|
Convinced Again
Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection". The above is wishful thinking. Jim has the memory of an elephant. Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm wrote: wrote: To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back to archives and extracting the challenger's charge. Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something. If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem with asking to see the original? There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question. There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as Heil has - "do your own homework." who wants to demean ... with HIS "definition" of "pay," that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." Why do you think the word "subsidized" is demeaning, Len? I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: "a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public" A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private company. Do you even know what they are? What is demeaning about that? What isn't demeaning about it? "subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy" So? Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck. You don't say. |
Convinced Again
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. Heil is an amateur extra morseman, therefore above reproach. Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection". The above is wishful thinking. Jim has the memory of an elephant. It has become more the effluent... :-( But, Miccolis is also an amateur extra morseman, therefore He is above reproach. Tsk, all those "above reproach" guys. No one can approach them. Maybe its their bad breath? shrug As ever, to both of them I invoke the famous ByteBrothers phrase. [that "signature" is the same as on the message header...why are so many anal-retentive on this "signature" thing?] |
Convinced Again
wrote:
wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm wrote: wrote: To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back to archives and extracting the challenger's charge. Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something. If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem with asking to see the original? There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question. A now-dead person isn't going to ask it. There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as Heil has - "do your own homework." Sure there is. You claimed that a now-dead person wrote something here on rrap. Your memory isn't perfect - in fact, you've recently been shown to be mistaken on some things. You've been asked to back up your claim - to show where the now-dead person actually wrote what you claimed. But you either can't do that, or won't do it. Either way, your claim must be assumed to be false until you provide some proof. Google contains all the archives. I have seen a nonsense tactic used by both you, Brian P. Burke, N0IMD, and Leonard H. Anderson. It goes like this: You claim someone said or did something, but provide no proof. Usually the false claim is in the form of a misquote or a misinterpretation of history. When the claim is challenged, and the correct quote or history provided, you either ignore the truth on and/or simply insult the person. Often the misquote or mistake is repeated later, and the cycle begins again. Len does this more than you, but you've picked up on his example. Misquoting the dead - that's pretty lame. |
Convinced Again
|
Convinced Again
wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. Heil is an amateur extra morseman, therefore above reproach. "Heil" can spell "chastise" and did not bestow the name "red-hatted monkey" or "old organ grinder". I've used them when applicable. Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection". The above is wishful thinking. Jim has the memory of an elephant. It has become more the effluent... :-( More of your misdirection? But, Miccolis is also an amateur extra morseman, therefore He is above reproach. I think you dislike him because he tangles you in facts and doesn't stoop to your level. Tsk, all those "above reproach" guys. No one can approach them. Maybe its their bad breath? shrug Wowsers! You have olfactory links with your internet service there at the Anderson home communications center? As ever, to both of them I invoke the famous ByteBrothers phrase. You can invoke the spirit of Tesla for all I care. [that "signature" is the same as on the message header...why are so many anal-retentive on this "signature" thing?] Why are you so touchy on the subject of the IEEE Code of Ethics? Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am The Robeswine Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? he is the guy that makes death threats with your blesing Dave ...not to mention the many years he posed as a USMC veteran and has never offered any proof whatsoever of that. But, that's okay since the robeswine is an amateur extra and that's okay... You know what Brian Burke would tell you: Do your own homework. Who is "Robeswine"? Is that like "smoking preference"? The fellow with numerous issues wrote about his sexual desires in another newsgroup. note your own words In another Newsgruop thus you agree and makethe case the your friend Robeson stlked me and my discussion which were in the right NG for thing to make an issue here Mark, does that mean that Heil wants to talk about 'smoking?' I wonder why? Maybe you have some inside knowledge of the term "smoking preference" that you'd care to share with us, Len. If you go into a restaurant and the hostess asks, "Do you have a smoking preference", that she means something entirely different. What do you think she means? For my part, I only smoke DURING sex... :-) Maybe your bearings are seizing up. Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
wrote:
From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am wrote: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm wrote: wrote: I'm going to hold to what I wrote. Every military veteran I know will agree with me. If some never-serving sonnovawhich wants to argue that "subsidy" thing they can shove it. I love it when you talk tough, Len. The money I received as base pay for my entire four years in the military totaled about 11.5 thousand dollars. I got even for that in the end. I had to "buy back" my time by paying 3% of that sum toward Federal retirement. It was a bargain. Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal, non-professional life" background checks on me they want. Who is the "Waffen SS guy"? Google provides--in spades. They won't turn up anything heroic (no "seven hostile actions")... You keep selling yourself short. There was the threat of the Soviet bombers. There was the classic sphincter post which recounted what it is like to undergo an artillery barrage. Where and when was it that you underwent this ordeal? Can your friend Gene confirm it? Did his sphincter tighten too? ...just doing my job(s) as best I could, following the rules, getting paid regularly, never being fired for cause. That's the story of most of us, Len. You have taken it upon yourself to hint that others defrauded their employers, were incompetent in what they did, never did what they've said they did or that you know better how they should have accomplished their jobs. That's strange, don't you think? From Jimmie Miccolis we don't have enough hints that he DOES have a "personal, non-professional life" to DO a full back- ground check. Why, has he violated the IEEE Code of Ethics? He is proud of doing nothing at work. Why did you write the obvious untruth? Hans Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we did and what we do for a living. So have others. You recounted portions of your work so many times that I'm quite certain that some of us would be able to recite it from memory. But not Jimmie M. All we hear from Jimmie are his amateur radio adventures. Maybe you can clarify something for me. Is it "Jimmie" or "Jimmy". You keep switching from one to the other. What kind of thing would you like from him in this amateur radio newsgroup? Why makes you feel that you're entitled to the information? He may have no other life. Is that your belief, Len, or are you simply honked that he hasn't opted to share it with you. After all, there is certainly precedent for Jim to believe that you'd simply use the information to attempt belittlement of his work or home life. But, he is THE 'expert' on ALL matters, never ever hesitating to call others "wrong" when they are in disagreement with him. I've noticed that others are told they are wrong when they are, in fact, wrong. I've also noticed that you seem to set yourself up as an expert in areas where you have little or no experience--amateur radio, State Department communications, U.S. Navy communications, U.S. Coast Guard communications. 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?' I happen to live in a state where a substantial portion of the residents have their lives subsidized by government/taxpayers. These subsidies include food, shelter and medical care. That doesn't mean that a crime has taken place. That is NOT an amateur radio subject, certainly not policy. Drifting off into your military experiences, the war in Iraq, your PROFESSIONAL radio experiences--those things aren't amateur radio subject, but you've never let that stand in your way. Plain and simple fact: It is out of line, INSULTING to anyone who is or has been in the United States military. I don't feel insulted. Miccolis won't apologize for that insult. He is always "right." QED. Len Anderson has never apologized for any of his mistakes or deliberate untruths in this venue. 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, Who is "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. Imagine that. I guess you'll just have to deal with it or await the outcome of Brian Burke's contact with the "Stolen Valor" folks, huh? ["signature" omitted due to not receiving a "subsidy" for posting in here...to those who object to what I wrote, the ByteBrothers' famous phrase is invoked] I'm unfamiliar with it, Len. What is it? Dave K8MN |
Markie the registered pedo
Roger Wiseman AB8MQ, posing as " wrote:
an old friend wrote: show- Markie wants us to show him our dicks, gents! Us? Do you mean those of us reading and posting to the newsgroup (and the other newsgroups you've added) or are you just addressing the other voices in your head? At any rate, be my guest. You first. (superfluous groups trimmed) Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
|
Heil trying to Indict someone Again
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 4:51 am
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." I have the memory of an elephant. You spelled EFFLUENT wrong... Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. I asked Len a question. Hardly a question...it was in the nature of a snarly sarcastic rejoinder. Len asked about endearing names. I did? Sorry, I'm not in here looking for "endearments." YOU are looking for love in all the wrong places. I'm awaiting a reply. Keep holding your breath. [brush after every meal] Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection". The above is wishful thinking. What I wrote is accurate. "Accurate?!?" Hardly. The postings of the late Dick Carroll went on for years in snarly sarcastic tones against all no- code-test advocates, highly biased in favor of morse code. They ARE archived in Google. Jim has the memory of an elephant. ...an elephant with a HIGHLY selective memory...an elephant who insists on re-arguing and re-arguing and re-arguing OLD subjects once again...an elephant who trumpets only in morse code and wonders why other animals don't fear him. Is that an admission that you don't feel that your claim was correct? Oh, my, another drop-out from Inquisition 101 class. Do you want Brian and me "sentenced" for some awful crime against your ego and/or disrespect for your greatness? Certainly sounds like it. Well, since you can't make Torquemada II rank, best you try to convene a Grand Jury to "indict" someone. :-) As always to you, the famous ByteBrothers phrase invoked. |
Heil trying to Indict someone Again
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 4:51 am wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Who? Is that another of your endearing little names, Len? "Red-hatted monkey..." I have the memory of an elephant. Hans gave you the name and it was given for a reason. Do you remember the reason? You spelled EFFLUENT wrong... I didn't spell "EFFLUENT" at all. Besides, it wouldn't make any sense that way. Have you ever heard anyone say, "I have the memory of an EFFLUENT"? Heil has a pocketful of them, but attempts to chastize others. I asked Len a question. Len asked about endearing names. I'm awaiting a reply. "Chastise". Hardly a question...it was in the nature of a snarly sarcastic rejoinder. It was in the form of two questions. There was no "snarly sarcastic rejoinder" at all. Len asked about endearing names. I did? Sorry, I'm not in here looking for "endearments." Yes, you did. It's right up there at the top of this post. If you don't want to talk about "endearments", quit bringing them up. YOU are looking for love in all the wrong places. You seem to be looking for an out. I'm awaiting a reply. Keep holding your breath. [brush after every meal] So you'd rather not comment on your use of endearments. I understand. Your statement above is completely incorrect. Brian Burke asserted that he was quoting a dead man as saying something that Jim didn't recall the fellow as writing. Brian was asked to provide proof that his quote was accurate. He has not done so and now we have you crying, "misdirection". The above is wishful thinking. What I wrote is accurate. "Accurate?!?" Hardly. Yes, what I wrote was accurate. It was precisely the way things took place. The postings of the late Dick Carroll went on for years in snarly sarcastic tones against all no- code-test advocates, highly biased in favor of morse code. I didn't hear any tones at all, Len. Are your tones snarly and sarcastic? Your postings have gone on for over a decade. They show you to be against all pro-code test advocates and highly biased against morse code. They ARE archived in Google. So Brian shouldn't have any trouble coughing one up. Your own behavior is also archived in Google. Go figure! Jim has the memory of an elephant. ...an elephant with a HIGHLY selective memory...an elephant who insists on re-arguing and re-arguing and re-arguing OLD subjects once again...an elephant who trumpets only in morse code and wonders why other animals don't fear him. You actually hear Jim trumpeting? Your internet service must be somethin' super spiffy with the audio and olfactory links and all. Let's see....Why would some old things still be argued? One of them might be that Brian Burke quoted the late Dick Carrol inaccurately. Why does Brian keep bringing up old things? Is that an admission that you don't feel that your claim was correct? Oh, my, another drop-out from Inquisition 101 class. Do you want Brian and me "sentenced" for some awful crime against your ego and/or disrespect for your greatness? My greatness? My greatness wasn't even under discussion. Certainly sounds like it. It can't sound like it. It was even brought up. Well, since you can't make Torquemada II rank, best you try to convene a Grand Jury to "indict" someone. :-) I don't think there's any need for an indict anyone, Len. I think it is enough to demonstrate that Brian threw out a falsehood and that you supported him. As always to you, the famous ByteBrothers phrase invoked. I'm not familiar with that. What is it? See the IEEE Code of Ethics Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
|
Convinced Again
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 7:55 am
wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: As ever, to both of them I invoke the famous ByteBrothers phrase. You can invoke the spirit of Tesla for all I care. "If you don't know that information, all of your latest diatribe is rather pointless." As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... |
Convinced Again
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: 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. Who is "Robesin"? So it is your belief that Jim is a clone of someone else? Interesting. I'm not a clone of anyone. 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. Is it "Jimmy" or "Jimmie"? It's Jim. Len has a problem with names. If a person disagrees with Len, he cannot call them by the name they use. He has to calls them by a diminutive, or a made-up persona name, or their last name, or some twist on their job title, etc. Such behavior is considered immature by grade-schoolers, but Len persists in it for some reason. 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. I didn't notice any outrage, Len. You've accused a number of folks of outrage. Maybe it isn't in their writing, but in your reading. I also didn't see any demand. Len is the one who is outraged and insulted - by anyone who disagrees with him or proves him to be mistaken. Never mind that several hundred have already seen the old words in past messages, Jimmy MUST have those quotes in here! :-) Are you stating that Brian's claim was incorrect and that Dick didn't write what Brian said that he wrote? You may be making progress. I don't recall that Dick wrote what Brian claims he did. Maybe Dick wrote what was claimed, maybe he didn't. I've never read every post in rrap, so I could have missed it. OTOH, it's possible that Brian is mistaken. Showing the actual posting where Dick wrote what Brian claims would clear up the issue, but Brian and Len would rather argue about it. Jimmy never served in any military, never volunteered for anything in the military or in one of his governments. Never claimed any of that, anyway. But Len must beat that dead horse in every post, without explaining its significance. Len has never been a radio amateur, has no real involvement in it, yet he insists on pontificating to us how amateur radio should be run. Yet, he is a self-righteous "expert" I've never claimed to be an expert at anything. However, there are some areas (besides Morse Code) where my skill, knowledge and experience are more extensive than Len's. This is obviously a major source of outrage and insult to him, so he reacts in a very predictable way. who wants to demean military that are serving (or veterans of service) with HIS "definition" of "pay," that of "being subsidized by the taxpayer." As I wrote previously, I had no intention of insulting anyone with the use of the word "subsidize". The definition I posted isn't mine - it's Webster's. And it doesn't really apply to the case of direct government employees anyway. I've asked both Len and Brian why they find that word insulting or demeaning, but they don't have an answer. Brian used the word "welfare" - which is quite different from "subsidy". -- Some farmers receive subsidies - is it demeaning or insulting for them to do so? Many industries receive subsidies, usually indirect, such as reduced taxation as an incentive to build new plants in certain areas. Is it demeaning or insulting for them to do so? Some (not all) people who receive Social Security benefits are being subsidized. This happens when the benefits a person collects exceed the taxes they paid in over their working life, plus interest. Is it demeaning or insulting for them to receive those benefits? Where does the money paid to military members come from, Len? Is it from corporations or from private donors? Who pays the military? 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. If you're insulted, then you're insulted. I didn't feel insulted. I knew where the money came from. It wasn't much, but I accepted it. No insult was intended by the use of the word. Therefore, he exhibits the same syndrome as that sick Robesin. I think that falls under "false logic". Who is "Robesin"? Proof? W0EX/SK said he wanted to destroy the ARS since he couldn't have ham radio his way. No proof of that claim has been offered. 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. :-) As I saw it, the "current" post was the one where Brian claimed that a dead man had written something which he did not, in fact, write. That was the MISDIRECTION. Exactly. It's the game I wrote about earlier. 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. Whether or not someone served in the military isn't a rrap issue, either. Nor are a whole bunch of things that are discussed here. Now, just WHY would some dumb sonnovasnitch try to insult about a million members of the United States military? Do they all know about it? Were they all insulted? 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... You're a peculiar guy, Len. Do you believe that anyone who never volunteered for military service is a "twisted so-and-so" who believes that he is better than anyone who served? My observation of your behavior is that you seem to believe that being a military veteran gives you some super citizen status. I've never felt that way about my fellow citizens. My neighbor never served. His sons, ages 47 and 30 never served. I had a great-uncle who was a World War I vet. Neither of my grandfathers was old enough for that war, though one tried to enlist at sixteen. My dad served during WWII and I served in Vietnam. Neither of us ever attributed motives to those who didn't serve. Len attributes only bad motives to everyone who disagrees with him. It seems to me that Len is actually very conscious of what he calls "rank-status-privilege", and very insecure about his own. If someone knows more about something than Len, he either feels demoted, demeaned and insulted, or he denigrates the knowledge as worthless. Either way, his response is easily predicted. *Everything* is a one-up situation to Len - if he disagrees with you. For example, see the classic "sphincters post", where Len responds to an account of the experiences of a military radio operator. Or the long stories about his work, his house, his scarf collection, even his long-time possession of one of the smallest Johnsons ever made. None of those things have anything to do with amateur radio policy, but Len insists on lecturing us about them. I think he does that because his amateur radio experience is practically nil. As Heil says, "Bully for you." The more you post, the deeper into a corner you get. It's the Robeswine... Who is "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. You're mixing your singulars and plurals, Len. Aren't you supposed to be some sort of PROFESSIONAL writer? I'd post a definition of professional, but Len would probably be insulted. --- 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. How nice. You've written a regular travelogue. He got some information (on you-know-who)... Lord Voldemort? It came to him in a messenger envelope or through e-mail, or did you provide it from your store of absolutely unbiased material? ...and we traded a few items of personal info. That's nice, Len. You've bonded. He got a kick out of my miniature DD-214 photocopy. ...or at least he said he did. [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? :-) At least Len isn't telling an alleged "USMC feldwebel" to "shut the hell up" Do you think something sinister might be afoot? I recall Len making the claim that he could check on anyone's military service record through a database. Not all the details, of course, but enough to find out if someone had been in the military or not, and what branch(es). At least that's what I recall. Len has also claimed that another veteran is an "imposter", because that veteran will not provide "proof" of his claimed service. Seems to me that if the database exists, it would be a simple matter to verify whether someone was an imposter or not. If the person wasn't in the database, Len could simply say "You're not in the database!" ["signature" omitted here due to hissy fits of the 'moderator team' or whatever] Len doesn't like moderated groups unless he gets to be the moderator. He says rrap should be shut down, but he won't lead the way... Be proud of your IEEE association, Len. Live up to its Code of Ethics. I wonder what other IEEE members would think of Len's behavior in rrap. Particularly the part where he repeatedly slams another organization and accuses them of fraud, without any evidence. You might even be able to impress a few radio hams. A very few Jim, N2EY |
Convinced Again
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 8:00 am wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am Who is "Robeswine"? "If you don't know that information, all of your latest diatribe is rather pointless." There has been no "Robeswine" posting here. If you believe there is, *your* diatribe is pointless. As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... I'm not familiar with that. What is it? See IEEE Code of Ethics Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 7:55 am wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: As ever, to both of them I invoke the famous ByteBrothers phrase. You can invoke the spirit of Tesla for all I care. "If you don't know that information, all of your latest diatribe is rather pointless." I'm fully aware of Tesla, Leonard. As ever to you, the ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... I'm not familiar with that. What is it? See IEEE Code of Ethics |
Convinced Again
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 8:31 am
wrote: From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am wrote: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm wrote: wrote: I'm going to hold to what I wrote. Every military veteran I know will agree with me. If some never-serving sonnovawhich wants to argue that "subsidy" thing they can shove it. I love it when you talk tough, Len. That turn you on, does it? You like "bears" too? (hairy guys) :-) The money I received as base pay for my entire four years in the military totaled about 11.5 thousand dollars. I got even for that in the end. Where? "...in the end?!?" Tsk, tsk... Try to remember that morsemanship is synonymous with homophobia in here... Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal, non-professional life" background checks on me they want. Who is the "Waffen SS guy"? He's a smug, arrogant Colonel Klink wannabe, marches around in here barking orders and Strict Obedience to things as they are now and will always be (as he thinks they should). Google provides--in spades. "Spades?!?" I've gotten no garden tools or farming implements from Google, only lots of data...the electronic kind. But, you are the guy who can "download firmware" through those Internet wires connecting your computer. shrug If you can get "firmware" through them, then you can get bigger things like farm tools. Amazing. You keep selling yourself short. No, I'm of average male height. Thanks for asking, though. ... You have taken it upon yourself to hint that others defrauded their employers, were incompetent in what they did, never did what they've said they did or that you know better how they should have accomplished their jobs. I did? You have the EXACT WORDS to that effect? Or do you just have a guilty conscience? Tsk, I can't "fault" Miccolis on what he does for a living...he doesn't say. But he is "proud" of that. If he no say, he no do...the only plausible interpretation. Did I "fault" this Robeson guy for his claimed "18-year USMC career?" You are damn RIGHT I did...and will keep on doing it until the sunnuvawhich comes up with some PROOF other than a bunch of bragging ****. That twit spent less than a half year as a purchasing agent in a set-top box manufacturer and then claimed "he knew all about electronic engineering!" Buncha bull**** then and still a buncha bull**** to this day. [did that 'tuff tawk' turn you on? :-)] Other than yourself, who ELSE did I "fault?" Show EXACT WORDS in the spirit of Miccolis' constant demands in here. EXACT. Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this junior college instructor titles himself as a "mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice) that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best- seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction, he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship. Did I personally "fault" Hans Brakob? No, we DID argue on different sides of the SUBJECT. Hans isn't reticent on what he does and even supplied the name and address of his employer. We have successfully argued SUBJECTS in threads. Did I personally "fault" Larry Kroll? Just once for his FCC 98-143 statistics report where he got me confused with a licensed radio amateur who had the same name (and middle initial) as I. Larry admitted the error and apologized, I accepted that. Did I personally "fault" Michael Deignan? YES. Deignan had a bunch of PHONY "club calls" in Hawaii plus an "FCC licensee mailing address here. He tricked Jeffie into supplying the Hawaiian post box address. The FCC cancelled most (if not all) of his FAKE "club calls" and made him use his (real) Rhode Island mailing address. Deignan split from the newsgroup and wasn't heard but once since then. He was also a pro-code-test type. Did I personally "fault" the 'Katapult King' (Brian Kelly)? YES. Kelly claimed over a dozen patents of HIS in this newsgroup. Turns out that Kelly had just ONE patent and is co-inventor, not sole inventor on that patent. All the others were complimentary foreign patents. My single patent would have had more foreign filings than his but I never claimed those. That and many more items Kelly exaggerated or was WRONG about in here. Kelly has been absent for months here. Kelly was (perhaps still is) a pro-code-test advocate and also sensative to any negativism about morsemanship. Have I faulted Ed Hare personally? NO. Ed WORKS for the ARRL and I have very little respect for the ARRL or its claims to "represent" anyone but their membership to the US government. Ed is a pro-code- test advocate, probably has to be to keep his job at the ARRL. Ed is against BPL. I am against BPL. We have both argued against BPL in other venues besides here and to the FCC. I can name a whole bunch of people who were in here who, like yourself, were only looking to demean those who didn't agree with their opinions. You conveniently blur the distinction between subject and personality in order to continue demeaning someone, anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's strange, don't you think? Your actions ARE strange, but not unusual for a pro- code-test advocate. Those seem to be affected by the same "blurring" of distinction between subject and personality of a communicator when that communicator doesn't agree with them. From Jimmie Miccolis we don't have enough hints that he DOES have a "personal, non-professional life" to DO a full back- ground check. Why, has he violated the IEEE Code of Ethics? James Miccolis is NOT a member of the IEEE. Ergo, he cannot be EITHER adhering to or "violating" any Professional Code of Ethics of the IEEE. He is proud of doing nothing at work. Why did you write the obvious untruth? NOT an "untruth." Miccolis won't say what he does. Miccolis does say he was "proud" of what he did. Ergo, he is proud of doing nothing. Hans Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we did and what we do for a living. So have others. You recounted portions of your work so many times that I'm quite certain that some of us would be able to recite it from memory. YOU are IN ERROR. I've not described even half of what I've done in electronics or radio engineering. That work spans over four decades of direct engineering responsibility. Maybe you can clarify something for me. That's impossible. Your "clarity" is not real clarity but one of simply trying to deman, denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on subjects. ... After all, there is certainly precedent for Jim to believe that you'd simply use the information to attempt belittlement of his work or home life. Again, you are IMPLYING things of some future which does not exist. Your words are couched, padded, made up with little doilies perhaps, just to demean and denigrate someone who doesn't agree with you. You do this constantly. It is an apparent "bully syndrome" you have. I've noticed that others are told they are wrong when they are, in fact, wrong. What I've seen in THIS newsgroup is that pro-code-test advocates state THEIR opinions as "fact." When someone disagrees with those OPINIONS, the pro-coder calls them "Wrong." Miccolis is a classic user of that "technique." I've also noticed that you seem to set yourself up as an expert in areas where you have little or no experience--amateur radio, State Department communications, U.S. Navy communications, U.S. Coast Guard communications. I've never said I was an "expert" in any of those areas and you damn well know it. Your wording is again in the Heilian denigration and demeaning of anyone who disagrees with Heil. Typical Heil activity in here, trying to damn anyone disagreeing with you by stating they "have no experience." I HAVE had experience, both in the military and much more as a civilian in communications of many kinds: USA, USN, USAF, USCG, the government of the United States in various agencies, local governments in the state of California. Of course I realize that anyone with some experience beyond amateur radio would seem like "rocket science" to those having information input only from the world of amateur radio. The ignorant can go educate themselves instead of being spoon-fed information by the League (who claims to know what is best for amateur radio). Drifting off into your military experiences, the war in Iraq, your PROFESSIONAL radio experiences--those things aren't amateur radio subject, but you've never let that stand in your way. YOU have, in this post, mentioned the State Department, your military experience, or your subsidized state. That hypocrisy is justified by your exhaulted amateur extra status? Must be so. You seem to be "permitted" yet others are not. Tsk, tsk. I've mentioned "my" military radio experience because it involved HF, long-distance communications, and uses techniques which are still used by radio amateurs today ("boatanchor" tube radios and vacuum tube finals to reach maximum legal amateur transmitter output powers). "My" military radio experience mentioned being over a half century ago at a big Army station... and comparing that to the "boatanchor" afficionado's experience of today. Almost the SAME. A parallel. Howaboutthat? Jimmie Miccolis NEVER served in any military doing "radio." He never volunteered to do so, not even in the National Guard or the government (as a civilian). Are real veterans supposed to "honor" such a person who looks down on us and demeans our service? Plain and simple fact: It is out of line, INSULTING to anyone who is or has been in the United States military. I don't feel insulted. Naturally. You are a morseman and an amateur extra. Those gods of radio are above such things... Len Anderson has never apologized for any of his mistakes or deliberate untruths in this venue. QED. I am not obligated to "apologize" for someone else's FALSE charge of either "untruth" or "falsehood." I will and have acknowledged ACTUAL errors I have made. Those have been few. OPINIONS that are different from yours are NOT "errors." Who is "robeswine"? "If you don't know that information, all of your latest diatribe is rather pointless." ["signature" omitted due to not receiving a "subsidy" for posting in here...to those who object to what I wrote, the ByteBrothers' famous phrase is invoked] I'm unfamiliar with it, Len. What is it? You "unfamiliar with it?" Tsk, tsk. You can find hints of it on a search through the Internet. Educate yourself. Find out that ByteBrothers was created as the antithesis to the smug, arrogant, anal-retentive control-freaks who consider themselves "the establishment" but who just insist on strict, unyielding adherence to their self-righteous ways of doing everything. As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. |
Convinced Again
In . com " writes:
Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this junior college instructor titles himself as a "mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice) that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best- seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction, he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship. Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en& According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Convinced Again
Paul W. Schleck wrote: In . com " writes: Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this junior college instructor titles himself as a "mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice) that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best- seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction, he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship. Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en& According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html clap clap clap that is just baerly within my LIFETIME |
Convinced Again
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en& According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html So it was a best seller! Jeff noted that it was the best selling technical book on the list. I suppose that depends on whether one considers cookbooks and Dr. Spock's baby and child care books to be 'technical'. The ARRL Radio Amateur's Handbook is certainly the best-selling book on radio on that list. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Convinced Again
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In . com " writes: Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this junior college instructor titles himself as a "mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice) that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best- seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction, he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship. Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en& According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html Thanks, Paul. Another Len Anderson rant has just become vapor *poof*. Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 29 2006 4:14 pm
Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Only in that this junior college instructor titles himself as a "mathematics lecturer." :-) He claimed (twice) that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best- seller" lists. The ABA (American Booksellers Association) has NO record of that. Jeffie-poo is a confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you and Miccolis. As the usual pro-coder's reaction, he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship. Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en& According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html Yes, that is what Time magazine claimed in 1968. But... here is MORE of what Time magazine wrote, after the title: "1926 3,800,000" Now, in the book trade and in the newspapers, "best sellers" are listed per week or per month or per year. The ARRL Amateur Radio Handbook began being published in the twenties. The time between 1926 and 1968 is 42 years. I didn't bother to check if this handbook was published during WW2 years. If it was not, then there are only 38 years between 1926 and 1968. Are ALL of the Handbooks identical? I don't think so. The AVERAGE PER YEAR publishing of the handbook comes out to 100,000 per year for 3.8 million total over 38 years (90,476 per year for 42 years). That hardly ever qualifies as a "best seller" publication. Let's do a comparison between the ARRL Handbook and "The World Almanac and Book of Facts." I have a 2006 copy. Continuously published since 1886 (a total of 120 years), "World Almanac" claims "80 Million Copies Sold" on its 2006 cover. Now each year's Almanac WILL be different. The AVERAGE PER YEAR editions of that comes out to be 666 2/3 thousand per year. Further, "World Almanac" claims to be "#1 on the New York Times Bestsell" (also on the 2006 cover). Two-thirds of a million per year IS "best seller" qualification. Editions in the past two decades runs more to a 'Mil' per year. Perhaps more. Is the Bible on that Time list? I don't see it. Of course that would be a contentious subject. Heretics would want it in the "fiction" category, I'm sure. :-) But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in the amateur radio service person (although one who has been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since 1956). Have you really done that? Are you really going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure you really, really WANT to do that! :-) By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check? You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal, non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any "investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice. I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul. Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a national security clearance? Must be...! Have you written the IEEE yet to complain about my conduct in here? No? Why not? You are free to do so. Do you think it will matter to the IEEE? If so, please explain in 30,000 words or more WHY. (that's a 'short novel' length) Be sure and tell the pro-coders about your findings. The Inquisition can't get along without you... You really ought to search the ByteBrothers. :-) |
Convinced Again
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 8:31 am wrote: From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:58 am wrote: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm wrote: wrote: I'm going to hold to what I wrote. Every military veteran I know will agree with me. If some never-serving sonnovawhich wants to argue that "subsidy" thing they can shove it. I love it when you talk tough, Len. That turn you on, does it? Turn me on? What a very peculiar thing to say. You like "bears" too? (hairy guys) :-) Bears? Are you okay, Len? The money I received as base pay for my entire four years in the military totaled about 11.5 thousand dollars. I got even for that in the end. I had to "buy back" my time by paying 3% of that sum toward Federal retirement. It was a bargain. Where? In Washington, D.C. "...in the end?!?" Sure, Len, not in the beginning and not in the middle. First you want to know if you're turning me on and now you talk about some other meaning for "end". What's up with that? Tsk, tsk... Indeed. You've got a regular kink-fest going on there. Try to remember that morsemanship is synonymous with homophobia in here... It is? I don't care much for the word "homophobia". It implies fear. I've never been afraid of homosexuality. Find a word which expresses my disgust. Paul Schleck and the Waffen SS guy can go do ALL the "personal, non-professional life" background checks on me they want. Who is the "Waffen SS guy"? He's a smug, arrogant Colonel Klink wannabe, marches around in here barking orders and Strict Obedience to things as they are now and will always be (as he thinks they should). Hmmmm. Don't know him. Google provides--in spades. "Spades?!?" It is a suit in card games, Len. I've gotten no garden tools or farming implements from Google, only lots of data...the electronic kind. I'd love to take you on in a game of cards. But, you are the guy who can "download firmware" through those Internet wires connecting your computer. shrug I surely can. I even provided you a definition of "firmware" and a link to the Ten-Tec RF Squared web site. You were proven as wrong about that as you were on how Usenet was named. You make quite many factual errors. Tsk, tsk--poor baby. If you can get "firmware" through them, then you can get bigger things like farm tools. Amazing. I wrote nothing of farm tools. They won't turn up anything heroic (no "seven hostile actions")... You keep selling yourself short.There was the threat of the Soviet bombers. There was the classic sphincter post which recounted what it is like to undergo an artillery barrage. Where and when was it that you underwent this ordeal? Can your friend Gene confirm it? Did his sphincter tighten too? No, I'm of average male height. Thanks for asking, though. I wrote nothing of your height, Len. Care to answer the questions? Where and when was it that you were under an artillery barrage? ... You have taken it upon yourself to hint that others defrauded their employers, were incompetent in what they did, never did what they've said they did or that you know better how they should have accomplished their jobs. That's strange, don't you think? I did? Yes, you did. You have the EXACT WORDS to that effect? I most assuredly do. Would you care to seem them again? Or do you just have a guilty conscience? Why would I have a guilty conscience over something you've done? Tsk, I can't "fault" Miccolis on what he does for a living...he doesn't say. Sure you did, Len. He hasn't told you what he does for a living, but he has a job. You've said more than once that he does nothing? But he is "proud" of that. He is proud of not saying? I don't think he's said that. I recall him saying that he is proud of what he does. You continue to write that he does nothing. If he no say, he no do...the only plausible interpretation. No, that isn't the only plausible interpretation. It isn't really plausible at all in light of what he has stated. What you are doing is living up to the letter of the N2EY profile of your behavior. Did I "fault" this Robeson guy for his claimed "18-year USMC career?" You are damn RIGHT I did...and will keep on doing it until the sunnuvawhich comes up with some PROOF other than a bunch of bragging ****. I never proved to you that I was in the Air Force and never proved that I served a tour in Vietnam. Stop by your local recruiter and have a talk about me. Have Brian contact "Stolen Valor". That twit spent less than a half year as a purchasing agent in a set-top box manufacturer and then claimed "he knew all about electronic engineering!" Buncha bull**** then and still a buncha bull**** to this day. Did he say that, Len? [did that 'tuff tawk' turn you on? :-)] It reads more like grumpy old man talk. Why do you keep writing about turning me on, Len? Other than yourself, who ELSE did I "fault?" Show EXACT WORDS in the spirit of Miccolis' constant demands in here. EXACT. Remember that you asked. Be patient. It'll take a while. Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? Yes. Only in that this junior college instructor titles himself as a "mathematics lecturer." :-) Do you know what his job title is, Len? Did he make up the title himself? He claimed (twice) that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best- seller" lists. By now, you've had a chance to look at the url provided by K3FU, have read it and wept. The ABA (American Booksellers Association) has NO record of that. Time Magazine apparently HAS such records. Jeffie-poo is a confirmed morseman and pro-code-test just like you and Miccolis. So? Why are you calling him "Jeffie-poo"? As the usual pro-coder's reaction, he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship. The way your comments read, *you* got upset. Did I personally "fault" Hans Brakob? Yes, on a number of occasions. At times, you faulted him on military matters. At times you faulted him on amateur radio matters. No, we DID argue on different sides of the SUBJECT. The SUBJECT? When did military matters become the SUBJECT? Hans isn't reticent on what he does and even supplied the name and address of his employer. So? We have successfully argued SUBJECTS in threads. He has successfully pounded you into the dirt on a number of issues. All of the issues were SUBJECTS. Did I personally "fault" Larry Kroll? There's a Larry Roll. Yes, you personally faulted him. You insulted his job on any number of occasions. Just once for his FCC 98-143 statistics report where he got me confused with a licensed radio amateur who had the same name (and middle initial) as I. Larry admitted the error and apologized, I accepted that. Your memory is quite short. Did I personally "fault" Michael Deignan? YES. You certainly did. Deignan had a bunch of PHONY "club calls" in Hawaii plus an "FCC licensee mailing address here. You didn't know anything about that when the "faulting" began. I wasn't aware that he used your house for a mailing address. He tricked Jeffie into supplying the Hawaiian post box address. Tricked him, did he? Jeff isn't "Jeffie-poo" any longer? The FCC cancelled most (if not all) of his FAKE "club calls" and made him use his (real) Rhode Island mailing address. Deignan split from the newsgroup and wasn't heard but once since then. He was also a pro-code-test type. So? Did you believe yourself entitled to one or more of the callsigns? Did I personally "fault" the 'Katapult King' (Brian Kelly)? YES. You certainly did. Kelly claimed over a dozen patents of HIS in this newsgroup. Turns out that Kelly had just ONE patent and is co-inventor, not sole inventor on that patent. So what? Are you playing another game of "mine's bigger than yours"? All the others were complimentary foreign patents. Oh deary-dear. My single patent would have had more foreign filings than his but I never claimed those. So what? How childlike are you? That and many more items Kelly exaggerated or was WRONG about in here. You've had a long string of being WRONG and exaggerating yourself. Kelly has been absent for months here. He keeps in touch. Kelly was (perhaps still is) a pro-code-test advocate and also sensative to any negativism about morsemanship. So? "Sensitive". Have I faulted Ed Hare personally? NO. Oh, sure you have, Len. Don't you recall the numerous occasions that you accused them of posting on ARRL time? Remember when you called them ARRL apologists? None of this is coming back to you? Ed WORKS for the ARRL and I have very little respect for the ARRL or its claims to "represent" anyone but their membership to the US government. You have very little respect for anyone who disagrees with Leonard H. Anderson. Yet you remain on the outside of amateur radio. Ed is a pro-code- test advocate, probably has to be to keep his job at the ARRL. That's a premise unsupported by fact. Ed is against BPL. I am against BPL. Good for you. We have both argued against BPL in other venues besides here and to the FCC. Ed is an expert on the interference which can be caused by BPL. I can name a whole bunch of people who were in here who, like yourself, were only looking to demean those who didn't agree with their opinions. You have done little BUT demean those who don't agree with your opinions. You've gotten as you've given. As a result, your two supporters are what's left of your coterie. You conveniently blur the distinction between subject and personality in order to continue demeaning someone, anyone who doesn't agree with you. Len, meet Len. Your actions ARE strange, but not unusual for a pro- code-test advocate. Those seem to be affected by the same "blurring" of distinction between subject and personality of a communicator when that communicator doesn't agree with them. Sorry, I undid your little cut and paste. I placed my comment back where it came from, up the page. You're doing a lot of blurring, Leonard. From Jimmie Miccolis we don't have enough hints that he DOES have a "personal, non-professional life" to DO a full back- ground check. Why, has he violated the IEEE Code of Ethics? James Miccolis is NOT a member of the IEEE. Ergo, he cannot be EITHER adhering to or "violating" any Professional Code of Ethics of the IEEE. Precisely. You're a member. He is proud of doing nothing at work. Why did you write the obvious untruth? NOT an "untruth." It is absolutely an untruth. He has told you that he has a job and that he is proud of his work. Miccolis won't say what he does. Yes, and it galls you, whereupon you begin fulfilling the profile of your behavior. Miccolis does say he was "proud" of what he did. Yes he did. Ergo, he is proud of doing nothing. You had to have been a logic class washout. Hans Brakob, Phil Kane, Bill Sohl, myself have all said what we did and what we do for a living. So have others. You recounted portions of your work so many times that I'm quite certain that some of us would be able to recite it from memory. YOU are IN ERROR. I've not described even half of what I've done in electronics or radio engineering. That work spans over four decades of direct engineering responsibility. No, Len, I'm not in error. What you failed to do is read for comprehension. Your rant disappears when you read "recounted portions of your work". Thanks for playing. Maybe you can clarify something for me. That's impossible. I suspected as much, but give it a try to the best of your ability. Your "clarity" is not real clarity but one of simply trying to deman, denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions on subjects. My clarity isn't real clarity because I asked you to clarify. You've admitted that you find it impossible to be more clear. ... After all, there is certainly precedent for Jim to believe that you'd simply use the information to attempt belittlement of his work or home life. Again, you are IMPLYING things of some future which does not exist. Familiarize yourself with the words "there is certainly precedent". Your words are couched, padded, made up with little doilies perhaps, just to demean and denigrate someone who doesn't agree with you. I used words cribbed from a paper dictionary (since I came along well before the electronic dictionaries found online). I put them together in a sequence designed to convey what I meant to communicate. The statement I made was brief, concise and to the point. You do this constantly. It is an apparent "bully syndrome" you have. Awwwwww. Do you feel as though I'm picking on you, Leonard? I've noticed that others are told they are wrong when they are, in fact, wrong. What I've seen in THIS newsgroup is that pro-code-test advocates state THEIR opinions as "fact." When someone disagrees with those OPINIONS, the pro-coder calls them "Wrong." Miccolis is a classic user of that "technique." You *are* feeling picked on. You're beginning to go wild with the all caps stuff. It has been my observation that Jim tells you that you are wrong when, in fact, you are incorrect, in error, wrong. What is classic is your reaction. I've also noticed that you seem to set yourself up as an expert in areas where you have little or no experience--amateur radio, State Department communications, U.S. Navy communications, U.S. Coast Guard communications. I've never said I was an "expert" in any of those areas and you damn well know it. No, Len, I don't know it. You've known more about amateur radio than any number of long-time licensed hams. You've know more about U.S. Navy communications than Hans Brakob. You've know more about Department of State communications than me. I could go on, but you get the idea. You're a sidewalk superintendent in any number of fields. The problem is, you really don't know. You go on calling your opponent "Master Chief" or you start babbling about "cashews" or, despite the fact that you know better, talking about his MARS assignment in Vietnam. Those aren't simple mistakes. They're deliberate misstatements, meant to belittle your opponent. You're very foolish to do so because those things make you look small. You don't sway anyone by acting like that. Your wording is again in the Heilian denigration and demeaning of anyone who disagrees with Heil. Everything I do is Heilian, Len. I'm Heil. Typical Heil activity in here, trying to damn anyone disagreeing with you by stating they "have no experience." You *don't* have any amateur radio experience, Len. Standing over your buddy's shoulder while he operates on 40m, isn't experience. I HAVE had experience, both in the military and much more as a civilian in communications of many kinds: USA, USN, USAF, USCG, the government of the United States in various agencies, local governments in the state of California. Any number of us have had much more experience than you in any number of those areas. That hasn't stopped you from belittling the experience of others or acting as if it is an impossibility that anyone could know more or have done more than you. Of course I realize that anyone with some experience beyond amateur radio would seem like "rocket science" to those having information input only from the world of amateur radio. The ignorant can go educate themselves instead of being spoon-fed information by the League (who claims to know what is best for amateur radio). Is that your way of attempting to prove my point? Drifting off into your military experiences, the war in Iraq, your PROFESSIONAL radio experiences--those things aren't amateur radio subject, but you've never let that stand in your way. YOU have, in this post, mentioned the State Department, your military experience, or your subsidized state. No one in this newsgroup has mentioned my employment with the U.S. Department of State more than Leonard H. Anderson. Let it go, Len. You never did my job, never served in the places I served, don't know as much about State Department communications as me. Live with it. You can't win anything on this topic. That hypocrisy is justified by your exhaulted amateur extra status? Must be so. You seem to be "permitted" yet others are not. Tsk, tsk. For the third time, Len, the word is "exalted". Learn it. Make it your own. Tsk, tsk. I've mentioned "my" military radio experience because it involved HF, long-distance communications, and uses techniques which are still used by radio amateurs today ("boatanchor" tube radios and vacuum tube finals to reach maximum legal amateur transmitter output powers). "My" military radio experience mentioned being over a half century ago at a big Army station... and comparing that to the "boatanchor" afficionado's experience of today. Almost the SAME. A parallel. Howaboutthat? It's very, very weak, Len. Jimmie Miccolis NEVER served in any military doing "radio." So? He has acknowledged as much. He never volunteered to do so, not even in the National Guard or the government (as a civilian). ....as far as you know. If he hasn't, so what? Are real veterans supposed to "honor" such a person who looks down on us and demeans our service? I don't recall Jim asking to be honored. I don't recall him stating that he looks down upon veterans and I don't recall him demeaning the service of veterans. Aside from that, you are batting 1000. By the way, I find myself looking down on you. It has nothing whatever to do with your veteran status. Plain and simple fact: It is out of line, INSULTING to anyone who is or has been in the United States military. I don't feel insulted. Naturally. I'm glad you agree. You are a morseman and an amateur extra. In this case, I'm just a veteran. Those gods of radio are above such things... C'mon, Len. You've never been able to make up your mind whether someone is or isn't a radio god. Len Anderson has never apologized for any of his mistakes or deliberate untruths in this venue. QED. I am not obligated to "apologize" for someone else's FALSE charge of either "untruth" or "falsehood." ....and apparently you don't feel obligated to apologize for someone's accurate charge of untruth or falsehood. I will and have acknowledged ACTUAL errors I have made. That hasn't been proven to be the case. Those have been few. You are simply mistaken. OPINIONS that are different from yours are NOT "errors." ....but factual errors are factual errors. See the url for the Time Magazine listing of best selling non-fiction books. Who is "robeswine"? "If you don't know that information, all of your latest diatribe is rather pointless." Your unwillingness or inability to answer the question is noted. ["signature" omitted due to not receiving a "subsidy" for posting in here...to those who object to what I wrote, the ByteBrothers' famous phrase is invoked] I'm unfamiliar with it, Len. What is it? You "unfamiliar with it?" Tsk, tsk. Yes, I'm unfamiliar with it. You can find hints of it on a search through the Internet. I didn't want hints, Len. I wanted you to tell me what it is. Educate yourself. I've done that. Thanks. Find out that ByteBrothers was created as the antithesis to the smug, arrogant, anal-retentive control-freaks who consider themselves "the establishment" but who just insist on strict, unyielding adherence to their self-righteous ways of doing everything. Are you some sort of anti-establishment hipster, Len? As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. Don't tap dance around it. Just tell us what it is. See IEEE Code of Ethics Dave K8MN |
Convinced Again
|
Convinced Again
In . com " writes:
But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in the amateur radio service person (although one who has been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since 1956). Have you really done that? Are you really going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure you really, really WANT to do that! :-) What an obnoxious quibble. You misquote and falsely accuse Jeffrey Herman with an absolute statement. One which only a requires a simple rebuttal that: - Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said. - Shows convincing, third-party, evidence that supports what Jeffrey Herman *really* said. You choose to "rebut" with filibuster and insult, implying that it was dumb or pedantic to even argue the point, let alone try to find the supporting evidence. Since you're apparently fond of absolute statements, here's another one: No one else, not even your nominal "supporters" here, will post to this newsgroup and agree with you on your misquote of Jeffrey Herman. Unless, of course, you want to dig up some sock-puppets, like Avery Fineman, again. -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Convinced Again
In . com " writes:
[...] By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check? You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal, non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any "investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice. I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul. Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a national security clearance? Must be...! And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary. Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your peers to judge. Have you written the IEEE yet to complain about my conduct in here? No? Why not? You are free to do so. Do you think it will matter to the IEEE? If so, please explain in 30,000 words or more WHY. (that's a 'short novel' length) Be sure and tell the pro-coders about your findings. The Inquisition can't get along without you... You and I know very well that only IEEE members having standing to submit ethical complaints to the IEEE against a member, according to IEEE policy. I'm sure that you would take pains to remind us of that if anyone else tried. You really ought to search the ByteBrothers. :-) -- Paul W. Schleck. K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Convinced Again
Paul W. Schleck wrote: In . com " writes: [...] By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check? You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal, non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any "investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice. I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul. Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a national security clearance? Must be...! And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary. Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your peers to judge. you statesment are exactly no one seems to keen on the concept of moderating the NG indeed the attiue that it is is misconduct to try and protect ones name from libelous attack is misconduct makes highly dubious of your efforts to create a moderated NG |
Convinced Again
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 29 2006 4:14 pm Did I "fault" Jeffrey Hermann? KH6O's last name is spelled "Herman". Len. One 'n'. You also forgot the "Ph.D." which he holds. Only in that this junior college instructor titles himself as a "mathematics lecturer." :-) He teaches mathematics courses at a Community College that is part of the University of Hawaii. How is "mathematics lecturer" in any way inaccurate? Why should anyone "fault" him for that? Have *you* ever taught mathematics at a college or university, Len? He claimed (twice) that the ARRL Amateur's Handbook was on "best- seller" lists. Not exactly. He claimed it was on a list of all-time non-fiction best selling books. And it was! Is that a reason to "fault" someone? The ABA (American Booksellers Association) has NO record of that. So? It wasn't an ABA best-seller list. It was a Time magazine best-seller list. Jeffie-poo Len, who is "Jeffie-poo"? is a confirmed morseman and pro-code-test Define "morseman" for us, please. It's not in either of the Webster's dicionaries I checked. As the usual pro-coder's reaction, he got upset at any negativism about morsemanship. "Morsemanship" isn't in those dictionaries, either. Have you forgotten how you "faulted" him for his description of his experiences as a United States Coast Guard radio operator, Len? Jeffrey Herman claimed that the Radio Amateur's Handbook was named as an all-time best seller by Time Magazine in the non-fiction category: And it was! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...c34ccd1?hl=en& According to the article in Time (from 1968, not 1970), it was #16: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...837843,00.html Yes, that is what Time magazine claimed in 1968. But... here is MORE of what Time magazine wrote, after the title: "1926 3,800,000" Why is that important? Now, in the book trade and in the newspapers, "best sellers" are listed per week or per month or per year. Those are *short-term* lists of what is selling in the bookstores. The Time Magazine list was an "all-time" bestseller list. The ARRL Amateur Radio Handbook began being published in the twenties. 1926, to be exact. The time between 1926 and 1968 is 42 years. I didn't bother to check if this handbook was published during WW2 years. If it was not, then there are only 38 years between 1926 and 1968. There were special "Defense" editions published during WW2. They were used as training texts in some courses. Are ALL of the Handbooks identical? I don't think so. Neither are the other books on the Time list. Spock's "Baby And Child Care" and the cookbooks on the list have gone through many revisions. The AVERAGE PER YEAR publishing of the handbook comes out to 100,000 per year for 3.8 million total over 38 years (90,476 per year for 42 years). That hardly ever qualifies as a "best seller" publication. Sure it does. Otherwise it would not have made it onto the Time list. Let's do a comparison between the ARRL Handbook and "The World Almanac and Book of Facts." Why? I have a 2006 copy. Continuously published since 1886 (a total of 120 years), "World Almanac" claims "80 Million Copies Sold" on its 2006 cover. Now each year's Almanac WILL be different. The AVERAGE PER YEAR editions of that comes out to be 666 2/3 thousand per year. Further, "World Almanac" claims to be "#1 on the New York Times Bestsell" (also on the 2006 cover). Two-thirds of a million per year IS "best seller" qualification. Editions in the past two decades runs more to a 'Mil' per year. Perhaps more. But how many were sold by 1968? I don't think you know, Len. You're using today's numbers and assuming the sales didn't change much. That's not a valid assumption. Is the Bible on that Time list? I don't see it. Of course that would be a contentious subject. Heretics would want it in the "fiction" category, I'm sure. :-) Do you think the Bible is literally true, Len? But, I digress. You do that all the time. The main point is this: Jeffrey Herman, Ph. D., teaches mathematics at the college level - yet you admit you "faulted" him for referring to himself as a "mathematics lecturer". He also correctly wrote that a certain book was on an all-time bestseller list - and it was, yet you admit you "faulted" him for that, too. Seems to me, Len, that you "fault" people for saying things that are true! Your chief interest seems to be in trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in the amateur radio service person (although one who has been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since 1956). Len, you destroy your own credibilty very well.... Have you really done that? Are you really going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Actually, Len, *you're* the one nit-picking about it. It's really quite typical behavior for you, Len. First, you make some claim or other, or deny someone else's. Then someone provides conclusive evidence disproving your claim, or backing up the other person's. Your response is to attack the messenger for telling the facts as they are. Fits your profile perfectly. Yes, I'm sure you really, really WANT to do that! :-) By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check? You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal, non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any "investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice. I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul. Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a national security clearance? Must be...! What the heck are you talking about, Len? Have you written the IEEE yet to complain about my conduct in here? No? Why not? You are free to do so. Do you think it will matter to the IEEE? If so, please explain in 30,000 words or more WHY. (that's a 'short novel' length) Be sure and tell the pro-coders about your findings. The Inquisition can't get along without you... Do you think your behavior here meets the IEEE Code of Ethics, Len? Do you think you set a good example of what a "PROFESSIONAL" should do? Maybe it's time to look at some of your classic "faults" aimed at a United States Coast Guard radio operator who mentioned some of his experiences here. The Coast Guard is a branch of the military, Len. |
Convinced Again
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am
writes: But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in the amateur radio service person (although one who has been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since 1956). Have you really done that? Are you really going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure you really, really WANT to do that! :-) What an obnoxious quibble. Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not? Tsk, tsk, you've proved what I remarked. :-) You misquote and falsely accuse Jeffrey Herman with an absolute statement. "Falsely?" Hardly. His OLD, FORMER statement has ALREADY gone round and round in here. Dredging up OLD material only serves to show the self-righteous stubbornness of those who never got their pound-of-flesh in the first go-around. :-) One which only a requires a simple rebuttal that: - Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said. "*Really*"? :-) At the time, Jeffrey Herman seemed hot on trying to prove some kind of point of "absolute" goodness of the ARRL (not to mention its 'intellectualism' or whatever in matters of amateur radio). Now the ARRL *does* print considerable material in regards to amateur radio matters. That publishing *is* their major source of income. It was a very wise choice back in the twenties...that income made it possible to fund all the "membership" wonderfulness that came later. ARRL cannot exist in its present form without that income-producing publishing. - Shows convincing, third-party, evidence that supports what Jeffrey Herman *really* said. Well, try as hard as I can, I just can't get my telepathy powers or crystal ball working to show what Jeffrey Herman "*really*" said. Really. All that I saw or anyone else saw were the words in these messages. "*Really*" Now, at that OLD time of going around on that PREVIOUS message threading, Jeffrey Hermann was on of the persons higher up in the not-quite-moderation team for RRAP? That was my understanding then. Perhaps it still is? So, if that was the case, then some not-quite-moderators got their toes stepped on in past posting? [figure of speech about "toes"] You choose to "rebut" with filibuster and insult, implying that it was dumb or pedantic to even argue the point, let alone try to find the supporting evidence. Tsk, it is quite obvious to most that dredging up OLD message thread subjects to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue is "dumb or pedantic," isn't it? Not only is it dumb and pedantic, but useless effort that not only wastes others' time but takes up unneccessary memory space in archives (which already contain the OLD postings). No one else, not even your nominal "supporters" here, will post to this newsgroup and agree with you on your misquote of Jeffrey Herman. Irrelevant, Paul. I am myself and I am secure enough to let my postings stand on their own. I don't need a "supporter." :-) I can see that a lot of what I post consists of OPINIONS which are shared by others. I "misquoted" Jeffrey Hermann? Hermann is a pro-code-test advocate and a strong supporter of the ARRL. That's not a "misquote" is it? Did I get some "year of best-sellers" wrong? Perhaps. I'm not one to trumpet some old publishing industry PR about "best-sellers." Even so, year 1968 is 38 years ago, hardly relevant to today (year 2006). If you wish to "discuss" best-seller listings, that is quite another subject...which is NOT an amateur radio policy subject, per se. Please advise on the proper newsgroup to discuss publishing PR bullstuff and I might take it there. Unless, of course, you want to dig up some sock-puppets, like Avery Fineman, again. "Sock puppet?" :-) Hardly. "Avery Fineman" was an old pseuodym I used back in BBS days, before the Internet went public in 1991. I've admitted to that in public in here. It is a play on words, a mild amusement...except to the anal-retentive, easily-furious, overly-touchy we-must-have- ONLY-our-way individuals. :-) --- Interesting (at least to me) that you devote SO MUCH time and so many words into attempting to chastise me. Flattering, perhaps, but I have no need of that. I see a much more serious concern in an obvious LACK of trying to clean up the obnoxious, anonymous postings of real filth and personal accusations thrown on our screens by OTHERS. Isn't clean-up of such filth the real JOB of the "moderators" and the newsgroup police? I guess not. |
Convinced Again
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am
writes: [...] By the bye, how are you coming with my Background Check? You know, the one where you MUST know my "personal, non-professional life"? No neighbor has reported any "investigator" flashing their shield and wanting to speak about me. The FBI has done that before. Twice. I passed muster enough for a security clearance, Paul. Twice. Are the newsgroup standards now HIGHER than a national security clearance? Must be...! And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary. Oh? Yourself and Heil seemed to think it was imperative. After all, you both have amateur extra class licenses and are therefore "boss" aren't you? [one should always do what the "bosses" say or lose paychecks or something] Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your peers to judge. "Peers?" :-) I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in radio communications since 1953. There are about three quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the latter group. How can you say "my peers?" Have you written the IEEE yet to complain about my conduct in here? No? Why not? You are free to do so. Do you think it will matter to the IEEE? If so, please explain in 30,000 words or more WHY. (that's a 'short novel' length) Be sure and tell the pro-coders about your findings. The Inquisition can't get along without you... You and I know very well that only IEEE members having standing to submit ethical complaints to the IEEE against a member, according to IEEE policy. I'm sure that you would take pains to remind us of that if anyone else tried. "You are sure?" Oh, yes, you know what someone "*really*" said. Forgive me. I doubted your telesensory powers. I am only mortal and therefore with Original Sin. I have no prescient powers, only normal observation and deduction to see the obvious getting-the-stake-together-for-burning-the-heretics activities on-going. Now, it is perfectly obvious that Heil, and your pickup on that about the "IEEE Code of Ethics" was a beginning ploy to engage in verbal "chastisement" of myself. :-) Both of you wanted something, however slight, in order to imply some near-felonious misconduct on me...for using the IEEE free e-mail alias forwarding service as my ID on Google. No telesensory powers needed there. Just observation and obvious deduction...on something that is just an Internet address re-direction. The ARRL provides this service to its members. Should I counter by providing the ARRL much-publicized "Amateur Code" in the same manner? I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get clarification on what is permissible under the to-be "moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting, changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to "(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth and perversion is being posted in here daily by others, yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing. With most bestest regards, |
Convinced Again
From: Dave Heil on Fri, Sep 29 2006 9:02 pm
wrote: From: Dave Heil on Thurs, Sep 28 2006 8:31 am wrote: As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. Don't tap dance around it. Just tell us what it is. "If you don't know that information, all of your latest diatribe is rather pointless." |
Convinced Again
wrote: From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get clarification on what is permissible under the to-be "moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting, changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to "(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth and perversion is being posted in here daily by others, yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing. indeed his attitude does not bode well for the moderation project With most bestest regards, |
Convinced Again
In . com " writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am writes: [...] Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your peers to judge. "Peers?" :-) I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in radio communications since 1953. There are about three quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the latter group. How can you say "my peers?" I chose the word "peers" very carefully and deliberately here. I anticipated that you would want to define who your "peers" are, and that they would not be us. As I noted previously, "Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough evidence for your peers to judge," regardless of who you define your "peers" to be. [...] I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get clarification on what is permissible under the to-be "moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting, changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to "(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth and perversion is being posted in here daily by others, yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing. To repeat what I said previously, which should be clear enough to everyone else on this newsgroup: "I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into existence on the first attempt. Specific approval/disapproval of articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me. However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or permanent ban: - Provocation/Prevarication - Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake of arguing)/Filibustering/'Grease' (extending debate by avoiding direct rejoinder) - Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants - Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to yourself versus others - Trying to justify the above behavior with, 'But *he* started it!' In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification." And if you think that these standards, if adopted, would be unfairly applied only to you, you would be quite mistaken. I'm sure that you'll have plenty of comments once the RFD is posted here. With most bestest regards, You're still not getting a "73" from me. -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Convinced Again
In . com " writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am writes: But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in the amateur radio service person (although one who has been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since 1956). Have you really done that? Are you really going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure you really, really WANT to do that! :-) What an obnoxious quibble. Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not? Considering the dictionary definition of quibble ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ): -noun 1. an instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue. 2. the general use of such arguments. 3. petty or carping criticism; a minor objection. -verb (used without object) 4. to equivocate. 5. to carp; cavil. the term "true quibble" is an oxymoron, and likely a "meta-quibble" of its own. Unless you're trying to argue that it *truly* was a quibble, in which case I will agree. -- Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key |
Convinced Again
Paul W. Schleck wrote: In . com " writes: From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am What an obnoxious quibble. Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not? Considering the dictionary definition of quibble ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ): way not try avoiding ****ing contest yourself in only choosing to attack ONEside you take part in the on going fight Paul and nobody as not neutral as yourself is going to be trusted very far on proposaing anything to end the combat that is the standard on RRAP |
Convinced Again
From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:53 pm
wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm wrote: wrote: To further that, he feigns some kind of outrage and demands that the challenger "prove" it by going back to archives and extracting the challenger's charge. Brian Burke, N0IMD, claimed that a now-dead person wrote something. If the now-dead person wrote what Brian claimed, what's the problem with asking to see the original? There's nothing wrong with a now-living person asking that question. There's also nothing wrong with a now-living person from answering as Heil has - "do your own homework." Sigh...that CONSTANT "prove-it-by-dredging-up-an-old-post" bull**** again. :-( Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort) and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in here before... I quoted a definition for "subsidy" from the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: "a grant to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public" A serviceman or woman is not a private person. Nor are they a private company. Jimmie Noserve doesn't know that. Obviously. He's never taken that Oath. Do you even know what they are? Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any of his governments. He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies? What is demeaning about that? What isn't demeaning about it? Indeed! Jimmie Noserve must be connected with aviation somehow...he is on some higher plane. He is "better" than the rest of us. "subsidize" is defined in the same book as "to furnish with a subsidy" So? Good grief...this NO-serve individual just cannot stop trying to rationalize he is "right" and therefore cannot be faulted! Just the same, he never took that Oath to serve his country, putting his life on that line, possibly harming his precious body dedicated to morse code. Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck. You don't say. I couldn't figure out what he said...or meant to say... Oh, wait, here must be the meaning of his words: It is okay to be a civilian government employee (such as that glorious DX king from State, retired)...but NOT okay to wear the uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military things and putting their LIVES on the line! Military people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service" are NOT! Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible "protector." Heil was a government employee at State. Heil is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now. Anyone who is a pro-coder and served in the military is NOT "subsidized" but all no-coders aren't worthy of any respect from pro-coders, are always "subsidized," never do things on their own, got ALL education from the government, and probably have underarm odor. But, it is "okay" whatever Jimmie Noserve says. If you don't like it he will keep on keep on keep on rationalizing whatever he said is "correct" until everyone gives in just to keep him quiet. :-( |
Gerritsen Sentenced----maybe one day it will be the tard
|
Convinced Again
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am writes: But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in the amateur radio service person (although one who has been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since 1956). Have you really done that? Are you really going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure you really, really WANT to do that! :-) What an obnoxious quibble. Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not? Tsk, tsk, you've proved what I remarked. :-) You misquote and falsely accuse Jeffrey Herman with an absolute statement. "Falsely?" Hardly. Yes, Leonard, falsely. You were incorrect. You were wrong. His OLD, FORMER statement has ALREADY gone round and round in here. Dredging up OLD material only serves to show the self-righteous stubbornness of those who never got their pound-of-flesh in the first go-around. :-) Your denial looks a little silly. The person who brought up Jeff Herman and launched into the diatribe about the ARRL Handbook is Leonard H. Anderson! By doing so, another pound of flesh was extracted from your 70-something-year-old hide. Are you losing weight through the factual error plan? One which only a requires a simple rebuttal that: - Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said. "*Really*"? :-) Really. Tsk, tsk. At the time, Jeffrey Herman seemed hot on trying to prove some kind of point of "absolute" goodness of the ARRL (not to mention its 'intellectualism' or whatever in matters of amateur radio). Now the ARRL *does* print considerable material in regards to amateur radio matters. That publishing *is* their major source of income. It was a very wise choice back in the twenties...that income made it possible to fund all the "membership" wonderfulness that came later. ARRL cannot exist in its present form without that income-producing publishing. So? What concern is that of yours? - Shows convincing, third-party, evidence that supports what Jeffrey Herman *really* said. Well, try as hard as I can, I just can't get my telepathy powers or crystal ball working to show what Jeffrey Herman "*really*" said. Really. All that I saw or anyone else saw were the words in these messages. "*Really*" All can see your attempt at a dodge. Now, at that OLD time of going around on that PREVIOUS message threading, Jeffrey Hermann was on of the persons higher up in the not-quite-moderation team for RRAP? That was my understanding then. Perhaps it still is? So, if that was the case, then some not-quite-moderators got their toes stepped on in past posting? [figure of speech about "toes"] Len, your statement is very convoluted. You choose to "rebut" with filibuster and insult, implying that it was dumb or pedantic to even argue the point, let alone try to find the supporting evidence. Tsk, it is quite obvious to most that dredging up OLD message thread subjects to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue is "dumb or pedantic," isn't it? You dredged it up. Was it dumb or pedantic on your part? Not only is it dumb and pedantic, but useless effort that not only wastes others' time but takes up unneccessary memory space in archives (which already contain the OLD postings). I'm convinced, Len. No one else, not even your nominal "supporters" here, will post to this newsgroup and agree with you on your misquote of Jeffrey Herman. Irrelevant, Paul. I am myself and I am secure enough to let my postings stand on their own. I don't need a "supporter." :-) That's a good thing for you. Perhaps it is a handler or spokesman you seek. I can see that a lot of what I post consists of OPINIONS which are shared by others. ....and oh, brother, what others! I "misquoted" Jeffrey Hermann? Hermann is a pro-code-test advocate and a strong supporter of the ARRL. That's not a "misquote" is it? Did I get some "year of best-sellers" wrong? Perhaps. You did that at the very least. I'm not one to trumpet some old publishing industry PR about "best-sellers." No, you are the guy who brought it up. Even so, year 1968 is 38 years ago, hardly relevant to today (year 2006). And? If you wish to "discuss" best-seller listings, that is quite another subject...which is NOT an amateur radio policy subject, per se. Please try to remember that you brought up "Jeffie-poo" and "best-sellers". Please advise on the proper newsgroup to discuss publishing PR bullstuff and I might take it there. Do you think the folks there will be impressed by your "Jeffie-poo" stories? Unless, of course, you want to dig up some sock-puppets, like Avery Fineman, again. "Sock puppet?" :-) Hardly. "Avery Fineman" was an old pseuodym I used back in BBS days, before the Internet went public in 1991. Could a sock puppet be considered a pseudonym, Len? It doesn't matter what its age happens to be. I've admitted to that in public in here. You had little choice. It is a play on words, a mild amusement...except to the anal-retentive, easily-furious, overly-touchy we-must-have- ONLY-our-way individuals. :-) You'd have us to understand that anyone who doesn't find it mildly amusing is anal retentive, easily furious (whatever that is), ouver touchy and/or a "we-must-have-ONLY-our-way individual". I'd say that a guy who makes that kind of statement about what *he* finds mildly amusing is guilty of those things of which he accuses others. --- Interesting (at least to me) that you devote SO MUCH time and so many words into attempting to chastise me. Why should that be so interesting. After all, you've devoted much, much more time and many, many more words into attempting to chastise others. Flattering, perhaps, but I have no need of that. I see you as a guy who requires lots of flattering, Len. The trouble is that you don't get much of it here. That chafes you. I see a much more serious concern in an obvious LACK of trying to clean up the obnoxious, anonymous postings of real filth and personal accusations thrown on our screens by OTHERS. That type of thing has become a real problem here. Eighty or ninety percent of it could be cleaned up by eliminating just one individual--Roger L. Wiseman. He is a problem child under his multiple sock puppets on usenet (not only in this newsgroup) and he has been a problem child in amateur radio. His behavior and Mark Morgan's Myna bird replies don't excuse your behavior. Isn't clean-up of such filth the real JOB of the "moderators" and the newsgroup police? I guess not. This isn't a moderated newsgroup, Len. See IEEE Code of Ethics Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com