RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Gerritsen Sentenced (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/104884-gerritsen-sentenced.html)

[email protected] September 20th 06 12:57 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
Seven years in prison, plus fines.

http://www.qrz.com

(top two stories)

More detail at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1


nwx September 20th 06 03:21 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
Seven years in prison, plus fines.




WHO CARES? beside you.










K4YZ September 20th 06 09:42 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced Toiddie...Are You Paying Attention...?!?!?
 

wrote:
Seven years in prison, plus fines.

http://www.qrz.com

(top two stories)

More detail at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????

Steve, K4YZ


Paul W. Schleck September 20th 06 07:23 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
In writes:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" wrote:



wrote in message
roups.com...
Seven years in prison, plus fines.




WHO CARES? beside you.

well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of
the posting lately
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations,
including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup?

I fear that it may just feed the trolls, as well as open myself up to
further retaliatory forgeries, to spell out the obvious, but here
goes...

With respect to the previous question about "Who cares?" I, and many
others, care about protecting public resources like radio spectrum. I,
and many others, are greatly concerned that public safety officials and
auxiliary volunteers are able to do their jobs, and make use of vital
tools like communications equipment, without interference. The
individual being sentenced was a persistent, serious, repeat offender
who targeted both amateur and professional radio frequencies, likely
with a drug or alcohol problem considering the judge's order for him to
enter rehab. Taking a radio microphone out of his hands for at least
another 7 years should be good news to any serious, law-abiding, radio
amateur, as well as any other concerned citizen.

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key



Herb September 20th 06 08:03 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

"Paul W. Schleck" Whined & Cried in a message:

Since when is discussion of amateur radio

///psycho-babble flushed////


Get a Life Schleck!







Herb September 20th 06 08:42 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
awful thin skin Paul.



Paul W. Schleck September 21st 06 12:14 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
In "Herb" writes:

The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
awful thin skin Paul.


Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
just the trolls, seemed appropriate.

I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.

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. Nor does he need to be a
clone of me.

(I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.)

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key






Herb September 21st 06 12:33 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...

Since when is politely stating an obvious,

//drivel snipped//


Your problem is obvious & easily solved. Bend over, firmly
grasp your shoulders, pull firmly until a loud "pop" sound is
heard, now stand up straight, your problem is repaired.
It was obvious to everyone else but you that your head was
stuck up your ass.





Herb September 21st 06 12:37 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
See Paul, now that you've pulled your head out of your ass,
even Mark thinks you are doing a good job!
Atta Boy Paul!




wrote in message
...
awful thin skin 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. Nor does he need to be a
clone of me.


well given Dave Heil support of exclusionary tacti c in the NG that
was not a good admssion to make

(I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.)

http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/





Slow Code September 21st 06 02:51 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
Paul W. Schleck wrote in
:

In writes:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" wrote:



wrote in message
groups.com...
Seven years in prison, plus fines.



WHO CARES? beside you.

well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of
the posting lately
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations,
including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup?




Paul,
Ignore Mark Morgan, he ain't playing with a full deck.

It's not off-topic for any radio group. I'm hoping to make this group
respectable again, and you can help. If K3LT would would come back and
other past RRAP CW supporters, we can kick out the anti-CW Homophiles
like Woger, Mark & Lloyd, and make this group respectable again. I'd even
get rid of SC and start using my callsign here again once the trash is
taken out.

73 de Slow Code

Keep up the good work.




Slow Code September 21st 06 02:51 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced Toiddie...Are You Paying Attention...?!?!?
 
"K4YZ" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
Seven years in prison, plus fines.

http://www.qrz.com

(top two stories)

More detail at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??????

Steve, K4YZ




I didn't hear Omega One today.

Either the band is bad or Todd got a Pink-slip and cut power.

SC

Dave Heil September 21st 06 03:55 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In "Herb" writes:

The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
awful thin skin Paul.


Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
just the trolls, seemed appropriate.

I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me. Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.

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. Nor does he need to be a
clone of me.

(I would hope that Dave Heil would agree with me on this.)

--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU


....and I do agree with you. The more rational people we have posting in
this newsgroup, the better it is and the more irrelevant those mentally
unstable types become.

Dave K8MN

an_old_friend September 21st 06 05:42 AM

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
 

Slow Code wrote:

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names
like Slow Code


[email protected] September 21st 06 08:20 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
From: Paul W. Schleck on Wed, Sep 20 2006 3:14 pm


In "Herb" writes:

The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
awful thin skin Paul.


Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug

One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
years.


Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
just the trolls, seemed appropriate.


That is remarkable naivete!

Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
here. You should KNOW that by now.

I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me.


It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.


"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"

Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"

The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.


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.


Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
poor choice of words...


Nor does he need to be a clone of me.


Now THAT is ripe for discussion! [but, I digress...]


Paul, face the cold, hard, cruel facts. This newsgroup has
lost its purpose and meaning. Years ago. It's time to face
the facts that it needs to be dissolved. Or perhaps to be
shut down for an indefinite period.





[email protected] September 21st 06 01:32 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
Paul W. Schleck wrote:

With respect to the previous question about "Who cares?" I, and many
others, care about protecting public resources like radio spectrum. I,
and many others, are greatly concerned that public safety officials and
auxiliary volunteers are able to do their jobs, and make use of vital
tools like communications equipment, without interference.


I'm one of those concerned others.

The
individual being sentenced was a persistent, serious, repeat offender
who targeted both amateur and professional radio frequencies, likely
with a drug or alcohol problem considering the judge's order for him to
enter rehab. Taking a radio microphone out of his hands for at least
another 7 years should be good news to any serious, law-abiding, radio
amateur, as well as any other concerned citizen.

To me it's a mixed bag...

It's definitely good news that such an offender has been taken off the
air and received serious penalties.

But it's less-than-good news that it took so long for it to happen. The
deliberate and malicious interference to amateurs was going on for
*years*, and was extensively documented and reported. The interference
to other radio services was, IMO, the last straw - but even those
incidents weren't recent. Perhaps the FCC and law enforcement proceeded
as slowly and carefully as they did in order to build an absolutely
air-tight case, with stiff penalties and a clear precedent. I hope that
is the case.

It's also less-than-good news that the offender was a licensed radio
amateur. While *we* all know that he's a rare case, and that the
efforts of other radio amateurs were a big part of getting him
convicted, the general image to the public may be less clear. We need
good publicity for amateur radio, not 'Radio Ham Runs Amok On The Air,
Interferes With Army and Police' headlines. (not an actual headline,
but you see the point).

How do we deal with similar cases in the future?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Not Cocksucker Lloyd September 21st 06 02:16 PM

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
 

an_old_friendless faggot wrote:
Slow Code wrote:

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names
like Slow Code


**** off, faggot!

Marky confirms he married a shemale in
.com:
"posted you can prove it for yourself anytime you can catch him at
home"

Mark Morgan replied "yes I did. your point?" when confessing publicly
to having been sodomized in
. com.


xray September 21st 06 02:34 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
Ham radio operators fancy themselves as playing some
important role in some undefined national picture......
get real, ham radio is waaaaaaay past its prime, and its
ranks consist of heavy-set old white men who dream
of yesteryear. Haaaayooooo Silver....awaaaaay
Tonto......the Lone Ranger rides again.......straight out of
the 50s, when ham radio was on the cutting edge.
LOL











Paul W. Schleck September 21st 06 07:21 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
In . com " writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Wed, Sep 20 2006 3:14 pm



In "Herb" writes:

The sociopaths have run rrap, starting when Roger
showed up. If you take anything serious here, you need
to change your way of thinking. Roger changes things.
Wherever he shows up on the net, the parade of societal
misfits is not far behind him. If you want a near perfect
model of how to deal with the fruits & nuts here, you have
no furter to look than Dave Heil. Anyone who is a regular
reader here knows the depraved filth that Roger has hurled
at Dave Heil & his xyl. Watch how Dave responds, that is
when he choses to respond to Roger. Better yet, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and turn off rrap.
No one should let the crap here get to you, especially
vanilla comments like "who cares." You must have an
awful thin skin Paul.


Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug


You're really torturing my words into a misquote here. What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.

My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.

One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
years.


I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you.

Since when is politely stating an obvious, face-value, and factual
rebuttal considered having an "awful thin skin?" I had an opinion on
the subject, intended mostly as an amplification of N2EY's comments, and
chose to express it. Addressing my comments to a wider audience, not
just the trolls, seemed appropriate.


That is remarkable naivete!


Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
here. You should KNOW that by now.


As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience,
some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups.

If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
many, many such words?

I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me.


It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"


Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a
few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population.

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.


"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"


Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"


The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.


I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so. Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.

Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.

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.


Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
poor choice of words...


Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).

Nevertheless, if you feel that I owe some credit to the Senator for my
wording above, I don't think it's fair to conclude that he was
unsuccessful, and thus not worth paraphrasing, because he ran in an
election that was substantially not his to lose (Hint: It was arguably
more the responsibility of the individual at the *top* of the ticket.)
Many would credit his statement as underscoring a specific perceived
weakness in the opposing ticket, one that arguably was successfully
exploited in his party's 1992 victory.

In addition to serving 4 terms as Senator, including re-election to the
office at the same time his running-mate for the *other* election lost,
his nomination to be Secretary of the Treasury was voted out of the
confirmation committee by acclimation (and standing applause). After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.

Nor does he need to be a clone of me.


Now THAT is ripe for discussion! [but, I digress...]



Paul, face the cold, hard, cruel facts. This newsgroup has
lost its purpose and meaning. Years ago. It's time to face
the facts that it needs to be dissolved. Or perhaps to be
shut down for an indefinite period.


For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.




--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key




an_old_friend September 21st 06 08:00 PM

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
 

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names
like Slow Code


[email protected] September 21st 06 10:58 PM

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

writes:


Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug


You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.


"Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]

What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.


So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"

You are imagining things which aren't there.

Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.


My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.


Not necessary. :-)

You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
in the modern sense. :-)


One can also (if they have a strong stomach) read the
filthy blitherings of the USMC Imposter Steven James
Robeson towards just about anyone in here over several
years.


I'm not Steve Robeson. I'm happy to clarify that for you.


I am happy that you are happy.

I am NOT happy that some are acting as military veteran
imposters. Extremely few REAL veterans are happy about
imposters.



Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls
and anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly)
get away with it, they will. QED for several years in
here. You should KNOW that by now.


As I noted in my previous followup, I was speaking to a wider audience,
some of whom expressed their agreement with me in further followups.


What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?


If words are useless in this forum, why do you continue to contribute
many, many such words?


Because I can! :-) Outside of FCC Comments and Petitions,
there are very few UNBIASED venues for speaking one's mind
on any amateur radio policy issues.


I take the subjects of amateur radio and amateur radio policy seriously.
The fact that others do not should not be viewed as a poor reflection on
me.


It's a plain and simple fact that this newsgroup has long
since fallen in a sewer of filthy sayings by trolls, mis-
fits, anonymous cowards, and -horrors- identifiable
amateur radio callsign-holding "men!"


Not that you would ever stereotype, or overgeneralize the actions of a
few (and it truly is a very few) to a much larger population.


I do not have to "stereotype, or overgeneralize" anything by
such individuals (trolls, misfits, anonymous cowards, and
identifiable amateur radio callsign-holding "men").

THEY mark themselves.

Yes, there are only a very few "representatives" of a "much
larger population" (of radio amateurs) in here. But, those
that do put themselves on public view do not always reflect
well on a pleasureable radio activity hobby enjoyed by
thousands. Rather they reflect mostly personal preferrences
within their hobby. "Objective" applies to little of what
is written.

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.


"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"


Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"


The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.


I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.


Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.

Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.


Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."

I do not use hats.

Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.


How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?

Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
"action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.

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.


Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
poor choice of words...


Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).


Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost
that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words
became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after
that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers.


... After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.


I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I
remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul.

I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected
John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go
out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years
before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to
do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd
Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR
words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found
in here...nor is it necessary]


For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?


It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."

Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]

Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
going to believe my words or the words of others on my
"motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
only those others.

What is the "end-goal" of YOUR 'continuing' (sparse, random)
participation in here?

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.


I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.

Beep, beep,




Jack September 21st 06 11:00 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
//drivel flushed//



Cutting out all your bullcrap, Schleck, here's the bottom line,
you used to send out your infamous "welcome letters," which
made you feel *In Charge* You are a control freak, and your
ego was bruised badly.....no more "welcome letters." Get a
grip Paul, move on. Your "moderated group"? I will
believe it when I see it.....history is against you.





an_old_friend September 21st 06 11:05 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

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


Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.


I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.


I suspect it will be better than that after all Paul does know he can't
behead those that disagree, and that is clearly the wish of most of MMM

Beep, beep,




[email protected] September 21st 06 11:19 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

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


Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.


I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.


I suspect it will be better than that after all Paul does know he can't
behead those that disagree, and that is clearly the wish of most of MMM


"Beheading?" Hardly. Perhaps doing-in some no-code-test
advocate as was done to William Wallace of Scotland long ago:
"Quartering" with all parts buried in different locations. :-)

It will probably be a la the ARRL "sinning by omission." A simple
deletion and ignoring of any non-MMM poster. That way only
ONE way or viewpoint is visible to the public. The public will then
assume that the MMM view prevails. No problem...

The FCC regulates US amateur radio, not the "participants" in it.
Some "participants" think they rule, but they don't.

"Give a ham an inch and they think they are rulers!" :-)

Beep, beep,




Not Cocksucker Lloyd September 22nd 06 02:12 PM

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere that is why they use fake names like Slow Code
 

an_old_friendless kiddie diddler wrote:
Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:

gay bashers are not welcome anywhere


Neither are perverted pedophiles like you!


Not Cocksucker Lloyd September 22nd 06 02:15 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

Slow Code wrote:
Paul W. Schleck wrote in
:

In writes:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:21:01 -0400, "nwx" wrote:



wrote in message
groups.com...
Seven years in prison, plus fines.



WHO CARES? beside you.
well while it is off topic it is less off topi c than 90 percent of
the posting lately
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Since when is discussion of amateur radio rules and regulations,
including enforcement actions, considered off-topic for this newsgroup?




Paul,
Ignore Mark Morgan, he ain't playing with a full deck.



PKB, Toad.

It's not off-topic for any radio group. I'm hoping to make this group
respectable again, and you can help. If K3LT would would come back and
other past RRAP CW supporters, we can kick out the anti-CW Homophiles
like Woger,


Hey Stupid, Roger is pro-CW. He pased 13 wpm code to get his General!


Mark & Lloyd, and make this group respectable again. I'd even
get rid of SC and start using my callsign here again once the trash is
taken out.


Toad, you spam right along with Marqueer!


Paul W Schleck September 23rd 06 12:21 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:25 -0400, Jack wrote:

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
//drivel flushed//



Cutting out all your bullcrap, Schleck, here's the bottom line,
you used to send out your infamous "welcome letters," which
made you feel *In Charge* You are a control freak, and your
ego was bruised badly.....no more "welcome letters." Get a
grip Paul, move on. Your "moderated group"? I will
believe it when I see it.....history is against you.


You are one of the reasons we are working on a moderaded news group.
Posters like you will not be allowed to post in the new group unless you
show some civility in your posts.

The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group
within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for
rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this
year, and eat your mother ****ing heart out because you won't be able to
goddamn post.

Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can
go pound salt.

Jack September 23rd 06 12:39 AM

Forgery
 
Nice try, but you will have to come up with a much better
*FORGERY* of Paul. In Schleck's defense shudder
he comports himself in a rational adult manner.

Jack


"Paul W Schleck" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:00:25 -0400, Jack wrote:

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
//drivel flushed//



Cutting out all your bullcrap, Schleck, here's the bottom line,
you used to send out your infamous "welcome letters," which
made you feel *In Charge* You are a control freak, and your
ego was bruised badly.....no more "welcome letters." Get a
grip Paul, move on. Your "moderated group"? I will
believe it when I see it.....history is against you.


You are one of the reasons we are working on a moderaded news group.
Posters like you will not be allowed to post in the new group unless you
show some civility in your posts.

The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group
within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for
rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this
year, and eat your mother ****ing heart out because you won't be able to
goddamn post.

Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can
go pound salt.




Paul W. Schleck September 23rd 06 01:09 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
In . com " writes:

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


writes:


Paul does. :-) On the other hand, he has stated that
he "enjoys" what goes on in here. shrug


You're really torturing my words into a misquote here.


"Torture?" :-) [no innocent words were harmed in writing...]


What I said to
you in private E-mail (circa-2004) was something to the effect of the
newsgroups are more enjoyable when there is a fair and respectful
exchange of ideas. So, could I "enjoy" this forum? Yes, but not in its
present state.


So, how are my words (quoted above) "torture?"


"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." I never stated that I "enjoy" the negative
behavior that presently goes on in here, nor used synonymous phrasing
(see below). You're stating a falsehood that you are unwilling to
retract, even in the face of available, contrary evidence. Is that
clear enough?

You are imagining things which aren't there.


Turn your Personal Sensitivity control fully CCW, please.



My exact message is archived off to backups. I can find it and post it
here if you want, otherwise feel free to post your copy of my E-mail.


Not necessary. :-)


You are not the "prosecution" nor am I the "defense" (or
vice-versa) and this is not a court of law...at least not
in the modern sense. :-)


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." Rather, it seems to be
one where the only acceptable evidence in Len's mind is that which
advances Len's arguments.

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?

Mere words will not - repeat NOT - affect these trolls and
anony-mousies one bit. As long as they can (clearly) get away
with it, they will. QED for several years in here. You should
KNOW that by now. As I noted in my previous followup, I was
speaking to a wider audience, some of whom expressed their
agreement with me in further followups.


What "wider audience?" Is this a broadcast to many newsgroups?


I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
and problem users.

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

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

Furthermore, no one should have to remain silent just to meet some
arbitrary standard of newsgroup righteousness.


"Arbitrary standard of righteousness?!?"


Filth, hate, anger are "righteous?!?"


The newsgroup has turned into a Din of Inequity. We know it.
Everyone seems to know it. But Paul Schleck doesn't seem
to know that.


I was referring to Herb's admonishment that if I can't follow some sort
of strict protocol like that allegedly practiced by Dave Heil, then I
should just remain silent. I found his "standards of newsgroup
righteousness" to be arbitrary, and said so.


Whose? Try to be clear on which person you are referring to.


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

Since Dave Heil has now
followed up to state that he agrees with me, this further suggests that
Herb was talking through his hat.


Heil's subsequent postings are not what he "agreed to" so
that indicates a lot of this "talking through the hat."


I do not use hats.


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.

Under what other circumstances do you feel that I have failed to grasp
that we have problem users, trolls, etc., on this newsgroup? Please be
specific.


How can one be "specific" on NO ACTION?


Acting as the Mother Superior in a parochial school is NOT
"action." It is stupid self-aggrandizement.


How about this, Len:

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.

Would that satisfy you?

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.


Tsk. A paraphrase of a Senator who lost an election is a
poor choice of words...


Actually, I believe both the late Senator and I were borrowing from the
rich heritage of the English language, including using iambic pacing and
short declarative sentences to build to a climactic finish, a technique
dating at least back to Shakespeare (e.g., "Friends! Romans!
Countrymen!" etc.).


Nice rationalization. Just the same, Senator Lloyd Bentsen lost
that 1988 election to Senator Dan Quayle. Bentsen's words
became a catch-phrase in contemporary American language after
that famous debate. It was in all the newspapers.



... After
his death, following a long life and career, no one seems to have
anything bad to say about him. Except, apparently, you.


I said nothing deragatory about late Senator Bentsen. What I
remarked on was YOUR choice of words, Paul.


I can truthfully say that I never knew John Kennedy. I respected
John Kennedy. I did not need to be a political candidate to go
out and help with John Kennedy's election. That was 28 years
before the Bentsen-Quayle TV debates. Now that has little to
do with the subject at hand, just as a quick biography of Lloyd
Bentsen that you thought necessary has nothing to do with YOUR
words here. [it is not Shakespeare but then such is not found
in here...nor is it necessary]


Let's recap:

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?

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 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. 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. If I wanted to crib the Senator's words,
I may as well have copied them exactly:

"Herb, I served with Dave Heil, I knew Dave Heil, Dave Heil was a friend
of mine. Herb, you are no Dave Heil."

but that would have been a very different quote, now wouldn't it?

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.

For such a meaningless forum, where words have no effect, you have an
awful lot of words, and time to create those words. I've asked this
before, and will do so again now. What is the end-goal of your
continuing participation here?


It is as I've stated many years ago, "to advocate the elimination
of the manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing. When
that elimination happens, I will leave this newsgroup."


Does that satisfy your honor? [your majesty? your worship?]


Many, many, far too many words have been written by others in
trying to ascribe ulterior motives to my posting in here. All
of those other attributed "motives" were simply false. Are you
going to believe my words or the words of others on my
"motives?" I think it is a safe bet that you will believe
only those others.


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? Do you feel that
only you are capable of properly advancing these arguments in this
forum, and no one else? Do you still not "give a flying fig" about
others' positions, even when they agree with yours? That's solipsism.

Here's a challenge to you, Len. I respectfully request that you
publicly make the following, objectively true, statement:

"Paul and I share a common goal to advocate the elimination of the
manual morse code test in US amateur radio licensing."

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

Please be assured that there are ongoing plans to develop a better
(read: "Moderated") forum for amateur radio policy here on Usenet. As
I've gone on record in this newsgroup previously, watch for an
announcement sometime this fall.


I'm sure we will all look forward to an OBJECTIVELY moderated
newsgroup. Whether or not such OBJECTIVITY occurs is another
matter. It is a safe bet that such "moderation" will be as
subjective as all the olde-tyme morsemen can wish for.


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.

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

- Provocation/Prevarication

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

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

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

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

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

Beep, beep,




--
Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key




[email protected] September 23rd 06 01:47 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
Paul W. Schleck wrote:

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.


Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a
moderator.

Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give
a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No
anonymous stuff.

The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is
reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector
guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it
too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens
very rarely.

That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with
civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results.

The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who
has email.

Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by
email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector?

--

And to get back on topic:

1) I think it would be useful to the amateur radio community for us to
know the involvement of local amateurs in bringing Gerritsen to
justice. IOW, what worked and what didn't, what hams can do and what
they should not do in such cases, etc.

2) "Amateur Radio Policy" goes far beyond the Morse Code test issue.
Sooner or later, the FCC will announce what it will do wrt the recent
NPRM.

IMHO, FCC may do the following:

A) Increase code testing (chances of that are infinitesimal)

B) Leave the present requirement unchanged (possible but unlikely)

C) Eliminate code test for General but keep it for Extra (majority of
commenters want this, but it's not very likely)

D) Combine code and written testing in such a way that the code test
still exists, but there are other testing options, so that the Morse
Code test is no longer an absolute, no-other-option requirement for any
class of amateur license. This has been done in Canada and was
suggested in my comments. (Possible)

E) Completely eliminate Morse Code testing. (Most likely)

If the FCC does A, B or C, the Morse Code test debates will probably
continue.

But if FCC does D or E, what policy issues should be on the table next?


73 de Jim, N2EY


[email protected] September 23rd 06 05:11 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
From: "Paul W Schleck" on Fri, Sep 22 2006 3:21 pm
Email: (Paul W Schleck)
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

Note the " email location indicating this may be
a forgery of Paul Schleck's email address which is ".

If it IS a forgery, then the Google newsgroup procedures
need some serious surgery and repair.

If it is NOT a forgery, then there is even more serious
surgery needed to remove cancers like the following:

The new Big 8 procedures will allow us to create a moderated news group
within a matter of days after we decide to do it. Look for
rec.radio.amateur.policy.moderated to appear during November of this
year, and eat your mother ****ing heart out because you won't be able to
goddamn post.

Neener, neener, neener, Jackie-baby. I will be in control, and you can
go pound salt.


QED.





[email protected] September 23rd 06 05:17 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
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? :-)

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"!

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


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]

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


I was referring to individuals like K8MN, N2EY, and "Old Friend" who
have followed up in this thread. A wider audience than just the trolls
and problem users.


Small Freudian slip there. "Individuals" who you think are
surnamed by call letters are rather blatant pro-morse-code-
test fanatics. The "Old Friend" is also a licensed US
radio amateur but you fail to note his call and name. Mark
Morgan is a no-code-test advocate. See the relationship?

The probable (note supposition, not fact) "moderation" to
be seems evident.


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."


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.

["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]

This newsgroup does not serve its original purpose, that
of arguing the morse code test retention or elimination
in US amateur radio regulations. It has become a sewer
of filthy outpourings from trolls, sociopaths, misfits,
some of whom are identifiable as having amateur radio
licenses...very few engaging in an approximation of
"debate." It is a travesty of its intended purpose.

Would that satisfy you?


Why do you ask? I am a no-code-test advocate. My FCC
license is a Commercial one. I don't parrot ARRL maxims.
I am merely a US citizen, one who has made a career in
electronics-radio, and served his country honorably in
the US military. Why ask ME? I'm not a "participant"
in licensed amateur radio...the kind where all the
licensees think they "run" it. I'm not one to slavishly
hold to old standards and practices in amateurism when
they are out of date. I don't need the emotional
sustenance of rank-status-title for "privileges" that
were lobbied for by older rank-status-title amateurs.

If you need to ASK someone, look to the public, to those
who WILL inherit the future involving radio. They will
outlive the rest of us. Will those of the near-future
look on US amateur radio as a quaint anachronism of
ancient times if it is frozen in place? I am willing
to bet they will but I'm hopeful to be proven wrong
on that statement. Only time will tell...



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


Arf! Arf! September 23rd 06 09:19 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
As is typical, Len says in fifteen paragraphs that which could be easily
stated in one sentence.
Brevity is NOT one of Len's strong points.

Prattle on, Len. Thank you for the left eye wink humor.




K4YZ September 23rd 06 03:56 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 

wrote:
Seven years in prison, plus fines.

http://www.qrz.com

(top two stories)

More detail at:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/09/19/100/?nc=1


And on my birthday! Happy Happy BD to me!

Why does Morkie keep insisting that I am "lying" when all I am
doing is quoting HIM verbatim?

I'm not.

Here's YOUR words AGAIN, Morkie:

Message-ID: .com

KB9RQZ Said: "oh learning code is easy"

There you have it, folks! Morkie says learning code is easy!

Quoted Word For Word!

Steve, K4YZ


[email protected] September 23rd 06 08:46 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
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





[email protected] September 23rd 06 09:32 PM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
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:


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


Heck, Len, you don't seem to be able to control your *own* actions
here...;-)

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


Gee, Len, you've posted here under at least seven different screen
names - probably more. Sometimes you don't identify yourself anywhere
in your posting. And you once denied posting here under a certain
screen name ("Averyfine" or "Averyfineman") but then were shown to have
been mistaken.

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


Why? If what goes on here bothers you too much, just leave. There are
other forums.

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


Then you would be a poor choice for moderator.


I think Paul W. Schleck would be a great choice for moderator, even
though I disagree with him on many amateur radio policy issues. K2UNK
and K2ASP would be excellent, too. There are lots more - most of whom
don't post here anymore.

I've had
experience as a BBS public board moderator for several
years.


BBS's are old technology, Len. Does anybody even use them anymore?

It takes "brass ones" to be polite to everyone
but its the only way to do effective moderation.


Len, you're not polite in here to anyone who disagrees with you.

You
CANNOT be a participant in ANY argumentative subject in
such an environment. That would be subjective bias.


That's simply not true.

All the moderator has to do is to point out when someone is beginning
to push the group rules too far. If that person persists, they're
banned from posting for a time.

Of course, that means things like name-calling would not be allowed.
Making fun of someone's gender, ethnicity, work experience or
education, religion, etc., would get people kicked out.

Such as what you want to do in here...


Seems to me that what Paul really wants is to discuss amateur radio
policy without all the shenanigans.

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]


Why? If it's that bad, why are you here at all, Len? There are other
forums - but most of them are moderated.

This newsgroup does not serve its original purpose, that
of arguing the morse code test retention or elimination
in US amateur radio regulations.


It's also a forum for the discussion of other amateur radio policy
issues, such as the number of license classes, the written exams,
subband allocations, amateur radio license numbers, and much more. Most
of which is being lost in the noise now.

. It has become a sewer
of filthy outpourings from trolls, sociopaths, misfits,
some of whom are identifiable as having amateur radio
licenses...very few engaging in an approximation of
"debate." It is a travesty of its intended purpose.


Agreed!

If you need to ASK someone, look to the public, to those
who WILL inherit the future involving radio.


Who are "the public", Len? Why would they want radio for its own sake?
The appeal of amateur radio has always been to the few.

They will
outlive the rest of us.


Not all of them. "The public" keeps getting older and older....

btw, it was *you* (Leaonard H. Anderson) who suggested in official
comments to FCC that there be an age requirement for all classes of
amateur radio license. You specifically requested that the FCC keep
anyone under the age of 14 years out of amateur radio. You wanted to
ban some of the very people who would inherit the future involving
radio.

Will those of the near-future
look on US amateur radio as a quaint anachronism of
ancient times if it is frozen in place? I am willing
to bet they will but I'm hopeful to be proven wrong
on that statement. Only time will tell...


We do know this: Lowering the code and written test requirements back
in 2000 has not brought about sustained growth in the number of
licensed US radio amateurs. The number of amateurs today is more than
15,000 lower than it was in 2000.

And on the subject of Mr. Gerritsen:

The Morse Code test did not "filter" him out of amateur radio. He never
took one!

Jim, N2EY


Paul W. Schleck September 23rd 06 10:51 PM

Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
 
In .com writes:

Paul W. Schleck wrote:

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.


Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a
moderator.


Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give
a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No
anonymous stuff.


The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is
reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector
guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it
too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens
very rarely.


That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with
civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results.


The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who
has email.


Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by
email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector?


Good questions!

Some of the answers are in the article "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5a58c8d3396e17

that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as
useful reading to our proposed moderation team.

Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of
subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming.
Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual
assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up
SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from
automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients.
Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of
bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing
lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they
send the same message over and over and over and ...

Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as
mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups.
As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a
user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to
ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow
base of expertise then results. There are arguably many more
"unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this
specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many
fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of
the administrative burdens.

Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a
distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares
communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well,
still nearly so). It is publicly archived at Google. All forums are
indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is
a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The
newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user
consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official"
newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official"
replacement mailing lists?

I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/

Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.

All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key


LV September 23rd 06 11:13 PM

Moderated Newsgroup, NO WAY!
 

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote nothing of any
importance, as usual, in a message:
////remaining drivel flushed/////


Moderated Group?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



[email protected] September 23rd 06 11:14 PM

Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
 
Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In .com writes:


Paul W. Schleck wrote:


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.


Here's an idea that I have seen work: email reflectors with a
moderator.


Anyone interested can sign up to the reflector - but they have to give
a real email address and identity to the moderator/list coordinator. No
anonymous stuff.


The moderators don't read and approve each and every email before it is
reflected. But if someone steps too far out of the reflector
guidelines, or goes too far off topic, they're warned. If they do it
too many times they are simply banned from the reflector. Which happens
very rarely.


That system works very well. Disagreements abound, yet are handled with
civility. And a lot of good information and discussion results.


The whole thing is simple and straightforward, and works for anyone who
has email.


Why all the complexity of a moderated newsgroup if it can be done by
email? What are the advantages of usenet over a reflector?


Good questions!

Some of the answers are in the article "Tragedy of the Usenet Commons":

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5a58c8d3396e17

that I relayed from Telecom Digest back in 2002, and recommended as
useful reading to our proposed moderation team.


I'll take a look!

Successful mailing lists do not scale well with potentially thousands of
subscribers. The subscribe/unsubscribe burden gets to be overwhelming.
Even with automation, there's still enough people who need manual
assistance subscribing or unsubscribing. Also, the odds of tripping up
SPAM filters goes up exponentially with audience size, either from
automated mischaracterization, or misreading by human recipients.
Mailing lists with thousands of subscribers will generate hundreds of
bounces every month due to changing E-mail addresses. Large mailing
lists are also not an efficient use of Internet resources, since they
send the same message over and over and over and ...


Agreed to a point.

Part of the question is size. How many people will really read a
moderated policy group? The number of posters here has always been
pretty small, and when you eliminate the anonymous, the people using
multiple IDs and the noise, the numbers may be smaller than many
reflectors I know of.

Unsuccessful mailing lists fragment audiences into tiny pockets, as
mailing lists are not as well known or publicized as Usenet newsgroups.
As the article above notes, even a great forum may go undiscovered by a
user simply because "he or she doesn't know where to look or whom to
ask." Duplication of effort, "re-inventing the wheel," and a shallow
base of expertise then results.


Agreed to a point. But at the same time, how much use does Usenet get
anymore? For example, some time back, AOL discontinued direct access,
citing low usage.

There are arguably many more
"unsuccessful" mailing lists than successful ones because of this
specific problem. This is the case even on Yahoo Groups, with many
fragmented forums despite efforts to index groups and automate most of
the administrative burdens.


Maybe. The irony of the "information superhighway"

Some of Usenet's weaknesses are also its strengths. It has a
distributed transport scheme where every node on the network shares
communications and storage burdens. It is universally available (well,
still nearly so).


I see access going down, though. Besides AOL's discontinuance, Google
has moved it to a back page, as it were. Website-based forums like
qrz.com and eham.net seem much more active nowadays.

It is publicly archived at Google.


To the chagrin of some posters to rrap.....;-)

All forums are
indexed in a newsgroups database available at every news server. It is
a long-time, mature resource, with a strong self-governance. The
newsgroups for amateur radio on Usenet are voted into existence by user
consensus, and thus are recognized by everyone as the "official"
newsgroups. How would you convince enough users what are the "official"
replacement mailing lists?


All I'm saying is that I've seen email reflectors work well with
several hundred subscribers. How many people actually read rrap?

I would disagree that Usenet newsgroups have to be complex. For one
thing, we would propose to use Secure, Team-Based Usenet Moderation
Program (STUMP):

http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/stump/


Looks doable. It appears to me, however, that every posting which gets
through the basic robofilters is approved by a moderator before posting
- is that true?

Which is a working, stable solution used by many other newsgroups we
would like to emulate, such as misc.kids.moderated. As with
misc.kids.moderated, most of the initial configuration work would simply
be figuring out who the white-list, black-list, and manual review
submitters would be, and it will not be necessary to read every article
submitted on an ongoing basis. As a result, we anticipate that the
workload will drop over time.

All of this will be discussed in much more detail in the upcoming RFD.


Thanks for the info!

---

And I'll repeat my other question:

If the FCC simply drops the code test, or makes it optional like Canada
did, what *other* policy topics would be on the table?

73 de Jim, N2EY


LV September 23rd 06 11:23 PM

Moderated Newsgroup vs. Mailing List (was Gerritsen Sentenced)
 
Schleck's moderated group, if it ever happens, and that is
VERY doubtful, will consist of him and maybe a half dozen
or less other people, with OF COURSE, Schleck as the
*CENSOR-IN-CHARGE* drum rolls bugles

eham, qrz.com, qth.com and others have multiple ham
forums, with thousands of participants. You are only about
two decades behind times Schleck. Nevertheless, have fun
building your tiny little empire. It will do wonders for your
thin skin and ego. ROTFLMAO!





Dave Heil September 24th 06 02:41 AM

Gerritsen Sentenced
 
wrote:
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? :-)


Heck, Leonard, it should put you at ease. You don't have one either.


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.


Just a couple of days ago, you made a post where you felt compelled to
state that I reply to posts not directed to me. You've gotten yourself
into a little dilemma, old boy.

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.


Then why do you feel the necessity of going to ALL CAPS and raving of
PERSONAL denigration, especially after you've engaged in personal
denigration?

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


You certainly have been there and done that, t-shirts not withstanding.


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.


Please remember that you wrote the above words. You are very likely to
see them again.

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


Is it about your military escapades of better than a half-century back?
Does it concern itself with your PROFESSIONAL experience?


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.


And if others react to your direct opinions and to the manner in which
they are presented?

I will also make commentary about things and persons as I
would do in person.


If you had said some of the things in a face-to-face encounter that
you've written here, odds are that you'd find yourself on the seat of
your pants fairly often.


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?"


That should be easy to figure out, Len. Their posts don't appear.

Dave K8MN


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com