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.

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 ...

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 ...

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.

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

Warmest regards,
JS

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

wrote:

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

Once they all agree how disadvantaged they were and yet somehow
overcame unsurmountable odds in gaining an amateur license; how Morse
Code/CW is the only true mode in amateur radio, and how unworthy the
new hams are, they'll tire of being in complete agreement with each
other. All very boring stuff once you're heard it for the ten
thousandth time.

Then they'll show up again on RRAP as has Larry tRoll, Mad Mike
Deignan, Mike Coslo, and Steven Robesin for a little real discussion.

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

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."

[and those were the least derogatory comments! :-) ]

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.

[Okay, I'm not a "people"...I was saying that years ago :-)]

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.

I agree but only part way. Schleck's explanations word
it as if there was "never" any moderator activity anywhere
else and his Usenet-Internet group is the "only" group
that can handle it.

That is, to put it most delicately, utter cow-flop. The BBSs
were beginning to go national in networking in the early 1980s
and hundreds of BBS Sysops were having to MODERATE thousands
of users and subscribers. Their executive (main computer)
software was already designed with Moderator's Controls to
effect that moderation. I was there. I saw it. I used it.
I've even talked to two different BBS software writer-
designers. I've been a moderator on three different BBSs.

Apparently that doesn't "count." quizical look Not of
academia (despite having macadmias) I am brushed aside.

It SEEMS to be the usual academic NIT syndrome. It SEEMS
like only THEY (the academics) have the "smarts" to do it.
The usual brush-aside is mentioning USENET out of ARPANET,
supposedly all academic institutions. Actually no, both
involved BOTH academia and corporations involved in defense
work as well as instrumentation makers. Tsk, I was there
on ARPANET for a short while, on USENET for a short while.
Be damned if I ever saw any "moderation" on either many
years ago. :-(

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.

It's almost a truism that the visible percentage of voluble
amateur extras in here are that way. They wound so easily,
the poor dears.

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.

By example of early DeJaVu archives (now Google's), Jim
Kehler was, in my honest opinion, one of the WORST of the
sarcastic, arrogant, in-your-face sort in his postings to
me. I'm sorry if that bothers you, Brian, but this
target of his frustrations and sarcasm didn't much like
him. I classify Cranky Spanky as a junior grade sissy
version of Kehler. Too bad Cranky was never stuck on
Guam for years...he would have loved being where all the
comms to the rest of the world were by HF. Wonder if
Cranky has ever taken up golf? :-)

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.

HAR! Beautiful, Brian. :-)

They will find, after a while, that their little clubhouse
elite is a very small place after all. Claustrophobia
will set in or they will get drunk on their own high-fives.
Or, they might bail to other places like eham.net and make
out like they single-handedly worked stations side by side
with Maxim or Marconi doing "pioneering" adventures in
radio...that none of them could possibly have done.

146s,
LA

On Jan 28, 8:36 pm, "
wrote:
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."

[and those were the least derogatory comments! :-) ]

You gotta wonder which of the regulars are/were posting anonymously.
Really hair-brained stuff.

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.

[Okay, I'm not a "people"...I was saying that years ago :-)]

Yep, without naming names...

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.

I agree but only part way. Schleck's explanations word
it as if there was "never" any moderator activity anywhere
else and his Usenet-Internet group is the "only" group
that can handle it.

That is, to put it most delicately, utter cow-flop. The BBSs
were beginning to go national in networking in the early 1980s
and hundreds of BBS Sysops were having to MODERATE thousands
of users and subscribers. Their executive (main computer)
software was already designed with Moderator's Controls to
effect that moderation. I was there. I saw it. I used it.
I've even talked to two different BBS software writer-
designers. I've been a moderator on three different BBSs.

Apparently that doesn't "count." quizical look Not of
academia (despite having macadmias) I am brushed aside.

It SEEMS to be the usual academic NIT syndrome. It SEEMS
like only THEY (the academics) have the "smarts" to do it.
The usual brush-aside is mentioning USENET out of ARPANET,
supposedly all academic institutions. Actually no, both
involved BOTH academia and corporations involved in defense
work as well as instrumentation makers. Tsk, I was there
on ARPANET for a short while, on USENET for a short while.
Be damned if I ever saw any "moderation" on either many
years ago. :-(

I'm disturbed that there was little or no discussion, and suddenly we
have a "solution," complete with with a list of moderators that no one
has ever heard of, nevermind that they are all Extras.

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.

It's almost a truism that the visible percentage of voluble
amateur extras in here are that way. They wound so easily,
the poor dears.

They wouldn't be good moderators. Skin too thin.

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.

By example of early DeJaVu archives (now Google's), Jim
Kehler was, in my honest opinion, one of the WORST of the
sarcastic, arrogant, in-your-face sort in his postings to
me.

He could be "grumpy" in person, too.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, Brian, but this
target of his frustrations and sarcasm didn't much like
him. I classify Cranky Spanky as a junior grade sissy
version of Kehler. Too bad Cranky was never stuck on
Guam for years...he would have loved being where all the
comms to the rest of the world were by HF.

He couldn't have handled the pileups.

Wonder if
Cranky has ever taken up golf? :-)

"They" built a big golf course on Guam. Seems it is cheaper to fly to
Guam for a weekend of golf than to pay greens fees in Japan.

Anyway, they needed a lot of sand for the constructions, and brought a
barge load of it from China. Welp, in China, any flowing water is
considered a mechanism of taking care of waste. The sand they dredged
was full of e-coli, and this was deposited over our freshwater
well...

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.

HAR! Beautiful, Brian. :-)

They will find, after a while, that their little clubhouse
elite is a very small place after all. Claustrophobia
will set in or they will get drunk on their own high-fives.

Their "safe room" will have to get padding.

Or, they might bail to other places like eham.net and make
out like they single-handedly worked stations side by side
with Maxim or Marconi doing "pioneering" adventures in
radio...that none of them could possibly have done.

They didn't?

146s,
LA- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

243s

wrote:

You gotta wonder which of the regulars are/were posting anonymously.
Really hair-brained stuff.

Hair-brained, was it?

Did your mom ever take the "hare brush" to you?

Dave K8MN

From: on Sun, Jan 28 2007 7:06 pm

On Jan 28, 8:36 pm, " wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:44 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ...

I'm disturbed that there was little or no discussion, and suddenly we
have a "solution," complete with with a list of moderators that no one
has ever heard of, nevermind that they are all Extras.

After at least three years of some of the total crap
in here had been going on. WHERE were the "powers-that-
be"? Sleeping? The Google folks were unresponsive to
"objectionable posting." They just let it accumulate.

Since every newsgroup was created by humankind, it can
ALSO be "un-created" by humankind. Nobody in power
apparently wanted to delete any group...so very un-liberal
and "anti-democratic" or something.

"Oh, we can't impinge on the freedom of speech!" seemed
to be the "Powers" shine-off. No, no, no, NO we can't
remove, halt, or put ANY stoppage on freedom of speech!

What of the massive cross-posting? Vince Fiscus under
his nom-deguerre of "Slow Code" deliberately (and with
malice aforethought) mass-posted to many amateur
newsgroups knowing full well that most browsers would
automatically mass-post replies. Filled up all kinds
of computer mass storage at many ISPs, all with dupes.

Had this been a BBS or BBS network, the offenders would
have been summarily yanked, terminated without prejudice,
and the blessed freedom-of-speech WOULD HAVE CONTINUED,
but without troublemakers. I've seen that done, been a
party to it in a few cases. Free speech went on.
Ordinary folk could tell the difference between real
freedom and deliberate one-sidedness overlaid by
arrogant self-defined "superiority."

No collitsch degrease needed to tell the difference.
But, here we have the academia nuts telling us they
all but invented "moderating." :-( Then we've got
a bunch of "movers and shakers" recently listed which
all but says out loud they "made it all possible."

Pfooey, a decade before the Internet went public there
were BBSs and BBS nets with amateur radio "pubs"
(public boards, common name of what are called
"newsgroups" now) in the USA, a few interconnecting
with other continents. Wasn't my cuppa but I knew of
them, looked in a few. Some of those conversations
got wild and wooly but outright miscreants, filth-
spouters, and attempted take-over artists were
summarily deleted. Gone. Fini. Full thirty.

Not to worry now. We have the "third RFD" in progress.
By the time of the eleventh (when, in 2011?) there
might - finally - be a decision. The "moderated
group" may then become a reality. This is JUST LIKE
some of those "study groups" on local government
projects where a "study" might as for an "action
committee" to be formed, which then leads to another
"study group" be formed to "study" the problem. :-(

Idiocy in action...with "credentials."

LA

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 ...

Regards,
JS