From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

writes:

But, I digress. Your chief interest seems to be in
trying to destroy the credibility of a not-licensed in
the amateur radio service person (although one who has
been licensed as a Commercial radio operator since
1956). Have you really done that? Are you really
going to nit-pick about an old posting by another and
reference a 1968 Time magazine article? Yes, I'm sure
you really, really WANT to do that! :-)

What an obnoxious quibble.

Ah, but a TRUE "quibble" was it not?

Tsk, tsk, you've proved what I remarked. :-)

You misquote and falsely accuse Jeffrey
Herman with an absolute statement.

"Falsely?" Hardly. His OLD, FORMER statement has ALREADY
gone round and round in here. Dredging up OLD material
only serves to show the self-righteous stubbornness of
those who never got their pound-of-flesh in the first
go-around. :-)

One which only a requires a simple rebuttal that:

- Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said.

"*Really*"? :-)

At the time, Jeffrey Herman seemed hot on trying to
prove some kind of point of "absolute" goodness of the
ARRL (not to mention its 'intellectualism' or whatever
in matters of amateur radio). Now the ARRL *does* print
considerable material in regards to amateur radio matters.
That publishing *is* their major source of income. It was
a very wise choice back in the twenties...that income
made it possible to fund all the "membership"
wonderfulness that came later. ARRL cannot exist in its
present form without that income-producing publishing.

- Shows convincing, third-party, evidence that supports what Jeffrey
Herman *really* said.

Well, try as hard as I can, I just can't get my telepathy
powers or crystal ball working to show what Jeffrey Herman
"*really*" said. Really. All that I saw or anyone else
saw were the words in these messages. "*Really*"

Now, at that OLD time of going around on that PREVIOUS
message threading, Jeffrey Hermann was on of the persons
higher up in the not-quite-moderation team for RRAP?
That was my understanding then. Perhaps it still is?
So, if that was the case, then some not-quite-moderators
got their toes stepped on in past posting? [figure of
speech about "toes"]

You choose to "rebut" with filibuster and insult, implying that it was
dumb or pedantic to even argue the point, let alone try to find the
supporting evidence.

Tsk, it is quite obvious to most that dredging up OLD message
thread subjects to re-argue and re-argue and re-argue is
"dumb or pedantic," isn't it?

Not only is it dumb and pedantic, but useless effort that
not only wastes others' time but takes up unneccessary
memory space in archives (which already contain the OLD
postings).


No one else, not even your nominal "supporters" here, will post to this
newsgroup and agree with you on your misquote of Jeffrey Herman.

Irrelevant, Paul. I am myself and I am secure enough to
let my postings stand on their own. I don't need a
"supporter." :-) I can see that a lot of what I post
consists of OPINIONS which are shared by others.

I "misquoted" Jeffrey Hermann? Hermann is a pro-code-test
advocate and a strong supporter of the ARRL. That's not a
"misquote" is it? Did I get some "year of best-sellers"
wrong? Perhaps. I'm not one to trumpet some old publishing
industry PR about "best-sellers." Even so, year 1968 is 38
years ago, hardly relevant to today (year 2006).

If you wish to "discuss" best-seller listings, that is quite
another subject...which is NOT an amateur radio policy
subject, per se. Please advise on the proper newsgroup to
discuss publishing PR bullstuff and I might take it there.

Unless, of course, you want to dig up some sock-puppets, like Avery
Fineman, again.

"Sock puppet?" :-) Hardly. "Avery Fineman" was an old
pseuodym I used back in BBS days, before the Internet went
public in 1991. I've admitted to that in public in here.
It is a play on words, a mild amusement...except to the
anal-retentive, easily-furious, overly-touchy we-must-have-
ONLY-our-way individuals. :-)

---

Interesting (at least to me) that you devote SO MUCH time and
so many words into attempting to chastise me. Flattering,
perhaps, but I have no need of that. I see a much more serious
concern in an obvious LACK of trying to clean up the obnoxious,
anonymous postings of real filth and personal accusations
thrown on our screens by OTHERS. Isn't clean-up of such filth
the real JOB of the "moderators" and the newsgroup police?
I guess not.