From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
Email: Paul W. Schleck


writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:

Let's recap:

Why? :-)

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?

Why did you - repeat you - bring up the late Lloyd
Bentsen at all? Did Lloyd Bentsen have an amateur
radio license? :-)


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 are building a Mount Everest out of an anthill. :-)

Try to remember that ANY public posting in any computer-
modem venue, from early BBS to the Internet, is OPEN for
"commentary" by ANYONE. If you take offense at every
negative comment that you perceive is directed at you,
you are already in trouble. But, that trouble is only
yours, your perception.

["Been there, done that," got lots of moderator T-shirts]


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.

This newsgroup is not a national political election forum.
Really.

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.

Try to concentrate on amateur radio policy matters in this
newsgroup. If you want to do Literary Review things, I'm
sure there is some kind of newsgroup for that somewhere.

This newsgroup is not a debate forum for national politics
of the USA of the past millennium. Really.


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.

Should I bring that up at the next Writer's Guild meeting
in North Hollywood? How about the ABA in NYC? :-)

If you wish to admonish someone on use of the English
language a la the academia way, try hundreds of postings
by OTHERS in this newsgroup for the past week. :-)

Oh, and in passing, academia itself is divided on this
Shakespeare thing, especially on so few (read almost
none) original manuscripts surviving and scant factual
information about his life. BTASE, carry on with what
you want to discuss in a Literary Review forum someplace
else.


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?

Please, turn DOWN your Personal Sensitivity control. If you
continue with it fully clockwise, your life as a moderator
will be very short indeed. Moderators need armor-plated
stainless steel cojones on the job, plus emotional shielding
to protect their sense of self.

Do you feel that
only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
forum, and no one else?

Tsk, I state my opinions directly. If those collide with
others, then they collide. TS.

I will also make commentary about things and persons as I
would do in person. No formality is required, although
the self-righteous in here seem to think that de rigeur.
[i.e., "the court of law" syndrome of the overly
sensitive to any negative against Theirs...:-) ]

Do you still not "give a flying fig" about
others' positions, even when they agree with yours?

Yes. "Carbon copies" of what Others say aren't required.

That's solipsism.

No, that's just the way computer-modem communications
work in public access. It was that way when ARPANET
got big, it was that way when it morphed into USENET,
and was that way when it was picked up on BBS networks.
And it remains that way on the Internet in those forums
called "Usenet." shrug

You have to realize that not all people agree on things.
Really. That's what makes us all unique...with some
possible exceptions of certain membership organizations
in the NE USA...but that is more religion than anything
else. :-)


Here's a challenge to you, Len.

I've had thousands of "challenges" in my time. I do not
need any from anyone in this group.

Remember what happended to STS 51J?

I respectfully request that you
publicly make the following, objectively true, statement:

I decline. There is little proof available of this
alleged "objectiveness." :-)

If you don't like the exact wording, feel free to come up with some of
your own.

Thank you ever so much, your worship. ["highness?"]

Condescenion does not become you.

Oh, I feel perfectly free to come up with whatever I want
whether you like it or not. :-) Just as you are
perfectly free to express the usual disdain, condescension,
elitism of the federally-licensed high-born as practiced
by others in here. :-) All that and more have been
going on in here for years.


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.

Ah, so the "voters" (in whatever Mt. Olympus like domain
of the newsgroup powers-to-be) haven't got a clue as to
what to do? Certainly sounds like that.

Hint: Do NOT advertise possibilities of the future in
regards to "actions" of moderation. Just DO it. You
don't even have to wear Nikes on that job. :-)

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.

Oh, goodie, it sounds like it will be weeks before someone
considered offensive will be dealt with. Meanwhile, their
offensive words will remain in view of all with access.

Remember what happened to the fabled Maginot Line? :-)


However, other moderated newsgroups that are considered successful
usually consider the following behavior to be grounds for a temporary or
permanent ban:

Why do you address that to me? "Been there, done that" in
computer-modem comms, remember? :-)

You WILL find that true moderator tasks will have to be
more draconian. But, you seem to think that the powers-
that-be invented moderating. shrug

That's like the myths held (dearly by some) by amateurs
that amateurs invented radio. :-)

- Provocation/Prevarication

[such as "here's a challenge for you..."?]

- Arguing against those that agree with you (i.e., arguing for the sake
of arguing)/Filibustering/"Grease" (extending debate by avoiding
direct rejoinder)

[all march to the same drum beat?]


- Name-calling/uncivil tone/disrespect for newsgroup participants

[such as "little red-hatted monkey?"]


- Trying to argue both ways/applying different standards of evidence to
yourself versus others

[such as "We amateur extras are better than you!"]


- Trying to justify the above behavior with, "But *he* started it!"

[tsk, "it" was started with the Incestuous Licensing Plan...]


In particular, I don't think there's a moderator of *any* existing
newsgroup that would accept the last argument as justification.

Heh heh heh, you (as a member of the moderating team) have to
get the last little "dig" in? :-)

---

Tscha, my suggestion is still the For an indefinite
period of time DELETE this newsgroup. Put it on a hold,
whatever. Let the sociopaths, misfits, the emotionally-
disturbed malcontents go somewhere else for their filthy
perverted jollies. You (and the newsgroup powers-that-
be) cannot control them now, what makes you think you
can control them with group "moderating?"

You have been a victim of forgery in here, an insidious
little malignancy of a URL modification is all that was
needed. What is there to stop forgeries in the future?
"Noble intentions?!?" raucous laughter elided