On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Lloyd wrote:
BULL****!

Then tell me why he won't come out here and set the record straight?

What would be his motivation to do so?

The truth is motivation enough.

He obviously knows about this newsgroup and reads it - and even posts at least
once per week here.

He won't come out - because he knows that I'm correct.

At least that's your assumption.

He's done nothing to prove it incorrect.

In the alternative, let's assume that I am wrong: In that case, his news
gathering efforts are 900% more costly than that disclosed by his "competitors"
(I only need to compare against one competitor to prove that), and as such,
people should then be supporting the more efficient services, not his. That in
itself is reason enough to divert contributions elsewhere.

You will find that I'm
not the only person who has this opinion of him and his finances (but I may be
the only one who has voiced it).

If no one else is voicing it, how do you know there are others who hold
your view? From the response to your diatribes here, most think the
matter is a non-issue. You can rage at the Sun; you can curse the moon.
Both are still here.

I know that there are others because I have spoken to them face-to-face about
this precise topic, and they agreed with me. Except for one individual, they
don't participate here.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, S. Hanrahan wrote:
...
You don't have a leg to stand on.

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

D. Stussy wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:

"D. Stussy" wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Lloyd wrote:

BULL****!

Then tell me why he won't come out here and set the record straight?

What would be his motivation to do so?


The truth is motivation enough.

You have the claims, you have to supply the evidence. Until then you
sound a littel like the people that claim alien abduction


He obviously knows about this newsgroup and reads it - and even posts at least
once per week here.

He won't come out - because he knows that I'm correct.

At least that's your assumption.


He's done nothing to prove it incorrect.

In the alternative, let's assume that I am wrong: In that case, his news
gathering efforts are 900% more costly than that disclosed by his "competitors"
(I only need to compare against one competitor to prove that), and as such,
people should then be supporting the more efficient services, not his. That in
itself is reason enough to divert contributions elsewhere.

This is America, kind sir. If he makes money, and people are willing to
support him, then so be it. One of the things that makes our country great!



You will find that I'm
not the only person who has this opinion of him and his finances (but I may be
the only one who has voiced it).

If no one else is voicing it, how do you know there are others who hold
your view? From the response to your diatribes here, most think the
matter is a non-issue. You can rage at the Sun; you can curse the moon.
Both are still here.


I know that there are others because I have spoken to them face-to-face about
this precise topic, and they agreed with me. Except for one individual, they
don't participate here.

So some people agree with you. Some people agree with Mr. Pasternak. Null.

- Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees. :)

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Mike Coslo wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:

"D. Stussy" wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Lloyd wrote:

BULL****!

Then tell me why he won't come out here and set the record straight?

What would be his motivation to do so?


The truth is motivation enough.

You have the claims, you have to supply the evidence. Until then you
sound a littel like the people that claim alien abduction


He obviously knows about this newsgroup and reads it - and even posts at
least
once per week here.

He won't come out - because he knows that I'm correct.

At least that's your assumption.


He's done nothing to prove it incorrect.

In the alternative, let's assume that I am wrong: In that case, his news
gathering efforts are 900% more costly than that disclosed by his
"competitors"
(I only need to compare against one competitor to prove that), and as such,
people should then be supporting the more efficient services, not his. That
in
itself is reason enough to divert contributions elsewhere.

This is America, kind sir. If he makes money, and people are willing
to support him, then so be it. One of the things that makes our country great!

If he is making money on a regular basis, he should have his non-profit status
revoked. ...Or is that too hard a concept for you?

You will find that I'm
not the only person who has this opinion of him and his finances (but I
may be
the only one who has voiced it).

If no one else is voicing it, how do you know there are others who hold
your view? From the response to your diatribes here, most think the
matter is a non-issue. You can rage at the Sun; you can curse the moon.
Both are still here.


I know that there are others because I have spoken to them face-to-face
about
this precise topic, and they agreed with me. Except for one individual,
they
don't participate here.

So some people agree with you. Some people agree with Mr. Pasternak.
Null.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees. :)

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Mike Coslo wrote:

This is America, kind sir. If he makes money, and people are willing
to support him, then so be it. One of the things that makes our country
great!

If he is making money on a regular basis, he should have his non-profit
status
revoked. ...Or is that too hard a concept for you?

The "concept" issues, Dieter, are yours.

The law allows him (and you've been told this by more than one person) to
retain a certain percentage of the monies taken in.

Until you take the initiative to file a formal complaint with the IRS, all
you are doing is barking at the moon. I still say that if YOU pushed the
issue, YOU would wind up eating crow...EXPENSIVE crow at that.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees. :)

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Bill has, as of this date, "refused" nothing.

YOU have not filed a formal complaint that would require that he disclose
his finances.

He is not required to just plop open his books because someone with an
attitude says "boo" in an unmoderated newsgroup.

Unless you take the initiative to live up to your rhetoric you will not
prevail at anything.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees. :)

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Bill has, as of this date, "refused" nothing.

YOU have not filed a formal complaint that would require that he disclose
his finances.

He is not required to just plop open his books because someone with an
attitude says "boo" in an unmoderated newsgroup.

Unless you take the initiative to live up to your rhetoric you will not
prevail at anything.

26 USC 6104(d) says otherwise. Read it.

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/29/2004 5:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/23/2004 2:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, hotmail user wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:29:58 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

That's right. I have TWO! :-)

After Bill gets through with you in court, you'll only have stumps.
He'd cut you off at the knees. :)

But you forget: He can't do that. That would require disclosure of his
expenditures (for which he has already refused - because that would
disclose
his fraud as well), thus I would prevail.

Bill has, as of this date, "refused" nothing.

YOU have not filed a formal complaint that would require that he
disclose
his finances.

He is not required to just plop open his books because someone with an
attitude says "boo" in an unmoderated newsgroup.

Unless you take the initiative to live up to your rhetoric you will
not
prevail at anything.

26 USC 6104(d) says otherwise. Read it.

You still have no right to just demand that he just give his books to you.

You have made no effort to get him to do so via legally provided-for
channels. I know this because I asked him.

You have no evidence other than some ill defined suspicion. Your
obviously tainted personal bias doesn't even remotely approach enough
"resonable doubt" as to get law enforcement to do anything on thier own
volition.

You're barking at the moon...Again.

73

Steve, K4YZ