse, abuse which is largely confabulated
and entirely false, then please at least have the decency to
acknowledge that the fault lies in your own personality for your own
atrocious behaviour and your own need for attention and do not try to
justify the unjustifiable by confabulating that the victim of your
spleen is seeking that abuse.

Amateur radio has twin traditions of gentlemanly conduct and technical
motivation and you would do well to recognise that.


It is to be expected that the abusers would respond to the above
challenge by originating further abuse, and as such, such behaviour is a
condemnation of them.

What is interesting, though, is that the 8 NGs that I frequent using
this ID, all attract the same Mongolian Hordes of attention-seeking
abusive grown-ups who, although their bodies might be wearing long
trousers, their minds still seem to be wearing babies' nappies, and yet
the other 9 NGs to which I subscribe with a different ID via aioe are
peaceful places of discussion with absolutely no criticism of my
position,
and yet. unlike those who are nonces because they change their
personalities with their NGs, I behave the same in all Usenet NGs.

LOL

How can something as dense as you be so transparent?

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 17:21:21 -0000 (UTC), Anton Deque
wrote:


How can something as dense as you be so transparent?

look in the mirror and find out.

On Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:44:20 +0000, mw/3/qro wrote:

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 17:21:21 -0000 (UTC), Anton Deque
wrote:


How can something as dense as you be so transparent?

look in the mirror and find out.

I know you're quite thick, but you do know I don't see the same thing as
you do when *I* look in a mirror?

Phil Kyle wrote:
On 05/12/15 12:16, Jimbo in the Borders ... wrote:

I admit it ....I wasn't beat up ...


I suggest ignoring Gareth for the rest of Dec. Not crowing about
shunning, or talking around him, just plain ignoring his posts.

Is that really Father Kylemass?

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015 16:12:31 -0000, "gareth"
wrote:

As I said elsewhere, 43 years ago I completed an electronics degree,
specialising in computers and communications, and am now in a position
as a retired engineer to discuss those things that puzzled me and
which were never explained ...

Retired engineer with a degree? I would never have suspected that you
had any level of electronic competence beyond basic dabbling, much
less an engineering degree, which incidentally doesn't exist unless
you obtained a general engineering degree. Which university, what
degree, and in what year did you graduate (presumably 1972)? I want
to verify your claims.

Citing from
(And that is despite that in my last 10 years of gainful employment
I was designing test eqpt for mobile phone development!)

10 years designing test equipment should have given you considerable
experience in radio techniques, terminology, and in particular
standards. Yet, you seem to lack the relevant technical vocabulary
preferring CB lingo over proper engineering terms. You've also never
mentioned any testing RF testing standards. It's also odd that you
claim to have worked in the industry, yet have never offered an
anecdote, story, math, or calculation from your unspecified years of
employment. Something is wrong here.

I'm a great believer that education should deliver understanding as opposed
to training that only delivers knowledge.

This is not directed at you in particular, but in my never humble
opinion and limited experience in edukation, the best that can be done
is to overload the student with as much relevant and diverse
knowledge, facts, and techniques as possible. What they do with it
will be determined after they graduate and go to work. Experience is
the best teacher.

At the time I graduated (1971) college, teaching methods revolved
around independent thinking. Collaboration was deemed cheating.
Teamwork was tolerated only if there was a shortage of lab equipment.
All that has fortunately changed today, but it left it's mark on me. I
initially had a VERY difficult time working with other engineers and
technicians simply because I had never done it in skool.

If you had a teenage daughter, which would you prefer her to receive, sex
education or sex training?

There's not much you can tell a teenager. They already know
everything.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558