From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

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.

Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Tsk, tsk, you've proved what I remarked. :-)

You misquote and falsely accuse Jeffrey
Herman with an absolute statement.

"Falsely?" Hardly. His OLD, FORMER statement has ALREADY
gone round and round in here. Dredging up OLD material
only serves to show the self-righteous stubbornness of
those who never got their pound-of-flesh in the first
go-around. :-)

One which only a requires a simple rebuttal that:

- Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said.

"*Really*"? :-)

At the time, Jeffrey Herman seemed hot on trying to
prove some kind of point of "absolute" goodness of the
ARRL (not to mention its 'intellectualism' or whatever
in matters of amateur radio). Now the ARRL *does* print
considerable material in regards to amateur radio matters.
That publishing *is* their major source of income. It was
a very wise choice back in the twenties...that income
made it possible to fund all the "membership"
wonderfulness that came later. ARRL cannot exist in its
present form without that income-producing publishing.

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

Well, try as hard as I can, I just can't get my telepathy
powers or crystal ball working to show what Jeffrey Herman
"*really*" said. Really. All that I saw or anyone else
saw were the words in these messages. "*Really*"

Now, at that OLD time of going around on that PREVIOUS
message threading, Jeffrey Hermann was on of the persons
higher up in the not-quite-moderation team for RRAP?
That was my understanding then. Perhaps it still is?
So, if that was the case, then some not-quite-moderators
got their toes stepped on in past posting? [figure of
speech about "toes"]

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.

Tsk, it is quite obvious to most that dredging up OLD message
thread subjects to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue is
"dumb or pedantic," isn't it?

Not only is it dumb and pedantic, but useless effort that
not only wastes others' time but takes up unneccessary
memory space in archives (which already contain the OLD
postings).


No one else, not even your nominal "supporters" here, will post to this
newsgroup and agree with you on your misquote of Jeffrey Herman.

Irrelevant, Paul. I am myself and I am secure enough to
let my postings stand on their own. I don't need a
"supporter." :-) I can see that a lot of what I post
consists of OPINIONS which are shared by others.

I "misquoted" Jeffrey Hermann? Hermann is a pro-code-test
advocate and a strong supporter of the ARRL. That's not a
"misquote" is it? Did I get some "year of best-sellers"
wrong? Perhaps. I'm not one to trumpet some old publishing
industry PR about "best-sellers." Even so, year 1968 is 38
years ago, hardly relevant to today (year 2006).

If you wish to "discuss" best-seller listings, that is quite
another subject...which is NOT an amateur radio policy
subject, per se. Please advise on the proper newsgroup to
discuss publishing PR bullstuff and I might take it there.

Unless, of course, you want to dig up some sock-puppets, like Avery
Fineman, again.

"Sock puppet?" :-) Hardly. "Avery Fineman" was an old
pseuodym I used back in BBS days, before the Internet went
public in 1991. I've admitted to that in public in here.
It is a play on words, a mild amusement...except to the
anal-retentive, easily-furious, overly-touchy we-must-have-
ONLY-our-way individuals. :-)

---

Interesting (at least to me) that you devote SO MUCH time and
so many words into attempting to chastise me. Flattering,
perhaps, but I have no need of that. I see a much more serious
concern in an obvious LACK of trying to clean up the obnoxious,
anonymous postings of real filth and personal accusations
thrown on our screens by OTHERS. Isn't clean-up of such filth
the real JOB of the "moderators" and the newsgroup police?
I guess not.

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

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.

Oh? Yourself and Heil seemed to think it was imperative.
After all, you both have amateur extra class licenses and
are therefore "boss" aren't you? [one should always do
what the "bosses" say or lose paychecks or something]


Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

"Peers?" :-)

I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"


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 are sure?" Oh, yes, you know what someone "*really*" said.
Forgive me. I doubted your telesensory powers. I am only
mortal and therefore with Original Sin. I have no prescient
powers, only normal observation and deduction to see the
obvious getting-the-stake-together-for-burning-the-heretics
activities on-going.

Now, it is perfectly obvious that Heil, and your pickup on that
about the "IEEE Code of Ethics" was a beginning ploy to engage
in verbal "chastisement" of myself. :-) Both of you wanted
something, however slight, in order to imply some near-felonious
misconduct on me...for using the IEEE free e-mail alias
forwarding service as my ID on Google. No telesensory powers
needed there. Just observation and obvious deduction...on
something that is just an Internet address re-direction. The
ARRL provides this service to its members. Should I counter
by providing the ARRL much-publicized "Amateur Code" in the
same manner?

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

With most bestest regards,

From: Dave Heil on Fri, Sep 29 2006 9:02 pm


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


As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

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

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

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

indeed his attitude does not bode well for the moderation project

With most bestest regards,

In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

writes:

[...]

Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

"Peers?" :-)

I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"

I chose the word "peers" very carefully and deliberately here. I
anticipated that you would want to define who your "peers" are, and that
they would not be us.

As I noted previously, "Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than
enough evidence for your peers to judge," regardless of who you define
your "peers" to be.

[...]

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

To repeat what I said previously, which should be clear enough to
everyone else on this newsgroup:


"I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
existence on the first attempt. Specific approval/disapproval of
articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.

However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:

- Provocation/Prevarication

- Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake
of arguing)/Filibustering/'Grease' (extending debate by avoiding
direct rejoinder)

- Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants

- Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to
yourself versus others

- Trying to justify the above behavior with, 'But *he* started it!'

In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing
newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification."

And if you think that these standards, if adopted, would be unfairly
applied only to you, you would be quite mistaken.

I'm sure that you'll have plenty of comments once the RFD is posted
here.

With most bestest regards,



You're still not getting a "73" from me.

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

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.

Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Considering the dictionary definition of quibble
( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ):

-noun
1. an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or
irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue.
2. the general use of such arguments.
3. petty or carping criticism; a minor objection.
-verb (used without object)
4. to equivocate.
5. to carp; cavil.

the term "true quibble" is an oxymoron, and likely a "meta-quibble" of
its own.

Unless you're trying to argue that it *truly* was a quibble, in which
case I will agree.

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

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

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

What an obnoxious quibble.

Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Considering the dictionary definition of quibble
( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ):
way not try avoiding ****ing contest yourself

in only choosing to attack ONEside you take part in the on going fight
Paul and nobody as not neutral as yourself is going to be trusted very
far on proposaing anything to end the combat that is the standard on
RRAP

From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:53 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:


To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and
demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back
to archives and extracting the challenger's charge.

Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something.
If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem
with asking to see the original?

There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question.
There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as
Heil has - "do your own homework."

Sigh...that CONSTANT "prove-it-by-dredging-up-an-old-post"
bull**** again. :-( Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort)
and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in
here before...


I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary:

"a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed
advantageous to the public"

A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private
company.

Jimmie Noserve doesn't know that. Obviously. He's never taken
that Oath.

Do you even know what they are?

Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any
of his governments. He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe
dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies?


What is demeaning about that?

What isn't demeaning about it?

Indeed!

Jimmie Noserve must be connected with aviation somehow...he is
on some higher plane. He is "better" than the rest of us.


"subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy"

So?

Good grief...this NO-serve individual just cannot stop trying
to rationalize he is "right" and therefore cannot be faulted!
Just the same, he never took that Oath to serve his country,
putting his life on that line, possibly harming his precious
body dedicated to morse code.


Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

You don't say.

I couldn't figure out what he said...or meant to say...

Oh, wait, here must be the meaning of his words: It is okay
to be a civilian government employee (such as that glorious
DX king from State, retired)...but NOT okay to wear the
uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military
things and putting their LIVES on the line! Military
people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service"
are NOT!

Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible
"protector." Heil was a government employee at State. Heil
is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now.

Anyone who is a pro-coder and served in the military is NOT
"subsidized" but all no-coders aren't worthy of any respect
from pro-coders, are always "subsidized," never do things on
their own, got ALL education from the government, and
probably have underarm odor.

But, it is "okay" whatever Jimmie Noserve says. If you
don't like it he will keep on keep on keep on rationalizing
whatever he said is "correct" until everyone gives in just
to keep him quiet. :-(

wrote:
Seven years in prison, plus fines.

http://www.qrz.com

(top two stories)

More detail at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

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.

Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Tsk, tsk, you've proved what I remarked. :-)

You misquote and falsely accuse Jeffrey
Herman with an absolute statement.

"Falsely?" Hardly.

Yes, Leonard, falsely. You were incorrect. You were wrong.

His OLD, FORMER statement has ALREADY
gone round and round in here. Dredging up OLD material
only serves to show the self-righteous stubbornness of
those who never got their pound-of-flesh in the first
go-around. :-)

Your denial looks a little silly. The person who brought up Jeff Herman
and launched into the diatribe about the ARRL Handbook is Leonard H.
Anderson! By doing so, another pound of flesh was extracted from your
70-something-year-old hide. Are you losing weight through the factual
error plan?


One which only a requires a simple rebuttal that:

- Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said.

"*Really*"? :-)

Really. Tsk, tsk.

At the time, Jeffrey Herman seemed hot on trying to
prove some kind of point of "absolute" goodness of the
ARRL (not to mention its 'intellectualism' or whatever
in matters of amateur radio). Now the ARRL *does* print
considerable material in regards to amateur radio matters.
That publishing *is* their major source of income. It was
a very wise choice back in the twenties...that income
made it possible to fund all the "membership"
wonderfulness that came later. ARRL cannot exist in its
present form without that income-producing publishing.

So? What concern is that of yours?

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

Well, try as hard as I can, I just can't get my telepathy
powers or crystal ball working to show what Jeffrey Herman
"*really*" said. Really. All that I saw or anyone else
saw were the words in these messages. "*Really*"

All can see your attempt at a dodge.

Now, at that OLD time of going around on that PREVIOUS
message threading, Jeffrey Hermann was on of the persons
higher up in the not-quite-moderation team for RRAP?
That was my understanding then. Perhaps it still is?
So, if that was the case, then some not-quite-moderators
got their toes stepped on in past posting? [figure of
speech about "toes"]

Len, your statement is very convoluted.

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.

Tsk, it is quite obvious to most that dredging up OLD message
thread subjects to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue is
"dumb or pedantic," isn't it?

You dredged it up. Was it dumb or pedantic on your part?

Not only is it dumb and pedantic, but useless effort that
not only wastes others' time but takes up unneccessary
memory space in archives (which already contain the OLD
postings).

I'm convinced, Len.


No one else, not even your nominal "supporters" here, will post to this
newsgroup and agree with you on your misquote of Jeffrey Herman.

Irrelevant, Paul. I am myself and I am secure enough to
let my postings stand on their own. I don't need a
"supporter." :-)

That's a good thing for you. Perhaps it is a handler or spokesman you seek.

I can see that a lot of what I post
consists of OPINIONS which are shared by others.

....and oh, brother, what others!

I "misquoted" Jeffrey Hermann?
Hermann is a pro-code-test
advocate and a strong supporter of the ARRL. That's not a
"misquote" is it?
Did I get some "year of best-sellers"
wrong? Perhaps.

You did that at the very least.

I'm not one to trumpet some old publishing
industry PR about "best-sellers."

No, you are the guy who brought it up.

Even so, year 1968 is 38
years ago, hardly relevant to today (year 2006).

And?

If you wish to "discuss" best-seller listings, that is quite
another subject...which is NOT an amateur radio policy
subject, per se.

Please try to remember that you brought up "Jeffie-poo" and "best-sellers".

Please advise on the proper newsgroup to
discuss publishing PR bullstuff and I might take it there.

Do you think the folks there will be impressed by your "Jeffie-poo" stories?

Unless, of course, you want to dig up some sock-puppets, like Avery
Fineman, again.

"Sock puppet?" :-) Hardly. "Avery Fineman" was an old
pseuodym I used back in BBS days, before the Internet went
public in 1991.

Could a sock puppet be considered a pseudonym, Len? It doesn't matter
what its age happens to be.

I've admitted to that in public in here.

You had little choice.

It is a play on words, a mild amusement...except to the
anal-retentive, easily-furious, overly-touchy we-must-have-
ONLY-our-way individuals. :-)

You'd have us to understand that anyone who doesn't find it mildly
amusing is anal retentive, easily furious (whatever that is), ouver
touchy and/or a "we-must-have-ONLY-our-way individual". I'd say that a
guy who makes that kind of statement about what *he* finds mildly
amusing is guilty of those things of which he accuses others.

---

Interesting (at least to me) that you devote SO MUCH time and
so many words into attempting to chastise me.

Why should that be so interesting. After all, you've devoted much, much
more time and many, many more words into attempting to chastise others.


Flattering,
perhaps, but I have no need of that.

I see you as a guy who requires lots of flattering, Len. The trouble is
that you don't get much of it here. That chafes you.

I see a much more serious
concern in an obvious LACK of trying to clean up the obnoxious,
anonymous postings of real filth and personal accusations
thrown on our screens by OTHERS.

That type of thing has become a real problem here. Eighty or ninety
percent of it could be cleaned up by eliminating just one
individual--Roger L. Wiseman. He is a problem child under his multiple
sock puppets on usenet (not only in this newsgroup) and he has been a
problem child in amateur radio. His behavior and Mark Morgan's Myna
bird replies don't excuse your behavior.

Isn't clean-up of such filth
the real JOB of the "moderators" and the newsgroup police?
I guess not.

This isn't a moderated newsgroup, Len.


See IEEE Code of Ethics

Dave K8MN