Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In . com " writes:

Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this
junior college instructor titles himself as a
"mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice)
that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best-
seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers
Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a
confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you
and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction,
he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship.

Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an
all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en&

According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html
clap clap clap that is just baerly within my LIFETIME

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an
all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en&

According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html

So it was a best seller!

Jeff noted that it was the best selling technical book on the list. I
suppose that depends on whether one considers cookbooks and Dr. Spock's
baby and child care books to be 'technical'.

The ARRL Radio Amateur's Handbook is certainly the best-selling book on
radio on that list.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In . com " writes:

Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this
junior college instructor titles himself as a
"mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice)
that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best-
seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers
Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a
confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you
and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction,
he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship.

Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an
all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en&

According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html

Thanks, Paul. Another Len Anderson rant has just become vapor *poof*.

Dave K8MN

From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 29 2006 4:14 pm

Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this
junior college instructor titles himself as a
"mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice)
that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best-
seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers
Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a
confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you
and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction,
he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship.

Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an
all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en&

According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html

Yes, that is what Time magazine claimed in 1968. But...
here is MORE of what Time magazine wrote, after the
title: "1926 3,800,000"

Now, in the book trade and in the newspapers, "best
sellers" are listed per week or per month or per year.

The ARRL Amateur Radio Handbook began being published
in the twenties. The time between 1926 and 1968 is 42
years. I didn't bother to check if this handbook was
published during WW2 years. If it was not, then there
are only 38 years between 1926 and 1968.

Are ALL of the Handbooks identical? I don't think so.
The AVERAGE PER YEAR publishing of the handbook comes
out to 100,000 per year for 3.8 million total over 38
years (90,476 per year for 42 years). That hardly ever
qualifies as a "best seller" publication.

Let's do a comparison between the ARRL Handbook and
"The World Almanac and Book of Facts." I have a 2006
copy. Continuously published since 1886 (a total of
120 years), "World Almanac" claims "80 Million Copies
Sold" on its 2006 cover. Now each year's Almanac WILL
be different. The AVERAGE PER YEAR editions of that
comes out to be 666 2/3 thousand per year. Further,
"World Almanac" claims to be "#1 on the New York Times
Bestsell" (also on the 2006 cover). Two-thirds of a
million per year IS "best seller" qualification.
Editions in the past two decades runs more to a 'Mil'
per year. Perhaps more.

Is the Bible on that Time list? I don't see it. Of
course that would be a contentious subject. Heretics
would want it in the "fiction" category, I'm sure. :-)

But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in
trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in
the amateur radio service person (although one who has
been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since
1956). Have you really done that? Are you really
going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and
reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure
you really, really WANT to do that! :-)


By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check?
You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal,
non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any
"investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to
speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice.
I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul.
Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a
national security clearance? Must be...!

Have you written the IEEE yet to complain about my
conduct in here? No? Why not? You are free to do so.
Do you think it will matter to the IEEE? If so, please
explain in 30,000 words or more WHY. (that's a 'short
novel' length) Be sure and tell the pro-coders about
your findings. The Inquisition can't get along without
you...

You really ought to search the ByteBrothers. :-)

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 8:31 am


wrote:
From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am
wrote:
on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:

I'm going to hold to what I wrote. Every military veteran I
know will agree with me. If some never-serving sonnovawhich
wants to argue that "subsidy" thing they can shove it.
I love it when you talk tough, Len.

That turn you on, does it?

Turn me on? What a very peculiar thing to say.

You like "bears" too? (hairy guys) :-)

Bears? Are you okay, Len?

The money I received as base pay
for my entire four years in the military totaled about 11.5 thousand
dollars. I got even for that in the end. I had to "buy back" my time
by paying 3% of that sum toward Federal retirement. It was a bargain.

Where?

In Washington, D.C.

"...in the end?!?"

Sure, Len, not in the beginning and not in the middle. First you want
to know if you're turning me on and now you talk about some other
meaning for "end". What's up with that?

Tsk, tsk...

Indeed. You've got a regular kink-fest going on there.

Try to remember that morsemanship is synonymous with
homophobia in here...

It is? I don't care much for the word "homophobia". It implies fear.
I've never been afraid of homosexuality. Find a word which expresses my
disgust.



Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal,
non-professional life" background checks on me they want.
Who is the "Waffen SS guy"?

He's a smug, arrogant Colonel Klink wannabe, marches
around in here barking orders and Strict Obedience to
things as they are now and will always be (as he thinks
they should).

Hmmmm. Don't know him.

Google provides--in spades.

"Spades?!?"

It is a suit in card games, Len.

I've gotten no garden tools or farming implements from
Google, only lots of data...the electronic kind.

I'd love to take you on in a game of cards.

But, you are the guy who can "download firmware" through
those Internet wires connecting your computer. shrug

I surely can. I even provided you a definition of "firmware" and a link
to the Ten-Tec RF Squared web site. You were proven as wrong about that
as you were on how Usenet was named. You make quite many factual
errors. Tsk, tsk--poor baby.

If you can get "firmware" through them, then you can
get bigger things like farm tools. Amazing.

I wrote nothing of farm tools.

They won't turn up anything heroic (no "seven hostile actions")...

You keep selling yourself short.There was the threat of the Soviet
bombers. There was the classic sphincter post which recounted what it
is like to undergo an artillery barrage. Where and when was it that
you underwent this ordeal? Can your friend Gene confirm it?
Did his sphincter tighten too?

No, I'm of average male height. Thanks for asking, though.

I wrote nothing of your height, Len. Care to answer the questions?
Where and when was it that you were under an artillery barrage?

... You have taken it upon yourself to
hint that others defrauded their employers, were incompetent in what
they did, never did what they've said they did or that you know better
how they should have accomplished their jobs. That's strange, don't you
think?

I did?

Yes, you did.

You have the EXACT WORDS to that effect?

I most assuredly do. Would you care to seem them again?

Or do you just have a guilty conscience?

Why would I have a guilty conscience over something you've done?


Tsk, I can't "fault" Miccolis on what he does for a
living...he doesn't say.

Sure you did, Len. He hasn't told you what he does for a living, but he
has a job. You've said more than once that he does nothing?


But he is "proud" of that.

He is proud of not saying? I don't think he's said that. I recall him
saying that he is proud of what he does. You continue to write that he
does nothing.

If he no say, he no do...the only plausible
interpretation.

No, that isn't the only plausible interpretation. It isn't really
plausible at all in light of what he has stated. What you are doing is
living up to the letter of the N2EY profile of your behavior.

Did I "fault" this Robeson guy for his claimed "18-year
USMC career?" You are damn RIGHT I did...and will keep
on doing it until the sunnuvawhich comes up with some
PROOF other than a bunch of bragging ****.

I never proved to you that I was in the Air Force and never proved that
I served a tour in Vietnam. Stop by your local recruiter and have a
talk about me. Have Brian contact "Stolen Valor".

That twit
spent less than a half year as a purchasing agent in a
set-top box manufacturer and then claimed "he knew all
about electronic engineering!" Buncha bull**** then and
still a buncha bull**** to this day.

Did he say that, Len?

[did that 'tuff tawk' turn you on? :-)]

It reads more like grumpy old man talk. Why do you keep writing about
turning me on, Len?

Other than yourself, who ELSE did I "fault?"

Show EXACT WORDS in the spirit of Miccolis' constant
demands in here. EXACT.

Remember that you asked. Be patient. It'll take a while.

Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann?

Yes.

Only in that this
junior college instructor titles himself as a
"mathematics lecturer." :-)

Do you know what his job title is, Len? Did he make up the title himself?

He claimed (twice)
that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best-
seller" lists.

By now, you've had a chance to look at the url provided by K3FU, have
read it and wept.

The ABA (American Booksellers
Association) has NO record of that.

Time Magazine apparently HAS such records.

Jeffie-poo is a
confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you
and Miccolis.

So? Why are you calling him "Jeffie-poo"?

As the usual pro-coder's reaction,
he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship.

The way your comments read, *you* got upset.

Did I personally "fault" Hans Brakob?

Yes, on a number of occasions. At times, you faulted him on military
matters. At times you faulted him on amateur radio matters.

No, we DID
argue on different sides of the SUBJECT.

The SUBJECT? When did military matters become the SUBJECT?

Hans isn't
reticent on what he does and even supplied the name
and address of his employer.

So?

We have successfully
argued SUBJECTS in threads.

He has successfully pounded you into the dirt on a number of issues.
All of the issues were SUBJECTS.

Did I personally "fault" Larry Kroll?

There's a Larry Roll. Yes, you personally faulted him. You insulted
his job on any number of occasions.

Just once for
his FCC 98-143 statistics report where he got me
confused with a licensed radio amateur who had the
same name (and middle initial) as I. Larry admitted
the error and apologized, I accepted that.

Your memory is quite short.


Did I personally "fault" Michael Deignan? YES.

You certainly did.

Deignan had a bunch of PHONY "club calls" in Hawaii
plus an "FCC licensee mailing address here.

You didn't know anything about that when the "faulting" began. I wasn't
aware that he used your house for a mailing address.

He
tricked Jeffie into supplying the Hawaiian post box
address.

Tricked him, did he? Jeff isn't "Jeffie-poo" any longer?

The FCC cancelled most (if not all) of his
FAKE "club calls" and made him use his (real) Rhode
Island mailing address. Deignan split from the
newsgroup and wasn't heard but once since then. He
was also a pro-code-test type.

So? Did you believe yourself entitled to one or more of the callsigns?

Did I personally "fault" the 'Katapult King' (Brian
Kelly)? YES.

You certainly did.

Kelly claimed over a dozen patents of
HIS in this newsgroup. Turns out that Kelly had just
ONE patent and is co-inventor, not sole inventor on
that patent.

So what? Are you playing another game of "mine's bigger than yours"?

All the others were complimentary foreign
patents.

Oh deary-dear.

My single patent would have had more foreign
filings than his but I never claimed those.

So what? How childlike are you?


That and
many more items Kelly exaggerated or was WRONG about
in here.

You've had a long string of being WRONG and exaggerating yourself.

Kelly has been absent for months here.

He keeps in touch.

Kelly
was (perhaps still is) a pro-code-test advocate and
also sensative to any negativism about morsemanship.

So? "Sensitive".

Have I faulted Ed Hare personally? NO.

Oh, sure you have, Len. Don't you recall the numerous occasions that
you accused them of posting on ARRL time? Remember when you called them
ARRL apologists? None of this is coming back to you?

Ed WORKS for
the ARRL and I have very little respect for the ARRL
or its claims to "represent" anyone but their
membership to the US government.

You have very little respect for anyone who disagrees with Leonard H.
Anderson. Yet you remain on the outside of amateur radio.

Ed is a pro-code-
test advocate, probably has to be to keep his job at
the ARRL.

That's a premise unsupported by fact.

Ed is against BPL. I am against BPL.

Good for you.

We
have both argued against BPL in other venues besides
here and to the FCC.

Ed is an expert on the interference which can be caused by BPL.

I can name a whole bunch of people who were in here
who, like yourself, were only looking to demean those
who didn't agree with their opinions.

You have done little BUT demean those who don't agree with your
opinions. You've gotten as you've given. As a result, your two
supporters are what's left of your coterie.

You conveniently
blur the distinction between subject and personality
in order to continue demeaning someone, anyone who
doesn't agree with you.

Len, meet Len.



Your actions ARE strange, but not unusual for a pro-
code-test advocate. Those seem to be affected by the
same "blurring" of distinction between subject and
personality of a communicator when that communicator
doesn't agree with them.

Sorry, I undid your little cut and paste. I placed my comment back
where it came from, up the page. You're doing a lot of blurring, Leonard.


From Jimmie Miccolis we don't have enough hints that he DOES
have a "personal, non-professional life" to DO a full back-
ground check.

Why, has he violated the IEEE Code of Ethics?

James Miccolis is NOT a member of the IEEE. Ergo, he cannot
be EITHER adhering to or "violating" any Professional Code
of Ethics of the IEEE.

Precisely. You're a member.


He is proud of doing nothing at work.

Why did you write the obvious untruth?

NOT an "untruth."

It is absolutely an untruth. He has told you that he has a job and that
he is proud of his work.

Miccolis won't say what he does.

Yes, and it galls you, whereupon you begin fulfilling the profile of
your behavior.


Miccolis
does say he was "proud" of what he did.

Yes he did.

Ergo, he is proud
of doing nothing.

You had to have been a logic class washout.


Hans
Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we
did and what we do for a living. So have others.

You recounted portions of your work so many times that I'm quite certain
that some of us would be able to recite it from memory.

YOU are IN ERROR. I've not described even half of what I've
done in electronics or radio engineering. That work spans
over four decades of direct engineering responsibility.

No, Len, I'm not in error. What you failed to do is read for
comprehension. Your rant disappears when you read "recounted portions
of your work". Thanks for playing.

Maybe you can clarify something for me.

That's impossible.

I suspected as much, but give it a try to the best of your ability.

Your "clarity" is not real clarity but
one of simply trying to deman, denigrate anyone who doesn't
agree with your opinions on subjects.

My clarity isn't real clarity because I asked you to clarify. You've
admitted that you find it impossible to be more clear.


... After all, there is certainly precedent for Jim
to believe that you'd simply use the information to attempt belittlement
of his work or home life.

Again, you are IMPLYING things of some future which does
not exist.

Familiarize yourself with the words "there is certainly precedent".

Your words are couched, padded, made up with
little doilies perhaps, just to demean and denigrate
someone who doesn't agree with you.

I used words cribbed from a paper dictionary (since I came along well
before the electronic dictionaries found online). I put them together
in a sequence designed to convey what I meant to communicate. The
statement I made was brief, concise and to the point.

You do this
constantly. It is an apparent "bully syndrome" you have.

Awwwwww. Do you feel as though I'm picking on you, Leonard?


I've noticed that others are told they are wrong when they are, in fact,
wrong.

What I've seen in THIS newsgroup is that pro-code-test
advocates state THEIR opinions as "fact." When someone
disagrees with those OPINIONS, the pro-coder calls them
"Wrong." Miccolis is a classic user of that "technique."

You *are* feeling picked on. You're beginning to go wild with the all
caps stuff. It has been my observation that Jim tells you that you are
wrong when, in fact, you are incorrect, in error, wrong. What is
classic is your reaction.

I've also noticed that you seem to set yourself up as an expert
in areas where you have little or no experience--amateur radio, State
Department communications, U.S. Navy communications, U.S. Coast Guard
communications.

I've never said I was an "expert" in any of those areas
and you damn well know it.

No, Len, I don't know it. You've known more about amateur radio than
any number of long-time licensed hams. You've know more about U.S. Navy
communications than Hans Brakob. You've know more about Department of
State communications than me. I could go on, but you get the idea.
You're a sidewalk superintendent in any number of fields. The problem
is, you really don't know. You go on calling your opponent "Master
Chief" or you start babbling about "cashews" or, despite the fact that
you know better, talking about his MARS assignment in Vietnam. Those
aren't simple mistakes. They're deliberate misstatements, meant to
belittle your opponent. You're very foolish to do so because those
things make you look small. You don't sway anyone by acting like that.

Your wording is again in the
Heilian denigration and demeaning of anyone who disagrees
with Heil.

Everything I do is Heilian, Len. I'm Heil.

Typical Heil activity in here, trying to damn
anyone disagreeing with you by stating they "have no
experience."

You *don't* have any amateur radio experience, Len. Standing over your
buddy's shoulder while he operates on 40m, isn't experience.


I HAVE had experience, both in the military and much more
as a civilian in communications of many kinds: USA, USN,
USAF, USCG, the government of the United States in various
agencies, local governments in the state of California.

Any number of us have had much more experience than you in any number of
those areas. That hasn't stopped you from belittling the experience of
others or acting as if it is an impossibility that anyone could know
more or have done more than you.

Of
course I realize that anyone with some experience beyond
amateur radio would seem like "rocket science" to those
having information input only from the world of amateur
radio. The ignorant can go educate themselves instead of
being spoon-fed information by the League (who claims to
know what is best for amateur radio).

Is that your way of attempting to prove my point?

Drifting off into your military experiences, the war in Iraq, your
PROFESSIONAL radio experiences--those things aren't amateur radio
subject, but you've never let that stand in your way.

YOU have, in this post, mentioned the State Department,
your military experience, or your subsidized state.

No one in this newsgroup has mentioned my employment with the U.S.
Department of State more than Leonard H. Anderson. Let it go, Len.
You never did my job, never served in the places I served, don't know as
much about State Department communications as me. Live with it. You
can't win anything on this topic.

That hypocrisy is justified by your exhaulted amateur
extra status? Must be so. You seem to be "permitted"
yet others are not. Tsk, tsk.

For the third time, Len, the word is "exalted". Learn it. Make it your
own. Tsk, tsk.


I've mentioned "my" military radio experience because it
involved HF, long-distance communications, and uses
techniques which are still used by radio amateurs today
("boatanchor" tube radios and vacuum tube finals to
reach maximum legal amateur transmitter output
powers). "My" military radio experience mentioned
being over a half century ago at a big Army station...
and comparing that to the "boatanchor" afficionado's
experience of today. Almost the SAME. A parallel.
Howaboutthat?

It's very, very weak, Len.


Jimmie Miccolis NEVER served in any military doing
"radio."

So? He has acknowledged as much.

He never volunteered to do so, not even in
the National Guard or the government (as a civilian).

....as far as you know. If he hasn't, so what?

Are real veterans supposed to "honor" such a person
who looks down on us and demeans our service?

I don't recall Jim asking to be honored. I don't recall him stating
that he looks down upon veterans and I don't recall him demeaning the
service of veterans. Aside from that, you are batting 1000.

By the way, I find myself looking down on you. It has nothing whatever
to do with your veteran status.

Plain and simple fact: It is out of line, INSULTING to
anyone who is or has been in the United States military.

I don't feel insulted.

Naturally.

I'm glad you agree.

You are a morseman and an amateur extra.

In this case, I'm just a veteran.

Those gods of radio are above such things...

C'mon, Len. You've never been able to make up your mind whether someone
is or isn't a radio god.

Len Anderson has never apologized for any of his mistakes or deliberate
untruths in this venue. QED.

I am not obligated to "apologize" for someone else's
FALSE charge of either "untruth" or "falsehood."

....and apparently you don't feel obligated to apologize for someone's
accurate charge of untruth or falsehood.

I will and have acknowledged ACTUAL errors I have made.

That hasn't been proven to be the case.

Those have been few.

You are simply mistaken.

OPINIONS that are different from yours are NOT "errors."

....but factual errors are factual errors. See the url for the Time
Magazine listing of best selling non-fiction books.


Who is "robeswine"?

"If you don't know that information, all of your
latest diatribe is rather pointless."

Your unwillingness or inability to answer the question is noted.


["signature" omitted due to not receiving a "subsidy" for
posting in here...to those who object to what I wrote, the
ByteBrothers' famous phrase is invoked]

I'm unfamiliar with it, Len. What is it?

You "unfamiliar with it?" Tsk, tsk.

Yes, I'm unfamiliar with it.

You can find hints of it
on a search through the Internet.

I didn't want hints, Len. I wanted you to tell me what it is.

Educate yourself.

I've done that. Thanks.

Find out
that ByteBrothers was created as the antithesis to the smug,
arrogant, anal-retentive control-freaks who consider themselves
"the establishment" but who just insist on strict, unyielding
adherence to their self-righteous ways of doing everything.

Are you some sort of anti-establishment hipster, Len?

As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

Don't tap dance around it. Just tell us what it is.


See IEEE Code of Ethics

Dave K8MN

wrote:

But, I digress.

You've finally written something with which I find myself in 100% agreement.

Dave K8MN

In . com " writes:

But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in
trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in
the amateur radio service person (although one who has
been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since
1956). Have you really done that? Are you really
going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and
reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure
you really, really WANT to do that! :-)

What an obnoxious quibble. You misquote and falsely accuse Jeffrey
Herman with an absolute statement. One which only a requires a simple
rebuttal that:

- Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said.

- Shows convincing, third-party, evidence that supports what Jeffrey
Herman *really* said.

You choose to "rebut" with filibuster and insult, implying that it was
dumb or pedantic to even argue the point, let alone try to find the
supporting evidence. Since you're apparently fond of absolute
statements, here's another one:

No one else, not even your nominal "supporters" here, will post to this
newsgroup and agree with you on your misquote of Jeffrey Herman.
Unless, of course, you want to dig up some sock-puppets, like Avery
Fineman, again.

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

In . com " writes:

[...]

By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check?
You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal,
non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any
"investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to
speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice.
I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul.
Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a
national security clearance? Must be...!

And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary.
Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

Have you written the IEEE yet to complain about my
conduct in here? No? Why not? You are free to do so.
Do you think it will matter to the IEEE? If so, please
explain in 30,000 words or more WHY. (that's a 'short
novel' length) Be sure and tell the pro-coders about
your findings. The Inquisition can't get along without
you...

You and I know very well that only IEEE members having standing to
submit ethical complaints to the IEEE against a member, according to
IEEE policy. I'm sure that you would take pains to remind us of that if
anyone else tried.

You really ought to search the ByteBrothers. :-)



--
Paul W. Schleck. K3FU

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

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In . com " writes:

[...]

By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check?
You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal,
non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any
"investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to
speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice.
I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul.
Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a
national security clearance? Must be...!

And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary.
Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.
you statesment are exactly no one seems to keen on the concept of
moderating the NG

indeed the attiue that it is is misconduct to try and protect ones name
from libelous attack is misconduct makes highly dubious of your efforts
to create a moderated NG

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 29 2006 4:14 pm

Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann?

KH6O's last name is spelled "Herman". Len. One 'n'.

You also forgot the "Ph.D." which he holds.

Only in that this
junior college instructor titles himself as a
"mathematics lecturer." :-)

He teaches mathematics courses at a Community College that is part of
the University of Hawaii.
How is "mathematics lecturer" in any way inaccurate? Why should anyone
"fault" him for that?

Have *you* ever taught mathematics at a college or university, Len?

He claimed (twice)
that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best-
seller" lists.

Not exactly.

He claimed it was on a list of all-time non-fiction best selling books.
And it was!

Is that a reason to "fault" someone?

The ABA (American Booksellers
Association) has NO record of that.

So? It wasn't an ABA best-seller list. It was a Time magazine
best-seller list.

Jeffie-poo

Len, who is "Jeffie-poo"?

is a
confirmed morseman and pro-code-test

Define "morseman" for us, please. It's not in either of the Webster's
dicionaries I checked.

As the usual pro-coder's reaction,
he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship.

"Morsemanship" isn't in those dictionaries, either.

Have you forgotten how you "faulted" him for his description of his
experiences as a United States Coast Guard radio operator, Len?

Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an
all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category:

And it was!

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en&

According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html

Yes, that is what Time magazine claimed in 1968. But...
here is MORE of what Time magazine wrote, after the
title: "1926 3,800,000"

Why is that important?

Now, in the book trade and in the newspapers, "best
sellers" are listed per week or per month or per year.

Those are *short-term* lists of what is selling in the bookstores. The
Time Magazine list was an "all-time" bestseller list.

The ARRL Amateur Radio Handbook began being published
in the twenties.

1926, to be exact.

The time between 1926 and 1968 is 42
years. I didn't bother to check if this handbook was
published during WW2 years. If it was not, then there
are only 38 years between 1926 and 1968.

There were special "Defense" editions published during WW2. They were
used as training texts in some courses.

Are ALL of the Handbooks identical? I don't think so.

Neither are the other books on the Time list. Spock's "Baby And Child
Care" and the cookbooks on the list have gone through many revisions.

The AVERAGE PER YEAR publishing of the handbook comes
out to 100,000 per year for 3.8 million total over 38
years (90,476 per year for 42 years). That hardly ever
qualifies as a "best seller" publication.

Sure it does. Otherwise it would not have made it onto the Time list.

Let's do a comparison between the ARRL Handbook and
"The World Almanac and Book of Facts."

Why?

I have a 2006
copy. Continuously published since 1886 (a total of
120 years), "World Almanac" claims "80 Million Copies
Sold" on its 2006 cover. Now each year's Almanac WILL
be different. The AVERAGE PER YEAR editions of that
comes out to be 666 2/3 thousand per year. Further,
"World Almanac" claims to be "#1 on the New York Times
Bestsell" (also on the 2006 cover). Two-thirds of a
million per year IS "best seller" qualification.
Editions in the past two decades runs more to a 'Mil'
per year. Perhaps more.

But how many were sold by 1968? I don't think you know, Len. You're
using today's numbers and assuming the sales didn't change much. That's
not a valid assumption.

Is the Bible on that Time list? I don't see it. Of
course that would be a contentious subject. Heretics
would want it in the "fiction" category, I'm sure. :-)

Do you think the Bible is literally true, Len?

But, I digress.

You do that all the time.

The main point is this: Jeffrey Herman, Ph. D., teaches mathematics at
the college level - yet you admit you "faulted" him for referring to
himself as a "mathematics lecturer". He also correctly wrote that a
certain book was on an all-time bestseller list - and it was, yet you
admit you "faulted" him for that, too.

Seems to me, Len, that you "fault" people for saying things that are
true!

Your chief interest seems to be in
trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in
the amateur radio service person (although one who has
been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since
1956).

Len, you destroy your own credibilty very well....

Have you really done that? Are you really
going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and
reference a 1968 Time magazine article?

Actually, Len, *you're* the one nit-picking about it.

It's really quite typical behavior for you, Len.

First, you make some claim or other, or deny someone else's.

Then someone provides conclusive evidence disproving your claim, or
backing up the other person's.

Your response is to attack the messenger for telling the facts as they
are.

Fits your profile perfectly.


Yes, I'm sure
you really, really WANT to do that! :-)

By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check?
You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal,
non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any
"investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to
speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice.
I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul.
Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a
national security clearance? Must be...!

What the heck are you talking about, Len?

Have you written the IEEE yet to complain about my
conduct in here? No? Why not? You are free to do so.
Do you think it will matter to the IEEE? If so, please
explain in 30,000 words or more WHY. (that's a 'short
novel' length) Be sure and tell the pro-coders about
your findings. The Inquisition can't get along without
you...

Do you think your behavior here meets the IEEE Code of Ethics, Len?

Do you think you set a good example of what a "PROFESSIONAL" should do?


Maybe it's time to look at some of your classic "faults" aimed at a
United States Coast Guard radio operator who mentioned some of his
experiences here. The Coast Guard is a branch of the military, Len.