Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil
writes:
In article , Dave Heil
writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
"Real ham" = One who abides by 1930s standards and practices
That is incorrect, Leonard.
Not in the context of the particular give-and-take with "Real Ham"
Dan. :-)
A "real ham" is one who holds an amateur radio license.
Actually, a "real ham" is the butchered meat of swine. :-)
Then why are you trying to tell us that " "Real ham' = One who abides by
1930s standards and practices"?
I'm not telling you that.
Excuse me. Yes, you personally told us that.
All those who trumpet the 1930s standards
and practices do. :-)
No, nobody here except you has written that. Now you've backtracked and
have told us that it is something different. The several of you
inhabiting the body of Leonard Anderson need to come to an agreement.
You still want to maintain the ancient rules...because you got your
title, rank, status under that archaic standard.
Y'know Len? I got my four different classes of license under several
different standards. When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing.
Losing that title, rank, status, even if only to yourself, would be a
mighty blow to your self-esteem. [that's rather obvious]
It might appear that way to an outsider like you. From my perspective,
you're a guy who doesn't want to participate in an endeavor where anyone
has more status than you. Tough it out, old timer.
The FCC regulations don't define "ham" at all. The FDA does.
Ham is the butchered meat of swine. :-)
That conflicts with what you wrote in the very recent past.
You've told us on numerous occasions all you want to do here.
I'm doing that. :-)
Actually, you aren't.
You never seem to get around to doing what you've stated.
Less here where it doesn't count for much in the real world.
LOTS more at the FCC where it DOES count.
Okay, Mr. Mitty. I'm sure folks at the FCC find your sheer volume of
material fascinating.
Now you'd like to tell me all I want to do.
Nobody can tell Big Dave what to do...he da man! :-)
I respect authority, Len. You aren't authority.
I've not stated all I want to do here so your
comments are conjecture on your part.
All you seem to do in here is bitch, moan, get nasty at folks who
don't agree with you.
Are the several of you inhabiting the body of Leonard Anderson having a
group discussion among yourselves?
Not a likeable guy you are. :-)
....not by you or "William". I can certainly live with that.
Take your pick, Leonard:
classical telegraphy, classical SSB, classical AM phone. You aren't
doing any of them in amateur radio. You aren't a participant.
None of THIS newsgrouping IS amateur radio, Big Dave.
That's right. If this was amateur radio, you wouldn't be a participant.
The FCC is NOT a "participant" in U.S. amateur radio.
Yes, the Commission participates. You don't participate.
The FCC MAKES the rules and regulations for U.S. amateur radio.
You seem to have a terrible incognizance problem with those two
sentences! [mental Pampers would help you]
Your perception is incorrect. I understand that the Commission
participates in that it regulates amateur radio.
1. I wrote "amateur radio". You're drifting off into a description of
your past professional radio experience once again.
Boils you down to very pale meat, doesn't it? :-)
Actually, no.
2. I don't really care where on which frequencies you communicated as a
professional.
You just don't "care" about anything but attempting to triumph over
others in a newsgroup! :-)
I wrote what I meant to convey, that I don't care on which frequencies
you communicated as a professional.
3. You have no idea which frequencies are used or may be used by the
U.S. Department of State.
Does State have its own MARS-like organization? :-)
Do a web search.
Since when did State enter into this discussion...
Since you brought it up.
other than you want
to impress your neighbors about your mighty governmental career?
My neighbors don't read this newsgroup.
Didn't need a bit of manual telegraphy skills or licensing (as an
amateur) to do any of that.
You wouldn't need any to obtain the most basic amateur radio license in
the U.S. either.
I have no need for any amateur radio license. I'm "not a participant,"
remember? :-)
Having a need or desire and actually doing something about obtaining a
license are two very different things.
Where is it "written" that I have to demonstrate some "interest in
radio" to the Great Heil?
I didn't write anything about "some interest in radio".
Now, now, don't get petulant. This isn't a quibble over semantics
or syntax or spelling.
That's right. It isn't a quibble over semantics. I wrote "amateur
radio" no matter how badly you want it to be "radio".
You've written MUCH about the equate of "having an interest in
radio" with amateur radio. You can't deny that.
I certainly can deny it. I've written nothing about "interest in
radio". I've written of "interest in amateur radio".
It's in Google all
nice and archived for those so bruised and battered over losing
verbal battles that they have to quote endlessly from it. :-)
Good. You can research it and prove your claim then.
You DEMAND amateur radio license acquisition in order to state
anything on amateur radio regulations in here.
I've DEMANDed nothing. I continue to point out that you have nothing to
do with amateur radio as a participant or a regulator.
You DEMAND that ALL who "have an interest in radio" become
radio amateurs, all nicely licensed and mentally very important.
I've DEMANDed nothing.
You can't deny that. [but you will vainly, and self-importantly try]
Denying it is quite easy. I've made no demands of you. You rise or fall
on your own efforts. I've pointed out that you have not obtained even
the most basic amateur radio license.
You are LICENSED! Oh, my. Terribly important you are!
Without that "authorization" you are just another SS-wannabe who
wants nothing more than to fight anyone who doesn't agree with
your "orders" posted on this bulletin board. In other words, just
another disagreeable gunnery nurse (but without bedpan).
"Fight"? "Orders"? If we were fighting, you'd best pack a lunch and
rest up beforehand, old timer. I haven't issued any orders.
Sweetums, if this had been a real physical fight, you wouldn't have
been able to write anydamnthing in here. :-)
You mean for all the laughing I'd be doing, old timer? You're probably
right.
I'll have to discuss what with Paul Schleck?
For starters, your "participation" in this newsgroup.
If I have need of Paul Schleck. I'll get in touch with him. As of
right now, I don't need him.
Do you have a "participation license" granted to you to bitch and
whine and moan in here about those who aren't licensed in
amateurism?
As you pointed out earlier, this isn't amateur radio. I need no more
license to target you than you need for taking potshots at radio
amateurs and their traditions, Mr. Professional.
No DEMANDs have been made of you, Len.
Irrelevant since you can't order anyone around, despite your mighty
psycho-war effort to bluff and bluster others off your "licensed"
turf. :-)
It can't be irrelevant. You brought it up. You accused me of making
DEMANDS but you haven't come up with a single example. What demand has
been made of you?
You continue to post.
It's your time you are wasting. No problem for me. :-)
Let's see....This is an amateur radio newsgroup dealing with amateur
radio policy. I am a radio amateur. It seems to make sense for me to
be here.
You aren't a radio amateur. You, on the other hand, aren't involved in
amateur radio. Which one of us is wasting time?
I'll continue to point out your lack of anything to do with amateur radio.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still into the "turf" thing, aren't you? :-)
The turf is amateur radio. You aren't in on the action. You're a
bystander.
You've certainly kept mum about your childlike antics exemplified by
some of your comments to the FCC.
What "childlike" antics, little toddler? :-)
Those on the Commission's web site; the ones deriding the comments of
others.
Poor baby. Can't take grown-up debate against opposite-to-yours
opinions, can you?
You haven't exhibited any "grown-up debate" here, ever. I'll find out
if I can take it when and if you ever do so.
You have to call them "childlike" as if you were a "grown-up" trying
to spank children? [you must have been talking to Dee?]
I call them childlike because I read them.
You seem to have dysfunctional attributes in your "parenting." :-)
I'm not your parent.
Wanna discuss those?
Not with SS-wannabes like yourself.
Is the sentence above your idea of grownup behavior?
The FCC makes and enforces the civil radio regulations in the United
States. If you have an old bone that you think needs gnawing on,
then go make your Comments to the FCC about regulations.
Quit making DEMANDS, Len.
It probably busts your chops no end that actual civilians, citizens of
this country, can actually hold a discussion-debate with government.
You just can't stand it when others have opinions contrary to yours.
You have to call such folks names, denigrate them, pejorate them,
do all you can to stifle independent thought.
Most radio amateurs are civilians. We can and do comment to and
petition our government. I've never had the opportunity to debate with
government.
You might tell us how you accomplished such debate.
Your thought is certainly independent. Independent doesn't mean that it
is rational thought.
Hiram forbid that anyone should think opposite to your god-like
viewpoints! After all, you are federally LICENSED as an amateur!
Right. I'm involved in amateur radio. You are on the sidelines and
have been for what is it?--several decades.
You are a PARTICIPANT!
Yes, I am.
Only YOU RULE! ...nobody else allowed to say anydamnthing. :-)
The FCC rules. I participate. You say much but you aren't involved.
The colonel just loves it when a dictatorial plan comes together...
The colonel is dead. KFC is owned by a big corporation.
Dave K8MN
|