Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
Email: Paul W. Schleck


writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

Let's recap:

Why? :-)

Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."

Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
choice of words..."

Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?

Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)

Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.

Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?

Robesin did.

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm

writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
have used the word "enjoy."

"Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?

I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
read minds of others.

I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below).

Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)

You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?

Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
any minute? :-)

Wouldn't it be easier to acknowledge it and apologize to the man?

Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!

Is it true? If not, did you retract it?

Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)

It looks like you fired.

You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
understanding that "this is not a court of law."

This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.

I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?

I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
so disturbed by things in here. :-)

[I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]

Why, Leonard, you have often committed libel and outrage and you are
known to be one who cannot control himself in here!

I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I?

It isn't likely; you can't even control yourself.

After all,
those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
expect ME to "control them?" :-)

Your standards swing widely. You have recently expected me to control a
regular poster here. You demanded that I condemn him.


If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
many, many such words?
Because I can! :-)
I guess I can't argue with that.

Right! Now you are beginning to see the problem! :-)

This newsgroup has been out of control for a long time.
Anyone can post anything, including someone who forges
your name ".

That's the reason that I recommend Total Dissolution of
this newsgroup. Elimination. For an indefinite period
of time.

I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it.

Then you would be a poor choice for moderator. I've had
experience as a BBS public board moderator for several
years. It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone
but its the only way to do effective moderation. You
CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in
such an environment. That would be subjective bias.
Such as what you want to do in here...


Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED
venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues.
Well, at least you're willing to admit that the FCC Comments and
Petitions process is unbiased to submitters.

"Admit?!?" [bad choice of a word, Paul]

I have STATED what I wrote before. The FCC has stated that.
The Communications Act of 1934 that established the FCC must
accept commentary from all citizens on radio regulations,
ALL radio regulations. It is STATED in law.

We have/had some on this
newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that.

NOT my problem, NOT my words you talk about. "You want to
make unproven assertions, then if the accused want to
defend themselves and ..." Do not blame me for "others
words."

Remember your words. You are very likely to seem them again in the near
future. In fact, you'll see them when you next decide that Jim or I
should be responsible to something Steve Robeson writes.


I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be
arbitrary, and said so.

So noted. Now what, another knock on the door by
"officials" for partially agreeing with him?


Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted
him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being
disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him.

Heil frequently "chimes in" about others and others'
words, even taking it upon himself to "answer" replies
made to another. He does this mostly to no-code-test
advocates who are replying to amateur extra morsemen.
Google is full of his posts in that manner. QED.

Len, tell us about how this is usenet and that anyone is free to comment
on anything posted here. I really liked that one.

["Chimes?" A whole table full of ringing bells manned
by morsemen ringers...and ding-alingers]


I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
not contributing to this problem through my inaction.

As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend
Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite
time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that]

You recommend? That's pretty presumptuous of you. You aren't a radio
amateur.




Life Member, IEEE (a professional association with 397
thousand members worldwide)

Len, I'm a little confused about some IEEE matters. How do you justify
a number of your posts in light of the IEEE Code of Ethics?

http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.xml

I was puzzled when I read:

7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to
acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the
contributions of others;

8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race,
religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment
by false or malicious action;

Dave K8MN

Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
 

that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as
useful reading to our proposed moderation team.


Bottom line? Paul wants a "moderated" (translation...Censored) group that
He, Paul will be in total control of.
Yes, as said by another, this proposed group will most likely consist of
Paul and one or two others at most and I predict that the Newsgroup will not
get off the ground.
Paul, do yourself a favor and double check your ego. To be blunt? Nobody
really cares, Paul. Save for yourself.
I suggest you forge ahead with your proposed *moderated* group. Please do
so! Then, after several weeks of nobody joining same, perhaps you will then
come to the stark realization that nobody is interested and that you have no
like-minded disciples.

But of course Paul is already aware of the above and my bet is that Paul
will not proceed with his *moderated* group so as to spare himself any
further embarrassment. Paul's proposal is akin to, I Gave A Party And Nobody
Attended.

Don't give up the concept, Paul. There are many *moderated* forums
worldwide. China has many, as do any number of one horse dictatorships
around the globe. Yours won't be any different.

Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
 

In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

[...]

In .com writes:
I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
- is that true?

There's several modes that STUMP can operate in. It can always pass
articles to a moderator for full review. It can also operate against a
white-list of approved users and pass their articles on directly to the
newsgroup without moderator intervention. STUMP has some sanity
checking against forgeries and other inappropriate content, and this can
be reinforced with other mail-filtering front-ends such as Procmail (not
white-listing posts from known open/rogue news sites would be the main
enhancement we would add).

The misc.kids.moderated team figured that if a poster was able to submit
three unique, timely, and on-topic articles that would otherwise be
approved by the moderation team based on other factors like civil tone
and respect for others' opinions, then that person could be trusted to
be white-listed in the future. Of course, there is always the option to
yank that white-listing if there is future misbehavior. White-listed
users would have to identify with what we reasonably believe to be an
unforged "Last Name or Callsign."

Incorrigible users with demonstrated and ongoing records of simply not
being able to respect, or debate fairly with, others could easily be
locked out of the newsgroup. Their articles wouldn't even be considered
by the newsgroup, as they would be bounced back without being viewed by
a moderator. Such permanent blacklisting should only be done in
exceptionally grave cases. We're contemplating starting everyone out
with a "clean" record, then applying a sliding scale of warnings and
temporary bans up to that ultimate penalty based on future behavior.
Specifics will be in the RFD.

And of course, there would be the gray areas such as submitters who can
contribute positively but need every article scrutinized for lapses, new
submitters without an established three-article track record for
white-listing, articles coming through open news servers such as Google
Groups or aioe.org where the source cannot be reasonably authenticated
by automated means, as well as other things that may require moderator
review such as SPAM that got through other filters, off-topic
submissions, etc. These will be directed to a queue for prompt review
by a member of the moderation team. Over time, the gray area should get
smaller and smaller, and thus our workload should reduce.

Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.

All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.

Thanks for the info!

---

And I'll repeat my other question:

If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?

73 Dee Jim, N2EE

Probably some of things I mentioned in a previous reply to Len that
rebutted his assertion that the "sole purpose" of the newsgroup was to
debate Morse code testing:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5697020?lnk=st

In addition to the examples I mentioned, probably also the following:

- Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.

- Ongoing FCC attempts at mode-agnostic bandplanning, such as that
put forward in RM 11306.

- How to do this without overruning the amateur radio bands with closed,
proprietary systems being used as telecommunications substitutes, such
as ocean sailors' use of WinLink 2000.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
 

Share with us Paul, are you a far left liberal Democrat,
because they too demand total control of what news is
published?

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:


Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)

Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.

Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?

Robesin did.

They are birds of a feather, Brian. The only difference
between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
is evident in both.

Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]

Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
is faulty.

Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
others.

The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license. In any discussion with others about a singular
test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.

That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(

Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
 

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

[...]

In .com writes:
I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
- is that true?

There's several modes that STUMP can operate in. It can always pass
articles to a moderator for full review. It can also operate against a
white-list of approved users and pass their articles on directly to the
newsgroup without moderator intervention. STUMP has some sanity
checking against forgeries and other inappropriate content, and this can
be reinforced with other mail-filtering front-ends such as Procmail (not
white-listing posts from known open/rogue news sites would be the main
enhancement we would add).

OK so far - all ways that reduce the number of posts a moderator has to
read.

The misc.kids.moderated team figured that if a poster was able to submit
three unique, timely, and on-topic articles that would otherwise be
approved by the moderation team based on other factors like civil tone
and respect for others' opinions, then that person could be trusted to
be white-listed in the future. Of course, there is always the option to
yank that white-listing if there is future misbehavior. White-listed
users would have to identify with what we reasonably believe to be an
unforged "Last Name or Callsign."

Sounds like a lot of rules but OK.

Incorrigible users with demonstrated and ongoing records of simply not
being able to respect, or debate fairly with, others could easily be
locked out of the newsgroup. Their articles wouldn't even be considered
by the newsgroup, as they would be bounced back without being viewed by
a moderator. Such permanent blacklisting should only be done in
exceptionally grave cases. We're contemplating starting everyone out
with a "clean" record, then applying a sliding scale of warnings and
temporary bans up to that ultimate penalty based on future behavior.
Specifics will be in the RFD.

And of course, there would be the gray areas such as submitters who can
contribute positively but need every article scrutinized for lapses, new
submitters without an established three-article track record for
white-listing, articles coming through open news servers such as Google
Groups or aioe.org where the source cannot be reasonably authenticated
by automated means, as well as other things that may require moderator
review such as SPAM that got through other filters, off-topic
submissions, etc. These will be directed to a queue for prompt review
by a member of the moderation team. Over time, the gray area should get
smaller and smaller, and thus our workload should reduce.

Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.

All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.

It seems to me that such a complex system would be needed for groups
with lots of different contributors. Does rrap really have that many
people reading it?

Thanks for the info!

---

And I'll repeat my other question:

If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?

Probably some of things I mentioned in a previous reply to Len that
rebutted his assertion that the "sole purpose" of the newsgroup was to
debate Morse code testing:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5697020?lnk=st

Regardless of the original purpose of rrap, its charter has broadened
to meet the name "policy"

In addition to the examples I mentioned, probably also the following:

- Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.

- Ongoing FCC attempts at mode-agnostic bandplanning, such as that
put forward in RM 11306.

- How to do this without overruning the amateur radio bands with closed,
proprietary systems being used as telecommunications substitutes, such
as ocean sailors' use of WinLink 2000.

Seems the right direction to me.

It also seems to me that such a moderated group could exist in parallel
with rrap as we know it today. Let those who do not want moderation
have their unmoderated forum, and those who can live with the
moderation rules have theirs.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:


Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)

Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.

Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?

Robesin did.

They are birds of a feather, Brian. The only difference
between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
is evident in both.

Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]
and that even Hams like myself may not coment on Morsemenship


Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
is faulty.

Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
others.

The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license. In any discussion with others about a singular
test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.

That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(

yep and they whine about thee hobby dying around them slowly too

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote:
On 22 Sep 2006 20:17:44 -0700, "
wrote:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm

writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
have used the word "enjoy."

"Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?

I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
read minds of others.

no realy I would have thought not being burdened with Morse Code you
could manage that

Well, I might try making a time machine later. I'm having trouble
with my anti-gravity project: Something is holding me down. :-)


I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below).

Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)

You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?

Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
any minute? :-)

nah just Robeson who with his seaul issues likely wants sex from you
but can't admit it

Really? Is he THAT hard up? Yuck...!


Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!

direferent rules apply

Of course they do. In order to get into amateur radio one has
to be already-licensed in amateur radio! :-)


Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)


You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
understanding that "this is not a court of law."

This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.

thank God

Careful, Mark. Some in here think they ARE God...

I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?

I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
so disturbed by things in here. :-)

[I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]

I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I? After all,
those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
expect ME to "control them?" :-)


inded we are expected to control the extras and are not worthy of
being in the same NG

Amateur extra morsemen are the elite, answerable only to
themselves.


I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
and problem users.

Small Freudian slip there. "Individuals" who you think are
surnamed by call letters are rather blatant pro-morse-code-
test fanatics. The "Old Friend" is also a licensed US
radio amateur but you fail to note his call and name. Mark
Morgan is a no-code-test advocate. See the relationship?

indeed it is telling the deferent way the Techs are treated in the ARS
very telling

indeed edefening one name is all but a crime in his eyes

What did you expect from the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society
(ARS) ?


I hope the FCC wil soon get of it duff do it job and let Nodocde ars
try to repair the damage of "pur Beters"

The "betters" (amateur extra morsemen) say "it isn't broke, doesn't
need fixing." US amateur radio below 30 MHz seems to be made
for the amateur extra morsemen...natuarlly they don't want a thing
altered in there...they have a "home" at the lower end of all HF
bands, claim they "own" it. At least one thinks he is chief of
Zoning there, gets mad when his comparison to real living is
destroyed. shrug

The FCC has a lot to do with regulating ALL US civil radio. It will
get around to ruling on last year's NPRM when it wants to. We
have to be patient with the FCC. Not to worry, the ARRL and
amateur extra morsemen think they are running US amateur
radio. :-)

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm

Len, I'm a little confused about some IEEE matters. How do you justify
a number of your posts in light of the IEEE Code of Ethics?

http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.xml

I was puzzled when I read:

The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a
PROFESSIONAL Association.

If you have "confusion" about it, feel free to write them at:

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA

If your haughtiness has a problem with my PROFESSIONAL
membership, take it up with the IEEE directly. You can include
"questions" on NON-work "conduct" all you want.

To carry your threat further, I'll remind you that I have negatively
criticized (at times) the President of the United States, the
Vice-President (at his undisclosed location), the Secretary of
State, the FCC, the Department of Defense, FEMA, IRS, NTIA,
FBI and all branches of the US military. In addition, I have, at
times, criticized the California state government and individual
elected and non-elected officials there, the cities and city
governments within California, Illinois, New York, Texas.

Now, if you wish to have me "investigated" for some reason,
feel free to place a single telephone call to "authorities" to
have me "picked up." Your buddie, the USMC Imposter has
threatened that in the past. You HAVE the connections,
don't you? You WERE on the famous "key lists" weren't
you? You ARE very important because you are an amateur
extra morseman, the elite of the amateur radio service...

Until then I will remain an independent citizen of the USA, a
veteran of US military service, a commercial radio operator
licensee and will freely engage in the FREEDOMS guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States, one of those being
FREEDOM of EXPRESSION.

If you don't like that sort of attitude, go back to the Waffen SS
or invoke the famous phrase of the ByteBrothers.

[goodnight, Jimmy Pearson, wherever you are...]

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm

wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:


I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.

Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test? No harm will come
to you if the test is eliminated.


Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]

You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.

Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
regulations.

You've commented, ranted,
railed and have generally acted like a small child here.

Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
again. :-)


No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license.

WRONG. Driving inspectors MUST hold valid drivers
licenses in Illinois and California.

You don't work at the DMV or the FCC.

Clear something up for us: Do you REQUIRE that anyone
work at a Department of Motor Vehicles in order to talk
and discuss US amateur radio regulations?!?

A most irrational statement you made.

Here's a plain and simple fact: The FCC does NOT require
any commissioner or staffer to be granted amateur radio
licenses in order to regulated US civil radio. Really.


You don't regulate.

Regulate WHAT? There are many many things that I
regularly regulate. :-) US civil radio regulations
are NOT something I regulate.

You aren't a radio amateur.

True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?

You have no stake in amateur radio.

Now, now, Count Dracula, don't get worried. :-)

Tsk, you are still angry and petulant. NOT a good
attitude.

YOU are an amateur extra but YOU do NOT regulate US
amateur radio. The FCC does that, grants amateur
radio licenses, shuts down amateur radio stations for
rules violations, can even establish federal fines for
such violations.


I'm fully aware that I don't "rule" amateur radio.

You don't rule there. You don't regulate amateur radio.

I'm fully aware that the FCC does "rule" amateur radio.

Are you SURE about that? You vacillate back and forth
so much...

I'm fully aware that you aren't the FCC or a radio amateur.

Remarkable 'awareness!' Do you think that will get you
a cookie? :-)


The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license.

When it comes to amateur radio, you are not bound by FCC regulations
unless you decide to take to the air illegally.

Tsk, angry, petulant, and now ACCUSATORY of something you
state "I am going to do!"

You ARE wrong about FCC regulations. I am very much bound
by FCC regulations, both by radio but also for certain
wireline communications. You really need the entire Title
47 C.F.R. to confirm that (for your own edification).


I'm quite happy to observe the regulations governing amateur radio in
this country. I've received not as much as a single warning letter from
the FCC in nearly 43 years.

Marvelous! Should we chip in get you a nice little gold
star for your report card?

I don't recall that anyone was accusing you of anything
other than a bad temper, irrational behavior, or trying
to imitate some Waffen SS offizier in here. FCC doesn't
regulate behavior.


You aren't entering amateur radio.

I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?


I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.

Now, now, you are adding a mean streak to your bad temper,
petulance, and irrationality. Try playing "nice." :-)


I've not ordered you to obtain an amateur
radio license or not to obtain an amateur radio license.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You certainly gone on and on and on and
on about my "not having one!" Why is that?

I've not told
you to comment to the FCC or not to comment to the FCC.

You've certainly gone on and on and on and on and
on about attempting ridicule of what I've written
to the FCC. :-)

If you don't like my "smug arrogance", change your own tactics.

Now, now, you ARE telling me what to do! Hypocrite.


Len, why don't you address the IEEE Code of Ethics?

Oh, but I DID! Here is the address again:

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscatawny, NJ 08855-1331
USA

I apologize for not giving the web address: www.ieee.org

You are free to talk all you want with the IEEE Ethics
Committee.

You might even consider membership in the IEEE, but you
will have to get three IEEE members to vouch for you.
You probably won't live long enough to qualify for a
Life Member status (it is a free upgrade and doesn't
require dues payments after that).


Anyone who chooses to obtain an amateur radio license may do so without
any interference from me.

How wonderfully magnanimous of Heil! :-)

You've been braying in this newsgroup for better than a decade.

"Braying?" Neighhhh, Wilbur. :-)

You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

I had nothing to do with your failure to do so.

"Failure?!?" Tsk, tsk, never tried.

I've had a Commercial radio operator license since 1956.
Why do you insist I have an AMATEUR license?

Tsk, Heil is exhibiting irrationality again.

You're a victim of inertia.

Must be that why my anti-gravity project failed; Something
was holding me down! Should I channel Isaac N. for a cure?

Well, maybe you're right. I've had an abiding interest,
indeed a GREAT interest in women since the beginning of
my teens...but, never ONCE had I any interest in BECOMING
one! How about that?

Beep, beep,


Life Member

IEEE is a Professional Association with 397 thousand members
worldwide.

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

In .com " writes:


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm

Len, I'm a little confused about some IEEE matters. How do you justify
a number of your posts in light of the IEEE Code of Ethics?

http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.xml

I was puzzled when I read:

The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a
PROFESSIONAL Association.

If you have "confusion" about it, feel free to write them at:

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA

If your haughtiness has a problem with my PROFESSIONAL
membership, take it up with the IEEE directly. You can include
"questions" on NON-work "conduct" all you want.

So, Len, your personal morality makes a distinction between how you
treat people in professional vs. personal life. In your personal,
non-professional life, you feel that it is acceptable and defensible:

7. to avoid, refuse, and withhold honest criticism of technical work, to
deny and ignore errors, and to credit improperly the contributions of
others;

8. to treat unfairly all persons particularly of such factors as race,
religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9. to seek injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment
by false or malicious action;

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm

wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:


I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.

Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test?

You keep making the same mistake, over and over. I'm not angry. I'm
ridiculing you, Len Anderson.

No harm will come
to you if the test is eliminated.

Any change made to regulations dealing with amateur radio effect me and
all others current licensees.


Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]
You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.

Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
regulations.

My stance isn't illogical at all. It can't begin to compare to a fellow
who spends ten years of his life obsessed with something in which he has
no involvement. You're amateur radio fetish is beyond compare.

You've commented, ranted,
railed and have generally acted like a small child here.

Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
again. :-)

I'm not at all angry. I'm pointing out a fact.


No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license.

WRONG. Driving inspectors MUST hold valid drivers
licenses in Illinois and California.

Great. I'll grant that those administering actual driving tests are
quite likely to need a driving license. Those who work inside, the
clerks who transfer titles, issue licenses and such, don't need such a
license.

You don't work at the DMV or the FCC.

Clear something up for us: Do you REQUIRE that anyone
work at a Department of Motor Vehicles in order to talk
and discuss US amateur radio regulations?!?

Clear something up for "us": Do you have anything at all to do with any
state DMV or the Federal Communications Commission?

A most irrational statement you made.

Here's a plain and simple fact: The FCC does NOT require
any commissioner or staffer to be granted amateur radio
licenses in order to regulated US civil radio. Really.

And? If any of those FCC employees or commissioners want to take part
in amateur radio, they need to obtain a license in the same manner as
anyone else who becomes licenses. Really.


You don't regulate.

Regulate WHAT? There are many many things that I
regularly regulate. :-)

Oh, yes. When a man gets to a certain age, he is likely to need more
fiber in his diet. :-)

US civil radio regulations
are NOT something I regulate.

I thought I said that.

You aren't a radio amateur.

True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?

Nobody has stopped you from talking. What you want is a quiet audience.
You aren't entitled to that.

You have no stake in amateur radio.

Now, now, Count Dracula, don't get worried. :-)

I'm not at all worried, Len.

Tsk, you are still angry and petulant. NOT a good
attitude.

You make the same mistake over and over and over.

YOU are an amateur extra but YOU do NOT regulate US
amateur radio.

I recall saying that.

The FCC does that, grants amateur
radio licenses, shuts down amateur radio stations for
rules violations, can even establish federal fines for
such violations.


That's right. You have the hang of it. I've not been shut down nor
fined. You, on the other hand, aren't involved in amateur radio.

I'm fully aware that I don't "rule" amateur radio.

You don't rule there. You don't regulate amateur radio.

I used the term which was stated by Leonard H. Anderson.

I'm fully aware that the FCC does "rule" amateur radio.

Are you SURE about that? You vacillate back and forth
so much...

I haven't stated that I'm going to obtain an Extra right out of the box,
then that I have no intention of obtaining an amateur radio license and
then that I am getting into amateur radio and then that I have no desire
to obtain an amateur radio license. Now *that* is vacillation!

I'm fully aware that you aren't the FCC or a radio amateur.

Remarkable 'awareness!' Do you think that will get you
a cookie? :-)

It already did.


The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license.

When it comes to amateur radio, you are not bound by FCC regulations
unless you decide to take to the air illegally.

Tsk, angry, petulant, and now ACCUSATORY of something you
state "I am going to do!"

Are you familiar with the term "unless"?

You ARE wrong about FCC regulations. I am very much bound
by FCC regulations, both by radio but also for certain
wireline communications. You really need the entire Title
47 C.F.R. to confirm that (for your own edification).

The point is, Leonard, that you aren't going to run afoul of Part 97
regs unless you're a radio amateur. You aren't a radio amateur.


I'm quite happy to observe the regulations governing amateur radio in
this country. I've received not as much as a single warning letter from
the FCC in nearly 43 years.

Marvelous! Should we chip in get you a nice little gold
star for your report card?

Who is "we"? Do you have a Vibroplex in your pocket? I don't feel the
need for any special recognition from you. After all, you aren't involved.

I don't recall that anyone was accusing you of anything
other than a bad temper, irrational behavior, or trying
to imitate some Waffen SS offizier in here. FCC doesn't
regulate behavior.

If it did, you wouldn't be here. If you have nothing to say, you resort
to the Nazi stuff. That makes you look foolish.


You aren't entering amateur radio.

I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?

I can only go by your last definitive statement on the subject. There
have been reversals in the past though. What's your stand this week?


I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.

Now, now, you are adding a mean streak to your bad temper,
petulance, and irrationality. Try playing "nice." :-)

I provided an exceptionally frank opinion based upon years of
observation. There wasn't a hint of temper, petulance or irrationality,
Leonard.


I've not ordered you to obtain an amateur
radio license or not to obtain an amateur radio license.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You certainly gone on and on and on and
on about my "not having one!" Why is that?

It is because you'd have radio amateurs believe that an inexperienced
fellow who has never obtained an amateur radio license knows what is
best for amateur radio. Tsk, tsk, poor baby, toad-in-a-hole and Bob's
your uncle.

I've not told
you to comment to the FCC or not to comment to the FCC.

You've certainly gone on and on and on and on and
on about attempting ridicule of what I've written
to the FCC. :-)

I surely have. Then again I've never tried to disparage your views by
ridiculing you *to* the FCC in official comments. You have done that to
others.

If you don't like my "smug arrogance", change your own tactics.

Now, now, you ARE telling me what to do! Hypocrite.

Can you understand the words, "if you don't like"? I've let you know
how to play nicely with others.


Len, why don't you address the IEEE Code of Ethics?

Oh, but I DID! Here is the address again:

No, you didn't. Aren't you bound by that code of ethics?

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscatawny, NJ 08855-1331
USA

I apologize for not giving the web address: www.ieee.org

You are free to talk all you want with the IEEE Ethics
Committee.

You're an IEEE member. I asked you. After all, I haven't seen the IEEE
violating its code of ethics.

You might even consider membership in the IEEE, but you
will have to get three IEEE members to vouch for you.
You probably won't live long enough to qualify for a
Life Member status (it is a free upgrade and doesn't
require dues payments after that).

I haven't expressed any desire to join the IEEE. I'm not an engineer.
Would you like to join the ARRL? You can write them at:

The American Radio Relay League
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111

Alternatively, you can find them at http://www.arrl.org


Anyone who chooses to obtain an amateur radio license may do so without
any interference from me.

How wonderfully magnanimous of Heil! :-)

I'm not being magnanimous, Len. I'm stating a fact.

You've been braying in this newsgroup for better than a decade.

"Braying?" Neighhhh, Wilbur. :-)

When you aren't braying, you are often to found acting like a horse.
Usually you act like the other end.

You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

No temper was exhibited. I made a statement of fact. You've talked
about amateur radio. That doesn't make you a radio amateur.

I had nothing to do with your failure to do so.

"Failure?!?" Tsk, tsk, never tried.

You've expressed a decades-long interest in amateur radio. You told us
that you were going to get an "Extra right out of the box". You have
posted to this newsgroup for better than ten years. You have failed to
obtain an amateur radio license. It doesn't matter if you tried once or
several times and failed or if you failed by never trying.

I've had a Commercial radio operator license since 1956.

You're in the wrong newsgroup. This one concerns amateur radio and Mark
Morgan's fetishes.

Why do you insist I have an AMATEUR license?

I've never insisted that you have to have one. In fact, I rather hope
that you never get one.

Tsk, Heil is exhibiting irrationality again.

If I'd insisted that you obtain an amateur radio license, that might be.
I didn't do so. Your statement is absurd.

You're a victim of inertia.

Must be that why my anti-gravity project failed; Something
was holding me down! Should I channel Isaac N. for a cure?

You keep using the same purloined Stephen Wright joke as if it'll get
funnier through repetition.

Well, maybe you're right. I've had an abiding interest,
indeed a GREAT interest in women since the beginning of
my teens...but, never ONCE had I any interest in BECOMING
one! How about that?

And so it is in your relationship to amateur radio.

Beep, beep,
Tisket, tasket



Life Member


Life Member

IEEE is a Professional Association with 397 thousand members
worldwide.

You'd think that being a PROFESSIONAL organization which grants FREE
life membership under certain conditions, it could do better than that.

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Hey Schleck a.k.a. Censor-Boy, tell us about your
thin skin & ego, before you criticize other people
Censor-Boy! LOL

73,

Karak

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon, Sep 25 2006 7:28 am

writes:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm


The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a
PROFESSIONAL Association.

If you have "confusion" about it, feel free to write them at:

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA

If your haughtiness has a problem with my PROFESSIONAL
membership, take it up with the IEEE directly. You can include
"questions" on NON-work "conduct" all you want.

So, Len, your personal morality makes a distinction between how you
treat people in professional vs. personal life.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Personal morality..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tsk, the Torquemadas are in a conclave now? :-) :-)

Too funny, really...but tragic in the obvious state of
mind of a future newsgroup moderator...and a possible
course of action of future newsgroup "moderation."

Here's a plain and simple fact: Heil, unable to control
hisself, searched and searched for a weapon of anti-morse
destruction and seized the IEEE Code of Conduct...saying
he "addressed it." Not fully, so I merely listed the
IEEE mailing address for his convenience.

David Heil is perfectly free to communicate with the IEEE
and bring his CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT against me to the
attention of the Membership Committee of the IEEE, the
Ethics Committee, whatever IEEE official, other IEEE
members he wants to vent to. So are you. Go ahead.

As I've said, as the IEEE says, it is a Professional
Association. It has no direct bearing on AMATEUR RADIO
other than some of its thousands of members no doubt
do professional work on designing, manufacturing, and
selling of amateur radio equipment. The IEEE makes
available a forwarding alias for e-mail to members and
I use that free service, hence the "signature" I use.
Some have great difficulty with that "signature,"
demanding I either drop it or get an amateur radio
license and use that (as "official?"). Now that
"signature" (or "ID" or just an e-mail address) has
become a Cause Celebre' of yourself and someone who
has an obsession of villifying his newsgroup enemies?

Here's another plain and simple fact: There are dozens
of daily postings by anonymous individuals in THIS
newsgroup spewing hateful filth about others. A simple
search of Google archives will turn up "responsible"
(Ha!) "names" such as "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" and "Billy
****tydrawers" yet THEY are NOT made a target of this
Inquisition into the "Morality" of their postings.
Why IS that? They do not have any identifiable
connection with amateur radio, but you seem to avoid
them in favor of direct (snide) "attacks" on certain
others such as myself. That is hypocrisy in action,
demonstratable in things like the insinuation below:

In your personal,
non-professional life, you feel that it is acceptable
and defensible:

What I do in my "personal, non-professional life" is
none of your concern. Neither you nor David Heil
can control that, modify it, or make judgements on
it leading to cessation of my rights to free speech
as a citizen of the USA and as a military veteran of
the USA. Yet, you actively seek to CONTROL it. Why?
Because you are PERSONALLY upset by my words? You
feel you are such a supreme ruler that you can
CONTROL opposing opinions or wish to delete all
postings which are not to some arbitrary standard of
protocol demanding obediance to some self-righteous
opinions held by a ruling clique?

If you wish to delve into my "personal, non-professional"
life, get together an Investigative Team. You can use
those that Hewlett-Packard did (their business may have
slowed since HP is under investigation and no doubt have
some free time). Feel free to start with my Pastor,
Ralph Midtlyng, at All-Saints Community Church three
blocks away from my house. It is principally a Lutheran
church but does not bar others about their "personal,
non-professional life." [recall that Martin Luther was
no shrinking violet on matters theological?]

Interrogate my immediate neighbors about my "personal,
non-professional life." The Topalians are right across
the street, Hurleys and Brunos on either side, the
Gonzalez family up on the corner. Consult old issues
of Ham Radio for my address; it hasn't changed since
May of '63. Try my city councilmember's office (Wendy
Gruel, real name). Or possibly the Los Angeles Police
Department, Foothill Division. Maybe you can extract
juicy little tidbits of "scandal" to use in here to
actively engage in vituperative attacks who don't fit
your mold? Since you won't find any, feel free to
MANUFACTURE some. Others do it, therefore it is okay?

Yes, I suppose there is some great (grate?) significance
about "personal, non-professional life" that the outraged
wish to use as weapons of anti-morse destruction (see
Heil's vituperation in here) against me. Try my Sex
Life (heterosexual). My wife is also my high school
sweetheart. I would suggest you NOT consult my wife on
"personal, non-professional life" for your own emotional
safety. Her name? Hundreds of our school classmates
know it. Sorry, you'll have to find that out yourself
but your Investigative Team will know the correct
government agency to find that out...and many more items
of "personal, non-professional life" data.

I've tried to help you out here on "personal, non-
professional life" items as a courtesy to your apparent
Inquisition of a single individual. You really can't
ask more than that, can you? :-)

Why do you feel that AMATEUR radio activity is to
be taken the SAME as Professional Activity? Why do
you side with the allegations of "misconduct" in
"personal, non-professional life" by someone who is
a known personal attacker of those he does not like.
Do you wish to add more spotlights to some imagined
"dispute" between a Professional Code of ETHICS, not
"morality?" Make this into a "federal case?" Why?
Personality conflict? My failure to "pop to" and pay
some kind of "respect" you feel "owed" to you? I am
NOT OBLIGATED to do that, except in a few individual's
fantasies or imaginations.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to "pay respect" to some olde-tyme
radio amateur just because they have some federal
license in amateur radio. I was IN radio communications
on HF full-time before some of these self-styled "rulers"
of the amateur waves were born, using techniques that
persist in amateur radio HF communications today. With
the exception of manual radiotelegraphy which wasn't used
a half century ago but persists in the mythical "standards"
of US amateur radio today.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to ANYONE who insists on calling every
statement I make "wrong" or others with some smug,
arrogant attitudes that they are "superior." My opinions
are my opinions, those of a free and independent US
citizen who has taken an Oath to preserve the Constitution
of the United States.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to ANYONE who cannot personally stand
opposition to self-righteous opinions of theirs. I am
NOT OBLIGATED to "stand on an outside" on any subject that
some alleged "insiders" say I do.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to any would-be moderator who wants to
both moderate and to engage in one-sided behavior in the
newsgroup.

ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

" wrote in
ps.com:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon, Sep 25 2006 7:28 am

writes:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm


The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers is a
PROFESSIONAL Association.

If you have "confusion" about it, feel free to write them at:

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331
USA

If your haughtiness has a problem with my PROFESSIONAL
membership, take it up with the IEEE directly. You can include
"questions" on NON-work "conduct" all you want.

So, Len, your personal morality makes a distinction between how you
treat people in professional vs. personal life.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Personal morality..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tsk, the Torquemadas are in a conclave now? :-) :-)

Too funny, really...but tragic in the obvious state of
mind of a future newsgroup moderator...and a possible
course of action of future newsgroup "moderation."

Here's a plain and simple fact: Heil, unable to control
hisself, searched and searched for a weapon of anti-morse
destruction and seized the IEEE Code of Conduct...saying
he "addressed it." Not fully, so I merely listed the
IEEE mailing address for his convenience.

David Heil is perfectly free to communicate with the IEEE
and bring his CHARGES OF MISCONDUCT against me to the
attention of the Membership Committee of the IEEE, the
Ethics Committee, whatever IEEE official, other IEEE
members he wants to vent to. So are you. Go ahead.

As I've said, as the IEEE says, it is a Professional
Association. It has no direct bearing on AMATEUR RADIO
other than some of its thousands of members no doubt
do professional work on designing, manufacturing, and
selling of amateur radio equipment. The IEEE makes
available a forwarding alias for e-mail to members and
I use that free service, hence the "signature" I use.
Some have great difficulty with that "signature,"
demanding I either drop it or get an amateur radio
license and use that (as "official?"). Now that
"signature" (or "ID" or just an e-mail address) has
become a Cause Celebre' of yourself and someone who
has an obsession of villifying his newsgroup enemies?

Here's another plain and simple fact: There are dozens
of daily postings by anonymous individuals in THIS
newsgroup spewing hateful filth about others. A simple
search of Google archives will turn up "responsible"
(Ha!) "names" such as "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" and "Billy
****tydrawers" yet THEY are NOT made a target of this
Inquisition into the "Morality" of their postings.
Why IS that? They do not have any identifiable
connection with amateur radio, but you seem to avoid
them in favor of direct (snide) "attacks" on certain
others such as myself. That is hypocrisy in action,
demonstratable in things like the insinuation below:

In your personal,
non-professional life, you feel that it is acceptable
and defensible:

What I do in my "personal, non-professional life" is
none of your concern. Neither you nor David Heil
can control that, modify it, or make judgements on
it leading to cessation of my rights to free speech
as a citizen of the USA and as a military veteran of
the USA. Yet, you actively seek to CONTROL it. Why?
Because you are PERSONALLY upset by my words? You
feel you are such a supreme ruler that you can
CONTROL opposing opinions or wish to delete all
postings which are not to some arbitrary standard of
protocol demanding obediance to some self-righteous
opinions held by a ruling clique?

If you wish to delve into my "personal, non-professional"
life, get together an Investigative Team. You can use
those that Hewlett-Packard did (their business may have
slowed since HP is under investigation and no doubt have
some free time). Feel free to start with my Pastor,
Ralph Midtlyng, at All-Saints Community Church three
blocks away from my house. It is principally a Lutheran
church but does not bar others about their "personal,
non-professional life." [recall that Martin Luther was
no shrinking violet on matters theological?]

Interrogate my immediate neighbors about my "personal,
non-professional life." The Topalians are right across
the street, Hurleys and Brunos on either side, the
Gonzalez family up on the corner. Consult old issues
of Ham Radio for my address; it hasn't changed since
May of '63. Try my city councilmember's office (Wendy
Gruel, real name). Or possibly the Los Angeles Police
Department, Foothill Division. Maybe you can extract
juicy little tidbits of "scandal" to use in here to
actively engage in vituperative attacks who don't fit
your mold? Since you won't find any, feel free to
MANUFACTURE some. Others do it, therefore it is okay?

Yes, I suppose there is some great (grate?) significance
about "personal, non-professional life" that the outraged
wish to use as weapons of anti-morse destruction (see
Heil's vituperation in here) against me. Try my Sex
Life (heterosexual). My wife is also my high school
sweetheart. I would suggest you NOT consult my wife on
"personal, non-professional life" for your own emotional
safety. Her name? Hundreds of our school classmates
know it. Sorry, you'll have to find that out yourself
but your Investigative Team will know the correct
government agency to find that out...and many more items
of "personal, non-professional life" data.

I've tried to help you out here on "personal, non-
professional life" items as a courtesy to your apparent
Inquisition of a single individual. You really can't
ask more than that, can you? :-)

Why do you feel that AMATEUR radio activity is to
be taken the SAME as Professional Activity? Why do
you side with the allegations of "misconduct" in
"personal, non-professional life" by someone who is
a known personal attacker of those he does not like.
Do you wish to add more spotlights to some imagined
"dispute" between a Professional Code of ETHICS, not
"morality?" Make this into a "federal case?" Why?
Personality conflict? My failure to "pop to" and pay
some kind of "respect" you feel "owed" to you? I am
NOT OBLIGATED to do that, except in a few individual's
fantasies or imaginations.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to "pay respect" to some olde-tyme
radio amateur just because they have some federal
license in amateur radio. I was IN radio communications
on HF full-time before some of these self-styled "rulers"
of the amateur waves were born, using techniques that
persist in amateur radio HF communications today. With
the exception of manual radiotelegraphy which wasn't used
a half century ago but persists in the mythical "standards"
of US amateur radio today.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to ANYONE who insists on calling every
statement I make "wrong" or others with some smug,
arrogant attitudes that they are "superior." My opinions
are my opinions, those of a free and independent US
citizen who has taken an Oath to preserve the Constitution
of the United States.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to ANYONE who cannot personally stand
opposition to self-righteous opinions of theirs. I am
NOT OBLIGATED to "stand on an outside" on any subject that
some alleged "insiders" say I do.

I am NOT OBLIGATED to any would-be moderator who wants to
both moderate and to engage in one-sided behavior in the
newsgroup.

ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.






If bull**** were music, you'd be brass bands of America.

SC

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon, Sep 25 2006 7:28 am


3. Nobody has done anything to abrogate your rights to free speech.
lying again Nursie soory Heil
You
simply don't understand that while you are free to speak or write, no
one must listen.
I am sure len agrees
No one must refrain from heckling.
I have never seen him say any such thing
No one must agree
with you. No one must show deference to you.
what you over look is that the SAME rules apply to you

The balance of your rant snipped.
and yours

Dave K8MN

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote

I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.

Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test?

Dave's not angry. Neither am I.

You sure seem to be angry, Len.

As for "antagaonistic", we're just opposing what we think is a bad
idea. You seem to have a very difficult time with disagreement - your
behavior rapidly deteriorates when someone here disagrees with you.

Which is pretty much everyone except for Morkie, Toiddie and Brain.

Those three options in and of themselves ought to "say something"
about the company he keeps, though.

No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.

Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.

Sure it will.

Lennie keeps uttering that silliness as if "coded licensees" would
never share the same bandwidth as these folks. How idiotic.

The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.

Lennie is a Gerritsen without the mic. Imagine what he could do
if he go ahold of one...?!?!?

Worst of all, he did a lot of damage to the public image of amateur
radio.

Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
the air.

Amateur Radio...flying...model rockets...skateboarding...

There's always ONE putz that wants to ruin things for everyone
else.

Amateur Radio had one and a half...One still doesn't have a
license...

One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.

If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed. Those like you who are
not involved in amateur radio will not be affected.

btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
house. He's pretty close to your age, too.

And temperment...and responsibility....and maturity...

It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
people.

Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
to *your* age.

I wonder how well it would have sat if Lennie had proposed an age
CAP...?!?!

You aren't a radio amateur.

True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?

You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.

The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well. You don't
want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
examined, criticized, or refuted.

Bingo.

FCC doesn't regulate behavior.

Actually, they do.

Guess Lennie's not been paying attention to all those efforts to
"can" the licenses of persons who have non-radio-related legal issues.

Personally, I think the FCC needs to be put in thier place for
that.

You aren't entering amateur radio.

I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?

Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
right out of the box". Hasn't happened - in fact, you have not obtained
an amateur radio license of any kind. Almost 8 years and you haven't
taken the first step.

He can't. He can't retain the knowledge long enough to get to the
front door...And they won't let him take his computer into the test
exam with him.

The Technician class license has not required a code test since
February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
step.

It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license, Len.

There is a god.

I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.

Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?

Why should we presume he was talking about himself... OUR "Leonard
H Anderson" does NOT "play well" with ANYone, let alone anyone in this
forum.

You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
about it.

Biut only those who ARE licensed and DO have some PRACTICAL
EXPERIENCE are in a position to make INFORMED opinions. Lennie is NOT
licensed and hs NO practical experience as a radio OPERATOR.

73

Steve, K4YZ

YOU-ARE-A-PUTZ" says Steve the sex feind
 

K4YZ wrote:

YOU-ARE-A-PUTZ" says Steve the sex feind

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

From: on Mon, Sep 25 2006 3:45 pm

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote


No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.

Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.

Did you think some no-coder would meet you outside the
school and beat you up if the code test is eliminated?

Not to worry, Jimmy, David Heil will protect you! :-)

David Heil served in the USAF! In a country AT war!

Poor Jimmy NEVER served, volunteered for military
service nor civil government.


The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.

Why so long? Weren't there enough David Heils to
handle the task right away?


Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
the air.

So, what are YOU doing about it?

Have you Petitioned the FCC for rough, tough Test regulations?
Have you communicated with the VEC QPC? No? Are you still
waiting for someone to "serve you" instead of the other way
around?


One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.

Tsk, tsk, starting in with "guilt by association?" :-)

Gerritsen got his ham license under the EXISTING rules,
Jimmy.


If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed.

Irrational fear of the future, Jimmy?

What have you done about keeping the regulations the
way they were when you were young? What, no Petitions
or Kvetching the QPC?


btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
house. He's pretty close to your age, too.

Ah, yes, you ARE doing the Guilt by Association thing!

BTW, Jimmy, Bell is farther away than what you say...unless
one has a helicopter. :-)


It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
people.

Oh, my, you should have heard me years and years ago when I
was a bachelor...I was propositioning all over the place! :-)
Sometimes it worked! :-)

Go get laid, Jimmy. It will improve your disposition.


Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
to *your* age.

Tsk, are you proposing euthanasia or something?

"Never trust anyone over 30?"

No, not that one, you are 20 past the limit...:-)

Did you watch some old rerun of "Logan's Run" on TV?
The stars were all Brits and you love Brits...


You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.

How magnanimous of you! :-)

The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well.

Whatever. :-)

You don't
want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
examined, criticized, or refuted.

Now now Mother Superior, I'm not trying to take away
your job at the convent school and you can keep your
ruler for spanking the little kiddies.

You ARE going to continue to LECTURE everyone (after telling
them they are "wrong") on the Right and Proper Way of Life
in everything, including history, world affairs, aero-
space, and, especially, the Military!

Go ahead and continue with your "military personnel are
'subsidized' for their service." You've never served,
never volunteered to serve, never took the Oath...yet
you LECTURE everyone on some hilarious "why" of your
words "not being insulting" (they are definitely
insulting to veterans) and supposedly'correct' use
of your words.


Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
right out of the box".

Yes. Well, I must have changed my mind. :-)

Did I make some kind of "solemn promise?" Swear to St. Hiram
on a stack of Handbooks?


Almost 8 years and you haven't taken the first step.

Tsk, tsk, I took the first step back in infancy. :-)

The Technician class license has not required a code test since
February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
step.

Now, now, I TOLD you I took the first step way back
in time...in fact before you were conceived. :-)


It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license, Len.

Am I supposed to attend the Church of St. Hiram and get
converted? Or are you saying I've been ex-communicated? :-)

Guess I'll have to study radio theology some more...like
how one becomes a Priest of the Order of St. Hiram and
promises lifelong devotion to the Church and always,
always fulfilling one's "promises!"


Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?

Oh, my, Jimmy want a "sanity clause" in here?

Tsk, tsk, you'll have to wait for Christmas time... :-)

Act nice, "sanity" is making a list, checking it twice.


You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
about it.

No? If I believed what you said I would have been a
Val Germann.

Remember to act nice, Jimmy, "sanity clause" is coming to
town in a few months.

Try not to INSULT so many military VETERANS or the military
still serviing.


And, as always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked!


["signature" omitted due to hissy fits of Paul Schleck]

show-na-to-va woger
 

wrote:

show-na-to-va woger

Convinced
 

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:


Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)

Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.

Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?

Robesin did.

They are birds of a feather, Brian.

They might share a brain...

At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
as Robesin has.

The only difference
between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
is evident in both.

I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
into a great big ****ing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
"you're 59."

Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]

Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
is faulty.

They tend to ignore facts.

Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
others.

The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license. In any discussion with others about a singular
test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.

That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(



Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong. Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way. Like Robeswine's present antics, no
one said a word...

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

wrote:
wrote:

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.

Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.

How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...

Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.

Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
isn't even a RRAP issue.

---

You've convinced me too, Brian.

Any doubts I had have been laid to rest.

I'm completely convinced, now.

As Heil says, "Bully for you."

The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get.

Convinced!
 

K4YZ wrote:

There's always ONE putz that wants to ruin things for everyone
else.

73

Steve, K4YZ

The spoiler?

His name is Steve. His call sign is K4YZ.

His face story can be read on QRZ.com.

His heinous acts can be read in the Google archives.

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm

wrote:
on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)

Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.

Good grief! Did you have to query QRZ on that one, too?

Robesin did.

They are birds of a feather, Brian.

They might share a brain...

At least Heil didn't consume time and resources in a useless exercise
as Robesin has.

I will dispute that. Very little of Heil's messaging in
here appears useful...except to him. It is almost
entirely about demeaning lots of others. He only makes
nice-nice to other pro-coders.


The only difference
between them is better literacy in Heil's postings. But,
the same hatred of losing anything and bluffmanship
is evident in both.

I see a lot more difference between them than that, but without getting
into a great big ****ing match with either of them, I'll sum it up in
that one of them should be kept away from society, the other is merely
annoying and needs to stick to meaningful exchanges on the air, such as
"you're 59."

Har! Yes, good old "you are 5-9-9!" :-)

...even if a repeat is requested on half of what the
other station transmitted. :-)


Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]

Now the FCC does NOT require any commissioner or staffer
to hold an amateur radio license grant in order to
REGULATE US amateur radio. Heil's concept of who rules
is faulty.

They tend to ignore facts.

"Tend?" Hell, no, they OUTRIGHT ignore them.

Heil often expresses disdain and contempt for anyone on
the "outside" of amateur radio attempting to "tell radio
amateurs what to do." That is also illogical and faulty
but grounded in extreme emotional territorialism. He
does NOT rule yet pretends to be the ruler in behavior to
others.

The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license. In any discussion with others about a singular
test to ENTER amateur radio, Heil does not play well and
assumes He can tell others what to do...and does not
hesitate to do so with his typical smug arrogance.

That is NOT a good picture to present to the public about
US amateur radio. But, I doubt that Heil cares. Heil
has His and the rest can go do something else. :-(

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong. Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way. Like Robeswine's present antics, no
one said a word...

Hypocrisy in action.

However, Hans Brakob told the Robeswine off several times.
Hans is about the oldest tymest ham in this newsgroup, a
morseman, but one who doesn't think the morse code test
is necessary. Hans earned that right.

The key ingredient is always that morse code test. Anyone
against it are always "wrong" but those for it are always
"right"...in the pro-code-test morsemen's definition of
truth, justice, and the morse way.


["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]

Convinced Again
 

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

wrote:
wrote:

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.

Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.

Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.

Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.

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.
Never mind that several hundred have already seen
the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
quotes in here! :-)

Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
for anything in the military or in one of his
governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
who wants to demean military that are serving (or
veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
doesn't give a **** if he insults 99.99% of everyone
else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
same syndrome as that sick Robesin.


How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.


Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION. Everyone
will be busy arguing and arguing over the OLD post and
Jimmy can simply ignore the current post. :-)


Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...

Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.

Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
isn't even a RRAP issue.

Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult
about a million members of the United States military?

I don't understand that. It must be some twisted so-and-so
who never volunteered for any military service and thinks
they are so much better than any service person...


As Heil says, "Bully for you."

The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get.

It's the Robeswine syndrome in Jimmy's posts again...going
deeper and deeper and deeper until, like falling into a
Black Hole, they can never get out.

---

I stopped by the Armed Forces Career office on the 3rd floor
of the Media City Mall in Burbank, CA, today. It's next to
the 3rd floor entrance to Sears at the south end of the Mall.
Nice place. Very attractive, really. Not busy today. Had
a nice chat with an Army E-5 there. He got some information
(on you-know-who) and we traded a few items of personal info.
He got a kick out of my miniature DD-214 photocopy. [no
background check of me was necessary, Paul Schleck]

You might note that Robesin's QRZ bio has been altered. He
doesn't mention his "USMC career" at all now! Wonder why?
:-)


["signature" omitted here due to hissy fits of the
'moderator team' or whatever]

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am

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

Doesn't matter if every newcomer sees their antics for the next eight
decades in the archives, they are right, Right, RIGHT and you are
wrong.

If someone is wrong, they're wrong regardless of how much they protest
and attack the person who points out their mistake.

Go tell it to Robesin, he desperately needs to hear that.

Fascinating. Miccolis is becoming a clone of Robesin.

only has a lag of about 7 years on the long slide of robson

No, Mark. Jimmie was on AOL on one of their ham radio
"discussion" boards (exclusive of Usenet), sounding like
the 120-year-old 1x1 superextra clone of the ARRL,
parroting their phrases like he was a paid PR pro from
Newington on commission. Someone apparently tipped him
off on Usenet back then and he showed up in here. Same
PR phrasing, same braggadoccio about amateur radio as on
AOL's board, same talking-down with smug arrogance
to anyone not embracing Jimmie's vision of the
All-Codah Heaven (but no mention of "virgins").

The Robeswine is a relative latecomer to RRAP, but he
initially came on trying to out-do Chesty Puller, USMC,
but coming out more like Gomer Pyle. The Robeswine must
have spent days collecting all the emotionally-loaded
catch-phrases of the USMC and generally speaking like
left-over sound bites from TV's JAG (now a "defunct"
series).

Jimmy engages in some kind of weird wordplay wherein he
both manipulates word meanings and loaded "questions"
so that he can come back with "you are simply wrong"
to anyone protesting/challenging/saying-an-opposite.

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.
Never mind that several hundred have already seen
the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those
quotes in here! :-)

again on his way being the new Robeson

Jimmie cries out "You have no proof!" when others don't
care to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue old posts by
MISDIRECTION of quoting them. It is like he desperately
must "win" old arguments he never won.

The Robeswine used to do that but lost it a few years
ago, preferring to directly insult his challengers...in
everything from their sexual preferences to practicing
pedophilia to claims of odd anti-patriotism for honoring
deceased members of one's military unit. In addition,
the robeswine pretended to be some kind of "authority"
who could have anyone "picked up" after making a single
telephone call. I'm leaving out the sick desires of
his to "talk" to spouses.

Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered
for anything in the military or in one of his
governments. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert"
who wants to demean military that are serving (or
veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay,"
that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Jimmy
doesn't give a **** if he insults 99.99% of everyone
else, he MUST insult one who IS a veteran and who is
on his enemies list. Therefore, he exhibits the
same syndrome as that sick robeswine.

With Jimmie it gets WORSE in my opinion. He is so
confused about "service to the country" that he doesn't
hesitate to engage in sick wordplay about servicemenbers
being "subsidized" by taxpayers.

How can OFFERING ONE'S LIFE be "subsidized?!?" That is
implicit in EVERY military servicemember's Oath on first
joining any branch. [in my day it was direct, not
implicit, but I have been "told" that the exact wording
has changed since then] Is that in the Oath spoken by
police, firemen, paramedics, forest service rangers,
jailhouse guards? I've never heard of that, but it might
be so. Just the same, NO police, firemen, etc., ever
have to face artillery, strafing from aircraft, salvos
and torpedoes on open ocean and deliberate open warfare
on land. Jimmie just doesn't understand that. He's
never tried to. He READS about it and then says he
"knows all about it" (and is the "expert" on it).


How many newcomers actually read rrap?

How many *people* actually read rrap?

Anymore? None. Today it's just a cesspool for want of an apology.

I see no other choice but the draconian one of simply
stopping everything in the newsgroup for an indefinite
period. Nobody will be able to post. Not morsemen,
not no-code-test advocates, not the sociopaths, misfits,
the anony-mousies in here. I've suggested it to Paul
Schleck twice...but all he wants to do is engaging
me in some "Personal, non-professional life" background
check.

it might work

I don't say it will "work." I can't see any other choice.
It doesn't provide a TRUE discussion forum about policy
matters now.

The newsgroup has been infected with a cancerous growth
of filthy sayings by those who truly "can't play well
with others." This cancer has metastasized into most
threads. The newsgroup is already terminal. Parts of it
have already died. It is best to just BURY it and hope
for some "ressurection" much later, perhaps after the FCC
makes some decision on last year's NPRM about eliminating
the code test for amateur licenses.


Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he
couldn't have ham radio his way.

When did he say that? Show us the posting where he wrote such a thing.

Do your own homework.

Har! Good old "show us the posting" MISDIRECTION. Everyone
will be busy arguing and arguing over the OLD post and
Jimmy can simply ignore the current post. :-)

That's a constant with Miccolis. Feigned outrage and demand
to "show us the posting." Actually a good ploy to avoid
answering the basic challenge. But, it is old, trite, used
by many since old days of ARPANET and useless as a "reply."


Like Robeswine's present antics, no one said a word...

Anyone who bothers to wade through the mountains of postings and oceans
of words on rrap will see all sorts of things from all sorts of people
on all sides of various issues.

Yup. Someone recently said that service members are subsidized, which
isn't even a RRAP issue.

Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult
about a million members of the United States military?

I don't understand that. It must be some twisted so-and-so
who never volunteered for any military service and thinks
they are so much better than any service person...

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.

Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal,
non-professional life" background checks on me they want. They
won't turn up anything heroic (no "seven hostile actions"), just
doing my job(s) as best I could, following the rules, getting
paid regularly, never being fired for cause.

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. He is proud of doing nothing at work. Hans
Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we
did and what we do for a living. So have others. But not
Jimmie M. All we hear from Jimmie are his amateur radio
adventures. He may have no other life. But, he is THE
'expert' on ALL matters, never ever hesitating to call
others "wrong" when they are in disagreement with him.

Jimmie's latest, his infamous "military persons get
'SUBSIDIZED' by taxpayers" is perhaps his crowning
achievement in looking down at all others. About a
million 'others.' How is a LIFE 'subsidized?'

That is NOT an amateur radio subject, certainly not policy.

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

Miccolis won't apologize for that insult. He is always
"right." QED.


You might note that Robesin's QRZ bio has been altered. He
doesn't mention his "USMC career" at all now! Wonder why?
:-)

I just noticed that )having checked on it interesting it still shows
up on his home page

That's how it goes with the robeswine, HIS words are the ONLY
"facts" we can get. NO documented proof from real official
sources, not even a snapshot of him in that alleged 18-year
military career. Just His words.


["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]

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 5:30 pm

["signature" omitted due to all the amateur hissy fits
about being a Life Member of a Professional Association]


That's your story and you may or may not stick to it. I think you've
gotten a little nervous about using the sig in light of your actions.

So, how are things in the Waffen SS? Jimmie should be
happy You Are On The Job protecting Him...

Have you and Paul had a difficult time on my "personal, non-
professional life" background check? Have you contacted the
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers yet? I gave
you their address. It's in all the better trade magazines.

I'm not worried. Are you worried that I'm not worried?

Or do you want me to be worried about your being worried
about my not being worried? :-)

So, when are the moderator police going to show up at my
house? I can put on a bigger pot of coffee. Is that a "service"
to the country? Or would you call that a "country crock?"

I think of most of your little endearing messages as a country
crock. Really spreads greasy stuff in here.

As ever, to you, the famous ByteBrothers phrase invoked.

Convinced Again
 

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Convinced Again