On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
a nobody wrote:

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 obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code. I'll make
it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it really
easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax law,
Dieter knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of
where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and
"exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act.
He hasn't and my belief is that he won't.

His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy wearing
an aluminum foil cap.

You don't think that I shall?

Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make public
here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78):

AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC
28197 ROBIN AVE
SAUGUS, CA 91350
EIN: 95-4867766

Did I merely look that up for "my health?"

"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
a nobody wrote:

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 obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code. I'll make
it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it really
easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax law,
Dieter knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of
where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and
"exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act.
He hasn't and my belief is that he won't.

His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy wearing
an aluminum foil cap.

You don't think that I shall?

Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make public
here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78):

AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC
28197 ROBIN AVE
SAUGUS, CA 91350
EIN: 95-4867766

Did I merely look that up for "my health?"

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

We'll see what you "do" with it.

First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything.

And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever
come of it.

We'll see.

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
a nobody wrote:

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 obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code. I'll make
it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it really
easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax law,
Dieter knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of
where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and
"exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act.
He hasn't and my belief is that he won't.

His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy wearing
an aluminum foil cap.

You don't think that I shall?

Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make public
here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78):

AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC
28197 ROBIN AVE
SAUGUS, CA 91350
EIN: 95-4867766

Did I merely look that up for "my health?"

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

We'll see what you "do" with it.

First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything.

And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever
come of it.

We'll see.

Well, I will say this:

No one here was able to provide anything that directly refuted my conclusion.

The last time I did this (or anything like it) was to a local repeater
coordinating body which was acting "less than responsibly" (i.e. no meeting, no
acknowledgements for RFC's nor any OTHER responses to coordination requests,
etc.). They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I
verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last
990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS
response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for
non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before the
NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally
complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the
time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would be
appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last
resort.

Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually] held
general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by
issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box
(not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it
is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their
situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period
where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas,
CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group
in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating
group in the 1990's for about 2 years.]


Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get it.

Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I
lacked a reasonable basis for doing so? All you would rather do is fight with
me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative
explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.] All AR Newsline has to do
is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable explanation
which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away. However, if my conclusion
were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I
choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited.

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/30/2004 6:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
a nobody wrote:

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 obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code.
I'll make
it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk
into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it
really
easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax
law,
Dieter knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of
where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and
"exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act.
He hasn't and my belief is that he won't.

His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy
wearing
an aluminum foil cap.

You don't think that I shall?

Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make
public
here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78):

AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC
28197 ROBIN AVE
SAUGUS, CA 91350
EIN: 95-4867766

Did I merely look that up for "my health?"

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

We'll see what you "do" with it.

First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything.

And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever
come of it.

We'll see.

Well, I will say this:

No one here was able to provide anything that directly refuted my conclusion.

Sure we have.

You have said that Bill's not using the funds appropriately.

I (and others) have pointed out that Bill's "service" routinely and
reliably puts it's reports out. Ergo he's obvioulsy spending the money on the
work he claimed he wanted the funds for.

The "burden of proof" for anything else is on YOUR shoulders. You're
making these fanciful assertions, so it's up to YOU to prove it.

The last time I did this (or anything like it) was to a local repeater
coordinating body which was acting "less than responsibly" (i.e. no meeting,
no
acknowledgements for RFC's nor any OTHER responses to coordination requests,
etc.).

Were they soliciting funds AS a charitable organization? Did they alledge
to have 503(c) status?

And who is Dieter Stussy to decide what's "responsible" in the actions of
any entity?

They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I
verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last
990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS
response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for
non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before
the
NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally
complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the
time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would
be
appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last
resort.

Why would they?

Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually]
held
general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by
issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box
(not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it
is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their
situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period
where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas,
CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group
in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating
group in the 1990's for about 2 years.]

And I am sure they just jump to the microphone any time you sign on the
repeater.

Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get
it.

Consider yourself pushed, Dieter. I still say you're barking up the wrong
tree.

Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I
lacked a reasonable basis for doing so?

Considering THIS forum, absolutely!

So far your "reasonable basis" has been "I hate Bill Paternak" and nothing
else. Not a single shred of verifyable, attestable fact.

All you would rather do is fight
with
me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative
explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.]

I am "fighting" with your assinine whinigns about Newsline publishing it's
releases in a forum ABOUT Amateur Radio...You're the one who keeps whining
about ARN's alleged abuses of it's solicitations.

I can SEE and HEAR the results of thier solicitations, Dieter.

All AR Newsline has to
do
is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable
explanation
which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away. However, if my conclusion
were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I
choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited.

I still say you're going to do nothing but create hate and discontent for
no other reason but to salve your wonded ego over some absolutely assinine
local issue that peripherially involved Bill Paternak.

But you go right ahead. If you're right, I'll most gladly render a
sincere "I stand corrected". However when it goes the way I think it will,
I would expect YOU to do the same.

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/30/2004 6:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
a nobody wrote:

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 obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code.
I'll make
it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk
into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it
really
easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax
law,
Dieter knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of
where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and
"exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act.
He hasn't and my belief is that he won't.

His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy
wearing
an aluminum foil cap.

You don't think that I shall?

Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make
public
here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78):

AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC
28197 ROBIN AVE
SAUGUS, CA 91350
EIN: 95-4867766

Did I merely look that up for "my health?"

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

We'll see what you "do" with it.

First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything.

And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever
come of it.

We'll see.

Well, I will say this:

No one here was able to provide anything that directly refuted my conclusion.

Sure we have.

You have said that Bill's not using the funds appropriately.

I (and others) have pointed out that Bill's "service" routinely and
reliably puts it's reports out. Ergo he's obvioulsy spending the money on the
work he claimed he wanted the funds for.

The "burden of proof" for anything else is on YOUR shoulders. You're
making these fanciful assertions, so it's up to YOU to prove it.

The last time I did this (or anything like it) was to a local repeater
coordinating body which was acting "less than responsibly" (i.e. no meeting,
no
acknowledgements for RFC's nor any OTHER responses to coordination requests,
etc.).

Were they soliciting funds AS a charitable organization? Did they alledge
to have 503(c) status?

At the time, yes, they were soliciting funds and stated that they were
non-profit, but they had not stated whether or not they were a qualified
charity for which such solicitations would be deductible. However, even if
they weren't such, just the fact that they claimed non-profit status would have
been enough for them to have an IRS Form 1024 (instead of form 1023) filing and
the IRS computer would then show WHICH paragraph of IRC 501(c) their exempt
purpose fell under (only if it were paragraph (3) would donations be deductible
as charity by the donor).

And who is Dieter Stussy to decide what's "responsible" in the actions of
any entity?

An interested member of the public - that's all I have to be.

They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I
verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last
990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS
response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for
non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before
the
NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally
complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the
time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would
be
appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last
resort.

Why would they?

Ask them.

Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually]
held
general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by
issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box
(not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it
is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their
situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period
where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas,
CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group
in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating
group in the 1990's for about 2 years.]

And I am sure they just jump to the microphone any time you sign on the
repeater.

Which repeater is that?

Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get
it.

Consider yourself pushed, Dieter. I still say you're barking up the wrong
tree.

Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I
lacked a reasonable basis for doing so?

Considering THIS forum, absolutely!

So far your "reasonable basis" has been "I hate Bill Paternak" and nothing
else. Not a single shred of verifyable, attestable fact.

Another moronic comment.

My reasonable basis has been that his expenses, as AR Newsline and he describe
them, appear excessive as compared against the activity that generates them.

All you would rather do is fight
with
me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative
explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.]

I am "fighting" with your assinine whinigns about Newsline publishing it's
releases in a forum ABOUT Amateur Radio...You're the one who keeps whining
about ARN's alleged abuses of it's solicitations.

I can SEE and HEAR the results of thier solicitations, Dieter.

All AR Newsline has to
do
is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable
explanation
which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away. However, if my conclusion
were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I
choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited.

I still say you're going to do nothing but create hate and discontent for
no other reason but to salve your wonded ego over some absolutely assinine
local issue that peripherially involved Bill Paternak.

But you go right ahead. If you're right, I'll most gladly render a
sincere "I stand corrected". However when it goes the way I think it will,
I would expect YOU to do the same.

Try offering an argument that explains the problem. Simply saying that I am
wrong without such will get you nowhere.

"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/30/2004 6:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

And who is Dieter Stussy to decide what's "responsible" in the actions of
any entity?

An interested member of the public - that's all I have to be.

Personally, I think you're the guy who can't have his way, so you
find ways to be annoying.

They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I
verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last
990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS
response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for
non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before
the
NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally
complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the
time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would
be
appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last
resort.

Why would they?

Ask them.

I asked YOU.

Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually]
held
general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by
issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box
(not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it
is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their
situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period
where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas,
CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group
in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating
group in the 1990's for about 2 years.]

And I am sure they just jump to the microphone any time you sign on the
repeater.

Which repeater is that?

Any repeater.

Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get
it.

Consider yourself pushed, Dieter. I still say you're barking up the wrong
tree.

Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I
lacked a reasonable basis for doing so?

Considering THIS forum, absolutely!

So far your "reasonable basis" has been "I hate Bill Paternak" and nothing
else. Not a single shred of verifyable, attestable fact.

Another moronic comment.

Not moronic.

You're whining, Dieter.

You've been trying to beat up Bill Pasternak in this forum for
two years without shredding ONE IOTA of VALID, DOCUMENTED PROOF.

Nothing but your opinion and some guesses as to what YOU think is
"fair" in the operational costs of A.R.N.

If you can do better with less, then do it.

As for moronic, I refer you back to your other post this same day
about approaching the District Attorney because A.R.N., a charitable
organization, is sponsoring a scholarship program for kids.

THAT is "moronic".

My reasonable basis has been that his expenses, as AR Newsline and he describe
them, appear excessive as compared against the activity that generates them.

Still no PROOF. Just a "suspicion" that you THINK they shouldn't
be that high.

All you would rather do is fight
with
me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative
explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.]

I am "fighting" with your assinine whinigns about Newsline publishing it's
releases in a forum ABOUT Amateur Radio...You're the one who keeps whining
about ARN's alleged abuses of it's solicitations.

I can SEE and HEAR the results of thier solicitations, Dieter.

All AR Newsline has to
do
is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable
explanation
which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away. However, if my conclusion
were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I
choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited.

I still say you're going to do nothing but create hate and discontent for
no other reason but to salve your wonded ego over some absolutely assinine
local issue that peripherially involved Bill Paternak.

But you go right ahead. If you're right, I'll most gladly render a
sincere "I stand corrected". However when it goes the way I think it will,
I would expect YOU to do the same.

Try offering an argument that explains the problem. Simply saying that I am
wrong without such will get you nowhere.

YOU are the one suggesting there is a problem, Dieter, not me.
You've created this entire strawman in order to validate your on-going
anti-BP crusade.

I SAY that you are whining.

It's not up to me to "justify" any argument.

YOU have not provided a single shred of DOCUMENTED, VERIFYABLE
PROOF, let alone "resonable suspicion" that there's ANYthing afoul
with the way Bill operates "Amateur Radio Newsline".

Until you've provided something OTHER than your "guesstimated"
opinion on what you THINK should be happening, all you are doing is W
H I N I N G ! ! ! !

And I am all for creating a grassroots effort to raise funds to
give to Bill to retain a lawyer to stop your incessant public slurs.

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/30/2004 6:05 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

And who is Dieter Stussy to decide what's "responsible" in the actions of
any entity?

An interested member of the public - that's all I have to be.

Personally, I think you're the guy who can't have his way, so you
find ways to be annoying.

They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I
verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last
990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS
response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for
non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before
the
NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally
complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the
time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would
be
appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last
resort.

Why would they?

Ask them.

I asked YOU.

You expect me to speak for an agency of the U.S. Government (when I don't work
for that agency/bureau)? Don't you take the cake.

Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually]
held
general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by
issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box
(not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it
is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their
situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period
where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas,
CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group
in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating
group in the 1990's for about 2 years.]

And I am sure they just jump to the microphone any time you sign on the
repeater.

Which repeater is that?

Any repeater.

Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get
it.

Consider yourself pushed, Dieter. I still say you're barking up the wrong
tree.

Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I
lacked a reasonable basis for doing so?

Considering THIS forum, absolutely!

So far your "reasonable basis" has been "I hate Bill Paternak" and nothing
else. Not a single shred of verifyable, attestable fact.

Another moronic comment.

Not moronic.

You're whining, Dieter.

You've been trying to beat up Bill Pasternak in this forum for
two years without shredding ONE IOTA of VALID, DOCUMENTED PROOF.

Proof: He posts his drivel here (in FULL) weekly yet does not participate in
this newsgroup whatsoever. Doesn't that remind you of someone. It certainly
does for me: A SPAMMER. I don't have to prove it; he proves it for us every
week by his actions.

Nothing but your opinion and some guesses as to what YOU think is
"fair" in the operational costs of A.R.N.

If you can do better with less, then do it.

All his "competitors" do - about 90% less.

As for moronic, I refer you back to your other post this same day
about approaching the District Attorney because A.R.N., a charitable
organization, is sponsoring a scholarship program for kids.

THAT is "moronic".

If that's what you think, you completely missed the point (again). To
repeatedly misclassify an expense as something else is accounting fraud, plain
and simple. It doesn't matter that one is "hiding" one worthy cause in
another; it is wrong regardless.

My reasonable basis has been that his expenses, as AR Newsline and he describe
them, appear excessive as compared against the activity that generates them.

Still no PROOF. Just a "suspicion" that you THINK they shouldn't
be that high.

All you would rather do is fight
with
me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative
explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.]

I am "fighting" with your assinine whinigns about Newsline publishing it's
releases in a forum ABOUT Amateur Radio...You're the one who keeps whining
about ARN's alleged abuses of it's solicitations.

I can SEE and HEAR the results of thier solicitations, Dieter.

All AR Newsline has to
do
is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable
explanation
which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away. However, if my conclusion
were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I
choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited.

I still say you're going to do nothing but create hate and discontent for
no other reason but to salve your wonded ego over some absolutely assinine
local issue that peripherially involved Bill Paternak.

But you go right ahead. If you're right, I'll most gladly render a
sincere "I stand corrected". However when it goes the way I think it will,
I would expect YOU to do the same.

Try offering an argument that explains the problem. Simply saying that I am
wrong without such will get you nowhere.

YOU are the one suggesting there is a problem, Dieter, not me.
You've created this entire strawman in order to validate your on-going
anti-BP crusade.

Just because I am smart enough to discover that there is a descrepency and
you're not doesn't mean that I am incorrect. I never said affirmatively that I
was correct - I'll grant you that. I only said that there appears to be an
unexplained problem, and I, as a member of the public, have a right (and
perhaps even a responsibility) to seek the truth when a tax-advantaged charity
is involved.


I SAY that you are whining.

It's not up to me to "justify" any argument.

YOU have not provided a single shred of DOCUMENTED, VERIFYABLE
PROOF, let alone "resonable suspicion" that there's ANYthing afoul
with the way Bill operates "Amateur Radio Newsline".

Yes, there is. AR Newsline's own, recent statement makes that clear. They
have classified ALL their expenses as "news gathering" when the scholarship
portion isn't. It doesn't cost them "$1k/month to bring [us] the news." It
may, when averaged, cost $1k/month for ALL their activities, but that's not
what they have historically said. Their statement is wrong, they KNOW it, and
they make it for the purpose of soliciting further contributions, thus
demonstrating INTENT.

Until you've provided something OTHER than your "guesstimated"
opinion on what you THINK should be happening, all you are doing is W
H I N I N G ! ! ! !

And I am all for creating a grassroots effort to raise funds to
give to Bill to retain a lawyer to stop your incessant public slurs.

Steve, K4YZ

"D. Stussy" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
"D. Stussy" wrote in message rg...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Dave Heil wrote:
a nobody wrote:

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 obviously didn't follow Dieter's suggestion to read the Code. I'll make
it easy for you; it's pasted below. All Dieter needs to do is walk into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation. And to make it really
easy for you, I capitalized the relevant phrase. When it comes to tax law,
Dieter knows what he's talking about.

Maybe he does; maybe he doesn't. He hasn't told us of his knowledge of
where Bill Pasternak's operation falls under all of those "ifs" and
"exceptions". You'd think if the issue is important to him, he'd act.
He hasn't and my belief is that he won't.

His frequent posts on the matter read like the rantings of a guy wearing
an aluminum foil cap.

You don't think that I shall?

Well, tell me then why I have the following information (and now make public
here - from the electronic version of IRS Publication 78):

AMATEUR RADIO NEWSLINE INC
28197 ROBIN AVE
SAUGUS, CA 91350
EIN: 95-4867766

Did I merely look that up for "my health?"

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

We'll see what you "do" with it.

First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything.

And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever
come of it.

We'll see.

Well, I will say this:

No one here was able to provide anything that directly refuted my conclusion.

It isn't a matter of "was able". It's more a matter of "doesn't care".
So far, you're the only person remotely interested in your "conclusion".

The last time I did this (or anything like it) was to a local repeater
coordinating body which was acting "less than responsibly" (i.e. no meeting, no
acknowledgements for RFC's nor any OTHER responses to coordination requests,
etc.). They WEREN'T listed in the IRS's public charity database, and I
verified that when I filed an IRS form 4506-A to get a copy of their last
990-series return. That request came back "entity does not exist" (IRS
response dated April 11, 1996). [That also means that they NEVER filed for
non-profit status ever.] I then challenged their coordinator status before the
NFCC (during its first year of existence: FY 96/97). I could have equally
complained to the IRS also at that point, but decided to defer that for the
time an appeal of the NFCC decision regarding my complaint to the FCC would be
appropriate; the government doesn't like to get involved except as a last
resort.

Guess what? That frequency/repeater coordinator group now has [annually] held
general meetings on a regular schedule since 1997, has cleaned up its act by
issuing acknowledgement postcards to every piece of mail sent to its P.O. Box
(not just RFC's), and timely responds to RFC's and other issues, ...; i.e. it
is now acting "responsibly." I will grant you that my actions on their
situation may not have been 100% responsible for this as there was a period
where a competing coordinating group was set up (the "440 FCA" of San Dimas,
CA), but my actions were probably at least 33% contributing. [BTW, the group
in question was SCRRBA - not TASMA, which also had a competing coordinating
group in the 1990's for about 2 years.]

I'll just assume that you actually have a life.

Be careful of what you wish for (or push others into doing) - you might get it.

I haven't wished for anything and I'm pretty sure that Steve hasn't
wished for anything. I certainly haven't pushed you into anything. If
my words have that kind of influence over you, you have other issues
which need to be addressed.

I don't find Pasternak's amateur radio news posts offensive. You do.
I view your carping and whining far more annoying than anything
Pasternak does.

Do you really think that I would dare publicly make such an accusation if I
lacked a reasonable basis for doing so?

Sure. There's plenty of precendent all around.

All you would rather do is fight with
me over my conclusion WITHOUT introducing a reasonable, alternative
explanation. [No one else has suggested one either.]

I don't view this as a fight. I don't owe you a reasonable or alternate
explanation.

All AR Newsline has to do
is to voluntarily disclose, and if they do so and have a reasonable explanation
which is publicly acceptable, the issue goes away.

Go ahead and force his hand, Don Q.

However, if my conclusion
were correct (it hasn't been proven so - yet), they can't disclose, even if I
choose to compel disclosure under the federal statute previously cited.

Well, the excitement and melodrama continue to build over this molehill.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
"D. Stussy" wrote:

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

We'll see what you "do" with it.

First of all, I seriously doubt you "do" anything.

And even if you do, I seriously doubt that anything will ever
come of it.

We'll see.

Well, I will say this:

No one here was able to provide anything that directly refuted my conclusion.

It isn't a matter of "was able". It's more a matter of "doesn't care".
So far, you're the only person remotely interested in your "conclusion".

And yet we have all of these "unconcerned" parties commenting again
and again and again.

Good thing they aren't concerned. I don't know if we have the
bandwidth, otherwise.

Hi, hi.

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...

I bet you've looked up more than one skirt in your life too,
Dieter, but it doesn't make you a gynecologist, either.

Steve -finally- recognizes genitalia other than "putz."

Phew!

I don't understand how he can recognize what he sees.

To use his own "logic," a male gynecologist HAS NO PRACTICAL
EXPERIENCE IN BEING FEMALE TO UNDERSTAND THEM! :-)

Post-op transgender? :-)