RadioBanter - Schlecks' Schlock!

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Schlecks' Schlock! (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/114422-re-schlecks-schlock.html)

Schlecks' Schlock!

On Jan 28, 1:39 am, John Smith I wrote:
To Whom It May Concern:

Just so you have a complete picture of Paul W. Schleck, I took the
following from one of his posts in news.groups.proposals:

"Mark Morgan, KB9RQZ, is correct that all of our proposed moderators and
consultants hold the highest class of Amateur Radio Service license in
their countries (Amateur Extra for the U.S. team members, Class A or
similar in the case of Jack Cook, who holds both UK and Australian
licenses). However, that doesn't mean that we would be judgemental or
unfair to other classes of license. We would certainly be open to
adding moderators to our team that hold other classes of license. We
will certainly decline articles that are disrespectful to or prejudicial
against other participants for any reason, including license class. We
would prefer to judge ideas, and take posts at face value, rather than
prejudge individuals and credentials in a vacuum."

Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical
standards", etc. Now, doesn't it?

Gawd! I feel sick ...

Warmest regards,
JS

JS, I dunno. You have to recall that for the very longest time (and
still) there has been prejudice against No-Code Technicians. They are
"stupid, lazy, knuckledraggers with southern accents, welfare mothers
of color with their hands out, etc, etc, etc."

Only recently have people questioned the megalomania of certain
Extras, their need to have a government crutch to maintain their self-
worth and status, etc.

So just as the sword began to cut both ways...

What you won't be able to get to in this "judge ideas, and take posts
at face value" is the motivations of individuals who present ideas,
and make posts at face value. For example, we will never know why
people would eat Robesin's excrement, only that he says they do.

Schlecks' Schlock!

On Jan 28, 12:08 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
JS, I dunno. You have to recall that for the very longest time (and
still) there has been prejudice against No-Code Technicians. They are
"stupid, lazy, knuckledraggers with southern accents, welfare mothers
of color with their hands out, etc, etc, etc."
...HHAC:

I "over-complex-ified" my other response to this.

Put simply, Einstein would still be Einstein, given an EXTRA CLASS
license, or not ...

of tech class I doubt if Einstein had become a ham he could have ever
passed the code test at least not without depriving the world of a lot
of what he did bring us

I am the only that has read einstein and fathomed thorough his mind
that way?

Regards,
JS

Schlecks' Schlock!

an_old_friend wrote:

...
I am the only that has read einstein and fathomed thorough his mind
that way?
Regards,
JS

AOF:

It would be a lie to say I could "fathom" Einstein, I only attempt to
stand within his shadow, possibly, someday, upon his shoulders ... well,
I can dream ...

Regards,
JS

Schlecks' Schlock!

On Jan 28, 1:23 pm, John Smith I wrote:
an_old_friend wrote: ...

I am the only that has read einstein and fathomed thorough his mind
that way?
Regards,
JSAOF:

It would be a lie to say I could "fathom" Einstein, I only attempt to
stand within his shadow, possibly, someday, upon his shoulders ... well,
I can dream ...

I can fathom at least part of it I find interesting that Einstien and
I do both suffer from/are gifted with dyslexia and some of it fellow
travelers in what are LD's today because they do not fit well in our
educational system

I can understand and fathom what of his materail I can read ( and I
have once gotten to read some of hand written stuff a truely taxing
task with the depth of his dyslexia I can assure you, they are hand
written and in some way worse in spelling and conventcail gramuar than
much of my own writting

indeed reading his work is one of things that convince me that the
ability to spell is highly over rated esp by many posters here

working through what he says gives an understand quite impossible in
the polished drafted and somehwant flatened nature of his published
work

indeed reading einstain in few photocopies peiece of his original text
is one of the reason i refuse to polish my own work further I suspect
the reaction I get is in part due to the fact that in having to work
for it they reader is getting my thoiought at a deeper and more
distrubing level

which is exactly what I want

and likely something that would be banned by Pual et al

I can't lead on to futher explorations in that feild which is why I
moves from Physics to Geologigy and govt work

Regards,
JS

Schlecks' Schlock!

wrote:

JS, I dunno. You have to recall that for the very longest time (and
still) there has been prejudice against No-Code Technicians. They are
"stupid, lazy, knuckledraggers with southern accents, welfare mothers
of color with their hands out, etc, etc, etc."

Only recently have people questioned the megalomania of certain
Extras, their need to have a government crutch to maintain their self-
worth and status, etc.

So just as the sword began to cut both ways...

What you won't be able to get to in this "judge ideas, and take posts
at face value" is the motivations of individuals who present ideas,
and make posts at face value. For example, we will never know why
people would eat Robesin's excrement, only that he says they do.

HHAC: [BRIAN BURKE, N0IMD]

Yes, there is "prejudice" and it has been there a long, long time, I
kinda of like the ncts though (no code techs.) I think they may be
individuals who have no talent for code, are busy supporting a family
and use more of their time paying bills and medical expenses, more than
anything else--yes, paul and his bunch call them names ...

I disagree with your term "Paul and his bunch." I do not
charge Paul Schleck with being anything other than an
on-line politician, the type that thinks they know all
the answers. That comes largely from:

Past history of Schleck has him ocasionally wanting to
get in the thick of a contentious discussion in public
and, to some, trying to continue that in private e-mail
in an effort to enforce his will on them. Shrug. Not
any sort of felonious act.

From a sizeable experience in moderating BBS (Bulletin
Board Systems, the precursor to the Internet) public
boards, a moderator SHOULD NOT EVER get "involved"
publicly in any contentious subject where they side with
one group or another. Trying to mix it up in a virtual tag-
team match always results in FAILURE TO PROPERLY
MODERATE. They are BIASED. The ONLY thing that
moderators CAN do EFFECTIVELY is to issue notices,
advise on behavior of all.

Moderators should walk softly and silently, carrying a
large fire extinguisher. That works.

And, yes, EXTRA class license holders tend to think of that paper as a
doctor degree--but, a doctorate degree in what, a darn hobby? It isn't ...

The FCC was NEVER chartered to be an academic
institution.

Look, hot ham, let us put this in perspective, if Paul was my next door
neighbor, we might have a cup of coffee in the morning and a beer in the
evening over the fence. I might like the PERSON of Paul W. Schleck--I
certainly consider him no monster. Here, I only refute his ideas,
conceptions, constructs, methods and goals. I hold the man Paul away
from his tactics--it is his tactics I have the bone to pick with here.

Irrelevant to THIS ENVIRONMENT. This environment
is solely composed of words on screens which are
variously "colored" by the imaginations of the readers.
Some readers attempt to "interpret the unspoken words"
for their own nefarious purposes. MOST readers, I
suspect, simply get the GIST of what is written in
normal information interchange of in-person
communications. However, the amount of interchange
is itself limited to the ability of writers to convey their
thoughts...there are no clues such as tone of voice nor
additional expressions of emotion. Such normal in-
person clues must be derived from the gist, the body
of the words.

Down here in the entertainment capitol of the world, one
encounters ACTORS. Really good actors can have all the
appearance of any range between saint and sinner,
educated or woefully ignorant. At first one CANNOT
distinguish their character from the real person lurking
(or hiding) inside. With sufficient dialogue in-person
one can begin to discern the person and differentiate
them from the character. This usually leads to the
discovery that they are supremely driven by EMOTION,
not logical reasoning (emotion is the essence of their
craft) with high degrees of EGO. It takes ego and
chutzpah to get up in front of an audience and be
someone entirely different...and be believable as that
character.

In computer-modem comms there is a strong analogy
to ACTING in that most of the normal in-person clues are
missing, nothing of sight or sound, a sort of perception
twilight zone where the perceptor's imagination can run
wild. Imaginations are triggered by what another writes,
how they write it, and the ego-emotional overlay from the
gist of the text. The writer may not be aware of the effect
of what he/she writes has on readers. Professional
wordsmiths and marketing ad copy writers are aware but
those are rare in this somewhat homogenous grouping.
Most simply write as they have spoken to others for
years.

Bottom line is that this medium is part "stage" but the
egos and chutzpahs are generally doing the driving. One
CANNOT EFFECTIVELY delve into the real personna of the
writer without a great deal of message copy to serve as
a basis of judgement. That has little to do with their
in-person appearance-behavior-identification.

Excuse me, I have to go off and read another "uphill-
through-the-snow-both-ways-while-barefoot" tale of
vast, heroic, struggle to get their ham license collitch
degree. Such realism! We must honor all those who
were on the Great March. Sigh.

Diss regards,
LA

Schlecks' Schlock!

On Jan 28, 11:44 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ...

JS, I dunno. You have to recall that for the very longest time (and
still) there has been prejudice against No-Code Technicians. They are
"stupid, lazy, knuckledraggers with southern accents, welfare mothers
of color with their hands out, etc, etc, etc."

Only recently have people questioned the megalomania of certain
Extras, their need to have a government crutch to maintain their self-
worth and status, etc.

So just as the sword began to cut both ways...

What you won't be able to get to in this "judge ideas, and take posts
at face value" is the motivations of individuals who present ideas,
and make posts at face value. For example, we will never know why
people would eat Robesin's excrement, only that he says they do.HHAC:

Yes, there is "prejudice" and it has been there a long, long time, I
kinda of like the ncts though (no code techs.) I think they may be
individuals who have no talent for code, are busy supporting a family
and use more of their time paying bills and medical expenses, more than
anything else--yes, paul and his bunch call them names ...

I haven't seen that from Paul.

And, yes, EXTRA class license holders tend to think of that paper as a
doctor degree--but, a doctorate degree in what, a darn hobby? It isn't ...

When I see a ham behaving badly, it doesn't surprise me when I learn
that the ham is an Extra. That isn't to say that all Extras behave
badly.

Look, hot ham, let us put this in perspective, if Paul was my next door
neighbor, we might have a cup of coffee in the morning and a beer in the
evening over the fence. I might like the PERSON of Paul W. Schleck--I
certainly consider him no monster.

KH2D for example. I consider him a friend. Most of the hams that
I've agreed with and disagreed with on RRAP could be a friend should I
ever meet them in person. There are several who I think are
dangerous.

Here, I only refute his ideas,
conceptions, constructs, methods and goals. I hold the man Paul away
from his tactics--it is his tactics I have the bone to pick with here.

Fair enough. Pick away.

I think after all the nicey-nice backslapping on the moderated group,
they'll get sick of hearing the same-o, same-o from their cloned
bretheren and be back on RRAP to hear what thinking people have to
say.

You comments are greatly appreciated, valid and a good example of how
discussion should happen here--thanks!

You're welcome.

Warmest regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

bb

Schlecks' Schlock!

On Jan 28, 12:08 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
JS, I dunno. You have to recall that for the very longest time (and
still) there has been prejudice against No-Code Technicians. They are
"stupid, lazy, knuckledraggers with southern accents, welfare mothers
of color with their hands out, etc, etc, etc."
...HHAC:

I "over-complex-ified" my other response to this.

Put simply, Einstein would still be Einstein, given an EXTRA CLASS
license, or not ...

Many Extras consider themselves Einsteins...

They are not.

Schlecks' Schlock!