wrote:
wrote:
From: "bb" on Wed,May 25 2005 3:35 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon,May 23 2005 3:57 am
"who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal insult thing
in order to "win an argument." "
Oh, oh! Reverend Jim issued a Sermon On The Antenna Mount! :-)
Not only that, the poor guy is still furious over NOT "winning"
a newsgroup argument THREE YEARS AGO! :-)
Not only that, the "argument" wasn't even about RADIO!
Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Military
and international socio-political politics are another group.
"RADIO" includes all of the HF portion of the EM spectrum. That's
where the major international communications networks WERE in
the 1950s. I was part of that - for three years - as a
volunteer in the United States Army...operating HF transmitters
for an Army station.
In Jim's circles, there is no "volunteering." You get bad grades and
your waiver goes away. Then the Draftsman comes knocking.
Tsk, the "knocking" stopped about 32 years ago. Jimmie has NO
worry. He could sit back in comfortable safety in PA and read
all about the military and international realpolitik without
once having participated in anything.
How many Soviet aircraft did you see when you were in Japan in the
1950s, Len?
Only one, but at a distance, couldn't get close enough to read
any manufacturer's tags on the airframe of the MiG. From a
North Korean defector who flew it to South Korea, was in display
at a USAF base on Honshu.
I've seen Soviet aircraft without being overseas. I've seen them on
RADAR penetrating CONUS airspace.
So where were you when you saw Soviet aircraft? How did you serve?
Jimmie did proofreading on the Brit series "Janes All The World
Aircraft." Did that at the local public library.
He became a Virtual
military expert without once being IN any branch or working in
any office of the Department of Defense.
I don't claim to be an expert in anything.
That would probably be for the best.
Ah, but he comes ON like the CEO of the newsgroup. :-)
You've never been "IN" amateur radio, yet you want to tell us How It
Should Be.
When you merely want to exclude people??? I've no problem with him
anything he might say to you with your kind of attitude.
Jimmie needs to be newsgroup CEO.
Getting to the heart of the matter, Jimmie feels TERRIBLY "insulted"
when one doesn't like what Jimmie likes.
Not true. You're the one who calls people names, and tells them to shut up
if they don't agree with you.
Jim calls them jackasses.
PCTA Extra Double Standard. QED.
[he is regularly bringing up old, faded postings from Google as
if to continue to "do battle" on those topics forever and ever]
Gee, Len, you bring up even older and more faded stuff about
Highly respected...
defunct
ham radio magazines and your experiences of a half-century ago.
Every issue of QST has excerpts from half a century ago. I've never,
ever, ever seen you complain. Ever.
Brian, careful, you know how painful it is to remind Jimmie
of the obvious. Pastor Jimmie might write another Sermon on
the Antenna Mount!
Why
is it OK for you to rehash events of 20, 30, 50 years ago, but not
OK for others to remind you of the events of 2 or 3 years past?
Because you say it isn't OK for Len to remind you of events of 50 years
ago, but never comment when the ARRL does it.
Jimmie wants to rehash what I was "supposed to do" in Japan,
but Jimmie has NEVER served in any military anywhere anytime.
That's "okay."
Jimmie wants Total Agreement with his OPINIONS. If there is
no Total Agreement, then dissention is "wrong," must be
BANNED, shouted down, tarred and feathered, etc., etc.
Seems like a double standard on your part.
Double-standard, indeed. That could be your middle name.
I think it should be just "H" (for hypocrite).
Jimmie wants NUMBERS? He is regularly giving some sort of
tabulation
on the "valid licenses" of radio amateurs in the USA.
No, I'm not. You're mistaken, Len. Wrong again.
Are you absolutely, positively sure?
Jimmie is never wrong. Other people are wrong...when they
disagree with Jimmie.
The numbers I post here twice a month are those of current, unexpired
FCC amateur licenses held by individuals. That's stated in each post.
The word valid is not used to describe them.
They are invalid numbers? They are invalid licenses?
Jimmie loves wordplay, spending long hours at his old, faded
computer, exercising his imaginary powers of CEO of the
newsgroup. He's wasting lots of folks' time.