On Apr 18, 12:14�am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:15?pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 14, 3:36?am, "Dudley" anon@anon wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
link.net...
Dudley wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
hlink.net...
AF6AY wrote:
On Apr 12, 1:59?pm, wrote:

*A person doesn't
necessarily have to disagree with Len. *We've seen
examples of Len
biting the hand of one who is in basic agreement
with him. *

That's true.

There are
also examples where Len has lashed out at someone he
perceives as having
higher rank, status or class than Leonard.

Also true.

Remember what the shrinks call "projection"
(when a person thinks that everyone else
thinks the same way they do) and
"transference" (when a person blames
someone for perceived wrongs committed
by a completely different person). Those
are also in play.

In my experience, both those presumptions are
simply incorrect as general rules. Often a person
who has done something honorable does not feel
the need to blab it all over the place.

...or at very least, does not feel compelled to
document it by providing
Len Anderson scans of orders, documents or photographs.

Only if that person expresses disagreement with any
of Len's statements.

...is perceived by Len to have higher rank, status or
class than Len
*or* if Len suddenly decides to bite the hand which feeds him.

True enough.

There is also the fact that if someone is on Len's
enemies list, what they have done makes no
difference in how Len will treat them. He will use
his attack techniques on them regardless of, say,
their actual military/combat experience.

Precisely!

So there's no point in giving any information.

Right. *It prevents *some* of the behavior listed
in the profile *and*
it drives Len nuts.

In mathematical terms, such information
"drops out of the equation".

If a person doesn't give information, Len
demands it and insults the person for not
giving it.

If a person does give information, Len uses
it to make up new insults.

This has been demonstrated so many times that
anyone with sense whom Len considers
an "enemy" doesn't bother to tell
Len anything about their life
experience.

Woe betide any man whose experience in any area
exceeds that of Leonard Anderson.

Only if that person expresses disagreement with any
of Len's statements.

...is perceived by Len to have higher rank, status or class than Len
*or* if Len suddenly decides to bite the hand which feeds him.

I can think of many areas where my experience
exceeds that of Len Anderson. Most of those areas
have nothing to do with Morse Code or amateur radio.

It doesn't matter to him. *

Exactly.

Len has attacked my work in the Foreign
Service. *Len has no experience whatever in that area.
*He knows little
of State Department communications techniques and
practices of the past
or present. *He knows little of the workings of the
diplomatic community
in general.

Doesn't matter. The information you did give offended
him in some way, and so it became the base for insults.

However, I recall that at least some of your information
involved the use of Morse Code to arrange RTTY
radio communication for the Foreign Service. That alone
was enough to set Len off.

*I can easily guess what he'd do with detailed information
about my Air Force service, based upon what he has
written about my
State Department employment.

Of course - and not just that. Look at the classic "sphincters
post", most of which consists of Len disparaging the work
of a *US military* radio operator.

Yep. But that's an old version of the profile, which has been refined
and updated over the years.
Here's the latest version, straight from the author:
"No matter what employment, education, life
experience or government/military service someone
has, if that person disagrees with any of Len's views,
or corrects any of Len's mistakes, s/he will be the
target of Len's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual
errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs, excessive
emoticons, orders to shut up and/or general
infantile behavior."
Sums it all up in one long but accurate sentence.

I keep forgetting about the newer version. I'll save it for future use.

Think of it as a living document, like the Constitution. Refined
and revised, but essentially the same over time.

You could always add amendments when the need arises.

I just rework it a bit.

You are correct. It clearly bothers Len that you are mum on this topic,
as
well you should be. What will Len next do? Issue another, more serious
challenge and "double dog dare you" to satisfy his perverse curiousity?
That's one possibility. Another is to accuse the
person of having something to hide, being ashamed,
or outright lying.
Len, with an amateur radio license, acts no differently
than Len without
an amateur radio license.

Here on rrap, at least.

Of course.

We do not know how he behaves away from Usenet.

I'm really beyond caring. *This is where I encounter him.

Actually, I made a mistake in my previous statement. We've
seen how Len behaves outside Usenet in comments to FCC.

Which reminds me that I have had QSOs on the amateur
bands with at least 10 hams who have also posted to RRAP.
Len, otoh....

That isn't something I find myself looking forward to.

I don't think most hams will ever encounter Len on the amateur
bands.

Keep
him guessing. It gives Len something to further grouse about...as if he
needs same.
Len lives up to the N2EY profile of his actions today as he did for all
of those years during which he had no amateur radio license. What he
claims to decry in others, he does himself.
That's what the shrinks call "projection". Len also
exhibits classic textbook "transference" behavior,
where he attributes to one person the actions of
someone completely different.
...and not just one time. ?He has done so over and over and over.

A clear and consistent pattern over time.

That time now exceeds ten years. *That's a pretty good baseline.

Also over 10,000 postings to rrap alone, under a whole bunch of screen
names.

Then there's the inclusion of obviously intentional
mistakes in Len's posts, as a way of getting attention
from those who correct those mistakes. That one
presents a bit of a moral dilemma, because to leave
the mistakes uncorrected may cause some to be
deceived by them.
IMHO, it's all about Len somehow "proving" he is
better than anyone who disagrees with him.

Right. Len's inferiority complex crops up frequently. He certainly
doesn't like having it pointed out that he is a beginner in something or
that he has less experience than another.

Yet there is no shame in being a beginner, novice, neophyte,
greenhorn, tyro, wet-behind-the-ears newcomer.

I freely admitted that I'd been a beginner. *You've admitted to being a
beginner. *Every new ham has to start somewhere.

The trouble is, Len wants to start at the top.

But for some
reason Len takes offense at those words.

I think it for reasons of rank, status or class. *Len does not want to
be seen as junior to anyone.

Which makes him junior to almost everyone!

He has difficulties with
anything he perceives to be rank, class or status, but he's the first
guy to do a "look what *I've* done."

You don't see the pattern, Dave?

Len is all about rank, class and status - as long as the system
used puts *him* at the top of the list.

I've been aware of it for years.

Len is apparently self-absorbed and,
as noted, becomes somewhat disgruntled when his diatribes go unanswered.
Len desires attention...nay...NEEDS attention as evidenced by his lengthy
posts. To ignore Len is to insult Len. He needs you far more than you need
him.
Compare the number, length and tone of Len's posts
(under a variety of screen names) and the truth
of your statements becomes apparent.
There are times when I'd swear that he sees himself as a short story
writer, getting paid by the word.

A PROFESSIONAL short story writer...

Heh.

I look at Len with a sidewards, understanding glance. His comments are
bolstered by but a few in these groups and if his supporters, such as the
Myna Bird are any indication of his standing...well, that pretty much sums
it up.
I'm not sure who "Myna Bird" is, but I think you are
on target.
Indded...er indedd...um...indeed!

Something like that. When did it become unreasonable to
expect proper spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation?

About the same time as educators adopted the view that
we shouldn't do
anything to harm a student's self-esteem.

The problem isn't with the self-esteem issue, but with
the interpretation.

Here in Radnor Township, the educators I know think
that having clear and consistent high standards is an
essential part of building a student's self-esteem. Accepting
poor work, in their view, actually damages a student's self-
esteem far more than a correction.

The idea is that if you expect, for example, proper spelling, grammar,
capitalization and punctuation, and follow up by
marking mistakes, you are telling the students that those
things matter *and* that they can do all of them correctly.

But if you accept shoddy work and don't call attention to
mistakes, you are telling the students that they aren't
smart enough to do it right.

Most students know the difference. They see proper
spelling, grammar, capitalization and punctuation all
around them. Most will live up to - or down to - the
expectations of the educators.

The term "educators" includes parents, btw.

Seems to me that something worth doing is worth doing right.

Ah, Jim, 'tis a brave new world.

In some places it is, Dave. But not everywhere. Newer isn't
always better despite what some would have us believe.

73 de Jim, N2EY