RadioBanter - View Single Post - Able Baker Charlie (or is that Avacado Bascule Cumquat?)

June 16th 04, 06:46 PM

In article , PAMNO
(Rev. Jim of the amateur moral majority crusade) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Neither can one do that by:

1. Constantly bringing up years-old exchanges from archives
and trying to win one for your gypper.

2. Using cute lil Yiddish cuss words (mild), especially when
the user doesn't know whatinheck it means.

3. Trying to be a Fundamentalist Believer in telegraphy mode
long after other radio services have given it up as any sort of
"necessary" skill in this new millennium.

4. Acting the shocked (perhaps outraged) moralist by chiding
others of impropriety in giving return fire to those who are
overtly sniping at certain individuals. Hypocrisy is clearly
seen by all readers.

Why didn't you answer the question, Len?

I do. You don't like the answers! Awww...poor baby!

Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Nope. That's not me at all. It does, however, describe the behavior of certain
other people who post here.

Such as Rev. Jim who seems to be stuck in past events
and can't go with the reality of now.

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

Who is "Rev. Jim"? The only one I know is a character on the classic comedy
series "Taxi".

That character was also fictional. :-)

This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev. Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Poor baby, you tried that schtick in here before and that one didn't
work well, either, did it? :-)

In those Reply Comments, you proposed a minumum age requirement of 14 years
for
any class of US amateur license, even sthough such a requirement has never
existed in the USA. You gave no evidence of how the lack of such a requirement
has had a negative effect on amateur radio or any other radio service, yet you
wanted such a requirement (which would not affect you, of course) created.

See? The date of acceptance of that Comment on docket 98-143
is on public view as 13 January 1999.

That's over FIVE YEARS AGO. It's been argued and bitched about by
olde-tyme hammes in here at least twice after that. Now Rev. Jim
keeps on regurgitating it...he should see a doctor about not being able
to keep opinions of others down...vomitus hate-opinion-itis is a serious
thing that may indicate a more serious malady.

R&O 99-412 rather ended any further discussion on docket 98-143 but
lots and lots of hum radio guys had to keep on commenting and
commenting and commenting and commenting and...yawn

Here's a few simple, direct questions, Len. In fact, I'll direct them to the
entire group:

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are Feenix risen from your own ash, Rev. Jim.

[if you don't know "Hashafisti Scratchi" then the above doesn't
make any humor...:-) ]

The NO-AGE non-issue is just that. No age thing on licensing for
hum radio licensees. Period. End. Full stop.

It's fairly obvious that chronologically-long-in-the-tooth radio hums
can get terribly immature and childish about their divine, sacred
olde-tyme hamme raddio traditions being scoffed. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Who? You cannot be referring to me, because I find Morse Code radiotelegraphy
to be a relaxing experience.

"Opiate of the masses" for the fundamentalist telegraphic evangelist.

Yawn.

In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past.

That's all true.

That CANNOT be! I posted it. Therefore (in Rev. Jim fanstasy) it must
be IN ERROR! INCORRECT! Full of flaws! :-)

And what's also true is that the person referred to in the preceding post
denies and distorts the role Morse Code radiotelegraphy has played since those
early days. Such as its role in World War 2 radio communications. Or its role
in maritime communications well into the 1990s. Or its widespread use by
radio amateurs.

Good news: Plenty of space on the Mall in DC for a great big
MONUMENT TO TELEGRAPHY! Start an organization to lobby
for its erection. Sounds like your sort of thing...!

Hello? World War 2 ended FIFTY-NINE YEARS AGO.

Rev. Jim took no part in WW2 nor in any of the military conflicts that
followed in all those 59 years.

Try to keep up with current events or reality might shock you.

[by the way, what has WW2 telegraphy to do with NATO
phonetic alphabets?!?!? try to stay focussed...]

You don't have to "respect" anyone. But someone who can discuss in a civil
manner - without name calling or ad-hominem insults - earns the respect of
almost everyone, including those who disagree.

Ooooo...Rev. Jim done beat hisself to a pulpit.

Sermon on the Antenna Mount! And it's only Wednesday! :-)

For example, I have great respect for K2UNK, Bill Sohl, even though we
disagree
on almost all amateur radio policy matters. I cannot recall a single instance
where Bill made fun of anoter's age, work, gender, license class, education,
name, ethnicity, and/or military service.

That's "civil debate".

I'd call the above MISDIRECTION. :-)

Bill can wade in as he wants...or doesn't want. Bill's option, not
yours.

This thread is about PHONETIC ALPHABETS. Or is it? :-)

"Able, baker, charlie..." phonetic alphabet was used by the U.S.
military prior to 1955. In 1955, the entire U.S. military adopted
the NATO Phonetic Alphabet ("alpha, bravo..."). That's factual.

Not only factual, I was in the U.S. Army at the time (1955), read
the AR, memorized the new phonetic alphabet and used it. Also
factual.

Gosh and golly, Rev. Jim, had I your gift of prescience, I would
have kept the mimeographed pages intact from 49 years ago,
had them in a safety deposit box vault for safekeeping to show
those of today! :-)

[no xerocopy machines back then, no job-printing run-offs for
most military documents, just mimeographed on rather easily
oxidizeable paper]

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rev. Jim, speak softly and quit trying to use
your Big Schtick.

Look out or someone will beat you to a pulpit. :-)

[which has happened many times in here but those on
anaesthetic can't feel it... :-) ]

"You can't have 'meaningful exchanges' with Rev. Jim unless
you cherish, love, honor, and obey the Belief in manual
telegraphy and the radio times of before the Rev. existed."

Beep, beep...

LHA / WMD

There's a very wise bit of advice that says a person should treat others as
they wish to be treated.