wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Did you think someone ELSE bothered to read ALL
the filings on WT Docket 05-235 and compile a day-by-day
tabulation of them?
I don't think that. I know it's true. I've seen the compilation
done by someone else and it's more informative than yours.
WHO else, Jimmie?
A licensed radio amateur with experience in the field. Somebody
whose methods of analyzing the comments may be much more
accurate than yours.
You are begining to sound like Dudly the Imposter in here,
always NON-specific but alleging you "know" someone else.
The information is available to all who will look for it. Easier to
access than ECFS. You've claimed years and years of
experience in "computer-modem communications", yet you
can't find it? I am surprised.
You've never been a radio amateur but you tell us How Amateur
Radio Should Be. Which is your right of free speech.
MISTAKE. ERROR.
It's not your right of free speech?
I'm telling the Federal Communications
Commission (a U.S. federal government agency) what I think
the regulations on GETTING INTO amateur radio "should be."
[i.e., my desires]
How does your posting a 'scorecard' *here* tell the FCC anything,
Len?
Your posts *here* are full of your ideas about How Amateur Radio
Should Be. Your comments to FCC are full of your ideas about
How Amateur Radio Should Be. By definition.
Tsk. I could NOT "tell you anything" about amateur radio or
anything else if it was against what you wrote in here.
Posting is telling everyone who reads your words. They don't
have to agree with what you tell them, but you're telling them
just the same.
So you've already told me and others a lot about amateur
radio - and a lot of other things. The truth of what you've told
is a different issue...
You
would spend days, weeks, even years arguing over a "discussion"
as you did on "age requirements" LONG AFTER I dropped it. :-)
If you had really "dropped it", there would be no discussion....
You've spent most of a decade on usenet arguing against a simple
test for a license in a radio service with which you have no
involvement. That's your right, of course, but it is kind of odd
behavior. You must be very invested *emotionally*...
The thing you seem to have trouble with is when others use their
right of free speech.
Tsk, tsk, I'm USED to heckling, catcalls, booing from the
peanut gallery in computer-modem communications. Been doing
that since early December, 1984.
You've been doing heckling, catcalls, and booing from the
peanut gallery in computer-modem communications since 1984, eh?
After all, you said you've been doing it since early December 1984...
One would think that with all that experience you could find the
'scorecard' of which I wrote.
YOU are one of the hecklers.
How? Show us your definition of "heckler" and how it applies.
The definition I've always seen describes a "heckler" as
someone from the audience who calls out to an onstage
performer with derogatory remarks and insults.
I don't do that. If anyone in rrap is the master of
derogatory remarks, it's you, Len.
But more important is the fact that you're not an
onstage performer here. This is a completely different
sort of venue, where opposing opinions (like mine)
aren't "heckling".
Who is "Jimmie-James", Len? An imaginary friend of yours?
James P. Micollis, the one whose legal address given to the FCC
is at 136 Morningside Circle, Wayne, PA 19087.
No one by that name lives at this address. I live there.
Are YOU this same "James P. Miccolis?"
What do you think? Perhaps you could check your spelling...
ALL of them. Even those filings
which aren't about amateur radio! :-)
Finally! An answer to a straightforward question! Thank you.
Tsk, tsk. That ANSWER was clearly given in the Notes on each
"score card" posting since the first one.
No, it wasn't.
You did not seem to
understand it.
The notes are not clear.
Tsk, tsk...I'm NOT "making claims."
Yes, you are, Len. You're claiming your 'scorecard' is accurate
but you won't answer questions about how it is prepared.
1. The "answers" were ALREADY POSTED in each of the "score cards"
I put up via Google. Well before you "asked" for the first
one.
Those "answers" aren't clear.
2. You've gotten answers to your (petulant, whiny, accusatory)
"questions" in here...but you sure as hell don't LIKE them!
That may be changing, which is a good thing.
Who appoint you "judge" of what is "a good thing" or a "bad thing?"
Same person who made *you* the judge.
3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur
community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old,
Old, OLD standards and practices.
Really? How do you know?
Compare the percentages of commenters supporting Morse Code testing
in 1998-1999 with those of the current NPRM. How much difference
is there *really*?
And even *your* 'scorecard' shows the majority support at least some
code
testing, and oppose its complete elimination (as proposed in the NPRM).
How about that? Your desires are in the *minority*, Len!
You claim: "The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur
community has been CHANGING all along..." but when it comes to the
actual
comments even your flawed counting method shows the majority does *not*
support the NPRM.
That seems to **** you off
greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and accusatory. Tsk.
I'm not the one yelling and calling people names, Len. You are.
Here's another solution, Len: If you don't want commentary on
things you post, don't post them.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are telling me to SHUT UP! [but are attempting
to disguise it with uncivil "civil phrases"]
Not at all. I'm simply offering a solution to your problem. You can
post
all you want - but that means you'll have to put up with opposing
commentary. Deal with it.
You seem to want everyone to just accept what you write here
without question, even though you don't behave that way
towards others. Doesn't work that way.
ERROR! MISTAKE!! Sorry, dearie, but it DOES work that way.
What you want is different from the way things actually work, Len.
You may *want* everyone to just accept what you write here, but
they may not.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did God appoint YOU as "judge" of "what works"
and "doesn't work" in here? [He didn't tell me that this
morning] Do you have a Certificate of Licensure (suitable for
framing) from a Divine Authority granting you "judgement"
capability on who posts what? I don't think so...
I'm just telling you how it is, Len.
That seems to unduly upset you. Tsk. If it bothers you so
much, just stop reading this thread! [easy solution to your
apparent problem]
You are the one getting upset, Len. Not me.
"Upset?" No.
Yes. You're all worked up - it comes through clearly in your mistakes,
name calling, shouting, insults, uncivil behavior, etc.
YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD.
Neither are you, Len.
That doesn't explain why YOU constantly pretend to be "judge"
and try to make nasty to others who state opinions contrary to
what YOU find "objectionable."
"make nasty"? How? Looks to me like you consider any disagreement
with your views to be "making nasty".
There are NO RULES in "score card" postings other than what
the poster places in public view. I have done that. Since
the first "score card" posting.
Your "rules" don't explain a lot of things, Len.
The Notes given with each
"card" are clear and comprehensive.
No, they're not.
"Asking for clarification" of yours is nothing more than adult-
language puerile petulant HECKLING done for malicious intent
of your own.
How is asking for clarification "heckling"?
Nobody checks your work.
*I* check my work.
OK then - nobody *else* checks your work.
YOU don't like it, go do your OWN scoring.
Is that a command?
Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for"
filings?
Tsk, tsk...you understand very poorly.
Incorrect. I understand very well. You explain very poorly.
Poor baby. Always trying to make yourself the "superior."
I don't have to "try", Len ;-)
You don't get the answers you WANT, so you bitch and whine
and get all snarly about "poor explanations!"
Sorry, but the Nun of the Above can't elevate herself to
Mother Superior.
Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for" filings?
I've already said I count ALL the filings.
In other words, your own comments and reply comments are counted as 5
filings *for* the NPRM, not 1. Also means you're counting the multiple
filings of others, including one person who was "for" the NPRM and
filed no less than 17 filings.
Tsk, tsk, tsk...my Notes said that DUPLICATES would be counted
as "Indeterminate" category and not used for the Percentage
figures. Clearly.
Not "clearly", because you don't define what a "duplicate" really is.
If the
same person files comments that are not identical, do you count them as
duplicates? Or are they separate comments and counted as such?
Your tally indicates that you don't count nonidentical filings by the
same
person as duplicates.
The duplicate filer For the NPRM gives his name as Vincent
Garcell.
17 filings!
Another one Against the NPRM, with 13 total filings,
is Dwayne Sparks.
How about Leonard H. Anderson, who has 6 filings? Do they show
up as a count of 1 or 6 on the tally of "for" filings? I think you
count them as 6 in the "for" column because they're not identical
and hence not duplicates.
The ECFS totals ALL of the filings in one Docket on any Search.
You can select the type of filings, though. You could just look at
Comments rather than all filings.
It doesn't discriminate against filings which aren't even about
amateur radio! Perhaps you ought to bitch and whine to the FCC
and Tell Them What To Do!
An alternative compilation that I have seen indicates multiple filings
by the same person. Last time I looked, multiple filings by those "for"
the NPRM exceeded multiple filings by those "against" it by at least 32
comments. That's about 1%.
Hey, Dudly II, WHOSE "alternative compilation?"
Who is "Dudly II", Len?
WHOSE. Where
is this alleged "alternative compilation" to be found?
On the website of the person who compiled it. Can't you find it?
Why am I supposed to follow the "rules" of this "alternate
compilation?"
You don't have to, Len. But your scorecard would be more accurate
if you did.
So your counting method overstates the support for the NPRM by at least
that percentage.
Well then, go BITCH to the FCC and NTIA (who govern part of the
U.S. Internet) that I am being terribly "dishonest" and have me
thrown off the 'net or something! :-)
Why? You're the source of the inaccuracy, so I'm telling you. Can't you
deal with an opposing opinion? Can't you accept change and go with a
better method?
You post your results to four significant figures, yet if your counting
method is as described above, it's inaccurate by at least 1% from that
one source of error.
You make a lot of noise about amateur radio but you've never been a
radio amateur. And from all appearances you're never going to get an
amateur radio license.
As you've pointed out (more than once), the "score card" is
MINE, isn't it? :-) If so, then I make up the rules,
don't I? :-) You don't like the results? Don't read the
"score card."
What you're really saying is that you cannot tolerate
opposing opinions, questions, or facts that contradict your
assertions.
WRONG.
Then why do you carry on so about a few questions and observations?
Why all the name calling and diversion rather than answering some
questions?
In the first few weeks of posting the "score card," the
only REAL questions appearing in the threads were those of
accessing the ECFS and how to file. By others. And answered
by another besides myself.
So?
After the "score card" format change due to LATE notice in the
Federal Register, suddenly YOU appear with all the allegations
of inhonesty, "questions" on procedure, etc., etc., etc. :-)
Is there a time limit on newsgroup responses?
YOUR whole purpose with those "questions" seems to be with your
on-going dissatisfaction with ANYTHING I post in here.
Not "anything", Len. Just some of your inaccuracies and mistakes.
Can't you take an opposing opinion?
There is the question of "motivation" for your harrassment.
Dear me, now an opposing opinion and some facts are
"harrassment"?
Why are you so OBSESSED with trying to toss me off?
I'm not trying to "toss you off" anything, Len. I'm just trying
to discuss the accuracy of your "scorecard". But you
seem to have enormous trouble dealing with opposing
opinions.
The results of the NPRM and its final Report and Order will
NOT AFFECT YOU, will it?
It may. Changes in the rules of the amateur radio service may
have a profound effect on me, because I'm an active licensed
radio amateur.
Then seek MENTAL counseling.
Why?
There is NOTHING to deny present-
day privileges to ALREADY-LICENSED U.S. radio amateurs in
NPRM 05-143. There are NO statements of ALREADY-LICENSED
amateurs having to do a single test or examination in order to
continue their existing privileges.
That's true, but it's not the point.
YOUR only problem is MENTAL.
Really?
You should learn to accept
change, not try to maintain old, trite, tired Beliefs of
long ago.
Why should I accept changes that are unnecessary?
Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the
Amateur Radio Service?
Why should something be discarded just because it's old?
There's very little chance that changes in the rules of the amateur
radio service will have *any* effect on you, because
you're not a licensed radio amateur, and it doesn't appear
that you'll ever be one.
The morse code test WILL AFFECT new licensees.
And existing ones. But it almost certainly won't affect you, Len.
You're not an existing licensee nor are you likely to be a new one.
You have your "affects" totally BACKWARD.
Not at all.
On top of that, you've tried more snide uncivil "civility" in
my "motivation" towards getting any amateur radio license.
How? It's quite obvious you don't want such a license and will
probably never get one.
NO ONE is required to toady up to some already-licensed U.S.
radio amateur and HAVE to state "motivation." NOBODY.
You don't have to state your "motivation". But it does seem odd that
you won't state why you're so obsessed with a license test for a
license you don't seem to want, and which has no effect on you at all.
FCC can also decide to change license privileges, subbands, etc., all
of which can have a profound affect on those who actually operate in
the licensed service.
NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie.
FCC isn't limited to the terms of an NPRM. Look at what happened in
1999. They proposed four license classes but the R&O reduced it to
three.
The TEST. The TEST does NOT affect those ALREADY LICENSED.
Yes, it does. If a change affects the amateur radio service itself, it
affects
those already licensed.
The TEST affects those GETTING INTO U.S. amateur radio.
But not only them.
And since you're clearly not one of them, why do you care so much?
The ONLY "profound effect" [sic, not 'affect'] on those
ALREADY IN amateur radio is MENTAL.
Incorrect.
Each ALREADY LICENSED
amateur will have to work that out by themselves. The FCC
is NOT chartered as a mental correction aid agency.
Poor baby. All confused mentally and refusing to admit it!
Not me, Len.
Some days back, you posted a description of your experiences with
cb radio back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. You told us how
you installed a manufactured cb transceiver and antenna in your car and
used it. You told us the performance was *excellent* - for about four
years. Then it wasn't so excellent anymore.
Here's that description again:
"One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the
USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of
any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed
for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control).
Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."
Where did the excellence go, Len?
It went to the Chevrolet auto dealer in Canoga Park, CA, as a
trade-in.
Your cb radio was traded in at a car dealership?
It was a 1953 Austin-Healey sports car with an
all-aluminum body (excellent ground plane).
Terrible for magmounts, though.
That "Healey"
got me an introduction to my first wife. She persuaded me to
buy the replacement 1961 Impala Convertible. She was diagnosed
with cancer soon after and died after a year.
I am sorry for your loss.
While the Johnson
Viking "Messenger" CB performed well in the Impala, I rather
lost interest in both personal radio use and that car after
that. Or do you "see" such an attitude, being the compleat
morseman you are?
Here's what I "saw", Len:
"One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the
USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of
any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed
for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control).
Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."
That's from your post on the subject, a few days ago. No mention of a
trade-in or your first wife. The excellence you wrote about was cb.
And the fact remains that cb quickly went downhill in the late 1960s
and early 1970s - about the same time frame as what you describe.
You can read your original post he
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en
There, aren't you HAPPY over having a newsgroup "opponent" go
through difficulties?
No. Not at all.
Maybe you want an ice-cold emotionless
set of numbers of performance of the Viking Messenger now (I
still have that old radio)?
Why?
It still meets manufacturers'
(and FCC) specifications.
But I don't think you use it.
Your '53 Healey was a classic sports car. Maybe not the fastest or most
powerful thing on four wheels but definitely a classic - and classy
too. Fun in the tradition of a Triumph or MG.
I am somewhat surprised that you still have the Johnson Viking
Messenger, though. The thing has *vacuum tubes*, right? (At least the
early Messengers did).
Of course the Johnson Viking Messenger is interesting from an
historical POV because it was such a departure for the company. Instead
of a big desk-crushing VFO transmitter, they built a compact
lightweight transceiver of pretty good quality. And it still works!
So I guess it's not so surprising that for more than 40 years you've
held onto one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.
Do you see how the same could happen to amateur radio?
NOT at all.
How can you can guarantee that what happened to cb cannot happen to
amateur radio?
1. The 11 m amateur band of 1958 was taken away from amateurs
in the USA then, 47 years ago. It (and some other services)
were allocated to use part of it.
That's right. FCC made a big mistake doing that - one they're still
trying to deal with.
2. NPRM 05-235 is about the MORSE CODE TEST for a United States
radio amateur license examination. That has NOTHING to do
with "CB."
Not directly. But there is a definite connection.
3. You try to connect (1) and (2) and there is NO possible
connection.
Of course there's a possible connection. If the loss of the Morse Code
test causes
amateur radio to become more like cb, it will have a profound effect on
*existing*
amateur radio operators. If the amateur bands become like the cb
channels, existing amateurs will be affected.
Maybe you want the amateur bands to become like the cb channels..
I'm not saying that *will* happen, just that it *could* happen.
Existing licensees can be profoundly affected by rules changes.
Only MENTALLY.
Nope. The effects can be much more. Do you want 40 meters to
sound like the 40 cb channels?
Their "radio world" would come to an end if
morse code testing stopped!
Not mine. I'll go right on enjoying Morse Code and Amateur Radio as
long as possible.
Since your are not a radio amateur and not likely to become one
regardless of rules changes, the NPRM results don't really affect you.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm "not likely to become one regardless of
rules changes?!?"
That's right. It's very unlikely that you'll ever become a licensed
radio amateur. Your behavior proves it.
So the only way the elimination of the Morse Code test will
affect you is mentally and emotionally.
Now you pretend to "know" the future as well as "motivation!"
I'm saying it's very unlikely, that's all.
NPRM 05-235 is about MORSE CODE TESTING, Jimmie, NOT just
about ME. The point about eliminating the morse code test,
other than making the regulations better,
Who made you the judge about what is "better", Len?
is to give ALL
those interested in amateur radio the OPPORTUNITY to get into
it without that old, outdated, arbitrary manual test for
morsemanship.
All those interested have had the opportunity to "get into" amateur
radio without a Morse Code test since February 14, 1991.
But you haven't taken advantage of that opportunity, Len. Nor of the
opportunity that has existed since 1990 to get full privileges with
only a 5 wpm code test.
There will be NO effect on operating privileges of already-
licensed amateurs due to elimination of the morse code test.
NONE
Can you guarantee that?
And it's not just operating privileges that are effects of such a
change.
Here's an analogy:
You've told us of your house on Lanark Street - how much you paid for
it, how much it's worth now, the nearby gated community, etc.
I've never been to your house but I've been in the area. It's a safe
bet that your area is mostly single-family houses built after WW2, with
little or no commercial development. Also a safe bet that while there
may not be many CC&Rs, the zoning probably prevents much diversity of
development on your street. Little boxes on the hillside (actually at
the foot of the hill...)
Now suppose someone bought some properties near you - say next door or
across the street. And suppose they sought to tear down the existing
houses and build new ones that would change things on Lanark Street.
Suppose they wanted to put up multifamily townhomes, some as rentals
and some as condos. Some retail space too. Of course that would
probably take a zoning change.
Would you support and accept that sort of change, Len? After all, it
would give a lot more people the opportunity to get into your
neighborhood without the old, outdated, arbitrary necessity of a huge
down payment and massive mortgage. It would be an end to the old
arbitrary requirements of single-family houses, etc. It would not
directly affect *your* house - you're already there, established, etc.
The new rules would not touch your house. You wouldn't
give up anything except your mental image of the neighborhood.
Would you oppose or support that change?
Or suppose a licensed radio amateur moved in next door and wanted to
put up a few 70 foot towers with big beams (like K8MN's). Would that be
OK with you?
Judging by how often you call people by other than their legal names,
it's clear you have a lot of difficulty in that area.
Poor baby. "It's clear" you have some terrible, gnawing
dispute with anything I write in here. :-)
Y'know, Len, you seem to miss the point on a lot of things.
No. All the readers in here have gotten YOUR "point."
If they don't agree with you, you blabber out lines and
lines and lines of misdirections, personal allegations,
dredge up old, old arguments to attempt re-arguing them
again.
Your postings here exceed mine in number and length, Len.
You're describing yourself, not me.
You're really emotionally invested in rrap....
NPRM 05-143 is NOT about U.S. amateur radio license "age
requirements."
Neither was the previous restructuring NPRM. Yet you included
recommendations in your reply comments recommending such a limit.
I made that SUGGESTION on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to
Comments of Deignan, shown in the ECFS as of 13 January
1999.
Recommendation. And that NPRM wasn't about age requirements
at all. Plus Reply Comments are about replying to someone else's
comments, *not* about bringing up new issues for consideration
long after the comment period was over.
In fact, your *only* filing on that NPRM was those reply comments,
wasn't it? And despite your years of experience in computer-modem
communications, you couldn't manage to submit via ECFS back
then, even though thousands of us figured it out.
That was over six years ago.
So what? You repeatedly bring up stuff that's much older and even
less relevant.
I have NOT pursued
that since except for the accusations leveled at me in
here.
What "accusations", Len? The facts were presented and you confirmed
them. You even accused ARRL and some VEs of fraud and dishonest
over the licensing of some young amateurs.
You weren't at the VE session, don't know any of the people involved,
and yet you accused others of fraud.
And you claimed that because, in *your* opinion, 6-year-olds could not
understand the material on the test, no one under the age of 14 should
be allowed to hold an amateur radio license.
That's a fur piece from "dropping it".
The "Restructuring" Report and Order came out in
late December, 1999, as FCC 99-412.
So?
I have NOT pressed
that point with the FCC since...except YOU have to drag it
out and drag it out and drag it out until that poor dead
horse has been hammered into a stain on this old highway.
"old highway"? The "information superhighway"?
Truth is, you've repeatedly defended your position on the issue.
You didn't "drop it".
Now you *could* come out and say it was a bad idea and that
there should be no age requirements for an amateur radio license.
But I doubt you'll do that.
"Sweetums,"
Who is "Sweetums", Len?
you want to rehash OLD stuff?
Why not? You do it all the time.
You DO? Okay,
I'll try to hound you about NEVER serving your country in
the military
You do that already. I've never claimed any military service.
every time you make some pontifical remark
showing your "military expertise."
That would be never, Len. Because I don't claim "expertise" at
anything.
I do know a few things, though, and it really seems to tick you
off when one of your mistakes is pointed out. Like the in-service
dates of Soviet Bear bombers....
But you have "a problem" with 13 year olds getting amateur radio
licenses.
No.
Then you're saying there should not be any age requirement for an
amateur radio license.
I have a "problem" with mental 13-year-olds in here
posing as adults
It's not all about you, Len.
and who ask all sorts of inane "questions"
(that were already answered a priori) and make all kinds of
accusations...all of which may be summed up as HECKLING.
Not by any reasonable definition of heckling.
I'm not the one recommending an age requirement for a US amateur radio
license. You are.
I DID. I dropped it after 13 January 1999.
Yet you kept on defending it.
That was OVER SIX YEARS ago.
Your defense of it is a lot more recent.
You are STILL OFFENDED over that!
Not me. I just think it's a really bad idea.
So...maybe you LIKE talking to 13-year-olds on the radio using
radiotelegraphy that makes all age clues meaningless?
Why, yes! I enjoy using Morse Code to communicate with hams of
all ages. I've worked 10 year olds on Morse Code and 90+
year olds too. I've Elmered hams of all ages, too.
What matters to me is the person on the other end of the QSO, what
they have to say, and how much fun the whole process is. The other
ham's age is of vanishing importance to me.
Does that satisfy some internal desires of yours?
Working other hams is a lot of fun for me. This weekend is the CW SS.
I intend to work a lot of other hams using Morse Code. For fun.
"I'm just asking some questions."
Yep. Is that wrong?
That's right. Your postings are fair game for comment and
question by others. They are not somehow sacred and unimpeachable. They
are not immune to question and/or debate.
Wow! You've FINALLY gotten the picture, Judge! :-)
Tsk, tsk. You forgot to add in the part where, if YOU ask
someone something they MUST answer or you will make tens
of thousands of words in messaging if you don't get the
answers you WANT! :-)
That's what *you* do, Len.
Poor Jimmie? Double-degreed "engineer" and you can't MAKE
ENOUGH to spend over $100 on a rig? :-)
It really *is* all about money to you, Len.
Oh, oh, the commie sympathizer comes out of his closet in PA?
"Commie sympathizer"? That's almost funny! You really are clueless
if you'd call me that.
Well, that's a sure indication YOU don't have as much money
as YOU want. :-)
Who does? Do you?
I have enough. That's what's important. I'm also very wealthy in
things that cannot be bought.
Yup...and it shows you HATE professionals for some reason.
Not me. I am one!
Odd, because you claim to BE a professional in electronics.
Where?
I am a professional in electrical engineering. There's a lot more
to EE than "electronics".
Us readers don't know WHERE since you won't mention your
employer...not here, not to the FCC.
Why should I? Would it make any difference? Or would it simply
be something else for you to insult and denigrate?
Perhaps it's time to repost your classic "sphincters post", where you
denigrated and insulted the military service experiences of a US Coast
Guard radio operator.
I'm "all about money?"
I didn't say that.
I wrote:
"It really *is* all about money to you, Len."
And apparently, it is. Your behavior confirms it.
Not really. Got some. Spent some.
Dropped $1100 last week at CompUSA-GoodGuys for a 27" HD
LCD flat panel TV this week and it works just dandy.
See? There you go. Gotta mention what you bought and how much it
cost.
You sure seem to be one of those people who consider "net worth" and
"personal worth" to be synonymous....
[it
doesn't do morse code so I guess you wouldn't be interested
in it]
Doesn't make the programs any better, though. Mostly JUNK on TV...
I haven't made a single cent posting in here or filing with
the FCC (negative cash flow there). Someone pay YOU to post
in here? Someone pay you NOT to file with the FCC?
I want the FCC to make NPRM 05-143 into a Report and Order...without
changes to the basic precepts in the NPRM.
Why? Those changes won't affect you.
They MAY.
Very unlikely.
They WILL affect all those who desire to enter HF
amateur radio without taking a code test.
So? You're not one of them.
Other than mentally, emotionally, how will the removal of the
morse code test affect YOU?
If it damages the amateur radio service, it affects me.
It won't remove any of your
operating privileges, won't make you re-test.
I'm not afraid of any retest, Len. You
seem to be afraid of any test, though. Or any
question.