|
Schlecks' Schlock!
On Jan 28, 1:48�am, John Smith I wrote: 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: ... Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical standards", etc. *Now, doesn't it? What's wrong with what he wrote? Gawd! *I feel sick ... Warmest regards, JS Unbelievable, is there ANYONE here who believes Mr. Schlock... err, Mr. Schleck would be "fair" and just to ALL? *That he would consider ANYTHING other than his own petty gripes and bitches? *If so, step right up here to defend the man, I am waiting ... I'm willing to give him and his group of moderators a chance. Why aren't you? My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight! Exactly how is he "crooked"? And just to give a complete pictu Paul has been a No Code Test advocate for many years. I have been a Pro Code Test advocate for many years. Yet we are both willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks. I know some of the folks in the group of moderators. They are all across the range of opinion on various subjects. I agree with some and disagree with others. The big question is this: To my knowledge, there has never been a moderated amateur radio newsgroup on Usenet. So this project is something completely new, progressive and different. We're supposed to support such things, aren't we? If someone is really interested in discussing amateur radio issues, why would they not give the new, progressive and different newsgroup a chance, without prejudging the result before it begins? Perhaps the problem some folks have is that they know they won't be able to post unsubstantiated claims or ad hominem attacks - and that just takes out all the fun for them. Jim, N2EY |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
On Jan 28, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Jan 28, 1:48?am, John Smith I wrote: John Smith I wrote: My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight!Exactly how is he "crooked"? And just to give a complete pictu Paul has been a No Code Test advocate for many years. I have been a Pro Code Test advocate for many years. funny this is the first I have heard of that Yet we are both willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks. I know some of the folks in the group of moderators. They are all across the range of opinion on various subjects. I agree with some and disagree with others. The big question is this: To my knowledge, there has never been a moderated amateur radio newsgroup on Usenet. So this project is something completely new, progressive and different. We're supposed to support such things, aren't we? why? If someone is really interested in discussing amateur radio issues, why would they not give the new, progressive and different newsgroup a chance, without prejudging the result before it begins? by having issues with likehood of the result based on testing that thery I have seen what sort of discussion paul will and will not permit in his NG by his own hand HE wil permit poster to deliberate misquote nad FORBID calling this deed what it in reply Perhaps the problem some folks have is that they know they won't be able to post unsubstantiated claims or ad hominem attacks - and that just takes out all the fun for them. Pauls clearly will premit and will NOT premit any response I have the proof of that by his own hand in my email box Jim, N2EY |
Schlecks' Schlock!
On Jan 28, 12:43�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: On Jan 28, 1:48?am, John Smith I wrote: 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: ... Now that just speaks volumes about this man, his caliber, his "ethical standards", etc. ?Now, doesn't it? What's wrong with what he wrote? Gawd! ?I feel sick ... Warmest regards, JS Unbelievable, is there ANYONE here who believes Mr. Schlock... err, Mr. Schleck would be "fair" and just to ALL? ?That he would consider ANYTHING other than his own petty gripes and bitches? ?If so, step right up here to defend the man, I am waiting ... I'm willing to give him and his group of moderators a chance. Why aren't you? My gawd, the man is so crooked he makes my dogs hind legs look straight! Exactly how is he "crooked"? And just to give a complete pictu Paul has been a No Code Test advocate for many years. I have been a Pro Code Test advocate for many years. Yet we are both willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks. All anyone has to do to confirm this is to look up his comments to FCC, and mine. They're all in ECFS. I know some of the folks in the group of moderators. They are all across the range of opinion on various subjects. I agree with some and disagree with others. The big question is this: To my knowledge, there has never been a moderated amateur radio newsgroup on Usenet. So this project is something completely new, progressive and different. We're supposed to support such things, aren't we? If someone is really interested in discussing amateur radio issues, why would they not give the new, progressive and different newsgroup a chance, without prejudging the result before it begins? Perhaps the problem some folks have is that they know they won't be able to post unsubstantiated claims or ad hominem attacks - and that just takes out all the fun for them. Jim, N2EY N2EY: Don't let this be a shock to you, I thought of you specifically when I constructed that text. Why? Paul is slick, he is prejudiced, he thinks the extras are the best captains for this ship. Show me how he is "slick" and "prejudiced". Well, we have decades of their piloting to look at, I am not happy with their steerage. What's your alternative? btw, it's the FCC that makes the rules. Moderation is hardly an open forum, it can easily be abused. *I, even if I alone, believe Paul is NOT the man to provide leadership. *I do not believe him to be either "fair" nor "just." Why? *Because Paul does possess a VERY strong personality. *This is NOT bad in and of itself. *But, if abused, it is. *I am claiming he has demonstrated his abuse and that only members of this group, at large, can rein him in. Show me. As I directly have stated, I fear Paul only seeks a "good ole' boys club" composed of ego stroking extras, what part of that don't you understand? The part where you claim to know how the group will turn out before it even starts. *Are you asking me to dig up old posts are re-post them to make my point un-undeniably clear? Yes. If Paul is as "slick" and "prejudiced" as you claim, that should be easy to show from his old postings. Best way to show that is to provide direct links to the Google archives. There might be a few posts from you I would like to include also ... Go right ahead. I fear Pauls' strong personality has had a "crowd control" effect upon your tendencies also, and even you have fallen prey to the "mass-hysteria-of-the-EXTRAS" ... What does that mean, exactly? It sounds a little like a form of ad hominem attack, in which being an Extra somehow disqualifies someone from being objective. What discussions do you want to have that you think would not be allowed in a moderated group? JIm, N2EY |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
From: John Smith I on Sun, Jan 28 2007 9:43 am
wrote: And just to give a complete pictu [a distorted one, a la Dali] Paul has been a No Code Test advocate for many years. I have been a Pro Code Test advocate for many years. Yet we are both willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks. I know some of the folks in the group of moderators. They are all across the range of opinion on various subjects. I agree with some and disagree with others. That is NOT a "complete picture" by any means...:-( The big question is this: To my knowledge, there has never been a moderated amateur radio newsgroup on Usenet. So this project is something completely new, progressive and different. We're supposed to support such things, aren't we? That's total bull**** pronounced from ignorance of over a decade of BBS activity in the USA prior to the Internet becoming public in 1991. Note: "USENET" is carried ON the Internet...it is NOT some separate, distinct, nor original format venue that grew out of the original ARPANET. "Moderation" is NOT something "new" in computer-modem communications. It was practiced by Sysops on BBSs over a quarter century ago. N2EY: Don't let this be a shock to you, I thought of you specifically when I constructed that text. :-) Paul is slick, he is prejudiced, he thinks the extras are the best captains for this ship. Well, we have decades of their piloting to look at, I am not happy with their steerage. As is common in academia, rank-title-status plus tenure are the key ingredients to "leadership." In comparison to extras there is only commonality, no difference. :-) Moderation is hardly an open forum, it can easily be abused. I, even if I alone, believe Paul is NOT the man to provide leadership. I do not believe him to be either "fair" nor "just." He writes that he is fair. But, we can't put that to the test until around 2009 when the 11th (or so) RFD is completed and the moderated newsgroup actually exists...:-( Why? Because Paul does possess a VERY strong personality. This is NOT bad in and of itself. But, if abused, it is. I am claiming he has demonstrated his abuse and that only members of this group, at large, can rein him in. "Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely." [except in Newington, CT...] As I directly have stated, I fear Paul only seeks a "good ole' boys club" composed of ego stroking extras, what part of that don't you understand? Are you asking me to dig up old posts are re-post them to make my point un-undeniably clear? Miccolis Standard Operating Practice is to put on his barrister's robe and wig and DEMAND all to POST IT!!! QED. :-) There might be a few posts from you I would like to include also ... I fear Pauls' strong personality has had a "crowd control" effect upon your tendencies also, and even you have fallen prey to the "mass-hysteria-of-the-EXTRAS" ... All amateur extras "KNOW what is best for (their) ham radio." Intrinsic in their emotional psyches. They keep saying that so it must be "true," ey? :-) Big brother George Orwell would be proud of them... LA |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
wrote:
Paul has been a No Code Test advocate for many years. I have been a Pro Code Test advocate for many years. Yet we are both willing to read each other's postings without personal attacks. All anyone has to do to confirm this is to look up his comments to FCC, and mine. They're all in ECFS. Its my conclusion, years ago, that many posters in this forum are not interested in things like "facts" when those facts contridict their own little perceptions of reality, hatred of amateur extras, hatred of the ARRL, etc. What does that mean, exactly? It sounds a little like a form of ad hominem attack, in which being an Extra somehow disqualifies someone from being objective. I suspect that if the moderators consisted of Len Anderson, Brian Burke, and Mark Morgan, the newsgroup would be perfectly fair and equitable to all viewpoints, right? I'm sure there would be a good balance of postings, including posts from Extra-class operators and ARRL members. *snicker* 73 kh6hz |
Schlecks' Schlock!
KH6HZ wrote:
... I suspect that if the moderators consisted of Len Anderson, Brian Burke, and Mark Morgan, the newsgroup would be perfectly fair and equitable to all viewpoints, right? I'm sure there would be a good balance of postings, including posts from Extra-class operators and ARRL members. *snicker* 73 kh6hz HA HA ... No, but if Len were but one of the moderators, might not be so bad ... The bad blood between some here really is childish, hard to tell what is going to finally get them to settle down and begin acting like gentlemen again, but, has been going on far too long ... With the focus of this group being forced away from "code/no code" we should be able to search out some common ground. I think bringing out the welcome wagon for new licensees would be a good idea. Regards, JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
KH6HZ wrote: ... I suspect that if the moderators consisted of Len Anderson, Brian Burke, and Mark Morgan, the newsgroup would be perfectly fair and equitable to all viewpoints, right? I'm sure there would be a good balance of postings, including posts from Extra-class operators and ARRL members. *snicker* 73 kh6hz HA HA ... No, but if Len were but one of the moderators, might not be so bad ... Yes, It would be bad. Len can't control his behavior. Ten years of his archived newsgroup posts exists to back up my statement. The bad blood between some here really is childish, hard to tell what is going to finally get them to settle down and begin acting like gentlemen again, but, has been going on far too long ... There's one reason that Len wouldn't make a good moderator. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... There's one reason that Len wouldn't make a good moderator. Dave K8MN Dave: Again, when will you guys quit, let's cut straight to the chase--seems no one would make a good moderator, excepting those with extra licenses. If push comes to shove, probably the best compromise you could expect is they would allow a general in ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
On Jan 28, 4:21�pm, John Smith I wrote: KH6HZ wrote:* ... I suspect that if the moderators consisted of Len Anderson, Brian Burke, and Mark Morgan, the newsgroup would be perfectly fair and equitable to all viewpoints, right? I'm sure there would be a good balance of postings, including posts from Extra-class operators and ARRL members. *snicker* 73 kh6hzHA HA ... No, but if Len were but one of the moderators, might not be so bad ... No sweat. I can do it. Have done it. Problem is that I could hardly post a thing. To be effective, moderators CANNOT get into the thick of a contentious subject. The bad blood between some here really is childish, hard to tell what is going to finally get them to settle down and begin acting like gentlemen again, but, has been going on far too long ... That's true. But, these olde-tymers have "had their way" as "superiors" that I doubt (sincerely) that they could stop. With the focus of this group being forced away from "code/no code" we should be able to search out some common ground. *I think bringing out the welcome wagon for new licensees would be a good idea. Yes, but the "welcomes" would STILL be out of the ARRL hymn book, unchanged. You forget that so many hams are so into THEIR thing that they've seldom reached out of their own experiences to imagine How To Do It with total strangers. For example, that hoary old schtick "Talk anywhere else in the world on your own radio!" with a ham license. While true, the ionosphere is not open 24/7 and folks in far lands aren't keeping the same time as any in the 7 time zones of the USA. A little handheld cell phone can do it, no sweat. Co$t? Much less than a fraction of a ham station, antenna, cost and the nasty looks from spouse or family on wasting time with ham radio. "Learn a lifelong whatever?" Possibly for a teen-ager. For Mr/Ms Ordinary Other Job Skill probably NOT. One thing all these "I-learned-it-as-a-teenager" extras forget that there isn't any set "requirement" to do it that way. Since they kept harping on the "no age limit" thing they've totally forgotten that it works the OTHER way on the "age spectrum." When you boil everything down to a slow simmer you won't find ANY of these lofty radiomen interested in helping others, only themselves. Everything from collecting Titles and Certificates to Club Calls for clubs that don't exist. They won't step out of their Personal-Interest area to see how other groups do it, won't acknowledge other groups surviving, and think the world of reality is still the same as when they were young long ago. I don't know the "answers" to getting anyone involved. I can - dispassionately - tell them what the amateur radio service is supposed to be. I would rather tell them about the wonderful opportunities in engineering or many other technologically-oriented occupations. It's NOT my job to "tell" these lofty "superior" amateurs how to do it. If they were so damn "superior" they would already KNOW. shrug 36.5, LA |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: ... There's one reason that Len wouldn't make a good moderator. Dave K8MN Dave: Again, when will you guys quit, let's cut straight to the chase--seems no one would make a good moderator, excepting those with extra licenses. If push comes to shove, probably the best compromise you could expect is they would allow a general in ... Regards, JS I think you should quit, anonymous John. Which general--Wesley Clark? You seem to see some conspiracy in the creation of the moderated newsgroup. There are other moderated newsgroups which work quite well. There are a number of moderated e-mail reflectors which works quite well. No one who behaves as Len Anderson is permitted to post to the topband reflector, the Ten-Tec reflector, The Butternut antenna reflector or the DX reflector. No Mark Morgans issue countless "Wogger on rrapage" posts. No Roger Wisemans foul the reflectors with demented filth. As soon as one of Len's tirades veered off course into an anti-ARRL rant, filled with "tsk, tsk" and "poor baby", his post would be dumped. His "Spanky Spanky", "Herr Oberst", "Sister Nun of the Above" and the like would get him banned in short order. He'd have to behave or he'd be given the boot. It really is that simple. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... I think you should quit, anonymous John. Which general--Wesley Clark? You seem to see some conspiracy in the creation of the moderated newsgroup. There are other moderated newsgroups which work quite well. There are a number of moderated e-mail reflectors which works quite well. No one who behaves as Len Anderson is permitted to post to the topband reflector, the Ten-Tec reflector, The Butternut antenna reflector or the DX reflector. No Mark Morgans issue countless "Wogger on rrapage" posts. No Roger Wisemans foul the reflectors with demented filth. As soon as one of Len's tirades veered off course into an anti-ARRL rant, filled with "tsk, tsk" and "poor baby", his post would be dumped. His "Spanky Spanky", "Herr Oberst", "Sister Nun of the Above" and the like would get him banned in short order. He'd have to behave or he'd be given the boot. It really is that simple. Dave K8MN Well then, anyone with less than a general would be a good candidate for support to "Joe Blow Ham." Well, as long as they weren't a good ole' buddy of the "evil extras." Maybe one extra, one general, one tech, etc. Can't see how that would look "stacked", long as they demonstrated they weren't all "good ole' buddies." Many ways really, only one not acceptable really ... extra, extra read all about it ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... Dave: You know, I am glad you brought this all up. No, not a conspiracy in terms of "gov't. conspiracy." Just normal "human conspiracy", like when the republicans oppose the democrats and the reverse, and they get together and put together a "game plan." Just dirty little street smart tricks and tactics to get ones wishes put over on another. Like when you call up a friend and get him to help and/or support what you wish to accomplish, or join a group or club which supports your interests, or join a lobbying group, etc. You know, exactly what Mr. Schleck is so good at, why I call him "political", why I refer to those aiding him in his "game plan", the henchmen. You know, like stacking the deck with all extras which are in agreement with him and have egos equal his size. Ban Len, you mentioned banning Len in your post I am responding to? Well yes, that is "part of the game plan" I would imagine, and anyone else not falling into the moderated plan. Yes, that is what they EXACTLY have in mind, take a public newsgroup and turn it into a "good ole' boys club." Well, if that is what they want, let them engage in a private forum which is available on the internet. You know, they can set up a room for themselves on an instant messenger. They can create a private chat room on IRC. Hell, they can set up a private email list and sit there. Why confuse a public newsgroup with a private chat room or private instant messenger chat room. Naaa, that "Military Conspiracy" stuff is all theirs. That is why they have to run things they way they are attempting ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
On Jan 28, 2:45�pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:* ... N2EY: I suspect you attempt to wear me out, when you pick apart the longest posts and stretch them to eternity. You suspect wrong, John. I'm just looking for information. Besides, with 174 postings to rrap so far this month, I don't think I could wear you out by simply asking some questions. Let us cut to the chase, do you support making "the committee" (moderators) for the moderated group out of a balanced range of licenses, thoughts, ideas and "styles." * Depends on what is meant by "balanced". Does it mean that there must be a certain number from each license class, with the standards lowered for some and raised for others to make sure that numerical "balance" is achieved no matter what? Do you support ONLY banning posts which are crude, vulgar and are only based on a personal attack? I support blocking posts which are crude, or vulgar, or which contain personal attacks, or which contain clear uncorrected factual errors, or which are so off-topic as to have no clear connection to amateur radio. Off-topic blocking should be used sparingly, because IMHO in most cases some sort of connection to amateur radio can be made. Do you support allowing a "bit" of off-topic posts if they help support and shore up the goodwill of amateurs, acting together? * Yes! Do you support stopping ANY strong personality or personalities from gaining control and dominating a moderated group with control and dictator tactics? Depends on what you mean by "strong personality". *Do you oppose allowing EXTRAS to be "lord" over the "peasants" of amateur radio? I don't need to oppose what doesn't happen. *Do you accept no code amateurs are just as deserving of the right to use the public airwaves as any other? I consider all amateurs who have passed the required tests and who have clean records to be equally deserving to use the privileges granted by their licenses. Or, to put it another way: Any licensed radio amateur who plays by the rules and good operating practice is a "real ham" in my book, regardless of license class, vintage of tests passed, modes or bands used, age, gender, etc. I haven't yet seen an FCC-issued amateur radio license with the term "no code" on it. All FCC-licensed amateurs are allowed to *use* Morse Code. Some have passed test(s) on it, some haven't, that's all. Now, if you say NO to any of the above, we have a problem of disagreement. *If not we are in TOTAL agreement ... Whatever. But the big question is this: You have described Paul Schleck as "slick" and "prejudiced" without any proof other than your opinion. You have claimed that "he has demonstrated his abuse and that only members of this group, at large, can rein him in." You have stated: "Are you asking me to dig up old posts are re-post them to make my point un-undeniably clear?" and "There might be a few posts from you I would like to include also ..." To which I again reply: "Show me". If Paul is as you say, then it should be a simple matter to show me the evidence from his postings to Usenet. You made the claims, but now you're not backing them up. This isn't a "DEMAND". It's just a request. But if you want me to accept your claims about another person, you need to provide me with evidence, not just unsupported statements. Why should I prejudge what Paul & Co. will do without even giving him and his bunch a chance? It's not like his moderated group would replace any existing group. What discussions about amateur radio do you want to have that you think would not be allowed in a moderated group? Jim, N2EY |
Schlecks' Schlock!
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
And remember that "balanced" also means balanced ages, balanced sexes, balanced races, balanced IQs, balanced educations, ... I asked a question in news.groups.proposals as to exactly what the correlation was between someone's ham radio license class and their ability to effectively moderate a USENET newsgroup. Nobody came up with a suitable response, thus, I have to conclude there *IS* no relationship between the two. I'll still wait for a suitable answer, logically presented, at which time I reserve the right to change my opinion. From every posting I've seen, it appears to me that those who object the loudest to the proposed moderation team are those who seem to have a deep-seated bias/hatred of extra-class hams and the ARRL in general. 73 kh6hz |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Depends on what is meant by "balanced". Does it mean that there must be a certain number from each license class, with the standards lowered for some and raised for others to make sure that numerical "balance" is achieved no matter what? And remember that "balanced" also means balanced ages, balanced sexes, balanced races, balanced IQs, balanced educations, ... -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil: Hmmm. That is weird, just had a vision of a group of people calling themselves the EXTRA-KKK. Dressed in white robes. Showing up in the middle of the night. Pulling down CB antennas with red neck chevey trucks. Bustin' 'em up and rearranging them in the shape of a cross, wrapping 'em in rags, dousing 'em in gas and torching 'em. Darn, I hate visions like that ... guess I'd better lay off these freshly ground coffee beans! busting-a-gut Warmest regards, JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... N2EY: So, you are looking for information ... Well, Paul W. Schleck is a politician, he can say one thing and do another, simple really, you see it all the time. The moderation groups intention is to stop all board discussion on amateur radio and only support the wishes and steerage of a relatively few hams--especially those of a certain group of extra class license holders. They mean to keep the old class system, established on morse, in effect. No, John, I'm afraid you have it wrong. That is not the intent at all. I'd really appreciate it if you'd have something factual with which to back up your conspiracy theories instead of just presenting wild accusations. You do not need to listen to the lies to know the truth I have stated above, you only need to watch their actions ... You haven't stated any truths, John. You've only presented some crackpot view. one-hundred-and-seventy-four-postings? Geesh, I must be getting old, when I was younger I would have quadrupled that number by now--just demonstrates the necessity for recruiting new blood in here! By "balance", I mean the group of moderators should represent the true "picture" of all amateurs. Who says that should be the case? The posters will present a view of amateur radio. Do you think the newsgroup to which you are posting does that? The moderators composed of all extras is a DEAD GIVEAWAY it does not--that seems a simple enough concept to grasp, to me. For an anonymous fellow who likes to condescend, I don't see your statement as logically sound. Your concept is simple to grasp if you throw common sense and logic out the window. Now on crude, vulgar, posts on sexual preference, and completely "off base" posts--we agree. At least that pleases me to no end. NEVER ALLOW THEM! I'm glad to see that there are points on which we can agree. Seems we agree on "friendly" posts which might miss the topic by a point or two, pose no one an attack and simply do no harm. This pleases me, our agreement they SHOULD be tolerated. They could be tolerated with a note to the poster that his post is really off-topic. However, you darn well know there are many extras who DO attempt to be "Lord" over the "peasant" tech-holding-no-coders. That is a damn lie. Your statement? I think we've seen a similar number of lower class ticket holders who feel that they know all there is to know. We even have a one fellow with no license who tries to lord it over all radio amateurs. Posts which have gone here before more than support that. I am sure anyone reading this has memories of those posts. Seems we can also agree, the public airwaves are just that, public. Usenet isn't the public airwaves, "John". Methods and means need to found and implemented to place these back into the hands of Joe Blow Public--where they belong ... That isn't the way it works, "John". We have the FCC to regulate access to the airwaves. You can't set up and operate an FM broadcast station just because you want to. You can't get on the amateur bands just because you want to. Now, as to Paul, he has consistantly shown real "political talents", he simply promises all things to everyone. He's never promised me a thing. In the end you get a moderation group of Paul and his henchmen--that is SLICK!!! Your use of the word "henchmen" is slick. Your unsubstantiated accusations are slick. And, I am sure the techs are thrilled. Are they? I don't even think the generals appreciate that much ... Just for grins, which license class do you hold, "John"? You know as well as I, Paul imagines his little robo-guard on duty, armed with ip addys, newsserver ips and names, just ready to killfile posts from those NOT supporting their ideas. Close your eyes, you can see it to--called "human conspiracy." That bunch would allow Len in to point out their faulty thinking about as willingly as I would live with a rattlesnake! That has to be the wildest conspiratorial nonsense I've seen in this group for quite some time. There is much truth in Lens' posting, sometimes they are just a bit cryptic and it has to be "dug" for. ....and sometimes there is nothing at the bottom of the hole after all that digging. However, those he points 'em at are so blinded by their egos, they think it is all BS--it ain't ... You don't know any of us, "John". Len is a sidewalk superintendent to amateur radio. He sits on the sidelines and shouts, "that's no way to do that!" We will see about posting some of those old posts I referred to here, when I need them, you will see them ... Great. However, N2EY, you have at least "textually" made concessions I did not expect! At first I am tempted to think I "had you all wrong." You probably did have Jim all wrong. As I pointed out, you don't know any of us. Then I remember the "Standard Tactics of the Extras", which is "Say One Thing, Do Another." I had some hope for you, "John". You've just slid back into the mire. However, I hold out hope ... What is it that you're hoping, "John?" Are you hoping that the moderated newsgroup doesn't come into existence? Regards, JS Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... Dave: That is EXACTLY it, I have nothing wrong, you are becoming redundant in your denials ... JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... Put simply, I have my own ideas, and I have stated most of them, not all, but most ... Others may differ, we will see, we will see ... JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: ... Dave: That is EXACTLY it, I have nothing wrong, you are becoming redundant in your denials ... You have plenty wrong, "John". You haven't nothing to back up your accusations. You're empty. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: ... Put simply, I have my own ideas, and I have stated most of them, not all, but most ... Bad ideas are bad ideas. Good ideas have some basis in fact. You've not provided anything factual at all. Others may differ, we will see, we will see ... Others *do* differ. What is it that you think we'll see? What is your goal--to attempt to prevent the creation of the moderated group? Tell me, will you be posting as yourself in the new group or will you still be anonymous? JS Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... Dave: All I can figure is you are blind and deaf--that is the only man which would still deny what lies in plain sight. Else, you are holding your hands over your ears and have your eyes shut ... Regards, JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
|
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: ... Dave: All I can figure is you are blind and deaf--that is the only man which would still deny what lies in plain sight. I'm reading your stuff so I'm not blind. Even with a pretty good sound card, I can't hear you hear you here. What you tell me lies in plain sight doesn't. You've advanced no facts to support your conspiracy theory. Else, you are holding your hands over your ears and have your eyes shut ... No, "John", I'm not doing that either. I'm awaiting the revelation of any facts you might have to support your wild claims. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... No, "John", I'm not doing that either. I'm awaiting the revelation of any facts you might have to support your wild claims. Dave K8MN Dave: I am not superman, I cannot stop individuals from being blind idiots ... JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
John Smith I wrote: Dave Heil wrote: ... Dave: All I can figure is you are blind and deaf--that is the only man which would still deny what lies in plain sight. I'm reading your stuff so I'm not blind. Even with a pretty good sound card, I can't hear you hear you here. What you tell me lies in plain sight doesn't. You've advanced no facts to support your conspiracy theory. Else, you are holding your hands over your ears and have your eyes shut ... No, "John", I'm not doing that either. I'm awaiting the revelation of any facts you might have to support your wild claims. Dave K8MN Give it up. There will be no facts forthcoming, only arm waving babble and attempts to change the subject. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Mark: True. "Politicians Style", deny, deny ... if that fails, deny ... Or, don't watch their hands, just listen to 'em, they'll tell 'ya what 'ya need to know! grin Reminds me of "Tricky Dick" (nixon), well, you wanna know if your president is a crook or not, well I am here to tell you Nixon is NOT a crook ... ... then, Well, they won't have old Nixon to kick around anymore ... Yep, heard this chit before ... straight from the masters mouth, "tricky dick." Best was clinton, "I did NOT have sex with that woman!" Then, he tells us our definition of sex is at fault ROFLOL ... politicians ... So tell us, "John", is Paul guilty of some sort of political campaign office break-in or do you think he's having sex with an intern? Do you wear your aluminum foil hat at a jaunty angle? Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
Dave Heil wrote:
... Dave: In the past I have grown tired of your "circular trolling", I grow weary now ... JS |
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: ... No, "John", I'm not doing that either. I'm awaiting the revelation of any facts you might have to support your wild claims. Dave K8MN Dave: I am not superman, I cannot stop individuals from being blind idiots ... I realized that after I read a number of your wild, speculative posts. Dave K8MN |
Schlecks' Schlock!
John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: ... Dave: In the past I have grown tired of your "circular trolling", I grow weary now ... I'll bet you're tired. You've been invited to submit any kind of evidence to support your silly claims. You've not been able to do so. "John", everything about you says troll. You post anonymously. You put forth wild theories and don't back them with fact. Nothing compels you to respond to any of my posts. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com