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...


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?

For my part, I only smoke DURING sex... :-)

---

Hey, Mark, have you heard the new technology discovery?
Electronics works on smoke! Yes, if the smoke leaks
out, the electronics won't work! :-)

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

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.

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?]

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.

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?

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".

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.

Jim has the memory of an elephant.

Is that an admission that you don't feel that your claim was correct?

Dave K8MN

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

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

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

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