On 11/23/13 09:11 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:15 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Given that two of these are mine, I wonder how many others have been
miscredited in your zeal to tickle dxAce.

So what's yer point? Two wrong (or a dozen) out of a few hundred ain't
too bad IMHO. Ignoring your two and possibly a few others, the great
preponderance of quotes (the other 99% that ARE correct) seems to paint
a pretty accurate picture of lare's "character".


Read carefully, I said that TWO are mine. How many others are there?
I certainly can't be the only one.

Which suggests that we're no longer discussing 99%.

Your opinion that a few, or a dozen, is yours to hold and cherish.
But if mII's accuracy is off by a few, or a dozen, then he's sloppy. And
his reportage is dismissable on its face. Because he doesn't care to
verify, verify, verify.

If one is going to quote someone, with the intent of smearing him,
one is obligated to tell the truth. Not just a percentage.


You must be an MSNBC staffer.,

And then YOU must be the founder and President for Life of the lare fan
club. :-D

Not at all. If you'd go back and inspect your history, you'd find
that there have been times he and I have gone at it, hammer and tongs.
He can be crude. He can be opinionated. So what? He's an American. It's
his birthright. He may say what he wishes. Don't like it? Refute it. Or
don't listen. YOUR birthright.



Pick your friends wisely or you may end up being tarred with the same
brush.


The 'isolate' portion of the Radical agenda, Joe? Voltaire would slap
your face. You're better than that.

Go back and do some reading. I've put a lot of content on this
newsgroup. And along the way, I've stood up for many, here, whose
politics I've disagreed with. And I've done it simply because they were
under assault by someone with faulty claims. One even went so far as to
print a post of mine in his local newspaper. And believe me, that gave
me some very real reasons for concern. I have a long standing client in
his hometown, and I didn't need to be tarred, as you put it, with the
brush of his politics. That could be costly. Nevertheless, the truth
about him had been unspoken amongst a very real and costly bed of
insinuations and lies. So, I spoke up, and when he asked for permission
to print it, I gave it to him. The truth to be spoken. No matter the cost.

I have done the same for Steve Lare.

I've done the same for others in this group and beyond.

I would do the same for you, given sufficient reason.

Just as there have been those who have stood up for me.

There are those here who think as little of me as you do of Steve. So
what? This is USENet. We're all Tom Selleck and Charles Manson. Usually
at the same time. Those of us who've had a little life under our belts
don't let threats of disapproval by someone unseen and unknown create
fear. We don't let strangers put horns on our heads, or pitchforks in
our hands just because someone doesn't like our demeanor. Or our
politics. Or our choice of media. We don't get our satisfaction, or our
self esteem, from external approval by strangers. Or by association with
one or another accepted recitudes of the day. We aren't manipulated by
others' thoughts, others' shining light of mass sanctimony.

Such is the nature of being Free.

You don't like us? You don't know what you're missing. We discuss
divergent politics. We share tech tips. We share extraordinary
experiences, and we enjoy the somewhat shaky but white hot spotlight
that another's perspective brings to our own thoughtfully and first hand
experience derived understandings of reality, and its handmaiden --
possibilities.

(Did you know Steve Lare wrote, and and had published, an article
about homebrew 9:1 antenna un-un that perform nearly to the same
standard as those manufactured? Kevin Strom has also written tech
articles to advance the hobby.)

We even listen to you.

Across the decades, I've been tarred with many brushes, Joe. It
washes off, after the temporary sting has passed. But, if it doesn't,
there's not much I can do about it. What someone thinks of me is none of
my business. And if it's none of my business, it can't be relevant to
the discussion.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 11/23/13 09:11 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:15 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Given that two of these are mine, I wonder how many others have been
miscredited in your zeal to tickle dxAce.

So what's yer point? Two wrong (or a dozen) out of a few hundred ain't
too bad IMHO. Ignoring your two and possibly a few others, the great
preponderance of quotes (the other 99% that ARE correct) seems to paint
a pretty accurate picture of lare's "character".


Read carefully, I said that TWO are mine. How many others are there?
I certainly can't be the only one.

Which suggests that we're no longer discussing 99%.

Your opinion that a few, or a dozen, is yours to hold and cherish.
But if mII's accuracy is off by a few, or a dozen, then he's sloppy. And
his reportage is dismissable on its face. Because he doesn't care to
verify, verify, verify.

If one is going to quote someone, with the intent of smearing him,
one is obligated to tell the truth. Not just a percentage.

You must be an MSNBC staffer.,

And then YOU must be the founder and President for Life of the lare fan
club. :-D

Not at all. If you'd go back and inspect your history, you'd find
that there have been times he and I have gone at it, hammer and tongs.
He can be crude. He can be opinionated. So what? He's an American. It's
his birthright. He may say what he wishes. Don't like it? Refute it. Or
don't listen. YOUR birthright.


Pick your friends wisely or you may end up being tarred with the same
brush.


The 'isolate' portion of the Radical agenda, Joe? Voltaire would slap
your face. You're better than that.

Go back and do some reading. I've put a lot of content on this
newsgroup. And along the way, I've stood up for many, here, whose
politics I've disagreed with. And I've done it simply because they were
under assault by someone with faulty claims. One even went so far as to
print a post of mine in his local newspaper. And believe me, that gave
me some very real reasons for concern. I have a long standing client in
his hometown, and I didn't need to be tarred, as you put it, with the
brush of his politics. That could be costly. Nevertheless, the truth
about him had been unspoken amongst a very real and costly bed of
insinuations and lies. So, I spoke up, and when he asked for permission
to print it, I gave it to him. The truth to be spoken. No matter the cost.

I have done the same for Steve Lare.

I've done the same for others in this group and beyond.

I would do the same for you, given sufficient reason.

Just as there have been those who have stood up for me.

There are those here who think as little of me as you do of Steve. So
what? This is USENet. We're all Tom Selleck and Charles Manson. Usually
at the same time. Those of us who've had a little life under our belts
don't let threats of disapproval by someone unseen and unknown create
fear. We don't let strangers put horns on our heads, or pitchforks in
our hands just because someone doesn't like our demeanor. Or our
politics. Or our choice of media. We don't get our satisfaction, or our
self esteem, from external approval by strangers. Or by association with
one or another accepted recitudes of the day. We aren't manipulated by
others' thoughts, others' shining light of mass sanctimony.

Such is the nature of being Free.

You don't like us? You don't know what you're missing. We discuss
divergent politics. We share tech tips. We share extraordinary
experiences, and we enjoy the somewhat shaky but white hot spotlight
that another's perspective brings to our own thoughtfully and first hand
experience derived understandings of reality, and its handmaiden --
possibilities.

(Did you know Steve Lare wrote, and and had published, an article
about homebrew 9:1 antenna un-un that perform nearly to the same
standard as those manufactured? Kevin Strom has also written tech
articles to advance the hobby.)

Thanks, but the article was actually written by Alan Johnson, N4LUS and
appeared in the NASWA Journal, July 1992.

One can read it by going he http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/xfmr.htm



We even listen to you.

Across the decades, I've been tarred with many brushes, Joe. It
washes off, after the temporary sting has passed. But, if it doesn't,
there's not much I can do about it. What someone thinks of me is none of
my business. And if it's none of my business, it can't be relevant to
the discussion.

dxAce wrote:

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 11/23/13 09:11 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 11/22/2013 11:15 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Given that two of these are mine, I wonder how many others have been
miscredited in your zeal to tickle dxAce.

So what's yer point? Two wrong (or a dozen) out of a few hundred ain't
too bad IMHO. Ignoring your two and possibly a few others, the great
preponderance of quotes (the other 99% that ARE correct) seems to paint
a pretty accurate picture of lare's "character".


Read carefully, I said that TWO are mine. How many others are there?
I certainly can't be the only one.

Which suggests that we're no longer discussing 99%.

Your opinion that a few, or a dozen, is yours to hold and cherish.
But if mII's accuracy is off by a few, or a dozen, then he's sloppy. And
his reportage is dismissable on its face. Because he doesn't care to
verify, verify, verify.

If one is going to quote someone, with the intent of smearing him,
one is obligated to tell the truth. Not just a percentage.

You must be an MSNBC staffer.,

And then YOU must be the founder and President for Life of the lare fan
club. :-D

Not at all. If you'd go back and inspect your history, you'd find
that there have been times he and I have gone at it, hammer and tongs.
He can be crude. He can be opinionated. So what? He's an American. It's
his birthright. He may say what he wishes. Don't like it? Refute it. Or
don't listen. YOUR birthright.


Pick your friends wisely or you may end up being tarred with the same
brush.


The 'isolate' portion of the Radical agenda, Joe? Voltaire would slap
your face. You're better than that.

Go back and do some reading. I've put a lot of content on this
newsgroup. And along the way, I've stood up for many, here, whose
politics I've disagreed with. And I've done it simply because they were
under assault by someone with faulty claims. One even went so far as to
print a post of mine in his local newspaper. And believe me, that gave
me some very real reasons for concern. I have a long standing client in
his hometown, and I didn't need to be tarred, as you put it, with the
brush of his politics. That could be costly. Nevertheless, the truth
about him had been unspoken amongst a very real and costly bed of
insinuations and lies. So, I spoke up, and when he asked for permission
to print it, I gave it to him. The truth to be spoken. No matter the cost.

I have done the same for Steve Lare.

I've done the same for others in this group and beyond.

I would do the same for you, given sufficient reason.

Just as there have been those who have stood up for me.

There are those here who think as little of me as you do of Steve. So
what? This is USENet. We're all Tom Selleck and Charles Manson. Usually
at the same time. Those of us who've had a little life under our belts
don't let threats of disapproval by someone unseen and unknown create
fear. We don't let strangers put horns on our heads, or pitchforks in
our hands just because someone doesn't like our demeanor. Or our
politics. Or our choice of media. We don't get our satisfaction, or our
self esteem, from external approval by strangers. Or by association with
one or another accepted recitudes of the day. We aren't manipulated by
others' thoughts, others' shining light of mass sanctimony.

Such is the nature of being Free.

You don't like us? You don't know what you're missing. We discuss
divergent politics. We share tech tips. We share extraordinary
experiences, and we enjoy the somewhat shaky but white hot spotlight
that another's perspective brings to our own thoughtfully and first hand
experience derived understandings of reality, and its handmaiden --
possibilities.

(Did you know Steve Lare wrote, and and had published, an article
about homebrew 9:1 antenna un-un that perform nearly to the same
standard as those manufactured? Kevin Strom has also written tech
articles to advance the hobby.)

Thanks, but the article was actually written by Alan Johnson, N4LUS and
appeared in the NASWA Journal, July 1992.

One can read it by going he http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/xfmr.htm

I should point out that RF Systems (a Dutch firm), threatened to sue me, stating
that I was using their design, which was proprietary.

BS!

I wrote back and told 'em to stuff it. Never heard from them again.

I think I sold 400+ of the darn things, then gave it up.





We even listen to you.

Across the decades, I've been tarred with many brushes, Joe. It
washes off, after the temporary sting has passed. But, if it doesn't,
there's not much I can do about it. What someone thinks of me is none of
my business. And if it's none of my business, it can't be relevant to
the discussion.

On 11/23/13 13:28 , dxAce wrote:
I should point out that RF Systems (a Dutch firm), threatened to sue me, stating
that I was using their design, which was proprietary.

BS!

I wrote back and told 'em to stuff it. Never heard from them again.

I think I sold 400+ of the darn things, then gave it up.


I recall you were making them. And that RF Systems got in your face
about it. I didn't know you sold 400 of them though. Damn. Nice business.

On 11/23/13 13:28 , dxAce wrote:
I should point out that RF Systems (a Dutch firm), threatened to sue me, stating
that I was using their design, which was proprietary.

BS!

I wrote back and told 'em to stuff it. Never heard from them again.

I think I sold 400+ of the darn things, then gave it up.


I recall you were making them. And that RF Systems got in your face
about it. I didn't know you sold 400 of them though. Damn. Nice business.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 11/23/13 13:28 , dxAce wrote:
I should point out that RF Systems (a Dutch firm), threatened to sue me, stating
that I was using their design, which was proprietary.

BS!

I wrote back and told 'em to stuff it. Never heard from them again.

I think I sold 400+ of the darn things, then gave it up.

I recall you were making them. And that RF Systems got in your face
about it. I didn't know you sold 400 of them though. Damn. Nice business.

Yeah, they sent me a "nice" letter. Wish I'd saved it as it would be a nice memento.

On 11/23/13 13:14 , dxAce wrote:
Thanks, but the article was actually written by Alan Johnson, N4LUS and
appeared in the NASWA Journal, July 1992.

One can read it by going hehttp://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/xfmr.htm



Oh...I apologize. I thought that it was you. Thanks for the correction.


p

On 11/22/2013 11:15 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Given that two of these are mine, I wonder how many others have been
miscredited in your zeal to tickle dxAce.

On 11/23/13 09:11 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:

So what's yer point? Two wrong (or a dozen) out of a few hundred ain't
too bad IMHO. Ignoring your two and possibly a few others, the great
preponderance of quotes (the other 99% that ARE correct) seems to paint
a pretty accurate picture of lare's "character".

On 11/23/2013 1:28 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Read carefully, I said that TWO are mine. How many others are there?
I certainly can't be the only one.

Which suggests that we're no longer discussing 99%.

Your opinion that a few, or a dozen, is yours to hold and cherish.
But if mII's accuracy is off by a few, or a dozen, then he's sloppy. And
his reportage is dismissable on its face. Because he doesn't care to
verify, verify, verify.

He may be "sloppy", but on the other hand, he is not a professional
reporter. And frankly, there is a VERY large body of rude posts
attributable to lare. You are tap dancing and nit-picking if you ignore
the vast bulk of those posts with no socially redeeming value.

If one is going to quote someone, with the intent of smearing him,
one is obligated to tell the truth. Not just a percentage.

First, I don't think he was "smearing" him. He was just quoting lare's
OWN POSTS. If anyone was smearing lare, it was lare.

I don't necessarily want to debate percentages with you; that is not the
point.

To me, the point is that most of us have been around here long enough
and read enough of lare's posts to know that the rudeness, crudeness and
racial pot shots are indeed a large portion ('percentages'
notwithstanding) of lare's stock-in-trade. Not to quibble that there may
be one or two or a few misquotes, there are many, many quotes that are
indeed true and have indeed come from lare's keyboard.

He can be crude. He can be opinionated. So what?

So what?

I can admire your support of unpopular viewpoints; however, I cannot
understand your defense of crudeness, vulgarity and racism.

Go back and do some reading. I've put a lot of content on this
newsgroup. And along the way, I've stood up for many, here, whose
politics I've disagreed with. And I've done it simply because they were
under assault by someone with faulty claims.

Again, support of "divergent politics, sharing tech tips and sharing
extraordinary experiences", is fine. But I (and many others here) DO
have a problem with support of crudeness, vulgarity and racism.

Please feel free to have the last word, but let me leave you with these
two thoughts:

1) Don't get hung up on percentages. There were still HUNDREDS of vulgar
posts with no redeeming social value directly attributable to lare that
we are complaining about, not the unun or DX posts.

2) Please try not to confuse discussion of divergent political views,
tech tips and sharing 'extraordinary' experiences with crudeness,
vulgarity and racism. There IS a difference.

On 11/23/13 21:05 , Joe from Kokomo wrote:


You are tap dancing and nit-picking if you ignore
the vast bulk of those posts with no socially redeeming value.


Thank God, you don't get to determine what is and isn't socially
redeeming. You really do need to brush up on your Voltaire.



Not to quibble that there may
be one or two or a few misquotes, there are many, many quotes that are
indeed true and have indeed come from lare's keyboard.

And do we know which ones mII quoted correctly. He's gotten mine
mixed in there. How many others are there? By your own logic, fruit of
the poisoned tree.


I can admire your support of unpopular viewpoints; however, I cannot
understand your defense of crudeness, vulgarity and racism.

In a free society, he may say what he wishes, regardless of what I
think of his content. I'm not his conscience, nor his censor. Neither
are you.



2) Please try not to confuse discussion of divergent political views,
tech tips and sharing 'extraordinary' experiences with crudeness,
vulgarity and racism. There IS a difference.



In a free society, one may say as one wishes. Personally, I'm
offended by all this talk of sunshine and puppies. But I support the
right to utter that crap as well.

Try not to confuse support of free speech with the endorsement of
content. There IS a difference.

On 11/25/2013 07:58 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:


In a free society, one may say as one wishes. Personally, I'm
offended by all this talk of sunshine and puppies. But I support the
right to utter that crap as well.


"Free society"? Give me a break. You have no voice. Billionaires are
"free" to comment. You are not.

OK, now defend the billionaires. Defend Citizens United. Defend money as
the determinant of one's ability to shape opinion. Explain how this was
the intention of the Founders.