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

writes:

Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug

You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.

"Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]

What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.

So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"

You are imagining things which aren't there.

Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.


My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.

Not necessary. :-)

You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
in the modern sense. :-)


One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
years.

I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you.

I am happy that you are happy.

I am NOT happy that some are acting as military veteran
imposters. Extremely few REAL veterans are happy about
imposters.



Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
here. You should KNOW that by now.

As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience,
some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups.

What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?


If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
many, many such words?

Because I can! :-) Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions,
there are very few UNBIASED venues for speaking one's mind
on any amateur radio policy issues.


I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me.

It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"

Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a
few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population.

I do not have to "stereotype, or overgeneralize" anything by
such individuals (trolls, misfits, anonymous cowards, and
identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men").

THEY mark themselves.

Yes, there are only a very few "representatives" of a "much
larger population" (of radio amateurs) in here. But, those
that do put themselves on public view do not always reflect
well on a pleasureable radio activity hobby enjoyed by
thousands. Rather they reflect mostly personal preferrences
within their hobby. "Objective" applies to little of what
is written.

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.

"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"

Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"

The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.

I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.

Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.

Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.

Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."

I do not use hats.

Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.

How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?

Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
"action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.

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.

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

Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).

Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost
that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words
became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after
that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers.


... After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.

I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I
remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul.

I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected
John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go
out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years
before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to
do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd
Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR
words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found
in here...nor is it necessary]


For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?

It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."

Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]

Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
going to believe my words or the words of others on my
"motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
only those others.

What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random)
participation in here?

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.

I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.

Beep, beep,