K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Jimmie, get your definitions correct. Those amateur
licensees who are IN the 2-year grace period for
renewal are NOT "expired."

The licensees may or may not have expired. Their
licenses *have* expired.

The FCC doesn't call them that.

Yes, they do.

Quoting FCC rules, 97.21 iii:

"b) A person whose amateur station license grant has expired may
apply
to the FCC for renewal of the license grant for another term during
a
2
year filing grace period. The application must be received at the
address specified above prior to the end of the grace period.
Unless
and until the license grant is renewed, no privileges in this Part
are
conferred."

The licensee may not have expired but the license sure has.

I suggest you actually read Part 97, Len.

Now THAT would be refreshing...

Don't hold your breath....

Of course you've cited that exact same paragraph to Lennie on
several occassions before when he's made the same error, yet he
continues to make THE SAME ERROR.

Not really. You are mistaken, Steve.

Back around the end of last year, Len posted here that *all* licensees
were perfectly legal to operate in the grace period. That's simply not
true.

The way it works is that if someone files for renewal in a timely
fashion (meaning during the 90 day window at the end of a license
term), FCC allows them to keep their license privileges (and keep
operating legally) while the renewal action is pending. But if the end
of the 10 year license passes - even by one day! - the licensee is
*not* allowed to operate until the renewal is actually processed by
FCC.

So there are some licensees who can "legally operate in the grace
period" - those who filed their renewals in a timely fashion. The rest
cannot. Len wrote that all licensees could legally operate in the grace
period - that's simply wrong.

His mistake this time is different - he claims FCC doesn't use the term
"expired" to mean licenses whose 10 year term is past but which have
not
been renewed. That's wrong too - the term "expired" is used by FCC for
just that purpose.

Len made two different mistakes on the same section of Part 97, Steve,
not one.

Just answer the question, please.

No.

Then why should I answer any of yours?

Indeed.

Lennie's been asked MANY questions by many persons on numerous
subjects...The only answer (paraphrased) "I don't have to answer the
questions of mighty morsemen".

Brian Burke does the same thing. So I ignore him.

But he has point-blank DEMANDED answers from us...Hence my
refusal
to further address my Armed Forces service outside the realm of
radio...I love seeing him twist in his seat...Burns him up to know he
doesn't have control.

Try to use CIVIL language in here...

I have - for years. It doesn't work with you, Len. You exhibit
jack### behavior in accordance with a predictable profile
regardless - if a person disagrees with your opinions and/or
points out errors in your postings here.

Lennie's nickname should be "Diode"...things are only one way
with
him...

Hmmm...

But I do point out
the holes in your arguments, and your factual/logical mistakes,
which seems to enrage you no end..

No, No, NO, Jimmie, you got it WRONG again.

All you do is engage in some odd word play to try
and "justify" your rationalizations of your fantasy
ideas about a hobby. That is NOT "correcting
mistakes."

See above about the word "expire" as used by FCC in Part 97.
You made a mistake, Len. I pointed it out.

Facts are NOT Lennie's forte.

Jimmie, I've been an UNLICENSED radio-electronics
hobbyist longer than you've been alive...and that IS
the truth...in REALITY.

So what? All that means is that you are old and that you
have fooled with some electronic stuff. Lots of people
can say the same thing.

And obviously not very proud of what he's allegedly done...No
details..no pics....Nothing...

No website. AOL allows a website for each screen name - Len could have
seven websites, showing us what he's done "in radio". He has none.

I was OPERATING on HF BEFORE you were born, Jimmie,
IN the military...the military you've NEVER been in.
That is reality...whether or not you care to accept it.

So what? All that means is that you are old and that you
once served in the Army, where you were trained to do certain
transmitter adjustments, as part of a large team of specialists.
Lots
of people can say the same thing.

He was a radio mechanic. Nothing more...nothing less.

Not a bad thing.

Quit acting like a spoiled child who demands obediance
to you and your ideas.

"Don't even ATTEMPT to CONTROL what I am "allowed" to
do in the FUTURE...because you CANNOT and you do NOT
know the future." - Len Anderson

That was the pot calling the kettle black!

Apply your own rules for others to your own behavior, Len.

Yeah...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...Wanna see the pics from my
weekend
soire with Britney Spears too...?!?!

AAAAHHHHHH!!!! MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You aren't being CONSISTENT. Try to get it straight.
Is it what *I* "might" do or is it about "what I will
'never' do?"

You claimed you were going for Extra "right out of the box".
January
19, 2000, more than 5-1/4 years ago. But you haven't even got a
Technician license yet.

Exactly what HAS Lennie done with ANY "radio hobby" activity
since
he joined this forum? Other than "DX" the ATIS at LAX with a
scanner,
that is...?!?!

You are (seemingly) bringing up an OLD piece of a
posting to IMPLY that I "must" do it...EXACTLY as
I wrote it. :-)

Not at all, Len. I'm simply pointing out what you said you would
do, but haven't done yet. And that it appears you'll never do it.

Why WOULDN'T we expect you to do what you said you'd do, Lennie?

Is your written word not of any value?

Bingo!

YOU don't seem to like that TRUTH. You want to call
such facts "wrong" because they are against your
BELIEFS. You want to "strike back" at those that
present the TRUTH because such TRUTHs are uncomfortable
to your fantasy.

Not me.

You're simply saying that your *opinions* about ARRL are "THE
TRUTH".
That's just bull#### on your part. No other word to describe it.

I'm still waiting to see if Lennie ever ponies up any proof for
his
assertion that the "ARRL is dishonest".

The claim was that there was no way the children pictured could have
obtained their licenses honestly.

73 de Jim, N2EY