wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


From: Dave Heil on Aug 28, 9:04 am




wrote:



Dave Heil wrote:



wrote:



Dave Heil wrote:



wrote:



wrote:



From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm



K4YZ wrote:



Dave Heil wrote:



Frank Gilliland wrote:

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Heil sails the river denial again.

Denial, old bean? The words were there for everyone to read. Brian
claimed one thing and then rapidly backpedals to another position.


No back-pedalling, old has bean. Don't forget who was discussing
moderating and closing the newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You seem to have lost track of your own posted writings, Brian.


You seem to love playing stupid.

....and you, apparently, are not playing at it. You charged that Jim
prevented Len Anderson from commenting. There's no truth in your claim.


By the way, tell us who was discussing moderating and closing the
newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.


Do your own homework.

My homework? You made mention of something but you don't care to be
specific. The matter remains unsubstantiated by you.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Aug 28, 9:04 am
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Heil sails the river denial again.

Denial, old bean? The words were there for everyone to read. Brian
claimed one thing and then rapidly backpedals to another position.


No back-pedalling, old has bean. Don't forget who was discussing
moderating and closing the newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You seem to have lost track of your own posted writings, Brian.

You seem to love playing stupid.

...and you, apparently, are not playing at it. You charged that Jim
prevented Len Anderson from commenting. There's no truth in your claim.

There's truth that the four morsemen have tried through intimidation,
personal attacks, and talk of moderating the group and excluding
non-amateurs.

By the way, tell us who was discussing moderating and closing the
newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

Do your own homework.

My homework? You made mention of something but you don't care to be
specific. The matter remains unsubstantiated by you.

best of luck.

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 31 Aug 2005 15:16:45 -0700, wrote in
K4YZ wrote:
Frank of Silliland wrote:
On 29 Aug 2005 08:01:26 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote in

Gotta hurt, though...I am sure that, for a couple of days, it felt
"good" taking some swipes at someone who managed to accomplish
something you DIDN'T in the Marines...make it to a Staff NCO rank.

Two promotions in 15 years as a staff NCO, selected by cutting scores
that were never used, and granted with promotion certificates you
can't read. Yeah, you sure made your case, Dudly.

Hey screwball...

Huh??? Is RE-4YZ calling someone else a nut? Hi!

WHERE did I say SNCO ranks were selected by cutting
scores...?!?!

SNCO's never were...

Then you should have corrected it the first time Frank called you on
it. Instead you go through this, "no they weren't, yes they were, no
they weren't,..." nonsense that you're so famous for. You're just not
believable.

But LPCL through Sergeant were! PFC was almost automatic unless
you picked your nose in morning formation.

"no they weren't, yes they were, no they weren't,..."

You're such an idiot.

Steve, K4YZ

Hi!


One of the distinctions of the USMC, and something they pride
themselves on, is that they don't use the same type of promotion
system as the other services. No tests, no "cutting scores", etc.
Promotions are -earned-, not handed out like pay raises. If you do
above-average work and you get promoted more quickly than the average.
Perform poorly and you don't get promoted at all. That's the way it is
and that's the way it's always been.

There's always favoritism (or unfavoritism) in such a system. Probably
how your light duty chit got tossed in a drawer. The promotion system
used for E5-E7 enlisted in the Air Force, the Weighted Airman Promotion
System (WAPS) includes points for performance reports, military
knowledge texts, skill knowledge tests, awards and decorations, time in
service, and time in grade. The "supergrades" of E-8 and E-9 include a
board, and aything less than a General level endorsement usually means
that you are out of the running.

Back to E5-E7. A disagreeable supervisor and/or commander can affect
your performance report points and your decoration points (new
decorations only). But an individual can overcome those through better
military and job knowledge. Or they can allow TIG and TIS to overcome,
but who's got time for that?

There is another promotion means outside of WAPS that is meant to
correct for an individual who has been passed over, usually for an
inability to do well on tests, but is an exceptional performer
otherwise. These promotions are rare, and occur at the commander's
discretion.

Oh yeah, and Marines always refer to their rank, not their pay-grade.
If you hear a "Marine" say he was an E-7 then he wasn't a Marine.

That has been true for all the marines that I've known have (except the
imposter). Then I have to go to the look-up table and figure out what
they really are. ;^)

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Aug 28, 9:04 am
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Heil sails the river denial again.

Denial, old bean? The words were there for everyone to read. Brian
claimed one thing and then rapidly backpedals to another position.


No back-pedalling, old has bean. Don't forget who was discussing
moderating and closing the newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You seem to have lost track of your own posted writings, Brian.

You seem to love playing stupid.

...and you, apparently, are not playing at it. You charged that Jim
prevented Len Anderson from commenting. There's no truth in your claim.

break
There's truth that the four morsemen have tried through intimidation,
personal attacks, and talk of moderating the group and excluding
non-amateurs.

indeed alll you need do is look around the group to see it on a more
than daily basis

By the way, tell us who was discussing moderating and closing the
newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You want a name try Steve J Robeson


Do your own homework.

My homework? You made mention of something but you don't care to be
specific. The matter remains unsubstantiated by you.

best of luck.

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

From: Dave Heil on Aug 28, 9:04 am

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm

K4YZ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Heil sails the river denial again.

Denial, old bean? The words were there for everyone to read. Brian
claimed one thing and then rapidly backpedals to another position.


No back-pedalling, old has bean. Don't forget who was discussing
moderating and closing the newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You seem to have lost track of your own posted writings, Brian.

You seem to love playing stupid.

...and you, apparently, are not playing at it. You charged that Jim
prevented Len Anderson from commenting. There's no truth in your claim.


There's truth that the four morsemen have tried through intimidation,
personal attacks, and talk of moderating the group and excluding
non-amateurs.

Intimidating Leonard H. Anderson? How does one intimidate a piranha?
Len began personal attacks long before he got on the receiving end.
Discussion of moderating a newsgroup is not a forbidden subject.

I remember well when Leneoard was all upset that some regular poster
here decided to meet on 40m CW. Len probably considered his right of
free speech to be violated in that instance. Of course he was wrong.

The fact is that your claim that Jim Miccolis prevented Len from posting
here is utter nonsense. You're becoming well known for nonsense.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

Intimidating Leonard H. Anderson? How does one intimidate a piranha?
Len began personal attacks long before he got on the receiving end.
Discussion of moderating a newsgroup is not a forbidden subject.

I remember well when Leneoard was all upset that some regular poster
here decided to meet on 40m CW. Len probably considered his right of
free speech to be violated in that instance. Of course he was wrong.

The fact is that your claim that Jim Miccolis prevented Len from posting
here is utter nonsense. You're becoming well known for nonsense.

Dave K8MN

The fact is that there are two sides to every story, and you clowns
think you own both. You don't. Get used to it.

From: on Sep 1, 3:37 am

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Aug 28, 9:04 am
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Heil sails the river denial again.

Denial, old bean? The words were there for everyone to read. Brian
claimed one thing and then rapidly backpedals to another position.

No back-pedalling, old has bean. Don't forget who was discussing
moderating and closing the newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You seem to have lost track of your own posted writings, Brian.

You seem to love playing stupid.

...and you, apparently, are not playing at it. You charged that Jim
prevented Len Anderson from commenting. There's no truth in your claim.

There's truth that the four morsemen have tried through intimidation,
personal attacks, and talk of moderating the group and excluding
non-amateurs.

By all appearances, the "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse" want to
exclude all but PCTAs in this newsgroup.

They do so with charges of "stupidity" and "errors" and some
uncivil remarks including labels of "piranha" and "Foghorn Lenhorn"
and "little electrolytic acolyte" and other endearing terms. Then
they get upset by others calling them names. The PCTA extra Double
Standard is always invoked in their postings.

Case in point is James Miccolis constant statement of "that's
just plain wrong" in regards to others' opinions...as if he were
the sole judge of what is right and wrong. Then there is his
(macro) paragraph of denunciation of my postings with uncivil
terms in it, repeated and repeated on his whim.

By the way, tell us who was discussing moderating and closing the
newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

Do your own homework.

My homework? You made mention of something but you don't care to be
specific. The matter remains unsubstantiated by you.

best of luck.

Heil forgets that I've openly SUGGESTED to the PCTA to get their own
MODERATED newsgroup. That way they can be assured of proper Group
Think and not be bothered by opposing opinions from non-PCTA folk.

This newsgroup is UNmoderated and that is how most feel it should
be.

But...Heil is easily upset and so he must VENT in here. Lacking
valid arguments on SUBJECTS he attempts personal attack by constant
reference to non-licensed amateurs' postings as if those were "not
allowed." Heil acts the bigot on newsgroup participation.

Heil (who claims to be a linguist of Hunnish) forgot, in another
post, that the fictious name of "Dudley" was used by author Earnest
K. Gann in his book, "Fate Is The Hunter." [my mention in here]
Frank Gilliland and I used another fictitious name of "Dudly" in
reference to another, a military pretender in here. There was no
misspelling of "Dudley" at all, just the use of "Dudly" to
differentiate from Gann's original name use. A shortened form of
"Dudly" is "Dud" which also fits that other, the pretender.

Ethan Jones wrote:
In article et
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


From: Dave Heil on Aug 28, 9:04 am


wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


wrote:


From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm


K4YZ wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


Frank Gilliland wrote:

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt

to

prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What

you

said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Heil sails the river denial again.

Denial, old bean? The words were there for everyone to read. Brian
claimed one thing and then rapidly backpedals to another position.


No back-pedalling, old has bean. Don't forget who was discussing
moderating and closing the newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You seem to have lost track of your own posted writings, Brian.

You seem to love playing stupid.

...and you, apparently, are not playing at it. You charged that Jim
prevented Len Anderson from commenting. There's no truth in your claim.


There's truth that the four morsemen have tried through intimidation,
personal attacks, and talk of moderating the group and excluding
non-amateurs.

Intimidating Leonard H. Anderson? How does one intimidate a piranha?
Len began personal attacks long before he got on the receiving end.
Discussion of moderating a newsgroup is not a forbidden subject.

I remember well when Leneoard was all upset that some regular poster
here decided to meet on 40m CW. Len probably considered his right of
free speech to be violated in that instance. Of course he was wrong.

The fact is that your claim that Jim Miccolis prevented Len from posting
here is utter nonsense. You're becoming well known for nonsense.

Dave K8MN


You *should* work on your audio, supposed "well known DX-er." For example, when
you checked into that 3.865 net, it sounded like crap. Must be the cheap radios
on your end.


I guess you're anonymous on the net as well as usenet. Maybe you'll
figure out a way to use two anonymous callsigns to disguise yourself.

Take your medications, Roger. Get plenty of sleep. Tell the doctor if
the voices begin talking to you again.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Intimidating Leonard H. Anderson? How does one intimidate a piranha?
Len began personal attacks long before he got on the receiving end.
Discussion of moderating a newsgroup is not a forbidden subject.

I remember well when Leneoard was all upset that some regular poster
here decided to meet on 40m CW. Len probably considered his right of
free speech to be violated in that instance. Of course he was wrong.

The fact is that your claim that Jim Miccolis prevented Len from posting
here is utter nonsense. You're becoming well known for nonsense.

The fact is that there are two sides to every story, and you clowns
think you own both. You don't. Get used to it.

That's three things offered by you as fact. Please provide any old
evidence at all that what you've claimed, that Jim Miccolis prevented
Len from presenting his views here. A single instance will do.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Sep 1, 3:37 am


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

From: Dave Heil on Aug 28, 9:04 am

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm

K4YZ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:


It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Heil sails the river denial again.

Denial, old bean? The words were there for everyone to read. Brian
claimed one thing and then rapidly backpedals to another position.

No back-pedalling, old has bean. Don't forget who was discussing
moderating and closing the newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

You seem to have lost track of your own posted writings, Brian.

You seem to love playing stupid.

...and you, apparently, are not playing at it. You charged that Jim
prevented Len Anderson from commenting. There's no truth in your claim.

There's truth that the four morsemen have tried through intimidation,
personal attacks, and talk of moderating the group and excluding
non-amateurs.


By all appearances, the "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse" want to
exclude all but PCTAs in this newsgroup.

There's one of your deliberate misstatements, Leonard.

They do so with charges of "stupidity" and "errors" and some
uncivil remarks including labels of "piranha" and "Foghorn Lenhorn"
and "little electrolytic acolyte" and other endearing terms.

Len, you've invented more rude names for folks than any person here.
You started out as windy, insulting, condescending and pontificating.
It went downhill from there. Poor baby. Tsk, tsk. :-) :-)

Then
they get upset by others calling them names. The PCTA extra Double
Standard is always invoked in their postings.

....and there's one of your factual errors.

Case in point is James Miccolis constant statement of "that's
just plain wrong" in regards to others' opinions...as if he were
the sole judge of what is right and wrong.

You know, Leonard, it's funny that when Jim uses that phrase, you almost
always turn out to be just plain wrong.


Then there is his
(macro) paragraph of denunciation of my postings with uncivil
terms in it, repeated and repeated on his whim.

I don't see that profile of your likely actions to be a denunciation at
all. It reads like an accurate summary of your actions. All anyone has
to do is look at N2EY's profile and compare it with archives of your
past posts. Any reader can make a judgement as to whether the profile
is accurate or inaccurate.


By the way, tell us who was discussing moderating and closing the
newsgroup to non-hams and for what purpose.

Do your own homework.

My homework? You made mention of something but you don't care to be
specific. The matter remains unsubstantiated by you.

best of luck.


Heil forgets that I've openly SUGGESTED to the PCTA to get their own
MODERATED newsgroup.

I haven't forgotten. Brian Burke may have though. He seems to think it
was some sort of PCTA plot.

That way they can be assured of proper Group
Think and not be bothered by opposing opinions from non-PCTA folk.

Do you really think that any self-respecting radio amateur would let a
non-ham tell us to go away from a newsgroup dealing with amateur radio?
You've probably gathered that it won't happen.

This newsgroup is UNmoderated and that is how most feel it should
be.

No kidding? Really?

But...Heil is easily upset and so he must VENT in here.

What accounts for non-radio amateur Anderson's VENTING in here? You've
haunted an amateur radio newsgroup for close to a decade. You weren't a
radio amateur back then and you aren't a radio amateur now. I'll bet
you've retold your fascinating tale of BIG TIME HF work at ADA over
fifty times. It is a story having nothing to do with amateur radio and
everything to do with Len Anderson's desire to be recognized as
somebody. Well, you're certainly recognized, Len.

Lacking
valid arguments on SUBJECTS he attempts personal attack by constant
reference to non-licensed amateurs' postings as if those were "not
allowed." Heil acts the bigot on newsgroup participation.

I've never ever said anything about your postings not being allowed. I
have stated that I don't give them any credence and I've suggested that
others might want to discount the rantings of an old gent with no
experience in amateur radio. You've gone way, way beyond that. You
have, in comments to the FCC, said that they should disregard the
comments of several radio amateurs. You're pathetic.

Heil (who claims to be a linguist of Hunnish) forgot, in another
post, that the fictious name of "Dudley" was used by author Earnest
K. Gann in his book, "Fate Is The Hunter." [my mention in here]
Frank Gilliland and I used another fictitious name of "Dudly" in
reference to another, a military pretender in here. There was no
misspelling of "Dudley" at all, just the use of "Dudly" to
differentiate from Gann's original name use. A shortened form of
"Dudly" is "Dud" which also fits that other, the pretender.

I see. It must be like your use of "Atila" to differentiate between the
real "Attila" and your use of "beligerent" to differentiate between real
warlike "belligerants". The name "Dudley" is an actual name. The name
"Dudly" doesn't exist. Very UNPROFESSIONAL, Leonard; very UNPROFESSIONAL.

You can tell the Mrs. that those dratted hams aren't giving you any
respect again.

Dave K8MN