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


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

Let's recap:

Why? :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robesin did.

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


writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:
Let's recap:
Why? :-)

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

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

Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?
Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)
Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.

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

How do you put it--take a WAG?

Robesin did.

I don't know anyone named Robesin.

Dave K8MN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like you fired.

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

This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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




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

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

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

I was puzzled when I read:

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

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

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

Dave K8MN

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


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

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

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

In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the info!

---

And I'll repeat my other question:

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

73 Dee Jim, N2EE

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

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

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

- Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.

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

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

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Robesin did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds like a lot of rules but OK.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the info!

---

And I'll repeat my other question:

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

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

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

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

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

- Where to fold in wider-band digital modes.

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

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

Seems the right direction to me.

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

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


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

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

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

Robesin did.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)

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

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

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

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


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

direferent rules apply

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


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


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

This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.

thank God

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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