In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

Naw, the three of them do enough.

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.

It's a plain, simple fact.

I just call them as everyone else can see them.

Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to see?

Yep.

Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!"

Heh heh heh.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]

That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup,
Len.
After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up"..

I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He
claims otherwise.

Tsk. Nice troll cast, but inaccurate.

No, completely accurate.

Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

Very very little.

Actually, quite a bit.

1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency.

No, that's not true. Radio was regulated by the US and by international treaty
before 1912. The regulations were very vague and loose, but they did exist.

That's
about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very
tenuous one...if at all. :-)

Wrong again, Len!

Because of the Titanic disaster, the existing loose regulations were tightened
up and much more closely defined. Licenses were required of all transmitting
stations, new procedures set up, new treaties and agreements put in place.

And it was because of the Titanic disaster that amateurs were limited to "200
meters and down" and 1 kW input to their transmitters. Those limitations caused
amateurs to organize themselves into groups like ARRL (1914), to push for
legislative protection, and to explore what could be done with those supposedly
"useless" wavelengths.

Had there been no Titanic or similar disaster, it's very probable that the
loose state of radio regulatory affairs would have continued until the outbreak
of WW1.

And it's also very possible that without the Titanic disaster, amateur radio
would not exist today, or even after WW1.

Perhaps that's why Len gets so worked up over mention of the Titanic.

Or perhaps it's the fact that the rescue was effected by Morse Code used on
radio that gets Len so upset.

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.

"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

Yeah, what's with that?

Tsk. You two don't really READ what you've written? :-)

Jimmie wanted me to show ten kinds of respect and sorrow for all
the passengers and crew of the Titanic who perished in 1912!

When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a
"bleeding heart".

Len laughed at the disaster when I wrote that hitting the iceberg head-on would
have probably saved all aboard. And he refuses to show any respect for those
who perished.

Just three nights earlier than the Titanic disaster the liner Niagara plowed
head-on into an iceberg at almost the same spot where Titanic sank. Although
passengers were thrown to the deck and the ship was damaged, and an SOS was
sent, no lives were lost and the ship continued to New York under its own
power.

I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband

You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names. Perhaps
you don't have the guts to do it.

Tsk. "Serious problem?" More tsk. :-)

Yes, Len. You have that problem.

Not much show-biz action in PA...but there is in this neck o' the woods.

And the importance of that is?

and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

Tsk. More PCTA extra Double Standard.

How? Just asking a question.

Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in
a quirky sort of way?

Why do you wish to continue talking about Linda Hamilton?

Why not? She was very good in "Mr. Destiny"

Well you brought her to the conversation. 8^)

Does she have a ham license? [pun intended]

[just think what fun the ARRL news page would have with...drum
roll...HAM ACTOR! :-)

Like Andy Devine...

Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy?

You guys just can't focus! :-)

Not a matter of focus. Just some discussion among friends. And the
discussions among friends tend to go where they will.

Free speech. What a concept.

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at low
altitude.

Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of
the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day
with him at the yoke.

So...this is now a FLYING newsgroup?

No, but there are some on Netnews, I'm sure.

Or are you PCTAs just "high?"

Ick, getting high is a sure fire method of wasting one's life.

Remember "8 Miles High"?

Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

For maybe, 1913... :-)

For 2004.

I took the tests recently, all within the past 5 years, and a couple
within 3 years. They are up to date enough, covering satellite ops, all
manner of relevant band and technical questions dealing with present day
equipment. They are up to date for at least mid 2001.

They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.

Why does that bother you so much?

Tsk. Doesn't bother me much.

It sure seems to. You're obsessed by it.

I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-)

That's a good thing!

Why should I sell my soul for some high-rate morsemanship? :-)

"Sell your soul"? One cannot sell what one does not posess. ;-)

Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right out
of the box".

Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just
study the material. I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation,
but it didn't do me a bit of damage. Here I am, soul intact , and just
as fat dumb and happy as ever! 8^)

Thoroughly modern, too!

It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.

Perhaps some do.

Jimmie Who do.

What person are you referring to, Len?

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic
level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Only because THEY had to do it...therefore everyone else has to
do the same! :-)

Nope. They think it's a good idea for other reasons.

Nahh, I think they should take it because that is the rule at present.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Why is Jimmie so bothered that he has to keep asking that?

"You can not answer a question with another question"

Note how Len avoids the question about why the code test bothers him so much.

Oh, Bother..... W.T. Pooh

Yup!

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The Art"
car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes? Is your computer "State Of The Art",
complete with broadband connection?

Far more modern in all respects on all items compared to 1912. :-)

In other words: No to all of the above.

If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.

Yep.

Tsk. Bad grammar to boot...up.

Yup, kind of illustrating the point that many people seem to think that
they are some kind of high tech wizard because they own a PC or cell
phone, or other such icons.

Well done, Mike!

Try "If we own PCs, we are not state of the art." :-)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I kind of like the other way if you
don't mind. 8^)

Your English syntax and grammar is NOT state of the art...

Oh, but they are as necessary!

Exactly!

Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20
years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about it.

Tsk. Jimmie have loss of memory. Poor fella.

To whom do you refer?

Has to "recycle" all his
radio construction in order to do "state of the art" TUBE designs in the
1990s. Tsk. With a double degree... :-)

Doesn't "have to". Chooses to.

Besides, it wouldn't matter what sort of homebrew rig I produced - Len would
have lots of disparaging things to say about it.

What homebrew HF radio transceivers have *you* produced since the mid 1990s,
Len, using only your own time and resources?

Despite their virtual obsolescence, hollow state technology is quite
interesting, at least to me.

I find it very interesting, too. Very useful, too.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Random thought mode off.......

Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like
Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-)

AM never really appealed to me. Takes a lot of energy for all you get
out of it. But I do like historical processes and equipment as a
diversion after working all day with much more modern techniques. Kinda fun.

I've done AM on 75 meters, and it's a lot of fun when the band isn't crowded.
Been in some really nice roundtables where the other folks know how to develop
an idea and express their views.

Wow! "State of the Art!"

I suppose at one time it was!

Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires
for at least 10 miles! :-)

Hehe, AM is probably just about at the bottom of the heap (with
apologies to all the AM'ers out there)

It's another tool in the toolbox.

Have a Happy, your Grinchness...

You also, Lenover21.



I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"?

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?