RadioBanter - View Single Post - No anticipated change in Morse Requirement for a while

January 20th 05, 11:18 AM

Lenof21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(Nun of the Above) writes:

"Nun of the Above"...?!?!

More of your "I don't use pejoratives that aren't directed at
me"...???

Perhaps they have changed their mind.

Perhaps you are mistaken!

Try reading FCC 90-53.

Ahhhh.... A document that's 15 years old now...Just because you
can read it "today" does NOT make it "today's" policy or position,
Lennie.

Nor have most other countries chosen to remove it, even though the
treaty requirement was removed more than 18 months ago. Oddly
enough, Japan retains its code testing for 3 of its 4 amateur radio
license classes.

Are you going to get a Japanese ham license, benjo-san?

Now you are calling Jim a commode, Lennie?

WHERE has Jim made any such inference to YOU...???

Regulation includes the protection and preservation of important
resources. That's why we have national parks and wilderness
areas. One aspect of amateur radio *is* similar to that of the
national parks and wilderness areas.

Well then, have Congress transfer U.S. amateur radio licensing
to the National Park Service!

Lennie, YOU have made references to Amateur Radio being like our
national parks systems...Are you now retracting that opinion?

That's right. *ALL* citizens. That includes those who are licensed,
and those who are not.

Really? I thought the PCTA extras in here were all for the
suppression of the Constitution of the United States. They sure
give that impression.

Gee, Lennie...I counted over 17 "replies" to comments made by you
in various Amateur Radio relevent proceedings wherein YOU did
everything you could to try and sidetrack the comments of people who DO
have licenses and experience in Amateur Radio.

In smaller
words that means they can comment to any agency of the
government about any laws or regulations made by that
government.
"Membership" in any particular agency's activity is NOT
required.

Who ever said it was?

Poop Dave the 1st. He demands, you demand "motivation."

To quote YOU, Lennie, "Show your work". WHERE are the DEAMNDS you
insist exist?

The important and unanswered question is: why is someone who is not
a licensed radio amateur, nor a manufacturer of amateur radio
equipment,
nor otherwise involved in amateur radio other than newsgroup
postings, so
obsessed with the regulations for an amateur radio license?

See? YOU demand "motivation" plus rulings on the admissability
of any commentary!

He didn't demand anything.

He asked you a very valid question.

One you tried to dance around. Didn't work.

Apparently, some in here seem to think that ONLY licensed radio
amateurs "should" comment on amateur regulations or that any
who so comment are "wishing to get a license."

Who, Len? Be specific.

OH? Am I - again - REQUIRED to state, for the record, something?

You must have short-term memory loss. Poor baby.

No "memory loss".

Simply putting you in the position of having to prove some of your
assinine assertions, the truthful answers to which would, of course,
disprove them!

Maybe not now, but five years ago tomorrow you said something very
different.

Tsk. Five years ago you couldn't read any better than you do now.
Which is to say rather poorly.

I think he reads quite well.

And I am sure you find it quite embarrassing that others are able
to locate can quote YOUR words to YOUR dismay.

Gosh. FIFTY-FIVE years ago I said "differently." Are you going
to
handcuff me and charge me with a felony something?

If stupid and arrogant were punishable offenses, you'd be on Death
Row. Of course in California it's "Death By Old Age Or Boredom Row".

That's simply your opinion, plus some gratuitous insults thrown in.
Nothing
more.

Poor baby. Strong language and differing opinions causing you
psychological trauma?

Strong language is all you seem to have to offer.

The elimination OR the retention of morse code testing can be
discussed on its own merits, not the "accomplishments" of a few
who cannot justify their side of the discussion.

Then do so, rather than simply deriding those who disagree with you.

See? There you go again, not justifying anything but adding all
those pejoratives about persons not agreeing with you.

What "pejoratives"...???

Seems that you are *requesting* that I "attempt defamation of the
person" of
others. Including you.

Nooooo...you ARE attempting to defame anyone not agreeing with
you.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

By reminding us of your previously stated opinions and actions
then turning them AGAINST you...?!?!

THAT is NOT "defaming" anyone.

Who, Len? Give some examples. But be prepared to also see references
to how
*you* have behaved towards those who disagree with you.

I've named them, sweetums. Now stop waving that court order
around
and show your shield. Tsk. You radio kopps sure don't know
procedure.

You've done nothing of the sort. You've not provided ONE
verifyable, documented quote as supporting "evidence" of your
assertions.

You HAVE provided tons of deceit, lies and "pejoratives" that you
claim others use.

Your "Nun of the Above" reference to Jim Miccolis in the opening
line of this post being of prime example.
Leonard H. Anderson is a putz.

Steve, K4YZ