wrote:
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.

"Yourself and Heil"? Tsk, tsk.

Where was it indicated, other than by you, that a background check
should be undertaken?

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]

Do you need a boss to tell you that you should do something or are you
capable of controlling your own behavior without being told?


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?"

You have peers, Len. Citizens are your peers. IEEE members are your
peers. Commercial radio ops are your peers.

I'm a citizen of the United States. I object to your behavior as your peer.


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.

....and you'd have us believe that you have observed folks readying to
burn you at the stake? Really?

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. :-)

Consider yourself chastised.

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.

I don't mind if you use it. I'd like for you to behave yourself like an
adult.

No telesensory powers
needed there. Just observation and obvious deduction...on
something that is just an Internet address re-direction.

There's a reason you began using it, isn't there?

The
ARRL provides this service to its members. Should I counter
by providing the ARRL much-publicized "Amateur Code" in the
same manner?

You've done so in the past. Did you forget?

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.

One can only do so much toward putting a stop to the filth posted here.
The prime poster of such material is mentally ill. You can do
something about your behavior.

I'm for leaving this group up and running until and even after the
creation of a moderated group. If you can't control yourself in the
moderated group, you can return here and exchange barrages with Roger
Wiseman.

With most bestest regards,

From: an old friend on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:18 pm

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
" 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

I don't think he can, Mark.

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

Well, Paul has a LOT to learn about moderating. I'm
speaking from experience of years of moderating several
BBS discussion boards locally. I wisely learned NOT
to take part in any "****ing contests" in public...or
private in order to do that.

Those moderators who could not help themselves and got
into one-sided public squabbles either quit in anger
or got removed by the Sysop. I only quit when the BBSs
went out of business due to Internet competition.

So far, it looks like Schleck is gunning ONLY for me.
I can't prove any reason for that other than the
postings in this "news thread" of "Gerritsen sentenced."
I have several suspicions, though. :-)

I'll say this, though. NOBODY that doesn't talk nice-
nice about present-day conditions in US amateur radio
is going to have a snowball's chance in hell of ever
getting into public view. One can take that to the
bank (and get interest on it). EVERYONE has to be kind
to all in the moderating team, call them by titles or
suitable honorifics. [one can envision saying "sir" in
response to all written text, perhaps saluting in some
form is required?] It's fairly certain that amateur
extra licensees will be exempt, regardless of what they
post and to whom. All others will be graded by license
class with those not licensed in amateur radio being at
the very bottom...with me totally blocked out. shrug

It will be okay if an amateur extra calls others by
'cutesy' names, demeans and denigrates their work,
what they've done, accuses them of pedophilia or
homosexual conduct, calls for 'consultation' with their
wives, insults their wives, even manages to insult two
large universities as being "correspondence schools."
That's okay since he has a "military" rank in the Civil
Air Patrol.

It will be okay if another amateur extra demeans
military personnel and insults them by saying they are
"subsidized" by the government...even though he never
served, never volunteered, hasn't even been in
government employ. Such an amateur extra is free to
demand whatever he wants of anyone challenging him.
He need not defend his demands for He IS an extra.

Who MIGHT get blocked may (no assurances of this) be
the anonymous trolls, misfits, and general filth-
babblers behaving like middle-school adolescent males
discovering that they can cuss out adults in perfect
safety. I'm really not sure if the "moderating team"
will be able to judge these, because they minute one
of them mumbles nice-nice about amateur radio as the
team does it, they might allow them to post?

It's all in what is said and who says it. Never EVER
be forceful in defending your position here, Mark. The
mear hint of it going against the establishment of olde-
tyme hams will get you labeled with "(mis)conduct."

Ptui.

wrote:
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."

I haven't engaged in a diatribe, Len. I've asked you direct question
about something you'd apparently like to convey. It has no meaning to
me. If it is one of your petty insults, I'm not able to be insulted if
I don't know what you mean.

Dave K8MN

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:07 pm

writes:
Paul W. Schleck wrote 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.

Tsk, I don't think so. Despite alluding to prescient powers,
you could not possibly know what I was about to write. :-)

Who you mean by "us," white man? I've been a moderator on
more than one public discussion board on each of three BBSs.
When you say "us" then you cannot restrict that to the
"moderating team" to be. I was doing moderating successfully
before this newsgroup came into being. You really don't want
to know that, I can tell.

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.

Your definition of "peers" seem to be solely the "moderating
team" and any olde-tymers in US amateur radio who've passed
the 20 WPM code test. I will NEVER fit into THAT peer group.
:-) guffaw, not just a little smiley

Neither will I fit any "peer group" that self-righteously
maintains the OLD standards and practices, pretending to be
professionals in an amateur activity. 'Maintenance' of the
old allegedly on 'traditional' rationalizations but really
meaning Their personal preferences which they attempt to
force on all others.

I will not fit into any "peer group" of inflated egos with
pretentious titles-rank-priveleges by which They imagine
are some kind of uberamateur and great radio guru...
especially those titles-rank-privileges which were lobbied
for by even earlier pretentious amateurs wanting to be
"professional amateurs."

I will not fit into any bigoted group that makes fun of
and insults any other radio service in the USA...just
because they don't follow some "amateur way."

I will not fit into any "peer group" of non-serving elites
who don't understand that real service to their country is
not by having a radio hobby...it means owning up to some
maturity and, when necessary, putting their LIFE on the
line. Voluntarily, but have accepted draftees who also
served.

I DO fit into a peer group that has an interest in radio
and electronics but doesn't need the emotional blanket of
rank-status-title to justify it. I not only FIT that but
have long worked in that environment...my career of choice
as I've explained in here. I've had NO problems getting
along with THAT peer group for a half century. But, in
this newsgroup best described as a Din of Inequity, some
deem themselves "boss" and demand some kind of strict
obediance, indeed quasi-patriotism, to the status quo.
There's been verbal "combat" in here for years, by the
few of the hamatuer order faithfulling echoing (or
parroting) the words of a minority membership
organization. Some of us spoke back at those! How
terrible! We went against the Big Brother of America!


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.

Did you think public discussion forum moderation is some kind
of "new" thing? It's been going on since the early 1970s,
even on the ARPANET-turned-Usenet as well as BBSs. Precedent
EXISTS, has existed for decades.

But, I can't tell you that, ey? Nope. You've tasted the
"power of control" and are a bit drunk on it. Understand.
Been there, done that, quit trying to drink that control
stuff quickly. That control liquor will bend your mind
faster than alcohol. You've got to do some steps to learn
sensitivity to what folks write in here, tune into their
intent, see what they "*really*" say. And, above all AVOID
GETTING INTO PUBLIC ****ING CONTENTS. That only makes you
(or any "team" member) one-sided, good for nothing else but
****ing in public. You are not "relieved" to know that but
that's the plain, simple fact.


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

Why tell ME, Paul. I can expect nothing but a permanent
block of anything I write in this moderated forum. shrug

You already give clear indication of such blockage. "In
spades" I might add. :-)


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

Blah, blah, blah. You've singled ME out. Many, many OTHERS
haven't even been mentioned, not even alluded to. I am as
good as shut out for the future.

Whatever happened to all those OTHERS in here? Is your
browser broken? Do your eyes glaze over when you see
those posts, make you unable to comprehend them?

Case in point: You've written about MY "(mis)conduct."
"misconduct" of WHAT? You've not posted any "conduct"
rules that MUST be followed. Yet you've tossed in that
"(mis)conduct" statement twice. What you've done is to
make me "guilty" of some law well before that law became
law! Haw!

The "moderating team" will MAKE the "laws" of this forum
whether or not they would be fair or unfair. One thing
I know for damn sure is that I won't be able to post.

You don't want those "guilty of misconduct (or "(mis)conduct")
you want those who make nice-nice to the elite of amateur
radio as she are known now. Absolutely NO ONE will be
allowed to remain for the slightest negative statement against
the olde-tyme establishment, especially those who fail to
respect, honor TITLES. No contentiousness of any kind!
The slightest hint of contentiousness will result in
banishment. Understood. I've seen that elsewhere. On
short-lived groupings who took the same path.

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

I could care less.

wrote:
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. :-(

I'm convinced, Len. Why did you dredge up the old post by "Jeffie-poo"?

Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort)
and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in
here before...

If we'd all seen it, why did you find it necessary to bring it up again?
Are you now feigning outrage of the previously described sort?


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.

Who is "Jimmie Noserve"? Is this just your way of showing us that you
are incapable of doing other than living up to the profile which
outlines your behavior?

He's never taken
that Oath.

So? You mentioned that the other day. What of it?

Do you even know what they are?

Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any
of his governments.

So? You mentioned that the other day. What of it?

He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe
dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies?

You can't help but to insult and denigrate. If any should react to you
in the same manner, you go to great lengths to discuss character
assassination and worse.


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.

You've long had a thing about being seen as inferior, less qualfied,
less experienced or not an expert in any field. Your military service
or mine conveys no super citizen status.


"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.

Are you ever going to tell us where and when it was that you went
throught that artillery barrage? Can your friend Gene confirm it?
Did his sphincter tighten too?


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)...

You just can't help yourself.

but NOT okay to wear the
uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military
things and putting their LIVES on the line!

I'm a military veteran, Len. Jim has never said anything insulting to
me about my military service. You are a veteran. You have insulted my
military service on more than one occasion.

Military
people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service"
are NOT!

According to your own words, my DXing while I was on government
assignment abroad was paid for by taxpayers.

Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible
"protector."

Is Brian your protector? Is Mark Morgan? Are they your friends? Your
supporters?

Heil was a government employee at State. Heil
is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now.

Good luck on the new conspiracy theory. Don't leave the house without
your aluminum foil cap.

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.

You really need to find something with which to fill your empty hours.

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. :-(

Whereas there is not much likely to keep you quiet. You are bound to
demonstrate the accuracy of the well known profile.

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 20:23:05 -0700, "
wrote:

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

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

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...
it is always the Nocoders that must do the work somehow the procoder I
guess cazan't losing the abilty as they learn code perhaps?

Nah...that's just an old, old trick of J. Miccolis. He diverts
attention away from a challenge by another (and usually on
a different subject) to get the group focussing on some old,
old newsgripe argument. He does that deliberately.


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?

as expendable materail in any event

No doubt.


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.

Len you forgot his Code skills put him on a higher plane

...and without his parachute! :-)


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.

yea I can personal attest serving is dangerous even in peacetime

"We were expendable." :-)



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!

Jim is simply on the slide to ending up like Robeson sad to say it
since he was managging better than than most of the ProCoders but it
looks we ought to ban CW to protect hams from the obviously damaging
effect of CW usage

Maybe "it's the water?" [like the Olympia Brewing Co. slogan]


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.

and these people expect to be trusted to moderate a Ng involving the
code issue?

People like them. They all passed the code test. No sweat.

Remember, Mark, they brooke NO contentiousness!


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. :-(

pity for all of us he does not read the ng more hed learn at least One
us will not do that

I have to just ignore him. If I don't, I'm liable to be accused of
"(mis)conduct" and other high crimes against the State. :-)

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 22:59:21 -0700, "
wrote:

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 20:23:05 -0700, "
wrote:

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

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

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...
it is always the Nocoders that must do the work somehow the procoder I
guess cazan't losing the abilty as they learn code perhaps?

Nah...that's just an old, old trick of J. Miccolis. He diverts
attention away from a challenge by another (and usually on
a different subject) to get the group focussing on some old,
old newsgripe argument. He does that deliberately.

he taught it to Steve and the rest fo Procoders

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP. Jimmie the M.
probably picked it up on the old (defunct) AOL discussion board
and saw it was useful for him as a misdirection. It's an old, old
trick and - surprisingly - works well with the uninitiated.


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?

as expendable materail in any event

No doubt.

I do say that on rainy day like today is here it realy makes me regret
I put my life and health on the line for the nation

Welp, 2000 miles away from you the weather was nice down
here. Picked up new glasses from Sears Optical and passed
the Armed Forces Career Center just outside the Sears
entrance. Briefly had some nice words with the same Army
E-5 on duty that I did on Tuesday. :-)


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.

Len you forgot his Code skills put him on a higher plane

...and without his parachute! :-)

they don't need hard enough heads you could most procoder from orbit
and they would survie byt beep in in their Code does get though your
know and the air would part and not let them burn up

Well then, let's get Heil to work with NASA. He wrote he "worked
with NASA" while in Vietnam. Maybe this time he can help them
with new nosecones or shuttle tiles? :-)


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.

yea I can personal attest serving is dangerous even in peacetime

"We were expendable." :-)



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!

Jim is simply on the slide to ending up like Robeson sad to say it
since he was managging better than than most of the ProCoders but it
looks we ought to ban CW to protect hams from the obviously damaging
effect of CW usage

Maybe "it's the water?" [like the Olympia Brewing Co. slogan]

maybe


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.

and these people expect to be trusted to moderate a Ng involving the
code issue?

People like them. They all passed the code test. No sweat.

yea

Remember, Mark, they brooke NO contentiousness!

except from themselves hypocrites but again the NG is dead even if
they get it lanched with attides

RRAP is dead for any real discussion. Pro-coders won't allow it.
That's IT in a nutshell. Pro-coders want to stop all discussion.
It is obvious to any disinterested observer. Problem is the
"moderating team" (well, one anyway) wants to be in the public
engaging in a ****ing contest. Ah, but with just ONE, me. :-)

The hypocrisy will be proven later, after the "moderation" starts.



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. :-(

pity for all of us he does not read the ng more hed learn at least One
us will not do that

I have to just ignore him. If I don't, I'm liable to be accused of
"(mis)conduct" and other high crimes against the State. :-)

well Clinton survived impeachment and even profitted from it

As far as I saw, Bill Clinton NEVER had to face the elite
"moderating
team" of RRAP! :-)

Yet again the gaseous bageous Exalted One takes it upon himself to hold
Court where none is necessary.
Len, you are quickly becoming a simple, smarmy to-be-ignored buffoon much
like your lone Peanut Gallery follower aka Mark Morgan.

And Len? Yes, I am one of those dreaded "Coders" you love to malign, though
I pose no stance on code or no code.
Tsk...What say you, Exalted One?

wrote:

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP.

Who?

Jimmie the M.
probably picked it up on the old (defunct) AOL discussion board...

Who?




Well then, let's get Heil to work with NASA. He wrote he "worked
with NASA" while in Vietnam.

I wrote no such thing at any time. Your memory is playing tricks on
you, Leonard.

Maybe this time he can help them
with new nosecones or shuttle tiles? :-)

Did you ever hear of a shuttle transatlantic landing site (TAL), Len?
Did you know that one of them is Banjul in The Gambia? Were you aware
that Dakar, Senegal was also used in the past? It happens that
Guinea-Bissau, that cashew exporting country, is just a little down the
coast from The Gambia. I worked in Bissau for the U.S. government in
communications. Let's see if you are capable of putting two and two
together and coming up with a correct answer.

Working with NASA isn't the same as working for NASA.

Your factual errors are mounting.


RRAP is dead for any real discussion. Pro-coders won't allow it.
That's IT in a nutshell.

Perhaps you aren't capable of adding two and two and coming up with a
correct answer after all.

Pro-coders want to stop all discussion.

Well, Leonard "I-am-only-here-for-civil-debate" Anderson, you've come up
with a mistaken notion. What is needed is a removal of filth posters,
endless Myna bird droppings of "get help", "gte help", "kooks on
parade", "koks on parade" and a change in your behavior.

It is obvious to any disinterested observer.

The likelihood of any disinterested observer reading this newsgroup is
very, very small.

Problem is the
"moderating team" (well, one anyway) wants to be in the public
engaging in a ****ing contest. Ah, but with just ONE, me. :-)

Your behavior has been pointed out. Your refusal to acknowledge your
part in turning this newsgroup into less than it could be has been noted.

The hypocrisy will be proven later, after the "moderation" starts.

You could easily be a part of a moderated newsgroup. All that would take
is some self-control on your part.


As far as I saw, Bill Clinton NEVER had to face the elite
"moderating
team" of RRAP! :-)

Were you elected to something, Len?

From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 1 2006 8:57 am

wrote:

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP.

Who?

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


As always, may you bask forever in the warm glow
of ByteBrohters famous phrase...