Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

We've already seen how you react to others who have served our
country
in
both military and nonmilitary government service.

Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat
experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-)

Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what
they did or where.

Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in
the
USAF, 1970-1971.

Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-)

Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry
I was there?

Did you throw away YOUR medals, too?

Not my medals. Not my ribbons.

When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency?

Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President
of the United States.

Neither is Dubya. :-)

Yes, he is. No hanging chad; no 500 Florida votes; no Supreme Court; no
doubt of the popular vote; no problem with the electoral vote. End of
story. You have four years to develop more believable conspiracy
theories.

I'm sure there's a lot you miss.

Yes, but my aim is improving.

That hasn't been apparent.

What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail)

(no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.)

Yawn...snore

Why do you feign sleep after asking?

Your prussian schoolmaster tone is very tiring.

My "tone"? Can you actually hear me?

Ah, but you TAP DANCED AWAY FROM ANSWERING! :-)

I gave you an answer: "(no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy
the suspense.)" I can give you an answer though I'm not forced to do
so. I don't guaranty that you'll like the answer.

You did NOT say in any detail WHAT you did. Tsk.

No, I don't believe I did. Task.

Tell us, might warrior of in-country action, describe your herosim
under fire, how you closed with and destroyed the enemy with
your magnificant morsemanship.

I don't believe I will, Leonard.

You made insulting remarks about it.

I ran out of medals and pretty certificates (suitable for framing).

You no more issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service than you
participate in amateur radio.

I wasn't claiming to "issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam
service (or Vietnam service)." Tsk. You are connecting unrelated
sentences. :-)

One of those sentences was directly under the other. You wrote both of
them. If they aren't connected, what can the second one mean? :-) :-)

Are you now teaching English?

I will if you like. Would you like to sign up for a remedial course?

Are you going to "dismiss" some from your "class" if strict, absolute
formalism isn't obeyed? Seig Heil!

If you mean the absolute formalism of placing sentence which you claim
are not related to other sentences immediately below them, yes you are
dismissed. Give my regards to Godwin.

Tsk. I'm just copying the style of the PCTA...all "heroes" if from
their glowing self-styled words. Any NCTA never "really" served
their country.

You're actually just copying your own style.

I can but I haven't. :-) I'm just copying the style of the PCTA...
but without barfing their puke about morse code being the
ultimate skill of an amateur.

Are you sure you're not some kid, playing with his Mom's computer?

I am whatever your imagination conjurs up, bile-barf-master.

Then you are that kid from school wearing a plaid shirt. You have pants
worn high enough so that you'd have to unzip 'em to blow your nose.
You're an expert on all things and nobody wants to sit with you at
lunch.


Tsk. YOU are the one trying to relate unrelated sentences. :-)

You wrote them and placed one above the other. If they are truly
unconnected, there is no reason to have written the second of them. It
would have been totally out of place.

Poor baby. Still demanding utter, strict formalism. Tsk.

Since we're being informal, Leonard. I'll place one word of a sentence
here and there thoroughout my post. You find them, put them all
together and make a sentence. Then you can try do decide where in the
post they belong. Here's your first word: No

Aren't you NOBILITY or something?

We have no nobility, much less NOBILITY in the United States.

A divine messenger?

Well, I have been told that I'm cute. man

Tsk. For years the U.S. Army Signal Corps has been assigned
the task of providing communications for the President of the
United States.

That's wonderful news, Leonard. I'd have never known anything about
WHCA if not for your insider information. Haw! The Department of State
is not involved with POTUS communications.

That's a growing problem in the Republican adminstration...they
get the wrong information on the communications?

I was there for the Clinton administration. They didn't change the
policy on communications.

What has that to do with amateur radio policy?

Just as much as your comment (to which it is a direct response).

is


Gosh, several Presidents of the U.S. of A. (both parties) have
USED that "hotline" at various times to communicate directly
with the USSR in Moscow. Guess that was "improper" or
something, huh? Those fool adminstrations should have gone
through "proper diplomatic procedures" through the State?

Let's see, you've told us that the hotline was manned by military
personnel. State Department personnel are not military personnel. The
White House is not part of the Department of State. I see some gaps in
your story.

Tsk. No "gaps." Just a precis of official government information.
a
We all understand that your thinking has the Department of State
as a separate and distinct agency unrelated to the administration.

We all? You speak for an "all"? I've never made any statement
indicating that I believed that the Department of State in unrelated to
the administration. I did inform you that, in direct refutation of your
absurd claim, the Department of State does not depend upon the U.S. Army
for communications personnel, facilities or means.

My involvement in the '97
Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki dealt with obtaining frequency
clearances, obtaining permission to use repeater sites, obtaining a
mini-switch and the requested number of telephone lines for the site
hotel and obtaining a number of cellular telephones for the President's
team.
total
So, you were "involved" but, at the same time, "not involved" with
POTUS (President of the United States) communications.

loss;

Arranging the things described was strictly administrative in function.
I handled no Presidential message traffic. POTUS travels with his own
comm center.

We see gaps in your story.

We? Do you have a Vibroplex in your pocket?

You are both ways. Anyplace else that is called "hypocrisy."

Any place else and you'd have to have your ducks in a row, old fellow.

Meaningless remark. Has nothing to do with amateur radio policy.

It has as much to do with amateur radio policy as your silly claims of
Army involvement in State Department commo. I can well understand why
you'd want to now change the subject. he


Last I looked the President had the ULTIMATE U.S. say on direct
diplomatic communications, and general stuff like that. You say
that isn't so? That State operates "independently?" Tsk.

I've said no such thing. The words I wrote contained everything
necessary for the average man to understand.

Yes, of course, Holy Father. You condescend to give us lowly
mortals your divine words. Uh huh.

I don't know about "divine", Leonard, but they're true.

can
The DSN is now the main communications means for all government
communications, military and civilian alike.

...or so you apparently think.

No, I don't "think" so. The U.S. government SAYS so.

But, whathehell, a "seven hostile actions" veteran in here, another
PCTA extra, said that "MARS IS amateur radio!" DoD says
the DoD defines who is what on MARS.

I'm not discussing MARS operation, Len. The Department of State doesn't
handle MARS traffic.

According to one PCTA extra in here "MARS IS amateur radio!"

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not discussing MARS operation.

always

PCTA extras are "naturally" the most "correct" ones, right?

What? Did you ever handle message traffic for the U.S. Department of
State?

Yes, a few. :-)

No, Len, you didn't. serve



Department of State is not about amateur radio policy. Why do you
keep bring that up?

Actually, old boy, you keep bringing it up. as

There were NEVER any USMC guards at embassies (who had their
own radios)?

Sure, did you think the MSG's worked in the comm center? They had
radios, but not their own. They had my radios and used them on my net.
They never handled any State Department message traffic. Then again, in
most embassies, every employee had hand-held radios.

Did they all have ham licenses? Have to take tests on morsemanship
to be legal on using those radios?

Would you like the kind of answer you deserve?

a

I see you've come up with a simplistic view of things. That might have
led you to make some very incorrect assumptions. The President is OVER
the CIA. The military does not run CIA communications. The President
is OVER the Department of Energy. The military does not run Department
of Energy communications. You're batting zip.

Riiiiight..."Dave" says there is NO such thing as "chain of command."

No, "William"....er, Len. I didn't say any such thing.

Try to keep straight on who you are trying to insult, "Dave."

I think I managed to nail two of you who like to read between the lines.

horrible

If "Dave" says so, it IS so. Amen.

Dave told it like it is. If you choose to retain your previous beliefs,
your ignorance is your responsibility.

"Dave" told it like "Dave" thinks it is...and must take full responsibility
for his own ignorance.

There you go again, Len. No matter what work anyone has performed, you
always claim to know more about it than he. It matters not whether the
work was in the military, in other government service or in private
enterprise. It is similar to what you attempt with licensed radio
amateurs. You've never been a ham but you know better how amateur radio
should be regulated. The term which describes one like you is "sidewalk
superintendent". You know far better than any construction worker, how
a building should be erected. The only problem is, you've never put up
a building. You can describe the heat of battle, but you've never been
in battle. You know all about how the Department of State handles its
communications, but you've never been employed by the Department of
State.

example.

The "hotline' (continuous TTY circuit, Washington to Moscow)
served for at least three decades, all that time run at this end
of the circuit by U.S. Army Signal Corps people. [one can see
a couple photos of that in David Kahn's "The Codebreakers,"
NYT best-seller listing in the early 1960s]

...and this relates to the Department of State in what way? The fact
is, you're completely incorrect. You don't know what you're talking
about.

Well, heck and darn, neither does the U.S. government (except for
Department of State) "know what it is talking about" since they
released the information on that "hotline" and many other things.

You keep trying to make the assertion that Department of State
communications takes place through military channels. T'ain't so.

Tsk. "Dave" is trying to put 2 and 2 together to make 19.
Mathematical as well as linguistic ignorance is your own
responsibility.

No, I've done no such thing. I've pointed out that I am in a position
to know that the U.S. Army does not handle communications, despite your
claim, for the United States Department of State.

Show us the "truth" oh noble god of radio...set us straight and
we will all bow down and kiss your ring in appreciation at the next
Holy Service.

I've shown you. You can lead either end of a horse to water to see
which part drinks...

Your knowledge of horsemanship is not related to morsemanship.

Not a problem. Neither end of the horse in question is related to
morsemanship.


Tsk, tsk. We haven't been having a civics lesson, Len. If you like, I
can help you with your spelling after school.

True, you're trying to run a most-formal prussian schoolmasterish
class on writing English. You don't have the qualifications for that
but you vainly try.

Have you mastered "bulimia" yet, "Atila"? How's your little
"synchophant"?

It isn't odd at all, Len. Let me paint your a pictu

FCC: Regulates radio. Paid to do so. Involved in amateur radio.

Radio Amateurs: Tested and licensed to use radio under Part 97 of
FCC regs. Taking payment for providing radio
service is prohibited. Involved in amateur radio.

Len Anderson: Does not regulate amateur radio. Not licensed under Part
97 of FCC rules. Not involved in amateur radio.

Bad "painting" "Dave." Technique is awful. Your paintings will
not hang in any gallery...but "Dave" should not hang in a gallery,
rather stuffed and mounted in an unnatural history museum as
a species of Humus Morsemanus Ridiculum.

According to "Dave" rules, the FCC is NOT INVOLVED because they
aren't required to license themselves in the amateur radio service!

You'd better go look at that picture, Len. I wrote that the FCC IS
involved.

They can't be. None of them are required to have ham licenses.

Drop 'em a line. Tell them that they aren't involved. Tell 'em that you
said so.


You are not involved.

Right you are. I'm just a citizen of the USA, still active in
electronics engineering design, and think ALL of radio-electronics
is most interesting. I'm a professional and am very involved in
that...as well as being a citizen of the USA.

Carry on then. You won't have to worry yourself over what mere amateur
are doing.

The one thing about radio that is not interesting is the group of
self-righteous oafs who think they are some kind of radio gods
and try (but fail) to put down those who don't honor and respect
them for their mighty macho morsemanship.

For a guy who find such things uninteresting, you spend a significant
amount of your time addressing and responding to those you abhor. You
might have a few things mixed up. Fact is, radio amateurs aren't going
to be swept off their feet by your professional standing. Many of us
have also worked in radio and electronics professionally. If you want
in, you'll have to pass an exam. If you want HF access in amateur
radio, better pass that tricky 5 wpm code exam. If you want respect,
keep your transmissions short and keep the gain on your receiver on.
Otherwise, nobody except other rank newbies will want to talk to
you--until they wise up.

Those have amateur
radio licenses and all seem to be PCTAs...as well as having way
overblown egos thinking they are "superior" to those not thinking
as they do.

I don't like your ego, Len. As far as amateur radio, I'm superior to
you.
I'm in. You're out.

Should you ever become licensed, you'll be a neophyte at amateur radio.

Dave K8MN