Amateur Radio Newsline ...
 

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/9/2004 1:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Lloyd wrote:
BULL****!

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

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

"He" doesn't do the posting. It's distributed to an address book.

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

"He won't come out" for reasons OTHER than "know(ing) that (you're)
correct"...

He doesn't "come out" because he won't lend any recognition to your
rantings, Dieter.

If you WERE correct, you'd just go right ahead and publish the information
or turn over your "evidence" to the proper authorities.

Your SOLE purpose in pursuing Bill Pasternak is to get into a peeing
contest over issues that no one except you deems valid enough to discuss in ANY
forum.

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).

You are making this up as you go, Dieter. You have no "facts" upon which
to justify your allegations.

If you have some "facts", publish them here and impress us with just how
dilligent and "correct" you are in this matter. Otherwise, you're just ranting
and raving.

I lean towards raving.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"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?

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.

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.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

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

I lean towards raving.

Finally, a truth.

Nursie RAVES, RANTS, INSULTS, SHOUTS, Hollers, and does the
YELL-YELL to anyone who disagrees with him... :-)

Nice image of a modern day amateur extra?

Tsk, tsk...NO "respect" for anyone else!

[hmmm...I wonder if all that angry energy can be harnessed...might
be the answer to fulfilling the demand for more energy in TN...]

LHA / WMD

Perhaps the TVA could damn him and meter out all of that misdirected
energy for useful purposes? Hi, hi.

Nursie IS the Tennessee Valley Authority!!! Ho ho.

:-)

LHA / WMD

Then they've damned him. ;^)

I hope he can "hold his water...." :-)

LHA / WMD

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:04:46 GMT, "D. Stussy"
wrote:

I will make this final post on the topic:

He sees fit (whether properly or not) to post his weekly script here. Why
won't he come out and defend himself by disclosing where the finances of ARN
really go? He certainly knows that he has been challenged on this issue; all
he has to do is read the posts. We know that he does as the Internet
newsgroups may lead him (and his competitors) to stories sometimes before other
sources do.

My answer: Because he knows that I am correct and he doesn't want to expose
his operation by commenting or responding.

My opinion is not alone. I have asked some of the other operators in my area,
including one who runs a radio school (not Gordon West), and they know of no
information that would refute my conclusion. Granted that BP may not have the
burden of proof, but I have made a prima-facie case based on what information
is in the public knowledge.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

Stacey, AA7YA

On 02 Aug 2004 13:40:06 GMT, (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote:

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 8/2/2004 4:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...

If you want to impress anyone with the validity of your claims,
suck-it-up
and file the official complaints with the California AG, the IRS, the FCC,
the
ASPCA, or the International Brotherhood of Who Gives a Dang. This is an
UNMODERATED Amateur Radio newsgroup, and as much as you may disagree with
it,
the overall content of ARN's releases ARE related to the intent of it.
Your
PERSONAL angst with Bill is NOT!

I will make this final post on the topic:

In other words, you have no intention of backing up your allegations...

Just as well...I think you'd wind up having to eat them anyway.

He sees fit (whether properly or not) to post his weekly script here.

Because this is an U N M O D E R A T E D newsgroup ABOUT Amateur Radio.
Many if not most of his "posts" have information DIRECTLY RELATED to Amateur
Radio POLICY, Dieter.

He's under NO REQUIREMENT from the FCC, Congress, you or I to get ANYONE'S
permission to do it!

U-N-M-O-D-E-R-A-T-E-D

Do I need to buy you a Webster's, Dieter?

Why won't he come out and defend himself by disclosing where the finances of
ARN
really go?

Defend himself against WHAT? You? Your shot-in-the-dark allegations?

He certainly knows that he has been challenged on this issue; all
he has to do is read the posts.

And he's under WHAT obligation to read your grossly biased and obviously
baseless accusations?

If you want to "challenge" him, Dieter, GO TO COURT!

I say you're wrong and I think he's got a better-than-average case against
YOU for your bashing and allegations!

We know that he does as the Internet
newsgroups may lead him (and his competitors) to stories sometimes before
other
sources do.

My answer: Because he knows that I am correct and he doesn't want to expose
his operation by commenting or responding.

What's to respond to?

If you HAD the evidence for the allegations you keep making, you would
have (or should have, as a concerned citizen), filed a complaint with the
appropriate agencies. The IRS takes very dim exception to organizations who
abuse thier tax-exempt status...You might even get a reward.

You haven't, which leads me to believe you're just huffing and puffing.

My opinion is not alone. I have asked some of the other operators in my
area,
including one who runs a radio school (not Gordon West), and they know of no
information that would refute my conclusion. Granted that BP may not have
the
burden of proof, but I have made a prima-facie case based on what information
is in the public knowledge.

You have nothing.

You make allegations based solely upon your personal angst against Mr
Pasternak, and YOU know that if you filed a sworn complaint you'd wind up in
trouble yourself. THAT is as transparent as glass.

Either ante-up some sort of valid, documented proof, or just admit you're
barking at the moon.

Steve, K4YZ








I'd love to see Dieter forego this case. It may be the single most
generous donation Pasternak has gotten to date since he went on the
air.

Stacey, AA7YA

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: S. Hanrahan
Date: 8/14/2004 4:09 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On 02 Aug 2004 13:40:06 GMT, (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote:

You make allegations based solely upon your personal angst against Mr
Pasternak, and YOU know that if you filed a sworn complaint you'd wind up in
trouble yourself. THAT is as transparent as glass.

Either ante-up some sort of valid, documented proof, or just admit
you're
barking at the moon.

I'd love to see Dieter forego this case. It may be the single most
generous donation Pasternak has gotten to date since he went on the
air.

I'd love to see him forego his ranting on this issue, PERIOD.

Dieter's done a LOT of "what if" mathematics on what he THINKS Bill makes
and collects as a reuslt of ARN requests for solicitations, however hasn't yet
ponied up a single dime's worth of VALID references to ANY "wrongdoing".

He's going to keep it up, and if and when Bill comes out, he'll come out
swinging...With a lawsuit....

And he'd be right to do so....

73

Steve, K4YZ

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

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.

26 USC 6104(d). Public Inspection of Certain Annual Returns and Applications
for Exemption.
(1) In general.--In the case of an organization described in subsection (c)
or (d) of section 501 and exempt from taxation under section 501(a)--
(A) a copy of--
(i) the annual return filed under section 6033 (relating to returns by
exempt organizations) by such organization, and
(ii) if the organization filed an application for recognition of exemption
under section 501, the exempt status application materials of such
organization, shall be made available by such organization for inspection
during regular business hours by any individual at the principal office of
such organization and, if such organization regularly maintains 1 or more
regional or district offices having 3 or more employees, at each such
regional or district office, and
(B) upon request of an individual made at such principal office or such a
regional or district office, a copy of such annual return and exempt status
application materials shall be provided to such individual without charge
other than a reasonable fee for any reproduction and mailing costs.
The request described in subparagraph (B) must be made in person or in
writing. IF SUCH REQUEST IS MADE IN PERSON, SUCH COPY SHALL BE PROVIDED
IMMEDIATELY and, if made in writing, shall be provided within 30 days.

"D. Stussy" wrote:

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.

Okay, I read it. There are certainly a lot of "ifs" and "exceptions".
If you believe it applies, do something about it. Your continuing
carping
on the issue leads me to believe that it is only you with a problem
regarding Bill Pasternak.

If you don't or won't act, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Dave K8MN

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.

Dave K8MN

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?"

"a nobody" wrote in message link.net...
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.

It's not about me reading the code.

It's about Dieter not having the intesitnal fortitude to do it.

He's been whing about Bill for at least two years or more and
hasn't taken step-one to get anything done EXCEPT whine...Oh, and to
"Call Bill out" in THIS forum, which isn't covered in ANY code.

I'll make it easy for you; it's pasted below.

And it's still irrelevent.

All Dieter needs to do is walk into
their office and demand to inspect the documentation.

He hasn't got the cajones.

Now, back under your rock, Anonymous One.

Steve, K4YZ

"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

"D. Stussy" wrote:

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?

No, I don't think so.

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 doubt it. You did it because you're Don Quixote and you're on a
quest!

Dave K8MN

"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

Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: (William)
Date: 8/30/2004 10:21 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(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."

"Putz", as your bunk buddy Lennie will attest, is NOT the proper name for
genitalia of either gender.

Details, Brain...Ya gotta work on getting the details right.

So far, you're waaaaaaaay behind.

Steve, K4YZ

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? :-)

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? :-)

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...