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

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

"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."

"Might have used?" :-) How "might" you have used it?

I don't live in alternate space-time continuums nor can I
read minds of others.

I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below).

Tsk. "Synonymous phrasing?" :-)

You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?

Am I to expect Federal Marshalls at my door to "pick me up"
any minute? :-)

Wouldn't it be easier to acknowledge it and apologize to the man?

Paul, all I did was write some words in here...in the same
context as some amateur morsemen love to do...and then you
take that as "a falsehood that you are unwilling to retract"!

Is it true? If not, did you retract it?

Your buttons got pushed. And your "arming switch" was set
to "FIRE!" rather than "Safe." :-)

It looks like you fired.

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."

This newsgroup is NOT a court of law. Really.

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?

I have no objections. You are welcome to copy Robeson's
short-lived home page of "Never Trust Lennie" if you are
so disturbed by things in here. :-)

[I don't have a copy. Too bad. It was a classic of libel
and outrage by one who could not control himself in here]

Why, Leonard, you have often committed libel and outrage and you are
known to be one who cannot control himself in here!

I can't possibly control the actions of a licensed extra class
radio amateur (20 WPM code test kind), can I?

It isn't likely; you can't even control yourself.

After all,
those licensed extra class radio amateurs who are "participants"
in here can't control the trolls, anony-mousies, sociopaths,
and others (too strange to classify) who post in here. You
expect ME to "control them?" :-)

Your standards swing widely. You have recently expected me to control a
regular poster here. You demanded that I condemn him.


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.

Right! Now you are beginning to see the problem! :-)

This newsgroup has been out of control for a long time.
Anyone can post anything, including someone who forges
your name ".

That's the reason that I recommend Total Dissolution of
this newsgroup. Elimination. For an indefinite period
of time.

I can't make sense of it, but I can't argue with it.

Then you would be a poor choice for moderator. I've had
experience as a BBS public board moderator for several
years. It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone
but its the only way to do effective moderation. You
CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in
such an environment. That would be subjective bias.
Such as what you want to do in here...


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.

"Admit?!?" [bad choice of a word, Paul]

I have STATED what I wrote before. The FCC has stated that.
The Communications Act of 1934 that established the FCC must
accept commentary from all citizens on radio regulations,
ALL radio regulations. It is STATED in law.

We have/had some on this
newsgroup that weren't even willing to admit that.

NOT my problem, NOT my words you talk about. "You want to
make unproven assertions, then if the accused want to
defend themselves and ..." Do not blame me for "others
words."

Remember your words. You are very likely to seem them again in the near
future. In fact, you'll see them when you next decide that Jim or I
should be responsible to something Steve Robeson writes.


I found *Herb's* "standards of newsgroup righteousness" to be
arbitrary, and said so.

So noted. Now what, another knock on the door by
"officials" for partially agreeing with him?


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.

Heil frequently "chimes in" about others and others'
words, even taking it upon himself to "answer" replies
made to another. He does this mostly to no-code-test
advocates who are replying to amateur extra morsemen.
Google is full of his posts in that manner. QED.

Len, tell us about how this is usenet and that anyone is free to comment
on anything posted here. I really liked that one.

["Chimes?" A whole table full of ringing bells manned
by morsemen ringers...and ding-alingers]


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.

As I said before this post and in this post, I recommend
Total Dissolution of this newsgroup. For an indefinite
time period. [can't get any more "specific" than that]

You recommend? That's pretty presumptuous of you. You aren't a radio
amateur.




Life Member, IEEE (a professional association with 397
thousand members worldwide)

Len, I'm a little confused about some IEEE matters. How do you justify
a number of your posts in light of the IEEE Code of Ethics?

http://www.ieee.org/about/whatis/code.xml

I was puzzled when I read:

7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to
acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the
contributions of others;

8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race,
religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment
by false or malicious action;

Dave K8MN