In . com " writes:

[...]

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...!

And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary.
Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

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 and I know very well that only IEEE members having standing to
submit ethical complaints to the IEEE against a member, according to
IEEE policy. I'm sure that you would take pains to remind us of that if
anyone else tried.

You really ought to search the ByteBrothers. :-)



--
Paul W. Schleck. K3FU

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

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In . com " writes:

[...]

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...!

And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary.
Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.
you statesment are exactly no one seems to keen on the concept of
moderating the NG

indeed the attiue that it is is misconduct to try and protect ones name
from libelous attack is misconduct makes highly dubious of your efforts
to create a moderated NG

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

writes:

[...]

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...!

And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary.

Oh? Yourself and Heil seemed to think it was imperative.
After all, you both have amateur extra class licenses and
are therefore "boss" aren't you? [one should always do
what the "bosses" say or lose paychecks or something]


Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

"Peers?" :-)

I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"


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 and I know very well that only IEEE members having standing to
submit ethical complaints to the IEEE against a member, according to
IEEE policy. I'm sure that you would take pains to remind us of that if
anyone else tried.

"You are sure?" Oh, yes, you know what someone "*really*" said.
Forgive me. I doubted your telesensory powers. I am only
mortal and therefore with Original Sin. I have no prescient
powers, only normal observation and deduction to see the
obvious getting-the-stake-together-for-burning-the-heretics
activities on-going.

Now, it is perfectly obvious that Heil, and your pickup on that
about the "IEEE Code of Ethics" was a beginning ploy to engage
in verbal "chastisement" of myself. :-) Both of you wanted
something, however slight, in order to imply some near-felonious
misconduct on me...for using the IEEE free e-mail alias
forwarding service as my ID on Google. No telesensory powers
needed there. Just observation and obvious deduction...on
something that is just an Internet address re-direction. The
ARRL provides this service to its members. Should I counter
by providing the ARRL much-publicized "Amateur Code" in the
same manner?

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

With most bestest regards,

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

indeed his attitude does not bode well for the moderation project

With most bestest regards,

In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

writes:

[...]

Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

"Peers?" :-)

I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"

I chose the word "peers" very carefully and deliberately here. I
anticipated that you would want to define who your "peers" are, and that
they would not be us.

As I noted previously, "Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than
enough evidence for your peers to judge," regardless of who you define
your "peers" to be.

[...]

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

To repeat what I said previously, which should be clear enough to
everyone else on this newsgroup:


"I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
existence on the first attempt. Specific approval/disapproval of
articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.

However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:

- Provocation/Prevarication

- Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake
of arguing)/Filibustering/'Grease' (extending debate by avoiding
direct rejoinder)

- Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants

- Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to
yourself versus others

- Trying to justify the above behavior with, 'But *he* started it!'

In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing
newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification."

And if you think that these standards, if adopted, would be unfairly
applied only to you, you would be quite mistaken.

I'm sure that you'll have plenty of comments once the RFD is posted
here.

With most bestest regards,



You're still not getting a "73" from me.

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am

writes:

[...]

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...!
And you misunderstand, Len. No deep background check is necessary.

Oh? Yourself and Heil seemed to think it was imperative.

"Yourself and Heil"? Tsk, tsk.

Where was it indicated, other than by you, that a background check
should be undertaken?

After all, you both have amateur extra class licenses and
are therefore "boss" aren't you? [one should always do
what the "bosses" say or lose paychecks or something]

Do you need a boss to tell you that you should do something or are you
capable of controlling your own behavior without being told?


Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.

"Peers?" :-)

I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"

You have peers, Len. Citizens are your peers. IEEE members are your
peers. Commercial radio ops are your peers.

I'm a citizen of the United States. I object to your behavior as your peer.


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 and I know very well that only IEEE members having standing to
submit ethical complaints to the IEEE against a member, according to
IEEE policy. I'm sure that you would take pains to remind us of that if
anyone else tried.

"You are sure?" Oh, yes, you know what someone "*really*" said.
Forgive me. I doubted your telesensory powers. I am only
mortal and therefore with Original Sin. I have no prescient
powers, only normal observation and deduction to see the
obvious getting-the-stake-together-for-burning-the-heretics
activities on-going.

....and you'd have us believe that you have observed folks readying to
burn you at the stake? Really?

Now, it is perfectly obvious that Heil, and your pickup on that
about the "IEEE Code of Ethics" was a beginning ploy to engage
in verbal "chastisement" of myself. :-)

Consider yourself chastised.

Both of you wanted
something, however slight, in order to imply some near-felonious
misconduct on me...for using the IEEE free e-mail alias
forwarding service as my ID on Google.

I don't mind if you use it. I'd like for you to behave yourself like an
adult.

No telesensory powers
needed there. Just observation and obvious deduction...on
something that is just an Internet address re-direction.

There's a reason you began using it, isn't there?

The
ARRL provides this service to its members. Should I counter
by providing the ARRL much-publicized "Amateur Code" in the
same manner?

You've done so in the past. Did you forget?

I'm just asking some questions here, Paul, trying to get
clarification on what is permissible under the to-be
"moderation" to happen. The to-be rules seem to be fleeting,
changing direction, having individuals re-defined as to
"(mis)conduct". It is difficult to keep up. Obvious filth
and perversion is being posted in here daily by others,
yet you go on and on about a Professional Association in an
AMATEUR radio newsgroup. Confusing.

One can only do so much toward putting a stop to the filth posted here.
The prime poster of such material is mentally ill. You can do
something about your behavior.

I'm for leaving this group up and running until and even after the
creation of a moderated group. If you can't control yourself in the
moderated group, you can return here and exchange barrages with Roger
Wiseman.

With most bestest regards,

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:07 pm

writes:
Paul W. Schleck wrote on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am
writes:


Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.
"Peers?" :-)
I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"

I chose the word "peers" very carefully and deliberately here. I
anticipated that you would want to define who your "peers" are, and that
they would not be us.

Tsk, I don't think so. Despite alluding to prescient powers,
you could not possibly know what I was about to write. :-)

Who you mean by "us," white man? I've been a moderator on
more than one public discussion board on each of three BBSs.
When you say "us" then you cannot restrict that to the
"moderating team" to be. I was doing moderating successfully
before this newsgroup came into being. You really don't want
to know that, I can tell.

As I noted previously, "Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than
enough evidence for your peers to judge," regardless of who you define
your "peers" to be.

Your definition of "peers" seem to be solely the "moderating
team" and any olde-tymers in US amateur radio who've passed
the 20 WPM code test. I will NEVER fit into THAT peer group.
:-) guffaw, not just a little smiley

Neither will I fit any "peer group" that self-righteously
maintains the OLD standards and practices, pretending to be
professionals in an amateur activity. 'Maintenance' of the
old allegedly on 'traditional' rationalizations but really
meaning Their personal preferences which they attempt to
force on all others.

I will not fit into any "peer group" of inflated egos with
pretentious titles-rank-priveleges by which They imagine
are some kind of uberamateur and great radio guru...
especially those titles-rank-privileges which were lobbied
for by even earlier pretentious amateurs wanting to be
"professional amateurs."

I will not fit into any bigoted group that makes fun of
and insults any other radio service in the USA...just
because they don't follow some "amateur way."

I will not fit into any "peer group" of non-serving elites
who don't understand that real service to their country is
not by having a radio hobby...it means owning up to some
maturity and, when necessary, putting their LIFE on the
line. Voluntarily, but have accepted draftees who also
served.

I DO fit into a peer group that has an interest in radio
and electronics but doesn't need the emotional blanket of
rank-status-title to justify it. I not only FIT that but
have long worked in that environment...my career of choice
as I've explained in here. I've had NO problems getting
along with THAT peer group for a half century. But, in
this newsgroup best described as a Din of Inequity, some
deem themselves "boss" and demand some kind of strict
obediance, indeed quasi-patriotism, to the status quo.
There's been verbal "combat" in here for years, by the
few of the hamatuer order faithfulling echoing (or
parroting) the words of a minority membership
organization. Some of us spoke back at those! How
terrible! We went against the Big Brother of America!


To repeat what I said previously, which should be clear enough to
everyone else on this newsgroup:

"I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
existence on the first attempt. Specific approval/disapproval of
articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.

Did you think public discussion forum moderation is some kind
of "new" thing? It's been going on since the early 1970s,
even on the ARPANET-turned-Usenet as well as BBSs. Precedent
EXISTS, has existed for decades.

But, I can't tell you that, ey? Nope. You've tasted the
"power of control" and are a bit drunk on it. Understand.
Been there, done that, quit trying to drink that control
stuff quickly. That control liquor will bend your mind
faster than alcohol. You've got to do some steps to learn
sensitivity to what folks write in here, tune into their
intent, see what they "*really*" say. And, above all AVOID
GETTING INTO PUBLIC ****ING CONTENTS. That only makes you
(or any "team" member) one-sided, good for nothing else but
****ing in public. You are not "relieved" to know that but
that's the plain, simple fact.


However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:

Why tell ME, Paul. I can expect nothing but a permanent
block of anything I write in this moderated forum. shrug

You already give clear indication of such blockage. "In
spades" I might add. :-)


And if you think that these standards, if adopted, would be unfairly
applied only to you, you would be quite mistaken.

Blah, blah, blah. You've singled ME out. Many, many OTHERS
haven't even been mentioned, not even alluded to. I am as
good as shut out for the future.

Whatever happened to all those OTHERS in here? Is your
browser broken? Do your eyes glaze over when you see
those posts, make you unable to comprehend them?

Case in point: You've written about MY "(mis)conduct."
"misconduct" of WHAT? You've not posted any "conduct"
rules that MUST be followed. Yet you've tossed in that
"(mis)conduct" statement twice. What you've done is to
make me "guilty" of some law well before that law became
law! Haw!

The "moderating team" will MAKE the "laws" of this forum
whether or not they would be fair or unfair. One thing
I know for damn sure is that I won't be able to post.

You don't want those "guilty of misconduct (or "(mis)conduct")
you want those who make nice-nice to the elite of amateur
radio as she are known now. Absolutely NO ONE will be
allowed to remain for the slightest negative statement against
the olde-tyme establishment, especially those who fail to
respect, honor TITLES. No contentiousness of any kind!
The slightest hint of contentiousness will result in
banishment. Understood. I've seen that elsewhere. On
short-lived groupings who took the same path.

You're still not getting a "73" from me.

I could care less.