Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

From: an old friend on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:18 pm

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

What an obnoxious quibble.


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

Considering the dictionary definition of quibble
( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quibble ):

way not try avoiding ****ing contest yourself

I don't think he can, Mark.

in only choosing to attack ONEside you take part in the on going fight
Paul and nobody as not neutral as yourself is going to be trusted very
far on proposaing anything to end the combat that is the standard on
RRAP

Well, Paul has a LOT to learn about moderating. I'm
speaking from experience of years of moderating several
BBS discussion boards locally. I wisely learned NOT
to take part in any "****ing contests" in public...or
private in order to do that.

Those moderators who could not help themselves and got
into one-sided public squabbles either quit in anger
or got removed by the Sysop. I only quit when the BBSs
went out of business due to Internet competition.

So far, it looks like Schleck is gunning ONLY for me.
I can't prove any reason for that other than the
postings in this "news thread" of "Gerritsen sentenced."
I have several suspicions, though. :-)

I'll say this, though. NOBODY that doesn't talk nice-
nice about present-day conditions in US amateur radio
is going to have a snowball's chance in hell of ever
getting into public view. One can take that to the
bank (and get interest on it). EVERYONE has to be kind
to all in the moderating team, call them by titles or
suitable honorifics. [one can envision saying "sir" in
response to all written text, perhaps saluting in some
form is required?] It's fairly certain that amateur
extra licensees will be exempt, regardless of what they
post and to whom. All others will be graded by license
class with those not licensed in amateur radio being at
the very bottom...with me totally blocked out. shrug

It will be okay if an amateur extra calls others by
'cutesy' names, demeans and denigrates their work,
what they've done, accuses them of pedophilia or
homosexual conduct, calls for 'consultation' with their
wives, insults their wives, even manages to insult two
large universities as being "correspondence schools."
That's okay since he has a "military" rank in the Civil
Air Patrol.

It will be okay if another amateur extra demeans
military personnel and insults them by saying they are
"subsidized" by the government...even though he never
served, never volunteered, hasn't even been in
government employ. Such an amateur extra is free to
demand whatever he wants of anyone challenging him.
He need not defend his demands for He IS an extra.

Who MIGHT get blocked may (no assurances of this) be
the anonymous trolls, misfits, and general filth-
babblers behaving like middle-school adolescent males
discovering that they can cuss out adults in perfect
safety. I'm really not sure if the "moderating team"
will be able to judge these, because they minute one
of them mumbles nice-nice about amateur radio as the
team does it, they might allow them to post?

It's all in what is said and who says it. Never EVER
be forceful in defending your position here, Mark. The
mear hint of it going against the establishment of olde-
tyme hams will get you labeled with "(mis)conduct."

Ptui.

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:07 pm

writes:
Paul W. Schleck wrote on Sat, Sep 30 2006 7:23 am
writes:


Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than enough basis for your
peers to judge.
"Peers?" :-)
I have only a Commercial radio operator license, not an
amateur radio one. I've been involved and experienced in
radio communications since 1953. There are about three
quarter million US amateur radio licenses granted but
there are about 300 million US citizens. I am in the
latter group. How can you say "my peers?"

I chose the word "peers" very carefully and deliberately here. I
anticipated that you would want to define who your "peers" are, and that
they would not be us.

Tsk, I don't think so. Despite alluding to prescient powers,
you could not possibly know what I was about to write. :-)

Who you mean by "us," white man? I've been a moderator on
more than one public discussion board on each of three BBSs.
When you say "us" then you cannot restrict that to the
"moderating team" to be. I was doing moderating successfully
before this newsgroup came into being. You really don't want
to know that, I can tell.

As I noted previously, "Your very public (mis)conduct here is more than
enough evidence for your peers to judge," regardless of who you define
your "peers" to be.

Your definition of "peers" seem to be solely the "moderating
team" and any olde-tymers in US amateur radio who've passed
the 20 WPM code test. I will NEVER fit into THAT peer group.
:-) guffaw, not just a little smiley

Neither will I fit any "peer group" that self-righteously
maintains the OLD standards and practices, pretending to be
professionals in an amateur activity. 'Maintenance' of the
old allegedly on 'traditional' rationalizations but really
meaning Their personal preferences which they attempt to
force on all others.

I will not fit into any "peer group" of inflated egos with
pretentious titles-rank-priveleges by which They imagine
are some kind of uberamateur and great radio guru...
especially those titles-rank-privileges which were lobbied
for by even earlier pretentious amateurs wanting to be
"professional amateurs."

I will not fit into any bigoted group that makes fun of
and insults any other radio service in the USA...just
because they don't follow some "amateur way."

I will not fit into any "peer group" of non-serving elites
who don't understand that real service to their country is
not by having a radio hobby...it means owning up to some
maturity and, when necessary, putting their LIFE on the
line. Voluntarily, but have accepted draftees who also
served.

I DO fit into a peer group that has an interest in radio
and electronics but doesn't need the emotional blanket of
rank-status-title to justify it. I not only FIT that but
have long worked in that environment...my career of choice
as I've explained in here. I've had NO problems getting
along with THAT peer group for a half century. But, in
this newsgroup best described as a Din of Inequity, some
deem themselves "boss" and demand some kind of strict
obediance, indeed quasi-patriotism, to the status quo.
There's been verbal "combat" in here for years, by the
few of the hamatuer order faithfulling echoing (or
parroting) the words of a minority membership
organization. Some of us spoke back at those! How
terrible! We went against the Big Brother of America!


To repeat what I said previously, which should be clear enough to
everyone else on this newsgroup:

"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.

Did you think public discussion forum moderation is some kind
of "new" thing? It's been going on since the early 1970s,
even on the ARPANET-turned-Usenet as well as BBSs. Precedent
EXISTS, has existed for decades.

But, I can't tell you that, ey? Nope. You've tasted the
"power of control" and are a bit drunk on it. Understand.
Been there, done that, quit trying to drink that control
stuff quickly. That control liquor will bend your mind
faster than alcohol. You've got to do some steps to learn
sensitivity to what folks write in here, tune into their
intent, see what they "*really*" say. And, above all AVOID
GETTING INTO PUBLIC ****ING CONTENTS. That only makes you
(or any "team" member) one-sided, good for nothing else but
****ing in public. You are not "relieved" to know that but
that's the plain, simple fact.


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

Why tell ME, Paul. I can expect nothing but a permanent
block of anything I write in this moderated forum. shrug

You already give clear indication of such blockage. "In
spades" I might add. :-)


And if you think that these standards, if adopted, would be unfairly
applied only to you, you would be quite mistaken.

Blah, blah, blah. You've singled ME out. Many, many OTHERS
haven't even been mentioned, not even alluded to. I am as
good as shut out for the future.

Whatever happened to all those OTHERS in here? Is your
browser broken? Do your eyes glaze over when you see
those posts, make you unable to comprehend them?

Case in point: You've written about MY "(mis)conduct."
"misconduct" of WHAT? You've not posted any "conduct"
rules that MUST be followed. Yet you've tossed in that
"(mis)conduct" statement twice. What you've done is to
make me "guilty" of some law well before that law became
law! Haw!

The "moderating team" will MAKE the "laws" of this forum
whether or not they would be fair or unfair. One thing
I know for damn sure is that I won't be able to post.

You don't want those "guilty of misconduct (or "(mis)conduct")
you want those who make nice-nice to the elite of amateur
radio as she are known now. Absolutely NO ONE will be
allowed to remain for the slightest negative statement against
the olde-tyme establishment, especially those who fail to
respect, honor TITLES. No contentiousness of any kind!
The slightest hint of contentiousness will result in
banishment. Understood. I've seen that elsewhere. On
short-lived groupings who took the same path.

You're still not getting a "73" from me.

I could care less.

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 22:59:21 -0700, "
wrote:

wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 20:23:05 -0700, "
wrote:

From: on Wed, Sep 27 2006 5:53 pm

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Sep 26 2006 7:22 pm
wrote:
wrote:

Sigh...that CONSTANT "prove-it-by-dredging-up-an-old-post"
bull**** again. :-( Feigned outrage (of the pansy sort)
and "prove it" nonsense. AS IF nobody saw old postings in
here before...
it is always the Nocoders that must do the work somehow the procoder I
guess cazan't losing the abilty as they learn code perhaps?

Nah...that's just an old, old trick of J. Miccolis. He diverts
attention away from a challenge by another (and usually on
a different subject) to get the group focussing on some old,
old newsgripe argument. He does that deliberately.

he taught it to Steve and the rest fo Procoders

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP. Jimmie the M.
probably picked it up on the old (defunct) AOL discussion board
and saw it was useful for him as a misdirection. It's an old, old
trick and - surprisingly - works well with the uninitiated.


Do you even know what they are?

Jimmie Noserve never served. Not in the military, not in any
of his governments. He thinks of "the military" as G.I. Joe
dolls ("action figures") or as images of old war movies?

as expendable materail in any event

No doubt.

I do say that on rainy day like today is here it realy makes me regret
I put my life and health on the line for the nation

Welp, 2000 miles away from you the weather was nice down
here. Picked up new glasses from Sears Optical and passed
the Armed Forces Career Center just outside the Sears
entrance. Briefly had some nice words with the same Army
E-5 on duty that I did on Tuesday. :-)


What is demeaning about that?

What isn't demeaning about it?

Indeed!

Jimmie Noserve must be connected with aviation somehow...he is
on some higher plane. He is "better" than the rest of us.

Len you forgot his Code skills put him on a higher plane

...and without his parachute! :-)

they don't need hard enough heads you could most procoder from orbit
and they would survie byt beep in in their Code does get though your
know and the air would part and not let them burn up

Well then, let's get Heil to work with NASA. He wrote he "worked
with NASA" while in Vietnam. Maybe this time he can help them
with new nosecones or shuttle tiles? :-)


Good grief...this NO-serve individual just cannot stop trying
to rationalize he is "right" and therefore cannot be faulted!
Just the same, he never took that Oath to serve his country,
putting his life on that line, possibly harming his precious
body dedicated to morse code.

yea I can personal attest serving is dangerous even in peacetime

"We were expendable." :-)



Now of course it's clear that someone who is directly employed by the
government is not "a private person or company", so the word doesn't
really apply to anyone who gets a direct government paycheck.

You don't say.

I couldn't figure out what he said...or meant to say...

Oh, wait, here must be the meaning of his words: It is okay
to be a civilian government employee (such as that glorious
DX king from State, retired)...but NOT okay to wear the
uniform of a military branch of the USA, doing military
things and putting their LIVES on the line! Military
people are "subsidized" but those in the "foreign service"
are NOT!

Jim is simply on the slide to ending up like Robeson sad to say it
since he was managging better than than most of the ProCoders but it
looks we ought to ban CW to protect hams from the obviously damaging
effect of CW usage

Maybe "it's the water?" [like the Olympia Brewing Co. slogan]

maybe


Yes, that's about it. Heil is his "friend" and ostensible
"protector." Heil was a government employee at State. Heil
is a pro-coder amateur extra. It all fits now.

Anyone who is a pro-coder and served in the military is NOT
"subsidized" but all no-coders aren't worthy of any respect
from pro-coders, are always "subsidized," never do things on
their own, got ALL education from the government, and
probably have underarm odor.

and these people expect to be trusted to moderate a Ng involving the
code issue?

People like them. They all passed the code test. No sweat.

yea

Remember, Mark, they brooke NO contentiousness!

except from themselves hypocrites but again the NG is dead even if
they get it lanched with attides

RRAP is dead for any real discussion. Pro-coders won't allow it.
That's IT in a nutshell. Pro-coders want to stop all discussion.
It is obvious to any disinterested observer. Problem is the
"moderating team" (well, one anyway) wants to be in the public
engaging in a ****ing contest. Ah, but with just ONE, me. :-)

The hypocrisy will be proven later, after the "moderation" starts.



But, it is "okay" whatever Jimmie Noserve says. If you
don't like it he will keep on keep on keep on rationalizing
whatever he said is "correct" until everyone gives in just
to keep him quiet. :-(

pity for all of us he does not read the ng more hed learn at least One
us will not do that

I have to just ignore him. If I don't, I'm liable to be accused of
"(mis)conduct" and other high crimes against the State. :-)

well Clinton survived impeachment and even profitted from it

As far as I saw, Bill Clinton NEVER had to face the elite
"moderating
team" of RRAP! :-)

Convinced Again
 

Yet again the gaseous bageous Exalted One takes it upon himself to hold
Court where none is necessary.
Len, you are quickly becoming a simple, smarmy to-be-ignored buffoon much
like your lone Peanut Gallery follower aka Mark Morgan.

And Len? Yes, I am one of those dreaded "Coders" you love to malign, though
I pose no stance on code or no code.
Tsk...What say you, Exalted One?

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 1 2006 8:57 am

wrote:

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP.

Who?

"If you don't know that information, all of your
latest diatribe is rather pointless."


As always, may you bask forever in the warm glow
of ByteBrohters famous phrase...

Convinced Again
 

wrote:

Jimmie the M.
probably picked it up on the old (defunct) AOL discussion board
and saw it was useful for him as a misdirection.

Len,

Who is "Jimmie the M."?

It can't be me, because I've never been involved in "AOLl discussion
boards" (whatever those are).

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:34:05 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 1 2006 8:57 am

wrote:

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP.
Who?

"If you don't know that information, all of your
latest diatribe is rather pointless."

There's no one called "Robeswine" posting here.

an obviosus lie Dave

Mark, he's already been told who it is...a USMC veteran IMPOSTER
but one who is an amateur extra morseman...ergo, that's okay.

Heil just doesn't get it when his own sentence is quoted back to
him in response. :-)

Miccolis has to get into the act claiming he was "never on any
'AOLI' [sic] discussion boards." As a matter of fact he WAS
and we even exchanged some posts there when AOL (I did
not write 'AOLI') had many discussion boards, one of which
was about amateur radio.

Since AOL took down all those boards, Miccolis can claim
there were never any such things and he never posted on them.
Cute! I can't prove a thing NOW. Even if I had saved some of
those postings (sounding for all the world like parroting of the
ARRL's pet phrases), he can still DENY it! :-)

AOL also took down the software browser capability to
directly exchange messages with Usenet at the same time.
No doubt some of them must have looked like this newsgripe
does now. :-)

It's something like what the robeswine has done for YEARS in
here, insulting anyone who disagrees with him (even in the
slightest way), charging that they are homosexual, pedophiles,
aren't patriotic, wanting to talk to wives, even to insulting
educational institutions. The robeswine goes so far as to
pull off a "1984" Orwellian RE-DEFINITION of truth and lies
wherein he always tells the "truth" but those disagreeing with
him always "lie." Perverse.

That seems to be okay by Paul Schleck. We can't use the
claim that "he did it first." He did but we can't claim it under
some rough draft of moderated newsgroup "regulations" to-be.
Where has Paul been hiding, I wonder? He never saw those
posts that went on for years?

Convinced Again
 

wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:34:05 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 1 2006 8:57 am

wrote:

The robeswine picked it up thinking it was SOP.
Who?

"If you don't know that information, all of your
latest diatribe is rather pointless."

There's no one called "Robeswine" posting here.

an obviosus lie Dave

Mark, he's already been told who it is...a USMC veteran IMPOSTER
but one who is an amateur extra morseman...ergo, that's okay.
indeed Steve still lies and and lies but he is an extra

I am shocked that this does not apply to Wismen a code tested extra
too but only he may chastise him

Heil just doesn't get it when his own sentence is quoted back to
him in response. :-)

oh he gets it but he insists that he doesn't see it

Miccolis has to get into the act claiming he was "never on any
'AOLI' [sic] discussion boards." As a matter of fact he WAS
and we even exchanged some posts there when AOL (I did
not write 'AOLI') had many discussion boards, one of which
was about amateur radio.

it is a comon SoP

Since AOL took down all those boards, Miccolis can claim
there were never any such things and he never posted on them.
Cute! I can't prove a thing NOW. Even if I had saved some of
those postings (sounding for all the world like parroting of the
ARRL's pet phrases), he can still DENY it! :-)

AOL also took down the software browser capability to
directly exchange messages with Usenet at the same time.
No doubt some of them must have looked like this newsgripe
does now. :-)

It's something like what the robeswine has done for YEARS in
here, insulting anyone who disagrees with him (even in the
slightest way), charging that they are homosexual, pedophiles,
aren't patriotic, wanting to talk to wives, even to insulting
educational institutions. The robeswine goes so far as to
pull off a "1984" Orwellian RE-DEFINITION of truth and lies
wherein he always tells the "truth" but those disagreeing with
him always "lie." Perverse.

indeed he is still claiming to conta ct with cop aleegd to be
investagatingm my aleged child molesting the ccop ihas been guest of
the Governovr for the last 2 years (roughly) and finaly accepted a plea
deal for child rape himself (the deal has him serves his time with club
fed to avoid him being shived again by former vitums of police
misconduct)

That seems to be okay by Paul Schleck. We can't use the
claim that "he did it first." He did but we can't claim it under
some rough draft of moderated newsgroup "regulations" to-be.
Where has Paul been hiding, I wonder? He never saw those
posts that went on for years?

it is called willfull blindness rather like many german in say the 30's
and 40's

Convinced Again
 

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:34:05 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 1 2006 8:57 am

wrote:


it is called willfull blindness rather like many german in say the 30's
and 40's

Stay tuned, Mark, "krystallnacht" is right around the corner.

There are SA brownshirts among us now.

Convinced Again
 

wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:34:05 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Oct 1 2006 8:57 am

wrote:


it is called willfull blindness rather like many german in say the 30's
and 40's

Stay tuned, Mark, "krystallnacht" is right around the corner.
nothing would please me more than to call you a liar on that one not
even the long awaited R&O


There are SA brownshirts among us now.

and the NAZI's are the best of them it was been a self apoointed job to
learn just sickos are out there

the nbest one line analysis I can give of that reasearch is to point
out I live in NW nowhere and have aquired in the last few years
Firearms

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Mark, he's already been told who it is...a USMC veteran IMPOSTER
but one who is an amateur extra morseman...ergo, that's okay.

Do you mean "Robeson"?
yes jim

Why do you say "imposter"?
well what else do you call someone that fakes their background

You claim to know who served and who didn't. Isn't he in the database?
he is no data base that I can find

"Guts"
 

wrote:

As always, may you bask forever in the warm glow
of ByteBrohters famous phrase...

Gee, Len - don't you have the "guts" to say what the phrase is?

Convinced Again
 

From: an old friend on Sun, Oct 1 2006 1:57 pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Mark, he's already been told who it is...a USMC veteran IMPOSTER
but one who is an amateur extra morseman...ergo, that's okay.

Do you mean "Robeson"?

yes jim

Who is "Robeson?"

Who is "Jim?"


Why do you say "imposter"?

well what else do you call someone that fakes their background

Maybe this "Jim" (whoever that is) meant "imp poster?" :-)

The Imposter has NEVER made available a single document for
anyone to view, hasn't even shown a snapshot of himself
from that claimed "18-year USMC career." In EIGHTEEN years
he has NO evidence? Bull****. He is a FAKE...or the
circumstances of his not making a "full 20" are so damn
embarrassing to him that he can't post them in public.

You claim to know who served and who didn't. Isn't he in the database?

he is no data base that I can find

This "Jim" (whoever that is) laid a small word trap there.
He carefully did NOT specify WHICH database. The Imposter
IS in the FCC database, thus will appear in the QRZ data-
base. This "Jim" (whoever that is) will then begin a big
argument over databases, possibly spinning off a whole new
thread...ignoring the original military Imposter subject.

This "Jim" has NEVER served in any military branch. He
may think the "database" (of those in the military) is
some freely accessible database somewhere on the Internet.
It is NOT. For those actively serving NOW it is available
via the DSN (through the Internet) but ONLY to those with
clearance to access that information.

For military veteran information, one goes to NARA
(National Archives and Records Administration) St. Louis
Missouri, NMPRC (National Military Personnel Records
Center) there. One MUST supply the veteran's
personal identity (besides the name) such as a Social
Security Number and/or military branch serial number
if that was used during the term of service. But that
can gain access ONLY if the requestor is identifiable
family/kin or a previously-identified Human Resources
department or investigative organization (police
departments, FBI, etc.). The VA (Veterans
Administration) has to go that route also. There is
NO WAY that any government agency is going to realease
information on anyone 'casually' from a simple phone
call to the VA. This FAKE takes advantage of that in
his bluffing in here ("call the VA" repeated often).

Let's take another example of the FAKE's bluffing.
The CAP (Civil Air Patrol) flies CIVILIAN-registry
aircraft. In ALL air traffic communications around
the world (that includes airport towers) ALL inbound
and outbound aircraft communicate in English to air
traffic controllers and identify themselves by the
aircraft registry number. In the USA that is an "N"
prefix followed by numerals with a one- or two-letter
suffix. In the USA it is common to use the last two
numerals and suffix in IDs with local towers. The
"CAP radio callsign" is NOT used for that. The FAKE
has glossed over any mention of the aircraft that he
supposedly flies (as "pilot in command") or its ATC
ID. Civil Aviation radio band is used (118 to
137 MHz, always voice). Use that two-number plus
suffix a few times in tower-controlled takeoffs and
landings and it is hard to forget. [I still remember
"two-one-whiskey" (21W) for the Cessna 150 I used in
some flight lessons 43 years ago at VNY] Ergo, this
supposed "major" isn't involved in actual flying per
se, just using some common phrases tossed out AS IF
he were a real pilot. He may not have any "major"
rank at all. His QRZ bio shows a picture of him in
a flight suit with captain's bars, clothing that can
be bought surplus at an "Army-Navy Store" by anyone
with money to buy it. Insignia and medals, ribbons
are available for sale at many more venues.

In a series of postings in here, Frank Silliland asked
some pointed, detailed USMC questions of our fake. Fake
could NOT answer them correctly. In a shorter series
of messages with Hans Brakob, the fake screwed up his
responses on military cryptographic equipment and
procedures, including familiar names of equipment and
methods. Hans was a Master Chief PO in charge of
crypto during his active duty time. In an earlier tell-
tale sign of bluffing fakery, the Fake could not name
a single item of military radio equipment used over his
supposed 18-year career term, radios that would be
common to non-radio-specialist military personnel use.
Already a licensed radio amateur and he could NOT
remember either the nomenclature or familiar name of a
piece of radio equipment?!? Inconceivable! The Fake
countered with the usual fake's rationalization: it
was 'classified' and he 'couldn't reveal it!" Bull****.
The nomenclatures of military radio equipment is KNOWN
and the familiar names are familiar, not some 'secret.'
Nomenclatures, even for cryptographic equipment, are in
public display for RFBs of contracts by civilian firms
at the Government Accounting Office and all government
agencies offering contracts. The Fake doesn't know a
"Plugger" from a "Prick-twenty-five" yet both were
operational during his supposed 18-year active duty
time.

So, this "Jim" (whoever that is) wants a "database" with
this amateur extra morseman's name on it? Now he knows
were to look: St. Louis, MO. [www.nara.gov] Good luck
to his little "subsidizing soul" as a taxpayer, taxes
withheld from his paycheck by an unknown employer. On
the non-database information this "Jim" doesn't know
squat and should keep his nose out of conversations of
REAL veterans about REAL radio. Ptui.

Shalom,

Convinced Again
 

From: an old friend on Sun, Oct 1 2006 1:57 pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Mark, he's already been told who it is...a USMC veteran IMPOSTER
but one who is an amateur extra morseman...ergo, that's okay.

Do you mean "Robeson"?

yes jim

Who is "Robeson?"

Who is "Jim?"

Why do you say "imposter"?

well what else do you call someone that fakes their background

Maybe this "Jim" (whoever that is) meant "imp poster?" :-)

The Imposter has NEVER made available a single document for
anyone to view, hasn't even shown a snapshot of himself
from that claimed "18-year USMC career." In EIGHTEEN years
he has NO evidence? Bull****. He is a FAKE...or the
circumstances of his not making a "full 20" are so damn
embarrassing to him that he can't post them in public.

You claim to know who served and who didn't. Isn't he in the database?

he is no data base that I can find

This "Jim" (whoever that is) laid a small word trap there.
He carefully did NOT specify WHICH database. The Imposter
IS in the FCC database, thus will appear in the QRZ data-
base. This "Jim" (whoever that is) will then begin a big
argument over databases, possibly spinning off a whole new
thread...ignoring the original military Imposter subject.

This "Jim" has NEVER served in any military branch. He
may think the "database" (of those in the military) is
some freely accessible database somewhere on the Internet.
It is NOT. For those actively serving NOW it is available
via the DSN (through the Internet) but ONLY to those with
clearance to access that information.

For military veteran information, one goes to NARA
(National Archives and Records Administration) St. Louis
Missouri, NMPRC (National Military Personnel Records
Center) there. One MUST supply the veteran's
personal identity (besides the name) such as a Social
Security Number and/or military branch serial number
if that was used during the term of service. But that
can gain access ONLY if the requestor is identifiable
family/kin or a previously-identified Human Resources
department or investigative organization (police
departments, FBI, etc.). The VA (Veterans
Administration) has to go that route also. There is
NO WAY that any government agency is going to realease
information on anyone 'casually' from a simple phone
call to the VA. This FAKE takes advantage of that in
his bluffing in here ("call the VA" repeated often).

Let's take another example of the FAKE's bluffing.
The CAP (Civil Air Patrol) flies CIVILIAN-registry
aircraft. In ALL air traffic communications around
the world (that includes airport towers) ALL inbound
and outbound aircraft communicate in English to air
traffic controllers and identify themselves by the
aircraft registry number. In the USA that is an "N"
prefix followed by numerals with a one- or two-letter
suffix. In the USA it is common to use the last two
numerals and suffix in IDs with local towers. The
"CAP radio callsign" is NOT used for that. The FAKE
has glossed over any mention of the aircraft that he
supposedly flies (as "pilot in command") or its ATC
ID. Civil Aviation radio band is used (118 to
137 MHz, always voice). Use that two-number plus
suffix a few times in tower-controlled takeoffs and
landings and it is hard to forget. [I still remember
"two-one-whiskey" (21W) for the Cessna 150 I used in
some flight lessons 43 years ago at VNY] Ergo, this
supposed "major" isn't involved in actual flying per
se, just using some common phrases tossed out AS IF
he were a real pilot. He may not have any "major"
rank at all. His QRZ bio shows a picture of him in
a flight suit with captain's bars, clothing that can
be bought surplus at an "Army-Navy Store" by anyone
with money to buy it. Insignia and medals, ribbons
are available for sale at many more venues.

In a series of postings in here, Frank Gilliland asked
some pointed, detailed USMC questions of our fake. Fake
could NOT answer them correctly. In a shorter series
of messages with Hans Brakob, the fake screwed up his
responses on military cryptographic equipment and
procedures, including familiar names of equipment and
methods. Hans was a Master Chief PO in charge of
crypto during his active duty time. In an earlier tell-
tale sign of bluffing fakery, the Fake could not name
a single item of military radio equipment used over his
supposed 18-year career term, radios that would be
common to non-radio-specialist military personnel use.
Already a licensed radio amateur and he could NOT
remember either the nomenclature or familiar name of a
piece of radio equipment?!? Inconceivable! The Fake
countered with the usual fake's rationalization: it
was 'classified' and he 'couldn't reveal it!" Bull****.
The nomenclatures of military radio equipment is KNOWN
and the familiar names are familiar, not some 'secret.'
Nomenclatures, even for cryptographic equipment, are in
public display for RFBs of contracts by civilian firms
at the Government Accounting Office and all government
agencies offering contracts. The Fake doesn't know a
"Plugger" from a "Prick-twenty-five" yet both were
operational during his supposed 18-year active duty
time.

So, this "Jim" (whoever that is) wants a "database" with
this amateur extra morseman's name on it? Now he knows
were to look: St. Louis, MO. [www.nara.gov] Good luck
to his little "subsidizing soul" as a taxpayer, taxes
withheld from his paycheck by an unknown employer. On
the non-database information this "Jim" doesn't know
squat and should keep his nose out of conversations of
REAL veterans about REAL radio. Ptui.

Shalom,

Convinced Again
 

On 2 Oct 2006 06:34:25 -0700, Secwet Woger wrote:
:
: Says the lying hypocrite who posts as Stagger Lee.

No, *I* post as Stagger Lee. You know me: I'm the Admin of NIM
Busters. I'm the one who keeps removing all of your posts from the
main board and putting them over into the lounge.

Smile: You're on Candid Camera!



=====(sig)=====
"KC8JBO is an idiot in my opinion." -- Stephen K. Gielda, owner of
COTSE, in message

"Now, now, after I feeling sorry for you after reading your 'what it's
like behind the scenes at COTSE' you insult one of your users.
Not very prudent. I guess it shows what you're really all about. You
claim to protect freedom of speech." -- Roger Wiseman's response to
Gielda's statement

Convinced Again
 

Roger Wiseman AB8MQ, posing as " wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Sat, Sep 30 2006 6:11 am

writes:

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)

Says the lying hypocrite who posts as Stagger Lee.

I've told you repeatedly, UnWiseman, that I post as no one but myself.
I never have; I never will. You seem a little confused on the topic
since you made mention of a Houston ISP. I don't have a Houston ISP and
I don't live in Houston. I live right here in the same country as
little demented you.

That aside, you are the poster of filth. Your stream of consciousness
ramblings about people having sex with their parents, their children,
with animals, with those of the same gender take us on a disgusting
visit to Roger World. You're a piece of detritus, a chunk of human garbage.

and he has been a
problem child in amateur radio.

Learn to read, asshole.

I've been able to read for over fifty-one years. I've read that you
have received a couple of missives from your old pal Mr. Hollingsworth
and that you were ordered to retest. This all comes in the short period
in which you've held an amateur radio license. I also know that one
additional strike would likely do you in.

I've read your comments about the owner of Ohio Valley Internet Service
and I saw how quickly you were cut loose. That has happened to a number
of your service providers. It is the reason that you need to hide
behind the various sock puppets.

His behavior and Mark Morgan's Myna
bird replies don't excuse your behavior.

Then what is your excuse? sarcasmOh, that's right you are the "Super
ham!" /sarcasm

Read my posts, Roger. I neither flood newsgroups nor post filth. If
you want to call that being a super ham, fine. I will point out that
this isn't amateur radio. This is usenet.

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.

Then why are you attempting to do so?

I'm not, Roger. I'd like to see this newsgroup so clean that decent
people can read it without wading through your disturbed thoughts.
You're a sociopath and you don't know how civilized human beings act.
You need to be in a rubber room with no radio equipment and no internet
access until a cure can be found for your mental illness.

Dave K8MN

Convinced Again
 

Convinced Again
 

wrote:
From: an old friend on Sun, Oct 1 2006 1:57 pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Mark, he's already been told who it is...a USMC veteran IMPOSTER
but one who is an amateur extra morseman...ergo, that's okay.

Do you mean "Robeson"?

yes jim

Who is "Robeson?"

Don't you know who you are talking about, Len?

Who is "Jim?"

There have been at least three people with that first name who posted
here regularly. They are easily told apart by their FCC-assigned
amateur radio call letters:

Jim KH2D

Jim WA4STJ

Jim N2EY

Only the last still posts here - occasionally..

Why do you say "imposter"?

well what else do you call someone that fakes their background

Maybe this "Jim" (whoever that is) meant "imp poster?" :-)

"Imposter".

The Imposter has NEVER made available a single document for
anyone to view, hasn't even shown a snapshot of himself
from that claimed "18-year USMC career."

RRAP doesn't accept documents or snapshots, Len. Just text.

You say this person "has NEVER made available a single document for
anyone to view, hasn't even shown a snapshot of himself"

Don't you really mean that he has never sent any of those things to
*you*?
He could have sent them to other people, without you being aware of it.

The fact that *you* have never seen something does not mean it does not
exist.

In EIGHTEEN years
he has NO evidence?

Don't you really mean that he has never sent evidence to *you*?
He could have lots of evidence - and simply kept it from you.

Bull****. He is a FAKE...or the
circumstances of his not making a "full 20" are so damn
embarrassing to him that he can't post them in public.

That's certainly one possibility. But it's not the only one.

For example:

He may have left the military as part of one of those 'early out'
programs that existed before September 2001. Or he may have left due to
family hardship, health problems, planned reduction-in-force, etc.

Not everyone who leaves after 18 years is embarrassed by the
circumstances.

But that's not the point, really. The fact that you have not seen the
evidence you demand isn't proof someone is a fake or imposter.

You claim to know who served and who didn't. Isn't he in the database?

he is no data base that I can find

This "Jim" (whoever that is) laid a small word trap there.
He carefully did NOT specify WHICH database.

A database that lists military personnel - that's obvious.

The Imposter
IS in the FCC database, thus will appear in the QRZ data-
base.

And you will not!

This "Jim" (whoever that is) will then begin a big
argument over databases, possibly spinning off a whole new
thread...ignoring the original military Imposter subject.

This "Jim" has NEVER served in any military branch.

How do you know for sure?

He
may think the "database" (of those in the military) is
some freely accessible database somewhere on the Internet.
It is NOT. For those actively serving NOW it is available
via the DSN (through the Internet) but ONLY to those with
clearance to access that information.

For military veteran information, one goes to NARA
(National Archives and Records Administration) St. Louis
Missouri, NMPRC (National Military Personnel Records
Center) there. One MUST supply the veteran's
personal identity (besides the name) such as a Social
Security Number and/or military branch serial number
if that was used during the term of service. But that
can gain access ONLY if the requestor is identifiable
family/kin or a previously-identified Human Resources
department or investigative organization (police
departments, FBI, etc.). The VA (Veterans
Administration) has to go that route also. There is
NO WAY that any government agency is going to realease
information on anyone 'casually' from a simple phone
call to the VA.

So what your saying is that *you* really *don't* know who has served
and who has not. You don't have access to that information in the
official Government databases.

IOW, you're just guessing who served in the US military and who didn't.


This FAKE takes advantage of that in
his bluffing in here ("call the VA" repeated often).

Have you called the VA?

Let's take another example of the FAKE's bluffing.
The CAP (Civil Air Patrol) flies CIVILIAN-registry
aircraft.

Hence the name.

In ALL air traffic communications around
the world (that includes airport towers) ALL inbound
and outbound aircraft communicate in English to air
traffic controllers and identify themselves by the
aircraft registry number. In the USA that is an "N"
prefix followed by numerals with a one- or two-letter
suffix.

Like "N2EY" - there's actually a registered aircraft with that tail
number....

In the USA it is common to use the last two
numerals and suffix in IDs with local towers. The
"CAP radio callsign" is NOT used for that. The FAKE
has glossed over any mention of the aircraft that he
supposedly flies (as "pilot in command") or its ATC
ID.

So? What does that prove? Do you need every detail?

Civil Aviation radio band is used (118 to
137 MHz, always voice). Use that two-number plus
suffix a few times in tower-controlled takeoffs and
landings and it is hard to forget. [I still remember
"two-one-whiskey" (21W) for the Cessna 150 I used in
some flight lessons 43 years ago at VNY]

But you don't remember *everything* from then, do you?

Ergo, this
supposed "major" isn't involved in actual flying per
se, just using some common phrases tossed out AS IF
he were a real pilot.

Maybe.

Or maybe he just didn't go into a lot of detail.

The point is, you don't know for sure.

He may not have any "major"
rank at all. His QRZ bio shows a picture of him in
a flight suit with captain's bars, clothing that can
be bought surplus at an "Army-Navy Store" by anyone
with money to buy it. Insignia and medals, ribbons
are available for sale at many more venues.

Of course. That's a possibility.

Or they could be real - the flight suit, the insignia, the medals, etc.
They could all be real, couldn't they? You don't *really* know.....

By the same token, many documents can be faked using commonly-available
digital software. For example, someone could produce a fake DD-214 if
they had access to scan of a genuine one and the right software,
hardware, and skill.

Such a fake might not fool someone who saw the actual document and knew
what a real one was like. But for a scan, it could be very convincing.

And faking such a document is, I think, a serious Federal crime.
Passing it off as genuine is, I think, another Federal crime.

In a series of postings in here, Frank Gilliland asked
some pointed, detailed USMC questions of our fake. Fake
could NOT answer them correctly. In a shorter series
of messages with Hans Brakob,

You mean K0HB?

The person you referred to as "Herr Breakup"?

the fake screwed up his
responses on military cryptographic equipment and
procedures, including familiar names of equipment and
methods. Hans was a Master Chief PO in charge of
crypto during his active duty time.

Were the two of them in the military in the same time periods?

In an earlier tell-
tale sign of bluffing fakery, the Fake could not name
a single item of military radio equipment used over his
supposed 18-year career term, radios that would be
common to non-radio-specialist military personnel use.
Already a licensed radio amateur and he could NOT
remember either the nomenclature or familiar name of a
piece of radio equipment?!? Inconceivable! The Fake
countered with the usual fake's rationalization: it
was 'classified' and he 'couldn't reveal it!" Bull****.
The nomenclatures of military radio equipment is KNOWN
and the familiar names are familiar, not some 'secret.'
Nomenclatures, even for cryptographic equipment, are in
public display for RFBs of contracts by civilian firms
at the Government Accounting Office and all government
agencies offering contracts. The Fake doesn't know a
"Plugger" from a "Prick-twenty-five" yet both were
operational during his supposed 18-year active duty
time.

Well, that's one explanation.

Here's another: Perhaps he forgot. Perhaps he's leading you on.

Perhaps he made a mistake.

For example, I recall someone who says they were stationed in Japan in
the early 1950s. This person understated the distance from the USSR to
Japan by more than 20%. He also made reference to "Bear bombers" even
though that particular Soviet aircraft did not enter service until
after he had left Japan.

All sorts of people make mistakes, forget things, and remember things
that never were. I think you sometimes confuse me with other people.

So, this "Jim" (whoever that is) wants a "database" with
this amateur extra morseman's name on it? Now he knows
were to look: St. Louis, MO. [www.nara.gov] Good luck
to his little "subsidizing soul" as a taxpayer, taxes
withheld from his paycheck by an unknown employer.

IOW, *you* couldn't access the information. Yet you claim to know who
served and who didn't. You claim to know who is an imposter and who is
for-real.

But, in fact, you're just guessing.

On
the non-database information this "Jim" doesn't know
squat and should keep his nose out of conversations of
REAL veterans about REAL radio. Ptui.

Len, do you think that only veterans can discuss radio?

You want to discuss amateur radio policy, even though you are not a
radio amateur nor an FCC employee nor a professional policymaker. But
when someone you say "never served" speaks up on what you consider a
military matter, you want them silenced - even if they are right and
you are mistaken.

I'm convinced.