To Whom It May Concern:

Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:

"Mark Morgan, KB9RQZ, is correct that all of our proposed moderators and
consultants hold the highest class of Amateur Radio Service license in
their countries (Amateur Extra for the U.S. team members, Class A or
similar in the case of Jack Cook, who holds both UK and Australian
licenses). However, that doesn't mean that we would be judgemental or
unfair to other classes of license. We would certainly be open to
adding moderators to our team that hold other classes of license. We
will certainly decline articles that are disrespectful to or prejudicial
against other participants for any reason, including license class. We
would prefer to judge ideas, and take posts at face value, rather than
prejudge individuals and credentials in a vacuum."

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

Gawd! I feel sick ...

Warmest regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:
...
Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical
standards", etc. Now, doesn't it?

Gawd! I feel sick ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Unbelievable, is there ANYONE here who believes Mr. Schlock... err, Mr.
Schleck would be "fair" and just to ALL? That he would consider
ANYTHING other than his own petty gripes and bitches? If so, step right
up here to defend the man, I am waiting ...

My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight!

Regards,
JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:
...
Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical
standards", etc. Now, doesn't it?

Gawd! I feel sick ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Unbelievable, is there ANYONE here who believes Mr. Schlock... err, Mr.
Schleck would be "fair" and just to ALL? That he would consider
ANYTHING other than his own petty gripes and bitches? If so, step right
up here to defend the man, I am waiting ...

My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight!

Regards,
JS

Schleck is all about self-aggrandizement. His posts are all about himself.
Read his posts, the few that he sends. Paul is convinced that he, and only
he, has true insight into Ham matters and that he, Paul Schleck, knows
better than us, the Great Unwashed.
Does the term, "Stuffed Shirt" come to mind?

Wodger wrote:

...
Schleck is all about self-aggrandizement. His posts are all about himself.
Read his posts, the few that he sends. Paul is convinced that he, and only
he, has true insight into Ham matters and that he, Paul Schleck, knows
better than us, the Great Unwashed.
Does the term, "Stuffed Shirt" come to mind?





Wodger:

ABSOLUTELY! And, he is much, much more. That bit of his just took the
GREATEST LIAR I have ever known and made that liar look like nothing ...

Schleck is good alright, the man has brass b*lls the size of
basketballs, and his little trolling bunch of henchmen are
sickening--strange they ALL seem to have extra licenses, isn't it?

Course, he just "swore" to the committee that they would not be "unfair"
or "judgmental", what a GREAT FARCE!

Warmest regards,
JS

Here is what my response to Mr. Schleck would be on his proposed
moderated newsgroup:

Mr. Paul W. Schleck:

I would question your ability to be a fair and just moderator. I have
participated in the rec.radio.amateur.??? newsgroups, I have witnessed
your abilities and goals.

There, I have seen you and your extra class henchmen attempt to
constantly steer the course of its' flow, intimidation and threats have
often been your tools. I have watched you and others look down upon
other amateurs who will now be allowed to take a "No Code Amateur Exam."
In no way have I ever seen you be even close to being "fair" or "just"
in your opinions, judgments, statements, etc. I have heard many in that
group call the present amateur exams "dumbed down."

Here, you have blatantly lied as to your purposes. You seek a forum
where a very limited band of ideas, concepts, beliefs and discussion can
take forth. You seek to establish a "class based newsgroup", this class
system will VERY MUCH depend on the ancient art of morse code and the
amateur exam.

If any here doubt, they only have to sift though the old posts and check
past posts of you and those you name as would be-moderators and they
will know. What I say, I say with great belief.

You wish to establish a "masonic temple type of brotherhood" here in the
public newsgroups. You and a few of your cronies wish to establish
tight and strict control over this group. And, from what I can see and
guess to your goals, you do this SOLELY for the purpose of stroking your
own egos.

Many of the "weirdos", hecklers and vulgar individuals in the other
amateur groups are due to you and those sharing your same views and
using your "street smart" methods--in effect, your "control freak"
attitude and "better-than-thou" stance has created them.

It would serve justice if you were forced to stay and learn to "get
along and play well" with the other "children."

Your words show a fine demonstration of stealth and deception; I don't
believe I have ever seen a better example than you have presented to us
here. I certainly would nominate you for the "Silver Tongue Award."

However, I would certainly NOT vote to allow you to slink and sneak off
from the tragedy you have helped to create.

Although you make this request and proposal out of your personal need to
feed your ego, and surround yourself with those who would feed your ego
for you, and "live in your own little world", I think it would be a
crime to allow you to do so.

The potential you have to abuse this proposed-moderated newsgroup to the
detriment of others demands it should not be allowed ... I for one would
vote NO, but then, you already knew that ...

Regards,
John Smith I

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:
...
Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical
standards", etc. Now, doesn't it?

Gawd! I feel sick ...

Warmest regards,
JS

Unbelievable, is there ANYONE here who believes Mr. Schlock... err, Mr.
Schleck would be "fair" and just to ALL? That he would consider ANYTHING
other than his own petty gripes and bitches? If so, step right up here to
defend the man, I am waiting ...

My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight!

Regards,
JS


There is nothing in the statement as printed that would justify your
conclusion.

Dee, N8UZE

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Wodger wrote:

...
Schleck is all about self-aggrandizement. His posts are all about
himself.
Read his posts, the few that he sends. Paul is convinced that he, and
only
he, has true insight into Ham matters and that he, Paul Schleck, knows
better than us, the Great Unwashed.
Does the term, "Stuffed Shirt" come to mind?





Wodger:

ABSOLUTELY! And, he is much, much more. That bit of his just took the
GREATEST LIAR I have ever known and made that liar look like nothing ...

Schleck is good alright, the man has brass b*lls the size of basketballs,
and his little trolling bunch of henchmen are sickening--strange they ALL
seem to have extra licenses, isn't it?

Course, he just "swore" to the committee that they would not be "unfair"
or "judgmental", what a GREAT FARCE!

Warmest regards,
JS

As of this point in time you have no proof of that. Let us see what happens
first.

Dee, N8UZE

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...

Here is what my response to Mr. Schleck would be on his proposed moderated
newsgroup:

Mr. Paul W. Schleck:

I would question your ability to be a fair and just moderator. I have
participated in the rec.radio.amateur.??? newsgroups, I have witnessed
your abilities and goals.

There, I have seen you and your extra class henchmen attempt to constantly
steer the course of its' flow, intimidation and threats have often been
your tools. I have watched you and others look down upon other amateurs
who will now be allowed to take a "No Code Amateur Exam." In no way have I
ever seen you be even close to being "fair" or "just" in your opinions,
judgments, statements, etc. I have heard many in that group call the
present amateur exams "dumbed down."

Here, you have blatantly lied as to your purposes. You seek a forum where
a very limited band of ideas, concepts, beliefs and discussion can take
forth. You seek to establish a "class based newsgroup", this class system
will VERY MUCH depend on the ancient art of morse code and the amateur
exam.

If any here doubt, they only have to sift though the old posts and check
past posts of you and those you name as would be-moderators and they will
know. What I say, I say with great belief.

You wish to establish a "masonic temple type of brotherhood" here in the
public newsgroups. You and a few of your cronies wish to establish tight
and strict control over this group. And, from what I can see and guess to
your goals, you do this SOLELY for the purpose of stroking your own egos.

Many of the "weirdos", hecklers and vulgar individuals in the other
amateur groups are due to you and those sharing your same views and using
your "street smart" methods--in effect, your "control freak" attitude and
"better-than-thou" stance has created them.

It would serve justice if you were forced to stay and learn to "get along
and play well" with the other "children."

Your words show a fine demonstration of stealth and deception; I don't
believe I have ever seen a better example than you have presented to us
here. I certainly would nominate you for the "Silver Tongue Award."

However, I would certainly NOT vote to allow you to slink and sneak off
from the tragedy you have helped to create.

Although you make this request and proposal out of your personal need to
feed your ego, and surround yourself with those who would feed your ego
for you, and "live in your own little world", I think it would be a crime
to allow you to do so.

The potential you have to abuse this proposed-moderated newsgroup to the
detriment of others demands it should not be allowed ... I for one would
vote NO, but then, you already knew that ...

Regards,
John Smith I

OK John, clean up this newsgroup so I don't have to add filters on an almost
daily basis to eliminate the constant deluge of sex posts, vulgar posts,
etc.

Dee, N8UZE

John,

I don't see a serious problem with Paul considering your quote or
anything else that I've seen so far.

Let's see... He clearly says that we are not going to require a
specific licence class to be a moderator. That seems fair.

So Where's the beef in your quote?

I can tell you that nobody in the team even noticed that we all where
extras until Mark brought it up. So to my knowledge that was not a pre-
condition for acceptance in the team. I do recall that they needed to
be Hams, but that seems reasonable. I was there from the start of
this, being responsible for setting up the mail reflector we use as
well as setting up the shell account we use for the moderation
software, so I should know.

It seems to me that you guys just oppose the creation of the moderated
group and you have chosen to engage in personal attacks on the
proponents in an effort to keep it from happening.

This is the best you can do? Do you have any real evidence here?

-= KC4UAI =-

On Jan 28, 12:39 am, John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:

Dee Flint wrote:

...
As of this point in time you have no proof of that. Let us see what happens
first.

Dee, N8UZE



Dee:

I live in California, we have rattlesnakes here. Due to the nature of
snakes, I don't have to "see what happens first", the snake is a snake
due to the nature of that snake--that snake cannot change his nature ...

Regards,
JS