In . com " writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:
Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug
You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.
"Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]
What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.
So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"
"Torturing my words" is a turn of phrase that says that you have twisted
my words' meaning or context, specifically the context in which I might
have used the word "enjoy." I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below). You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?
You are imagining things which aren't there.
Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.
My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.
Not necessary. :-)
You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
in the modern sense. :-)
You're clearly wanting to argue it both ways. You want to make unproven
assertions, then if the accused want to defend themselves and offer
convincing evidence in their defense, you want to admonish them for not
understanding that "this is not a court of law." Rather, it seems to be
one where the only acceptable evidence in Len's mind is that which
advances Len's arguments.
I have since found the specific E-mail message to you, dated January 23
2004, that supports my denial. Do you object to me putting it up
temporarily off of my home page, and posting a link here?
Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and
anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away
with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should
KNOW that by now. As I noted in my previous followup, I was
speaking to a wider audience, some of whom expressed their
agreement with me in further followups.
What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?
I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
and problem users.
If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
many, many such words?
Because I can! :-)
I guess I can't argue with that. I can't make sense of it, but I can't
argue with it.
Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions, there are very few UNBIASED
venues for speaking one's mind on any amateur radio policy issues.
Well, at least you're willing to admit that the FCC Comments and
Petitions process is unbiased to submitters. We have/had some on this
newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that.
Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.
"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"
Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"
The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.
I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.
Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.
I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be
arbitrary, and said so.
Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.
Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."
I do not use hats.
Dave Heil is free to chime in again if he feels that I have misquoted
him by my assertion that he agrees with me that Herb was being
disingenuous, and that Herb was not speaking for him.
Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.
How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?
Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
"action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.
How about this, Len:
I acknowledge that we have problem users, trolls, etc. on this
newsgroup. I will consult, on an ongoing basis, with newsgroup
participants for *specific* recommendations for actions, such that I am
not contributing to this problem through my inaction.
Would that satisfy you?
I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a clone of
Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum.
Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
poor choice of words...
Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).
Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost
that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words
became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after
that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers.
... After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.
I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I
remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul.
I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected
John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go
out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years
before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to
do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd
Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR
words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found
in here...nor is it necessary]
Let's recap:
Paul: "I know Dave Heil. I respect Dave Heil. I don't need to be a
clone of Dave Heil to express an opinion in this forum."
Len: "Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a poor
choice of words..."
Why mention that the Senator "lost an election" if it doesn't attempt to
advance any argument other than an undermining of my words and his? Why
dig up the bones of a dead man just to have something to throw at me?
Which is the greater "Tsk"-able offense in your mind? That I've
allegedly cribbed from someone? Or that I've allegedly paraphrased a
quote from a context where the person stating it was not successful in
his goals?
You made your argument above appear stronger by conveniently deleting
the quoted paragraphs in your latest followup where I do acknowledge
multiple possible credits for my wording, and where I also argue that
the Senator's quote helped win the 1992 election. It's reasonable to
argue that pacing of short, declarative sentences to build to a
conclusion is a common technique that both the Senator and I were using,
and both owe our thanks to a rich and common language heritage that
existed well before our times. If I wanted to crib the Senator's words,
I may as well have copied them exactly:
"Herb, I served with Dave Heil, I knew Dave Heil, Dave Heil was a friend
of mine. Herb, you are no Dave Heil."
but that would have been a very different quote, now wouldn't it?
Shakespeare is useful to mention here because he is viewed as one of the
first writers to really wield modern English deftly, including its
iambic pacing for dramatic effect, and leave a surviving record of his
writing. Even centuries later, we can all learn from his example.
For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?
It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."
Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]
Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
going to believe my words or the words of others on my
"motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
only those others.
What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random)
participation in here?
Among other issues, "to advocate the elimination of the manual morse
code test in US amateur radio licensing."
Since your stated goal above is also one of mine, why are there
arguments, attacks, etc., directed by you against me? Do you feel that
only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
forum, and no one else? Do you still not "give a flying fig" about
others' positions, even when they agree with yours? That's solipsism.
Here's a challenge to you, Len. I respectfully request that you
publicly make the following, objectively true, statement:
"Paul and I share a common goal to advocate the elimination of the
manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing."
If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to come up with some of
your own.
Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.
I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.
I can't predict for certain in advance what the final form of a
moderated newsgroup would be, or if it would even be voted into
existence on the first attempt. Specific approval/disapproval of
articles would have to wait for submission of those articles, and would
have to be decided upon by the moderation team, not just me.
However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:
- Provocation/Prevarication
- Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake
of arguing)/Filibustering/"Grease" (extending debate by avoiding
direct rejoinder)
- Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants
- Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to
yourself versus others
- Trying to justify the above behavior with, "But *he* started it!"
In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing
newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification.
Beep, beep,
--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger
for PGP Public Key