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

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.

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

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

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

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

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. :-)

wrote:

But, I digress.

You've finally written something with which I find myself in 100% agreement.

Dave K8MN

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

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.