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

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.

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, 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.

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

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

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

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 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.