On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 7/12/2004 1:38 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Amateur Radio Newsline ...
I don't see you "protesting" any of the "ENLARGE YOUR !@#$%" spam, or
the
"MAKE MONEY FAST" spam, nor do I see you protesting any of the "SEE MY TEEN
WIFE !@#$%^" spam.
Like ANYONE can do anything about the spam problem nowadays?....
Seem's to me AOL and Yahoo are. Some pretty hefty lawsuits are in the
mill.
NONE of that is even REMOTELY related to Amateur Radio, yet where's
Dieter's outrageous indignation about THOSE "guidelines/charter
violation(s)"...?!?!
SO? That just means that I chose to put my resources where I CAN accomplish
an
end to the violation....
No, it doesn't.
It means that your ulterior motives are glaring.
This is not about "spam".
It's about Dieter Stussy-vs-Bill Pasternak. Period.
I reiterate my previous assertion: It's directly pertinent TO Amateur
Radio, BY a licensed Radio Amateur IN an Amateur Radio forum. Much of what
is
in Bill's "news releases" IS pertinent to Amateur Radio policy
discussions....And certainly MORE pertinent than most of the other stuff
that
transpires here.
All I can say is that what ever Bill did/said that got you in such a
wedgie must have hit pretty close to home! You're obviously still stinging
from it!
1) I have not made it any secret what he has done to one of my associates by
misreporting the story he was involved in. 2) If newsline is supposed to be
a
"non-profit" operation then why is BP practically LIVING off of the
donations?
There are laws that govern what "reasonable compensation" is for a
non-profit,
and he's exceeding them, as I have previously demonstrated.
You've only demonstrated that you're PO'ed at Bill Pasternak.
....And if you knew how he, at best, twisted the truth, or at worst, outright
lied, then you wouldn't trust him either. The specific case I cite is of
historical record in this group. I was not personally involved, but do know
the parties who were - and the truth of their stories.
If you want to make your point, why don't you either document your
concerns to the FCC or the IRS, since they are the two most likely agencies to
have an official opinion on the matter...
Lastly, the federal tax codes allow for a percentage of "charitable
donations" to be used for administrative (eg: salaries) purposes. I've met
Bill Pasternak and I dare say he's sharp enough to have made sure that his
finances are TDC with the law.
Unless you can prove differently...?!?!? (My bet's on "PO'd indignation"
more than valid complaint)
You don't have to tell me what the IRS allows - remember that I used to BE a
"revenuer." The only way for "newsline" to have expenses exceeding $1k/month,
after comparing their operations to that of others like "RAIN" and "TWIAR" is
if BP is paying himself a salary that is at least 50% of that amount - much
more than what he is representing to the public. I haven't gotten around to
pulling his form 990 yet (via a request on form 4506-A), but we already know
what we're going to find there....
You will note that it's no secret that I have done a form 990 search on one of
the local amateur repeater frequency coordination organizations a few years
ago, and upon finding no filings (yet a collection of "dues" from members),
asked the NFCC to decertify them. This was in addition to their failure to
even acknowledge coordination applications filed with them or act on any (any
action - acceptance, denial, or even receipt). That particular group has since
become a bit "more responsible" to the public since then....
Be careful about what you suggest - you may get it.
Additionally, there is no legitimate purpose for him to post his entire
transcript weekly. Those who want to read it will go to his website where it
exists and don't need it here. To post it here (instead of merely posting a
link to it when it is revised each week) is SPAM - and YOU KNOW IT.