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.

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

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

From: an old friend on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:18 pm

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
" 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

I don't think he can, Mark.

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

Well, Paul has a LOT to learn about moderating. I'm
speaking from experience of years of moderating several
BBS discussion boards locally. I wisely learned NOT
to take part in any "****ing contests" in public...or
private in order to do that.

Those moderators who could not help themselves and got
into one-sided public squabbles either quit in anger
or got removed by the Sysop. I only quit when the BBSs
went out of business due to Internet competition.

So far, it looks like Schleck is gunning ONLY for me.
I can't prove any reason for that other than the
postings in this "news thread" of "Gerritsen sentenced."
I have several suspicions, though. :-)

I'll say this, though. NOBODY that doesn't talk nice-
nice about present-day conditions in US amateur radio
is going to have a snowball's chance in hell of ever
getting into public view. One can take that to the
bank (and get interest on it). EVERYONE has to be kind
to all in the moderating team, call them by titles or
suitable honorifics. [one can envision saying "sir" in
response to all written text, perhaps saluting in some
form is required?] It's fairly certain that amateur
extra licensees will be exempt, regardless of what they
post and to whom. All others will be graded by license
class with those not licensed in amateur radio being at
the very bottom...with me totally blocked out. shrug

It will be okay if an amateur extra calls others by
'cutesy' names, demeans and denigrates their work,
what they've done, accuses them of pedophilia or
homosexual conduct, calls for 'consultation' with their
wives, insults their wives, even manages to insult two
large universities as being "correspondence schools."
That's okay since he has a "military" rank in the Civil
Air Patrol.

It will be okay if another amateur extra demeans
military personnel and insults them by saying they are
"subsidized" by the government...even though he never
served, never volunteered, hasn't even been in
government employ. Such an amateur extra is free to
demand whatever he wants of anyone challenging him.
He need not defend his demands for He IS an extra.

Who MIGHT get blocked may (no assurances of this) be
the anonymous trolls, misfits, and general filth-
babblers behaving like middle-school adolescent males
discovering that they can cuss out adults in perfect
safety. I'm really not sure if the "moderating team"
will be able to judge these, because they minute one
of them mumbles nice-nice about amateur radio as the
team does it, they might allow them to post?

It's all in what is said and who says it. Never EVER
be forceful in defending your position here, Mark. The
mear hint of it going against the establishment of olde-
tyme hams will get you labeled with "(mis)conduct."

Ptui.

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

On 2 Oct 2006 06:34:25 -0700, Secwet Woger wrote:
:
: Says the lying hypocrite who posts as Stagger Lee.

No, *I* post as Stagger Lee. You know me: I'm the Admin of NIM
Busters. I'm the one who keeps removing all of your posts from the
main board and putting them over into the lounge.

Smile: You're on Candid Camera!



=====(sig)=====
"KC8JBO is an idiot in my opinion." -- Stephen K. Gielda, owner of
COTSE, in message

"Now, now, after I feeling sorry for you after reading your 'what it's
like behind the scenes at COTSE' you insult one of your users.
Not very prudent. I guess it shows what you're really all about. You
claim to protect freedom of speech." -- Roger Wiseman's response to
Gielda's statement

Roger Wiseman AB8MQ, posing as " wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

writes:

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)

Says the lying hypocrite who posts as Stagger Lee.

I've told you repeatedly, UnWiseman, that I post as no one but myself.
I never have; I never will. You seem a little confused on the topic
since you made mention of a Houston ISP. I don't have a Houston ISP and
I don't live in Houston. I live right here in the same country as
little demented you.

That aside, you are the poster of filth. Your stream of consciousness
ramblings about people having sex with their parents, their children,
with animals, with those of the same gender take us on a disgusting
visit to Roger World. You're a piece of detritus, a chunk of human garbage.

and he has been a
problem child in amateur radio.

Learn to read, asshole.

I've been able to read for over fifty-one years. I've read that you
have received a couple of missives from your old pal Mr. Hollingsworth
and that you were ordered to retest. This all comes in the short period
in which you've held an amateur radio license. I also know that one
additional strike would likely do you in.

I've read your comments about the owner of Ohio Valley Internet Service
and I saw how quickly you were cut loose. That has happened to a number
of your service providers. It is the reason that you need to hide
behind the various sock puppets.

His behavior and Mark Morgan's Myna
bird replies don't excuse your behavior.

Then what is your excuse? sarcasmOh, that's right you are the "Super
ham!" /sarcasm

Read my posts, Roger. I neither flood newsgroups nor post filth. If
you want to call that being a super ham, fine. I will point out that
this isn't amateur radio. This is usenet.

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.

Then why are you attempting to do so?

I'm not, Roger. I'd like to see this newsgroup so clean that decent
people can read it without wading through your disturbed thoughts.
You're a sociopath and you don't know how civilized human beings act.
You need to be in a rubber room with no radio equipment and no internet
access until a cure can be found for your mental illness.

Dave K8MN