Len Over 21 wrote:
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. :-)

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

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.


Then I advise that your seeing an opthalmologist for an
eye examination is a good idea. That way you could observe
the several fracases that nursie starts with ANYONE who
disagrees with him...besides Brian, try Hans and Dieter.

Takes at least two people to make a fight. Steve and mayself don't get
into verbal battles. And I'm certainly not afraid of him. If I disagree,
I'll tell him so. And despite what "William" wants me to do, I'm not
going to step into one of you three's battles and slap his hand. You are
all big boys now, and responsible for your own behavior!


It's all been public. Nursie is eager and chomping at the bit
to FIGHT with anyone.

Okay, if you and Brian aren't, then show it. But you enjoy it, IMO, so
why defend it. If you like having verbal sparring matches with Steve
(the boys down at the shop used to call 'em whizzing contests) then have
at it. Want to have a nasty toned battle of wits? Enjoy! 8^)

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.


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?

Tsk. See that opthalmologist.

Warning: You could be a victim of presbyopia and not know it...


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

Heh heh heh.


Gosh...wonder who wrote that original phrase? :-)

It wasn't Mike Coslo. It wasn't nursie. It wasn't Brian. It wasn't Rev.
Jim, our Artist of the State. It wasn't Kellie. It wasn't Hans. It
wasn't Dieter. It wasn't Jim Hampton. It wasn't Dee. It wasn't Kim.
OK, that about exhausts the regulars in here. :-)



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, NONE.

However, the Titanic disaster is a favorite subject of his lordship,
Sir James. As Lord High Admiral of the newsgroup (sailing these
turbid waters every day), he has decreed the Titanic disaster IS a
worthy subject for amateur radio policy.

There we have it.

I enjoy talking on any subject with Jim.



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


True enough. But only in the literal sense.

Hello? Can you see some sarcasm in my remarks? :-)

Of course. And there was some kind of something in my retort (limited
retort?) 8^)

Just a habit of mine to not speak ill of the dead.

As Yogi Berra said "If you don't go to your friend's funerals, they
won't go to yours!"




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.


So...you've joined the Society of Friends?

We quake at the thought...

Good people, all the Quakers I met.



But, of curse, you regulars all OWN this newsgroup. Despite it going
wherever the Internet carries it. What you dictate as Right and Proper
MUST be observed at all times!





Or are you PCTAs just "high?"

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


I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed.

Been a lonnng time since I heard that one!


Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts.


Never had a Morse code fantasy in my life.

Linda Hamilton has entered my thoughts on an occasion or two! ;^)

:-)

8^)



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.


You missed my point on that.

The present-day U.S. amateur regulations are just fine and dandy
to those who want to keep the morse code test for a license
examination.

You seem to give the Morse test the same amount of weight as
Pseudo-Conservatives give to the mythical "Liberal". This critter is
responsible for all the ills in the country, despite there being almost
no liberals left. Somehow, some way, the one or two liberals left manage
to gum everything up.


Other than to this circle of "friends," somewhere in the neighborhood
of 700 thousand (give or take) licensed amateurs MIGHT have some
disagreement with that "up to date."

There are presently 18 ("count 'em, 18") petitions for consideration
on changes to U.S. amateur radio regulations made public by the
FCC. It should be obvious (except to the oblivious) that all is NOT
"up to date" in those regulations.



Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just


study the material.


Why? :-)

Each person must answer their own "Why". I figured that since I only
have so many years on this earth, I would take the time and learn Morse
code. Spent 6 months of an hour or so a day. The rewards have been that
I have had my (Morse code tested) license for 3 years now. That's three
years out of my life that I wouldn't have had it if I refused to learn it.

YMMV

Your "Why" would indicate that you simply aren't interested in the ARS
to the level that you would take the effort to get the license.

That's okay. If you don't want to be a Ham, no one is can stop you. Or
even a hamme! ;^)


I'm really only interested in ending the U.S. amateur radio license exam
morse code test.

I do NOT need to "study material on morsemanship" to do that.

Nope, you don't have to. Purely voluntary stuff.

I do NOT need to "study material on any other test element" just to
get a federal merit badge saying I am "authorized" something or
other.

Purely voluntary stuff there.



You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and
correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three
decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY
requirement to "study morsemanship material."

I could never forget! 8^)

Of course if you are happy, then that is great. I've only been on HF
for a few years now. Enjoying every minute of it.

I must confess I don't personally compartmentalize it into HF or Not
HF. It's all good, MF, HF, VHF, UHF!



I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation,
but it didn't do me a bit of damage.


I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time.


Good job, that! 8^)





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.


What do you see on my "signature" line?

I've seen

I've seen LHA / WMD

I've seen LHA

Sometimes nothing

My Newsreader wants to call you Len Over 21




Tsk. If you can't understand my preferences, then that trip to an
opthalmologist for you is necessary. [remember, watch out for
presbyopia...]


Which of your preferences?

If you pick up an IEEE Membership Directory, you wil see my legal
name in there. Been in there since 1973. That's the formal version.

So is that what you want to be called?


Or you can call me any name, nasty or otherwise, that you care to
use. Even enclose it in quote marks as "Dave" does it. Just don't
call me late for dinner.

I don't call people nasty names. Just what they prefer to be called.
that's why I asked


Shirley you jest. Roger that. Go to the John. Etc.