RadioBanter - View Single Post

Dave Heil · October 1st 06, 07:13 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
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.

Yes, Leonard, falsely. You were incorrect. You were wrong.

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. :-)

Your denial looks a little silly. The person who brought up Jeff Herman
and launched into the diatribe about the ARRL Handbook is Leonard H.
Anderson! By doing so, another pound of flesh was extracted from your
70-something-year-old hide. Are you losing weight through the factual
error plan?

One which only a requires a simple rebuttal that:

- Shows what Jeffrey Herman *really* said.

"*Really*"? :-)

Really. Tsk, tsk.

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.

So? What concern is that of yours?

- 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*"

All can see your attempt at a dodge.

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"]

Len, your statement is very convoluted.

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?

You dredged it up. Was it dumb or pedantic on your part?

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).

I'm convinced, Len.

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." :-)

That's a good thing for you. Perhaps it is a handler or spokesman you seek.

I can see that a lot of what I post
consists of OPINIONS which are shared by others.

....and oh, brother, what 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.

You did that at the very least.

I'm not one to trumpet some old publishing
industry PR about "best-sellers."

No, you are the guy who brought it up.

Even so, year 1968 is 38
years ago, hardly relevant to today (year 2006).

And?

If you wish to "discuss" best-seller listings, that is quite
another subject...which is NOT an amateur radio policy
subject, per se.

Please try to remember that you brought up "Jeffie-poo" and "best-sellers".

Please advise on the proper newsgroup to
discuss publishing PR bullstuff and I might take it there.

Do you think the folks there will be impressed by your "Jeffie-poo" stories?

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.

Could a sock puppet be considered a pseudonym, Len? It doesn't matter
what its age happens to be.

I've admitted to that in public in here.

You had little choice.

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. :-)

You'd have us to understand that anyone who doesn't find it mildly
amusing is anal retentive, easily furious (whatever that is), ouver
touchy and/or a "we-must-have-ONLY-our-way individual". I'd say that a
guy who makes that kind of statement about what *he* finds mildly
amusing is guilty of those things of which he accuses others.

---

Interesting (at least to me) that you devote SO MUCH time and
so many words into attempting to chastise me.

Why should that be so interesting. After all, you've devoted much, much
more time and many, many more words into attempting to chastise others.

Flattering,
perhaps, but I have no need of that.

I see you as a guy who requires lots of flattering, Len. The trouble is
that you don't get much of it here. That chafes you.

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.

That type of thing has become a real problem here. Eighty or ninety
percent of it could be cleaned up by eliminating just one
individual--Roger L. Wiseman. He is a problem child under his multiple
sock puppets on usenet (not only in this newsgroup) and he has been a
problem child in amateur radio. His behavior and Mark Morgan's Myna
bird replies don't excuse your behavior.

Isn't clean-up of such filth
the real JOB of the "moderators" and the newsgroup police?
I guess not.

This isn't a moderated newsgroup, Len.

See IEEE Code of Ethics

Dave K8MN