From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 6:02 am

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:

So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague of
Len's? Or
is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually lies #16
and #17?

Neither, but nice try.

Steve, you lied. The only question is which time?

The conversation with a former colleague of Len's?

The length of tenure on RRAP?

Or both.

Fess up.

Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My bust.

Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up.

Now where is Len's apology?

Psycho Pstevie doesn't issue apologies.

The reason is simple: This "witness" (or "reference" or
whatever) does NOT exist. It's not possible for anyone
to "apologize" for someone that doesn't exist. Ergo,
Psycho Pstevie "does not need" to apologize.

You have to approach this denizen of Pstevieland as
you would a cryptologic attack. Work the puzzle and
try to think in terms of those who REFUSE to yield
to ANYONE. With years and years of experience (several
reading this newsgroup is more than adequate), it
becomes easier to do, but less easier to take. Toss
out logic, use great heaping shovelfulls of their
ego, pride, and sociopathy and it becomes clearer.

Pstevie IMAGINES this individual "exists" and,
furthermore, INSISTS he (or she) "knows all about
me through 'reports'" all of which don't exist.
By Pstevie "logic" all of it is "correct" even
though:

1. There's no evidence.

2. It's all hearsay, mostly hearing from one of
Pstevie's voices in his head talking to him.

3. He has "made promises to not reveal the identity."
THAT is the top-notch rationalization...used often
on computer-modem communications yet is totally
WORTHLESS in reality from the following:

A. It relies on some curious "honesty" and
"loyalty" factor which is supposed to be
followed by all newsgroup communicators
in which Pstevie self-describes himself
as "honest, loyal, trustworthy," etc.,
etc., etc. which has been shown to be
bunkum.

B. A non-existant person cannot be evidenciary
of anything but extreme imagination on the
part of the imaginator. No one else can
disprove something that doesn't exist but
the imaginator cannot prove the imaginary
to actually exist.

C. The excuse of existance is that the
imaginator expresses "outrage" that
anyone could imagine him telling a "lie."
He HAS told a LIE to begin with, so all
the following rationalization is nothing
but MORE LIES.

D. During the rationalization posting, the
imaginator will MISDIRECT the thread
hoping to take viewers' minds off his own
lies and put some blame on the person of
the challenger. That's a common ploy in
computer-modem communications, been around
since before BBSs on the old ARPANET. It
serves no argument but does take some of
the heat away from the lying imaginator.
AKA "smoke-screening" in trying to mask
any challenge to the LIE.

4. There can be an endless recursion back to (3)
depending on the intensity of the psychosis of
the LIAR. They profess "being wounded" by a
challenge and must "avenge" such "personal
insult" (of being called a liar in the first
place) by more and more and more misdirection
and outright name-calling against challengers.

Some years ago (about 1986 give or take) I logged
into a Bulletin Board System that specialized in
all sorts of paranormal subject, conspiracy theories
and "majic" (apparently a modern version of magic).
This was out of curiosity on how people behaved
when they thought they couldn't be found out. On
the subject that "The U.S. Air Force Academy in
Colorado teaches the existance of extra-terrestrial
beings and has textbooks on the subject," a person
made what I consider to be the ultimate
rationalization for the lack of evidence of that:

"After it was found out, the Air Force removed and
destroyed all the textbooks. Of course you can't
find any evidence of such books, they were all
confiscated and destroyed, but they did exist!"

So, despite NO evidence remaining, the claimant
remained adamant that such books DID exist. No one
can disprove it. But, given in such "outrage" of
being challenged (misdirection ploy), readers of
the message got an impression that they did. The
claimant could NOT prove his case no matter how he
tried...had to resort to emotional excuses and his
alleged "honesty" (claimant had not gone to the
USAF Academy but "knew someone who did").

The analogy applies directly to Robeson's claim of
having a "trustworthy reference" to my character
(as it was 34 years ago). He cannot prove this
"reference" exists yet demands he be "believed."
No one else can check up on this because nothing
but vague generalities about this invisible man
are presented.

This "fitrep" report-writer is either a LIE or he
might be some alien being from outer space. We
don't know about the latter so the former must be
a better bet. Psycho Pstevie told a LIE and just
tried to cover it up...again and again and again.
A clear and open role-model for today's Amateur
Extra class amateur radio licensee?

:-)

wrote:
From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 6:02 am

Now where is Len's apology?

Psycho Pstevie doesn't issue apologies.

Lennie...Why do you insist on lying so blatantly? This week alone
has seen me do it...And ask Hans. Or Cecil...

The reason is simple: This "witness" (or "reference" or
whatever) does NOT exist.

Been there...done that...same old dodge, Lennie...

Huge snip of Lennie trying to dodge behind even more irrelevent
story-telling and make believe:

This "fitrep" report-writer is either a LIE or he
might be some alien being from outer space.

Now we know where Lennie's been spending his time....The "SciFi
Channel". Will probably go off on some "X-Files" spin-off of his own.

We don't know about the latter so the former must be
a better bet. Psycho Pstevie told a LIE and just
tried to cover it up...again and again and again.
A clear and open role-model for today's Amateur
Extra class amateur radio licensee?

Nope.

Just keeping the annoying little fact that not everybody that
worked with you liked you, as hard as I know you find that to be...

:-)

You should try sincerity once in a while, Lennie...Like when you
tell people you're going to do something...do it.

And if you have skeletons in your closet, keep your mouth shut.





Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:

So, is lie #16 the conversation with a former colleague
of
Len's?
Or
is lie #16 Steve's tenure on RRAP? Or is it actually
lies
#16
and
#17?

Neither, but nice try.

Steve, you lied. The only question is which time?

The conversation with a former colleague of Len's?

The length of tenure on RRAP?

Or both.

Fess up.

Well well...Looks like I made an error in math. My
bust.

Well, well...it took you Quitesometime to fess up.

Now where is Len's apology?

Right behind HIS apology to this NG for years of lying,
accusing,
deceiving and antagonism, Brian...Right behind!

Just hold your breath and wait!

Steve, K4YZ

Well, well. So much for your "strength of conviction."

Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and
deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! !

The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense.

You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't
doing
what you know to be right.

I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right".

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true or false. But in
this case, it makes lies #19 and #20.

You and Leonard are lairs, Brian. You don't tell the truth. YOU
make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a
sudden
you think your slates are wiped clean.

Lessee? 30 hours before Len makes an appearance in one of your
demented threads, you're chiding him for disapproving of what you said.
Then you have a conversation with a claimed colleague of Len's years
and years before you ever heard of Len. Both cases were smear
campaigns against Len, and you say you make simple errors???

Sorry...Doesn't work that way.

That's right Steve, it doesn't work that way. What you said was an
outright lie.

I already count two acknowledgements of errors I have made this
week.

Errors? Simple mistakes? Nobody thinks that, not even you.

I haven't seen a single one from you acknowledging your ARES
errors alone...

There's a profound reason that you haven't seen such an acknowledgement
from me...

I made no error. You fudged the entire exercise (lied) so that you
could "prove" me wrong, but nobody's buying it. You chalked up quite a
few lies in that little fiasco. Quit before you reach the point of no
return.

I'm just glad the world isn't full of
people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night that
the
world isn't full of people like you.

As well you should.

And I do.

It's got to be embarrassing getting your nose
rubbd in all the errors YOU make by just little ole me...You'd not
withstand more than one.

#21.

Here's your sign, Brian LOSER

#22.

Steve, K4YZ

Hey, you finally told a truth. See? You are capable of it.

K4YZ wrote:

And if you have skeletons in your closet, keep your mouth shut.

Steve, K4YZ

Must be why Robeson clammed up about the seven hostile actions.

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and
deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! !

The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense.

Other than getting my math wrong, there was no "wrong" commited,
Brain...And certainly not one that rates an "apology" to Lennie.

You won't do what you know to be right because someone else isn't
doing
what you know to be right.

I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right".

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true or false. But in
this case, it makes lies #19 and #20.

STILL WAITING on you to produce some validation of your claims on
1 through 18, Brain.

You've not documented a one of them.

You and Leonard are lairs, Brian. You don't tell the truth.
YOU
make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a
sudden
you think your slates are wiped clean.

Lessee? 30 hours before Len makes an appearance in one of your
demented threads, you're chiding him for disapproving of what you
said.
Then you have a conversation with a claimed colleague of Len's years
and years before you ever heard of Len. Both cases were smear
campaigns against Len, and you say you make simple errors???

A N D Y O U A R E S T I L L R E F U S I N G to read what
was said in the first place, Brian.

There's a lot of things I can help with, Brian, but arrogant isn't
one of them.

Sorry...Doesn't work that way.

That's right Steve, it doesn't work that way. What you said was an
outright lie.

Nope. Never was.

The O R I G I N A L comments addressed Lennie's history of doing
EXACTLY what I said then....

I already count two acknowledgements of errors I have made
this
week.

Errors? Simple mistakes? Nobody thinks that, not even you.

Sure I do.

And Brain P Burke STILL has not acknowledged his errors about
ARES. Very clearly documented. Very clearly DISproven with MULTIPLE
news releases.

I haven't seen a single one from you acknowledging your ARES
errors alone...

There's a profound reason that you haven't seen such an
acknowledgement
from me...

I made no error. You fudged the entire exercise (lied) so that you
could "prove" me wrong, but nobody's buying it. You chalked up quite
a
few lies in that little fiasco. Quit before you reach the point of
no
return.

You say "no one", Brain, but so far YOU are the only one trying to
make a point about it.

And you DID make an error. You've made NUMEROUS errors, yet
refuse to acknowledge a one of them despite reams of documentation that
PROVE you to be in error.

I'm just glad the world isn't full of
people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night
that
the
world isn't full of people like you.

As well you should.

And I do.

Good. It's your FIRST wise move.

It's got to be embarrassing getting your nose
rubbd in all the errors YOU make by just little ole me...You'd not
withstand more than one.

#21.

Where's 1 through 20?

Here's your sign, Brian LOSER

#22.

Where's 1 through 21?

Steve, K4YZ

Hey, you finally told a truth. See? You are capable of it.

So far I'd say I am ahead of you about 100 to 1 without fear of
contradiction. 10,000 to 1 if you count your refusal to sign your name
to your posts in an attempt to hide your identity.

Steve, K4YZ

In . com writes:

*snip!*

Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome
e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently
long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't
answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on
those "canned" welcome messages. ???

I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have
something original to say.

I always respond to replies to my welcome message. In fact, the text of
the message itself invites such replies:

'The author welcomes any and all constructive feedback. Please direct
all such feedback to and retain the original subject
(e.g., " WELCOME to rec.radio.amateur.*") in your reply.'

Just this month, I received and replied to messages from three
correspondents about the welcome message. Most repliers express
confusion over getting the message, as they didn't realize that they
followed up to an article cross-posted to many newsgroups.

I invite anyone who didn't get a reply to try again, and post any bounce
messages received. Failing that, if the reply isn't too personal,
please post it here or on *.misc, and I will try to follow up with a
considered reply.

The last time someone complained about bounces (someone named Andreas
"Tekman"), it was due to a SPAM blacklist filtering out their message at
the ISP level because they were posting from a site identified as a
significant source of SPAM. His degree of good faith and sincerity in
the matter (his followup posts included several schoolyard taunts and a
death threat) was also strongly in question.

Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer, does
that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on newsgroup
subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in no
uncertain terms that you did not.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Lennie is YEARS BEHIND coming clean on his errors, lies and
deceit, Brian... Y E A R S ! ! ! !

The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense.

Other than getting my math wrong, there was no "wrong" commited,
Brain...And certainly not one that rates an "apology" to Lennie.

Two seperate lies in two seperate threads? I'd say that makes you
wrong!

You won't do what you know to be right because someone else
isn't
doing
what you know to be right.

I AM, repeat AM doing "what's right".

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true or false. But in
this case, it makes lies #19 and #20.

STILL WAITING on you to produce some validation of your claims
on
1 through 18, Brain.

You've not documented a one of them.

You've got them archived in Google.

You and Leonard are lairs, Brian. You don't tell the truth.
YOU
make glaring errors, and then when I make a simple one, all of a
sudden
you think your slates are wiped clean.

Lessee? 30 hours before Len makes an appearance in one of your
demented threads, you're chiding him for disapproving of what you
said.
Then you have a conversation with a claimed colleague of Len's
years
and years before you ever heard of Len. Both cases were smear
campaigns against Len, and you say you make simple errors???

A N D Y O U A R E S T I L L R E F U S I N G to read
what
was said in the first place, Brian.

There's a lot of things I can help with, Brian, but arrogant
isn't
one of them.

That's why I've repeatedly asked you to seek professional help. You're
not enough to solve your own problems.

Sorry...Doesn't work that way.

That's right Steve, it doesn't work that way. What you said was an
outright lie.

Nope. Never was.

The O R I G I N A L comments addressed Lennie's history of
doing
EXACTLY what I said then....

I am PRESENTLY addressing your history of doing EXACTLY what you accuse
Len of doing.

I already count two acknowledgements of errors I have made
this
week.

Errors? Simple mistakes? Nobody thinks that, not even you.

Sure I do.

Self-deceit is easily accomplished when you have problems such as you
have. Again, I recommend professional help.

And Brain P Burke STILL has not acknowledged his errors about
ARES. Very clearly documented. Very clearly DISproven with MULTIPLE
news releases.

The only thing clearly documented is your inability to accept that the
available resources were inadequate to cover the designed capability of
the volunteer group. You manipulated the exercise to have the outcome
that you desired. Unfortunately for you, I saw through the gaping
holes instantly.

I haven't seen a single one from you acknowledging your ARES
errors alone...

There's a profound reason that you haven't seen such an
acknowledgement
from me...

I made no error. You fudged the entire exercise (lied) so that you
could "prove" me wrong, but nobody's buying it. You chalked up
quite
a
few lies in that little fiasco. Quit before you reach the point of
no
return.

You say "no one", Brain, but so far YOU are the only one trying
to
make a point about it.

I don't mind.

And you DID make an error. You've made NUMEROUS errors, yet
refuse to acknowledge a one of them despite reams of documentation
that
PROVE you to be in error.

So you say. Oh, well.

Meanwhile, I pointed out PRECISELY where you fudged the exercise in an
attempt to gain the desired outcome. Hi!

I'm just glad the world isn't full of
people like you. Actually, I thank my lucky stars every night
that
the
world isn't full of people like you.

As well you should.

And I do.

Good. It's your FIRST wise move.

Nonsense statement.

It's got to be embarrassing getting your nose
rubbd in all the errors YOU make by just little ole me...You'd
not
withstand more than one.

#21.

Where's 1 through 20?

In the past two weeks, #s 1 through 20 precede #21.

Here's your sign, Brian LOSER

#22.

Where's 1 through 21?

Steve, K4YZ

Hey, you finally told a truth. See? You are capable of it.

So far I'd say I am ahead of you about 100 to 1 without fear of
contradiction.

Sure, if you lie about it!

10,000 to 1 if you count your refusal to sign your name
to your posts in an attempt to hide your identity.

That's #23. Hi!

From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:32 pm

In .com
writes:


Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome
e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently
long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't
answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on
those "canned" welcome messages. ???

I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have
something original to say.

Wise procedure from one who is not quite a moderator here.

However, those replies SEEM to begin as a result of
automatic comparison against a list of those who had
previously been sent such messages. That is based on
my use of the IEEE address instead of the AOL one (AOL
has dropped access to newsgroups) when using Google.

I always respond to replies to my welcome message. In fact, the text
of
the message itself invites such replies:

'The author welcomes any and all constructive feedback. Please direct

all such feedback to and retain the original
subject
(e.g., " WELCOME to rec.radio.amateur.*") in your reply.'

I have NO problems with that. Please do not assume I do.

Automatically-generated messages are very common on the
Internet.

The last time someone complained about bounces (someone named Andreas
"Tekman"), it was due to a SPAM blacklist filtering out their message
at
the ISP level because they were posting from a site identified as a
significant source of SPAM.

I am NOT that person, have NO complaints about that in
this thread or any other.

Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer, does

that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on newsgroup
subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in no
uncertain terms that you did not.

I am NOT interested in discussing any "policy matter" on
amateur radio with anyone who is biased, coarse, cannot
accept any viewpoint different from their own, or who
becomes petulant and abusive when "not accepted," nor
anyone who attempts to command anything when NOT in any
position of authority to force such commands.

If this PUBLIC venue is insufficient to "discuss"
matters about Rec.radio.amateur.policy, then it is
not productive to consider that private correspondence
is also "useful." I've received quite enough of those
in the past. I've received some angry, petulant
responses while engaged in Instant Messaging with my
wife who was visiting up north while our niece was
undergoing a risky corrective operation. I had neglected
to set my AOL blocking controls fully and now have to
allow only certain screen names through. I have
received a couple of telephone messages from irate
individuals. That was during a trip, were duly
recorded along with their desitination number, all
forwarded to telephone company security people and
the LAPD Stalking unit (LAPD does not consider ANY
form of stalking as minor or trivial). Neither do I
live in any form of "fear" of anything...it is tiring
to see so many wanting to "fight" via messages as if
they could "accomplish" anything that way.

27 Jan 04 was nearly 15 months ago. That is VERY late
to assume any sort of "remedial action from authority"
communications. However, anyone is still "free" to
send me any sort of e-mail. I have the perfect
freedom to ignore such or to respond in any way I
choose. I have not sent any messages to you since
27 Jan 04.

If you have ANY complaints about my personal e-mails
then you can either exercise your newsgroup authority
by stating so plainly in private e-mail. That should
be clear enough...

wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:32
pm

In .com
writes:


Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome
e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently
long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't
answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on
those "canned" welcome messages. ???

I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have
something original to say.

Wise procedure from one who is not quite a moderator here.

...from one who THINKS he's a moderator here!

Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer,
does
that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on
newsgroup
subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in
no
uncertain terms that you did not.

I am NOT interested in discussing any "policy matter" on
amateur radio with anyone who is biased, coarse, cannot
accept any viewpoint different from their own, or who
becomes petulant and abusive when "not accepted," nor
anyone who attempts to command anything when NOT in any
position of authority to force such commands.

Gee, Lennie...ONCE AGAIN you have DESCRIBED YOURSELF to the
LETTER!

If this PUBLIC venue is insufficient to "discuss"
matters about Rec.radio.amateur.policy, then it is
not productive to consider that private correspondence
is also "useful." I've received quite enough of those
in the past. I've received some angry, petulant
responses while engaged in Instant Messaging with my
wife who was visiting up north while our niece was
undergoing a risky corrective operation.

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

Lennie, you still trying to pass off that old story...?!?!

Losing your touch, are you...?!?! Can't maage to rip off a few new
ones...?!?!

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
! ! ! !

I had neglected
to set my AOL blocking controls fully and now have to
allow only certain screen names through. I have
received a couple of telephone messages from irate
individuals. That was during a trip, were duly
recorded along with their desitination number, all
forwarded to telephone company security people and
the LAPD Stalking unit (LAPD does not consider ANY
form of stalking as minor or trivial). Neither do I
live in any form of "fear" of anything...it is tiring
to see so many wanting to "fight" via messages as if
they could "accomplish" anything that way.

Sheesh, Lennie! Re-vamping the "victim" role, eh? Taking a page
from Mark Morgan...?!?!?!

27 Jan 04 was nearly 15 months ago. That is VERY late
to assume any sort of "remedial action from authority"
communications. However, anyone is still "free" to
send me any sort of e-mail. I have the perfect
freedom to ignore such or to respond in any way I
choose. I have not sent any messages to you since
27 Jan 04.

If you have ANY complaints about my personal e-mails
then you can either exercise your newsgroup authority
by stating so plainly in private e-mail. That should
be clear enough...

Why, Lennie?

You never thought twice about violating people's private e mail
with inappropriate traffic before...I have absolutely no doubt that you
probably did Paul's, too!

Steve, K4YZ

In . com writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:32 pm

In .com
writes:


Paul Schleck (the extra who "signs" those welcome
e-mails to new names in the newsgroup) is apparently
long gone on some sabbatical or whatever. He doesn't
answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on
those "canned" welcome messages. ???

I prefer to read widely, but post judiciously, and only when I have
something original to say.

Wise procedure from one who is not quite a moderator here.

What an obviously self-evident thing to say. I would also post
judiciously about military matters, not being a General, about legal
matters, not being a member of the bar, and about technical matters, not
being a P.E. or PhD.

However, those replies SEEM to begin as a result of
automatic comparison against a list of those who had
previously been sent such messages. That is based on
my use of the IEEE address instead of the AOL one (AOL
has dropped access to newsgroups) when using Google.

Yes, you described how the setup works fairly accurately. The Perl
script that is used can only distinguish users by E-mail address. If
you post from a different E-mail address, that it hasn't seen before,
you will get the welcome message. It's an admitted technical
limitation, but one that is probably not easily overcome, and doesn't
seem to bother most people too much.

I always respond to replies to my welcome message. In fact, the text
of
the message itself invites such replies:

'The author welcomes any and all constructive feedback. Please direct

all such feedback to and retain the original
subject
(e.g., " WELCOME to rec.radio.amateur.*") in your reply.'

I have NO problems with that. Please do not assume I do.

I didn't. I followed up to rebut your fairly plain statement above that
'He doesn't answer any e-mails...at least to the web address on those
"canned" welcome messages.' Please don't assume that because I haven't
posted recently, that I am not reading, or not in positive control of
the welcome message service, or that I wouldn't respond to any E-mail
replies.

Automatically-generated messages are very common on the
Internet.

The last time someone complained about bounces (someone named Andreas
"Tekman"), it was due to a SPAM blacklist filtering out their message
at
the ISP level because they were posting from a site identified as a
significant source of SPAM.

I am NOT that person, have NO complaints about that in
this thread or any other.

I did wonder, however, on what basis you were making the statement about
me not replying. Was it based on personal experience, as I asked below:

Len, if it was you that tried to reply, and didn't get an answer, does

or was it based on hearsay that you read on the newsgroups? The only
hearsay I can recall is that of Andreas "Tekman," and I explained in my
previously reply that his assertions are contradicted by evidence, and
his behavior on the matter calls his reliability into question.

Since I have successfully rebutted your assertion (or hypothesis, or
assumption, or whatever) that I do not respond to E-mail, would you now
be willing to do the honorable thing, and retract your original
statement? I really don't care very much either way, but I, and others,
would recognize such a retraction as honorable.

that mean that you now wish to have an E-mail conversion on newsgroup
subjects? Your last message to me, on January 27th, 2004, said in no
uncertain terms that you did not.

I am NOT interested in discussing any "policy matter" on
amateur radio with anyone who is biased, coarse, cannot
accept any viewpoint different from their own, or who
becomes petulant and abusive when "not accepted," nor
anyone who attempts to command anything when NOT in any
position of authority to force such commands.

I don't see how that describes me. Even you have described my E-mail
communications to you as suggestions or advice.

If this PUBLIC venue is insufficient to "discuss"
matters about Rec.radio.amateur.policy, then it is
not productive to consider that private correspondence
is also "useful." I've received quite enough of those
in the past. I've received some angry, petulant
responses while engaged in Instant Messaging with my
wife who was visiting up north while our niece was
undergoing a risky corrective operation. I had neglected
to set my AOL blocking controls fully and now have to
allow only certain screen names through. I have
received a couple of telephone messages from irate
individuals. That was during a trip, were duly
recorded along with their desitination number, all
forwarded to telephone company security people and
the LAPD Stalking unit (LAPD does not consider ANY
form of stalking as minor or trivial). Neither do I
live in any form of "fear" of anything...it is tiring
to see so many wanting to "fight" via messages as if
they could "accomplish" anything that way.

That wasn't me. Just give your consent, and I can make public (on a web
page, no need to annoy the newsgroup), our entire E-mail conversation
and allow others to judge its content.

27 Jan 04 was nearly 15 months ago. That is VERY late
to assume any sort of "remedial action from authority"
communications. However, anyone is still "free" to
send me any sort of e-mail. I have the perfect
freedom to ignore such or to respond in any way I
choose. I have not sent any messages to you since
27 Jan 04.

Nor have I to you, except for the automated welcome message. Did you
wish to reply to my welcome message, did you have any questions about
how it works and why you got the message, or did you want to resume
having an E-mail conversation about other newsgroup subjects?

If you have ANY complaints about my personal e-mails
then you can either exercise your newsgroup authority
by stating so plainly in private e-mail. That should
be clear enough...

I have no rank, commission, or authority here, as you take pains to
point out (except maybe as a peer-recognized "authority" on Usenet
history, as well as on posting practices that have proven over time to
foster effective communications, as opposed to non-productive
arguments).



--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

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