"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? :-)

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
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? :-)



"Sorry Hans, MALE IS FEMALE!"

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: (William)
Date: 8/31/2004 6:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

"Sorry Hans, MALE IS FEMALE!"

The male gynecologist has something neither of you have...both theoretical
education AND practical experience...in the healthcare profession they call it
a "residency".

Neither of you still not making any sense.

Putzii.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: (William)
Date: 8/31/2004 6:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

"Sorry Hans, MALE IS FEMALE!"

The male gynecologist has something neither of you have...both
theoretical
education AND practical experience...in the healthcare profession they call it
a "residency".

A MALE GYNECOLOGIST HAS NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AT
BEING FEMALE.

Is that true or not?

If you argue that a Medical Doctorate makes a male a female, then you
must be truly insane.

Try to understand this: Medical doctoring has NOTHING to do with
amateur radio or with Amateur Radio Newsline.

YOU ARE NOT A MEDICAL DOCTOR.

The general subject of RADIO does apply in this newsgroup since
all radio operate by the same physical laws, regardless of the
various adminstrations' law on use of radios.


Neither of you still not making any sense.

Nursie never has, it seems...

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: (William)
Date: 8/31/2004 6:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

"Sorry Hans, MALE IS FEMALE!"

The male gynecologist has something neither of you have...both
theoretical
education AND practical experience...in the healthcare profession they call it
a "residency".

A MALE GYNECOLOGIST HAS NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AT
BEING FEMALE.

Is that true or not?

Quite true.

But he STILL has PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE in dealing with female
related health issues.

If you argue that a Medical Doctorate makes a male a female, then you
must be truly insane.

A medical doctorate with a residency in gynecology makes him an
OB/GYN. That's a doctor with PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE in such matters.

Try to understand this: Medical doctoring has NOTHING to do with
amateur radio or with Amateur Radio Newsline.

YOU try to understand that your duties in the United States Army
in 1953 have NOTHING to do with Amateur Radio, then, now or in the
future.

YOU try to understand that your experience in "professional"
electronics, other than discussions of a purely theoretical technical
nature, have NOTHING to do with Amateur Radio.

YOU try to understand that your wife's alleged professional
standing in the mental health industry does not qualify YOU as such,
and in either case has nothing to do with Amatuer Radio.

YOU try to understand that your brief fling as a student pilot in
the 50's did not result in an Airman's Certificate, did not qualify
you in aerial navigation, and in any case has nothing to do with
Amateur Radio.

YOU try to understand that your acquaintance with a "real extra"
(who was nothing of the sort when you served in the Army with him the
50's) does not qualify you as "experienced" in Amateur Radio issues
in the 21st century.

YOU ARE NOT A MEDICAL DOCTOR.

Nope.

But Medical Doctors come to me to get the things done that save
people's lives. Maybe even yours someday.

The general subject of RADIO does apply in this newsgroup since
all radio operate by the same physical laws, regardless of the
various adminstrations' law on use of radios.

This forum is not about the "physical laws" of radio.

This forum is about Amateur Radio POLICY...The rules, regulations
and programs of how Amateurs apply those physics.

While I am sure that you are eminently able to discuss the laws
of physics as they pertain to radio design, you are grossly
ill-prepared to discuss, from an informed perspective (read that "no
practical knowledge") matters pertaining to those policies.

Your discussions herein solrely reflect your OPINION.

Neither of you still not making any sense.

Nursie never has, it seems...

Obviously I have. You keep trying (unsucessfully) to unravel my
posts.

Sucks to be you.

Steve, K4YZ