Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me. You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.

Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?

Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?

Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".

Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.

a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.

Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!

You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me.

I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now,
you're simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him
appear to be drinking or heavily medicated.

You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist?

I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt.

My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere.

The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John
Smith"? That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose.

The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting
to present something as factual--you have my actual view.

That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works.
Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council.

My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank.

My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because
you haven't a face or a name? Spot on.

My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio
and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I
have with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims.

So which B.S. is left to cut?

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.


Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?


Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?


Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".


Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.


a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.


Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!


You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN


John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything... nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing... I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it... however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:24:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me.

I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now,
you're simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him
appear to be drinking or heavily medicated.

You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist?

I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt.

My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere.

The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John
Smith"? That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose.

The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting
to present something as factual--you have my actual view.

That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works.
Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council.

My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank.

My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because
you haven't a face or a name? Spot on.

My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio
and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I
have with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims.

So which B.S. is left to cut?

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.


Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?


Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?


Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".


Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.


a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.


Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!


You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN


John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of
your claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors
with pen names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward
something new.

nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.

I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!

however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:24:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me.

I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now,
you're simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him
appear to be drinking or heavily medicated.


You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist?


I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever it
may do for you...

My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt.

My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere.

The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John
Smith"? That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose.

The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting
to present something as factual--you have my actual view.

That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works.
Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council.

My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank.

My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because
you haven't a face or a name? Spot on.

My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio
and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I
have with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims.

So which B.S. is left to cut?

Dave K8MN


John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.



Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?



Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John Smith"?



Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".



Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.



a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.



Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is *how
you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!



You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though, how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy to
hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous writer.

Dave K8MN



John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:




John Smith wrote:



Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into a
cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of
your claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors
with pen names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward
something new.

holes? hmmmm ah it is procoder thing we nocoders would not understand

nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.

I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!

however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

break

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

then show some MANNERS and thank the man


Dave K8MN

Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

John

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...
John Smith wrote:
Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.

nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.

I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!

however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 06:24:56 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Dave:

Cut the BS. You don't like me.

I don't like you? I have no idea who or what you are. Right now, you're
simply a nameless, faceless entity whose rantings often make him appear
to be drinking or heavily medicated.


You seek to discredit and make ground
though character assassination and any other dirty trick you learned in
grade school... no one cares... not even me... stay there if you wish...

How can I possibly discredit he who does not exist?


I cannot fathom what you get from such, or what rewards such behavior
has
paid you in the past, but then, all depends on what you are after I
suppose. Frankly, it is just my nature to hope you enjoy it, whatever
it
may do for you...

My statement about your not being a Ben Franklin--utterly heartfelt.

My statement asking about your being an actor--quite sincere.

The bit about my not purchasing a rose plant of the variety "John Smith"?
That's likely true. It would have to be one beautiful rose.

The part about my not reading books by anonymous individuals attempting
to present something as factual--you have my actual view.

That bit about a town meeting? Why, "John", that's the way it works.
Nobody jumps up anonymously and present material to the council.

My correction of your blurb about voting? Take it to the bank.

My refutation of your claim about not being able to attack you because
you haven't a face or a name? Spot on.

My statement questioning your use of numbers and makeup of amateur radio
and your claims about the ARRL? They represent very real concerns I have
with anonymous trolls who make unsubstantiated claims.

So which B.S. is left to cut?

Dave K8MN


John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 05:57:45 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:



John Smith wrote:


Dave:

Your ideas are bit strange, you probably didn't like old ben franklin
when
he assumed a pen name.

I've read Ben Franklin. You're no Ben Franklin.



Perhaps you refuse to read books when the author
has adopted a pen name?

If he claims to speak "the truth" then, no. Have you written books as
"John Smith"?



Perhaps you despise actors for adopting a stage
name?

I'm fine with actors. I've watched Alec Baldwin in movies and don't
have a problem with him *as an actor*. When Alec Baldwin pontificates
on politics, I don't give him any credence. Are you the actor "John
Smith"?



Perhaps your appreciation of a rose is solely based upon its' name,
and "by another name, a rose is NOT a rose?"

You may have a point. I'm not likely to purchase a rose bush of the
variety "John Smith".



Funny, it is principals and NOT personalities which have the true
merit
and worth--you seem to lack ability to grasp that concept...

Your recent stuff reads like the rantings of homeless folks I've
encountered in New York. There is little of principal and little of
fact. Actually, there's been little of your stuff in which true merit
and worth has been addressed or established.



a good old
buddies club where you only accept argument when it comes from a name
you
recognize is not available to you always, let me see, in real life
those individuals who assign worth of an idea based on the persons
identity whose idea it is, is called, in slang mind you, a "Kiss Ass"
or "Brown Noser"... you are lost without knowing the identity behind
the idea!

Not so, "John Smith". If I'm present at a town council meeting, folks
are free to state their opinions. They have faces and they give their
names. No pseudonyms are permitted and no one stands behind a velvet
drape to present his views.



Perhaps the voting system of the USA is found in fault with
you--it seems to guarantee anonymity... you seem to need a face and a
character to attack--character assassination is your forte!

You can't walk into any polling place, unregistered and vote. Your
identity is known and you've previously presented credentials which
establish your right to vote. What is not known on election day is
*how you voted*.

You don't have a face nor any identifiable character to attack and here
I am attacking your statements. Go figure!



You seem to avoid argument on only an ideas worth, resorting to
attacking thin air in an effort to confuse the unwitting... well, some
just must proceed with the handicaps the world, God and nature assigns
them, or they choose to shackle themselves with... strange though,
how
you choose to make yourself a prime example of the close minded "good
ole
boys" I mention, it almost makes me think you get the idea on some
unconscious level and act out emotionally (but in text form) on what
is
presented--strange...

Your recent rantings present wild numbers and unverified percentages of
individuals within amateur radio. You've made some unsubstantiated
claims about the ARRL and about currently licensed radio amateurs. I'm
not going to let you get by with that unchallenged. It is quite easy
to hide behind your sofa and make pathetic claims as an anonymous
writer.

Dave K8MN



John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:38:08 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:




John Smith wrote:



Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John
Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will
live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the
next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

Yep, what we need is more men who hide behind a pseudonym rather than
openly standing by their convictions. As "John Smith", you can post
your views without any personal repercussions--and you can check into
a cheap motel with some floozy.

Dave K8MN

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here".
I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...

John Smith wrote:

Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.


nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.


I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!


however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

Dave:

I find all your points circular, "John Smith is not real", "anonymous
posters are NOT to be given credence!", "It is personalities which
matter here and NOT facts!", etc...

yawn

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 01:50:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave:

You "points" have meaning only to yourself, enjoy them...
Whatever you attempt to do, do it, we must carry on here, try not to get in
the way...

Ahhhhh, I've been dismissed have I? I love the "we must carry on here".
I take it that there are several of you and that you have a plan.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...

John Smith wrote:

Dave:

I don't think you much have an "idea" about anything...

I think I have a goodly number of them. I poked holes in several of your
claims--about actors with pseudonyms, about voting, about authors with pen
names. You haven't countered them. You're just veering toward something
new.


nor do I care,
your banter becomes taxing...

If you think *that's* tough, you should try reading some of your
disjointed stuff from this side.


I have not only had the chance to see the
text you post to me, but others, if I am confused about what the common
denominator to all is--well, so be it...

You can see the stuff I post in response to others? That's pretty
amazing. I can see the stuff you're posting to others too!


however, I have formed an opinion
of it, and it not anything which I need be bothered with...

Yet, you keep bothering. I like the attempt at a condescending, quick
dismissal.

Dave K8MN

From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:42

Dave:

I don't agree with bush on a lot, but don't want to focus on running for
president either. Wasn't really happy with some teachers my son had, but
didn't want to go full-time academic either. I really don't like the way
the garbage men handle the trash, but refrain from that line of work also...

Really, make sense, drop the BS and out-right crap...

John

Another small history lesson on the newsgroup for you, John:

About 7 or 8 years ago, Obersturmbandsfuhrer Heil stormed in
here making like the Authoritative Elmer of all Elmers,
spouting off about "CW" is way so much better than RTTY and
illustrating that with his saving-the-day actions from
Guinea-Bisseau in Africa for the Department of State, his
employer at the time (in the "foreign service"). That was in
the 1980s. He was then, as he is now, an Ultimate Authority
on HF from his many many years as a ham (probably working a
minimum of 8 hours a day on his ham job) and waded into the
morse code testing arguments as Mister Morseman (a "foreign
service" counterpart to "Captain Code").

Unfamiliar with this country of Guinea-Bisseau, I had to look
it up. Found out it was NOT a prosperous country and that its
chief export was cashew nuts. I stated that and Heil got very
angry. [he was a "key employee" or something at State as a
"communications officer"...blah blah blah] How dare *I*
question ANY statements of Heil's! :-)

Heil got ****ed and a half when I recounted the HF comms done
by the U.S. Army of the 1950s...using mainly RTTY and TTY over
(commercial format) SSB...NOT encountering these "bad
conditions" where "only 'CW' would get through" (and saving-
the-day). Heil tried to make the argument that "CW" was
"necessary" and all that old snit. Heil stated that "my
station" (taxpayer owned, actually) "NEVER WORKED 24/7!" Tsk,
four operating teams very certainly worked the 3rd largest
Army station in ACAN-STARCOM then, using about 40 transmitters
shooting across the Pacific south-east-west from Tokyo, all
around the clock. NO "CW" (manual morse code) used by my
battalion that served the Headquarters for the Far East Command
then...none later...all on HF.

Heil committed some small gaffes in his rationalizations on
what he wrote...specifically that the "CW" was needed to
"synchronize" the RTTY schedules. Any TTY is automatically
self-synchronizeable, has been since before WW2 times. Heil
then "explained" that "synchronizing" meant schedule times
and so forth. Odd that such wouldn't have been worked out
beforehand in operating orders, common to everyone else.

Heil got most disturbed on my descriptions of the Army net
being BIGGER than what State had (it was) and said "I didn't
know anything about what State's radio had/did." Tsk, I
did and already possessed a great deal of documentation
obtained from Army sources and a few items of contractors
supplying the U.S. government (the RCA "RACES" mass
memory on mag cards, two of which were installed in DC at
State's headquarters). Heil did not realize that some of
the Department of State messages were actually carried on
Army and Air Force communications circuits...more in
Europe than in Asia. [I can identify the stations, the
TTY ID, paths, and controlling hubs on all of ACAN-STARCOM
from publicly-released information available before 1980,
stuff that I have, obtained from a civilian engineer
acquaintence who worked at "my" Army station]

Heil engages in a lot of Gamesmanship in here, frequently
citing his many State assignments (Finland, several
countries in Africa). He WAS DX to a lot of other hams,
courtesy of the U.S. government and complementary callsigns
given to "diplomatic" personnel of the USA. Problem is,
Department of State radio is rather smaller than the U.S.
military networks and the retirees from State's radio are
a tiny percentage of "radio operators." Now the military
networks' former members are also a small percentage...but
they are larger than civil government "radio operators."
The more vocal hams with previous military radio
experience seem to come from the USN and those mostly from
ship "radio room" assignments. Heil seems to be banking
on his Department of State experience being rare, thus he
can bull**** his way into posing as a Great Authority on
What The Government Does In Radio among amateur radio
hobbyists. Heil shows no sign of having worked IN the
larger military radio communications networks during his
military service...yet he implies knowing all about them.
He knows little and all he can do is the BS implication
that he does.

A shock to Heil must have been my appearance in here, an
unlicensed-in-amateur-radio person who is no shrinking
violet on opinions! Even worse, one who HAS documentary
proof to counter most of the total bull**** spouted by
this great "radio expert." [three such documents posted
on http://kauko.hallikainen.org/history/equipment] Perhaps
he was disturbed that I didn't polish the boots of his
surplus Wehrmacht costume from Western Casting? Could be.

Heil, like Robeson, vents a lot of anger in here, always
trying to verbally thrash his "opponents" on a personal
basis. SUBJECT be damned, he wants to "fight" on a one-
to-one basis anyone who speaks against his opinions.

In the last half year Heil has whittled a schtick about
my "not being a participant in ham radio" etc. and thinks
that is some kind of psywar "weapon." It isn't. Contrary
to Fearless Leader's instruction-commands, I didn't get a
ham license FIRST "to show an interest in radio." The
Army provided the opportunity to INCREASE my interest in
radio (since 1947 along with lots of other interests) and
I "disobeyed orders" by getting a Commercial First Phone
in 1956 and then became an electronics design engineer.
No, no, no, that was NOT the Order Of The Day...I should
have dutifully learned morsemanship to become an amateur
first according to Fearless Leader Heil. Screum.

USA 1st

Len:

Thanks for the background info...

I have already written dave off as just another "yes man" to the status
quo... he is a heckler here and his chief method of operation is
character assassinations... rather than attack and debate ideas, he
attacks posters... hey, the world is composed of all types, in the end it
all works...

John

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:28:34 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 23:42

Dave:

I don't agree with bush on a lot, but don't want to focus on running for
president either. Wasn't really happy with some teachers my son had, but
didn't want to go full-time academic either. I really don't like the way
the garbage men handle the trash, but refrain from that line of work also...

Really, make sense, drop the BS and out-right crap...

John

Another small history lesson on the newsgroup for you, John:

About 7 or 8 years ago, Obersturmbandsfuhrer Heil stormed in
here making like the Authoritative Elmer of all Elmers,
spouting off about "CW" is way so much better than RTTY and
illustrating that with his saving-the-day actions from
Guinea-Bisseau in Africa for the Department of State, his
employer at the time (in the "foreign service"). That was in
the 1980s. He was then, as he is now, an Ultimate Authority
on HF from his many many years as a ham (probably working a
minimum of 8 hours a day on his ham job) and waded into the
morse code testing arguments as Mister Morseman (a "foreign
service" counterpart to "Captain Code").

Unfamiliar with this country of Guinea-Bisseau, I had to look
it up. Found out it was NOT a prosperous country and that its
chief export was cashew nuts. I stated that and Heil got very
angry. [he was a "key employee" or something at State as a
"communications officer"...blah blah blah] How dare *I*
question ANY statements of Heil's! :-)

Heil got ****ed and a half when I recounted the HF comms done
by the U.S. Army of the 1950s...using mainly RTTY and TTY over
(commercial format) SSB...NOT encountering these "bad
conditions" where "only 'CW' would get through" (and saving-
the-day). Heil tried to make the argument that "CW" was
"necessary" and all that old snit. Heil stated that "my
station" (taxpayer owned, actually) "NEVER WORKED 24/7!" Tsk,
four operating teams very certainly worked the 3rd largest
Army station in ACAN-STARCOM then, using about 40 transmitters
shooting across the Pacific south-east-west from Tokyo, all
around the clock. NO "CW" (manual morse code) used by my
battalion that served the Headquarters for the Far East Command
then...none later...all on HF.

Heil committed some small gaffes in his rationalizations on
what he wrote...specifically that the "CW" was needed to
"synchronize" the RTTY schedules. Any TTY is automatically
self-synchronizeable, has been since before WW2 times. Heil
then "explained" that "synchronizing" meant schedule times
and so forth. Odd that such wouldn't have been worked out
beforehand in operating orders, common to everyone else.

Heil got most disturbed on my descriptions of the Army net
being BIGGER than what State had (it was) and said "I didn't
know anything about what State's radio had/did." Tsk, I
did and already possessed a great deal of documentation
obtained from Army sources and a few items of contractors
supplying the U.S. government (the RCA "RACES" mass
memory on mag cards, two of which were installed in DC at
State's headquarters). Heil did not realize that some of
the Department of State messages were actually carried on
Army and Air Force communications circuits...more in
Europe than in Asia. [I can identify the stations, the
TTY ID, paths, and controlling hubs on all of ACAN-STARCOM
from publicly-released information available before 1980,
stuff that I have, obtained from a civilian engineer
acquaintence who worked at "my" Army station]

Heil engages in a lot of Gamesmanship in here, frequently
citing his many State assignments (Finland, several
countries in Africa). He WAS DX to a lot of other hams,
courtesy of the U.S. government and complementary callsigns
given to "diplomatic" personnel of the USA. Problem is,
Department of State radio is rather smaller than the U.S.
military networks and the retirees from State's radio are
a tiny percentage of "radio operators." Now the military
networks' former members are also a small percentage...but
they are larger than civil government "radio operators."
The more vocal hams with previous military radio
experience seem to come from the USN and those mostly from
ship "radio room" assignments. Heil seems to be banking
on his Department of State experience being rare, thus he
can bull**** his way into posing as a Great Authority on
What The Government Does In Radio among amateur radio
hobbyists. Heil shows no sign of having worked IN the
larger military radio communications networks during his
military service...yet he implies knowing all about them.
He knows little and all he can do is the BS implication
that he does.

A shock to Heil must have been my appearance in here, an
unlicensed-in-amateur-radio person who is no shrinking
violet on opinions! Even worse, one who HAS documentary
proof to counter most of the total bull**** spouted by
this great "radio expert." [three such documents posted
on http://kauko.hallikainen.org/history/equipment] Perhaps
he was disturbed that I didn't polish the boots of his
surplus Wehrmacht costume from Western Casting? Could be.

Heil, like Robeson, vents a lot of anger in here, always
trying to verbally thrash his "opponents" on a personal
basis. SUBJECT be damned, he wants to "fight" on a one-
to-one basis anyone who speaks against his opinions.

In the last half year Heil has whittled a schtick about
my "not being a participant in ham radio" etc. and thinks
that is some kind of psywar "weapon." It isn't. Contrary
to Fearless Leader's instruction-commands, I didn't get a
ham license FIRST "to show an interest in radio." The
Army provided the opportunity to INCREASE my interest in
radio (since 1947 along with lots of other interests) and
I "disobeyed orders" by getting a Commercial First Phone
in 1956 and then became an electronics design engineer.
No, no, no, that was NOT the Order Of The Day...I should
have dutifully learned morsemanship to become an amateur
first according to Fearless Leader Heil. Screum.

USA 1st