RadioBanter - View Single Post - Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

November 5th 05, 04:28 PM

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
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:

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.

Whoooo-eeee...you are REALLY in a snit about 1998 issues!

I'm just recalling some facts, Len. You've tried and tried to impress
with your alleged 'years in computer-modem communications' but
in fact you couldn't get ECFS to accept your filing back then. And
you make a lot of noise about when other people comment but in
fact you only sent in Reply Comments to that NPRM.

Pot...kettle

That was over six years ago.

So what? You repeatedly bring up stuff that's much older and even
less relevant.

Actually more like cast-iron pot calling stainless steel kettle....

Sweetums, it wasn't ME who brought up (or brings up) those
old, old WT Docket 98-143 comments. Tsk, tsk, my Scorecard
is on Docket 05-235. 2005, not 1998.

You keep bringing up history from a half-century ago, Len, as if it had

some relevance. Are you saying your 1998 Reply Comments are
irrelevant to amateur radio policy? If so, many will agree!

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.

My "score card" postings don't mention that, Jimmie.

So? Are you the sole judge of what can be discussed in a thread?

If you can't get your analogies in order, PLEASE try to
refrain from dredging up the PAST. It won't help whatever
you think your case IS.

You weren't at the VE session, don't know any of the people involved,
and yet you accused others of fraud.

Tsk, tsk. My OPINIONS about those six-year-old licensees
remain the SAME, sweetums. DEAL WITH IT. :-)

Your opinions are not backed by any facts, then. So we
should treat them appropriately....

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.

Who is doing the "dredging up," Jimmie? :-)

It's what you said then and still defend. It's relevant to your
"opinions".

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.

Awwww....you want me to say "sowwy?" :-)

Why not admit your mistake and say you were wrong, and your
opinions have no basis in fact? Because that's the case, Len.

Jimmie, DROP this old argument.

You're not the boss here, Len. Probably not the boss anywhere....

It has NO BEARING on NPRM 05-143.

Sure it does. Proves your lack of reasoning skills in some areas.

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.

Then why did you claim all that "knowledge" about being IN the
military, Jimmie?

I don't, Len. Who is this "Jimmie" you keep bringing up?

every time you make some pontifical remark
showing your "military expertise."

That would be never, Len. Because I don't claim "expertise" at
anything.

Ho. Ho. Ho. YES, you do! :-)

Show us an example. A direct link to a posting would be good.

Posting documented facts isn't claiming expertise.

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....

I acknowledged that I DID confuse
the existance of that type of Soviet aircraft at the time
involved. EXACT AIRCRAFT DETAILS of the entire Cold War
wasn't a career specialty of mine in aerospace.

Point is, you exaggerated the threat you were under. And you didn't
check your facts before posting. It took me only seconds to find out
the relevant facts. One would think someone with your alleged 'years of
experience in computer-modem communications' would have checked
the facts before posting.

There's also the issue of how you treat someone who points out your
mistakes. You behave in a very unprofessional manner, Len.

You want to microscope-focus on minutae in order to show a
poster is "mistaken" and therefore of no value whatsoever
in these non-discussions. :-)

DID the USSR have bombers capable of reaching from Kamchatka
to the Kanto Plain on Honshu in Japan in the mid-1950s? Yes,
they DID. Both the USA and USAF had anti-aircraft measures
for such events. Did the USSR have an air-deployable nuclear
weapon in that same time? Yes, it did. Was I stationed in
Tokyo in that time? Yes, I was. Was I involved in contingency
plans and drilling for same at that time? Yes, I was. I'll
not argue the TYPE of Soviet aircraft the USSR MIGHT have used
in the mid-1950s to deliver any nukes. None were dropped.

To quote your classic "sphincters post":

'You knew the job was dangerous when you took it'

But, WHAT DOES IT MATTER on the type of Soviet aircraft
involved then?

You exaggerated the threat you were under, Len.

YOU were NOT INVOLVED. YOU were NEVER IN
THE MILITARY!

Doesn't change the fact that *you* were mistaken.

And btw....

People of *my* generation grew up knowing that we were under
the constant threat of nuclear annihilation from missile attacks
against which there was essentially no defense. The missiles
would arrive in minutes, not hours, and if they did the job
we'd all be dust. Growing up in a big city halfway between
the nation's capital and the nation's largest city, I knew there
was little point in fallout shelters and such, because we were
within range of both land- and submarine-launched Soviet
missiles, and a prime target.

Fortunately sanity prevailed.

So don't lecture *me* about the Soviet nuclear threat, Len old boy,
because I grew up with it. You didn't.

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.

Tsk, tsk. I'm NOT dragging up 6 1/2 year old arguements
in here. :-)

Admit you were wrong about the whole age-limit thing, then.

I have a "problem" with mental 13-year-olds in here
posing as adults

It's not all about you, Len.

Ha. Ha. Ha. More "civil discourse" there, Jimmie? :-)

What's uncivil about that?

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.

Is THAT what it's called now?!?

"Elmering" is the term applied to helping less-experienced hams to
learn.

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.

Tsk, tsk...you sound like Captain Code.

You like talking to little boys, Jimmie?

I enjoy communicating with people of all ages, Len. From little
babies to people much older than you (yes, such people do exist! ;-))

What's *your* problem? Can't you deal with young people?

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.

Enjoy. Keep advancing the state of the amateur art.

I do! You don't.

Keep the electronics trades knowledgeable about your progress.

Why? It's really all about money to you, isn't it?

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.

In this thread I was just posting a near-daily tally of the
filings and their content on WT Docket 05-235.

Complete with errors and misdirections.

YOU turned it
into minor-league Spanish Inquisition stuff with your
"questions" and old, old arguments from the past on very
different subjects.

I pointed out some possible inaccuracies, in your
"work", Len. That's a good thing

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.

I was just asking a question... :-)

See that funny hook-like punctuation mark? That's called a
"question mark." That denotes a Question.

Well, that's a sure indication YOU don't have as much money
as YOU want. :-)

Who does? Do you?

Yes. :-)

I have enough.

How much is "enough?" Your answers aren't clear.

Enough to meet my needs and most of my wants.

That's what's important. I'm also very wealthy in
things that cannot be bought.

Tsk. Better get to the market. Your "milk of human kindness"
turned sour some time ago...

Yup...and it shows you HATE professionals for some reason.

Not me. I am one!

Prove it.

Why?

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".

Where do you DO this "professional" stuff, Jimmie?

At work, Len. That's all you need to know.

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?

Now, now, you should be PROUD of what you do.

I am.

If you were really
PROUD, then you wouldn't mind revealing your employer.

I don't "mind" at all. Many people know where I work. You don't,
and that seems to bother the heck out of you. Why?

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.

Perhaps you need a tranquilizer instead?

Not me. I'm calm, cool and collected. You're all worked up.

I'm "all about money?"

I didn't say that.

I wrote:

"It really *is* all about money to you, Len."

Why do you say that?

Because of the way you behave here, 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.

No, I don't "gotta."

But you do. Did you "pay CASH" for it, too?

My wife and I have been enjoying the
pictures and programs on that TV. We have digital cable
service, Jimmie, over 150 channels of a great variety of
programs.

Does that make you a better person than someone without
digital cable?

Tsk, tsk, I guess if one is "anti-code" then one can't mention
(evil?) money? :-)

Money isn't "evil", Len.

LCD and plasma panel HD-ready TVs might be starting to come
down in price. DTV is the FUTURE, Jimmie. FCC said so.

What does that have to do with your 'scorecard', Len?

Telegraphy is the PAST.

Radiotelegraphy is the present. And the future.

ARRL don't want to admit that, but it IS.

ARRL isn't about telegraphy, Len.

You sure seem to be one of those people who consider "net worth" and
"personal worth" to be synonymous....

Nothing "synonymous" there, Jimmie. We planned for it, got it.

It ain't braggin'.

Remember "It ain't braggin' if ya done it"? :-)

You just confirmed my statement.

[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...

Ooooooo! A glimpse into the Dark Side of the netherworld's
TV critics! Are you a counterpart of Ebert or Roeper? :-)

Wow! Remember who once said "I've just GOT to get cable!" :-)

Who wrote that, Len?

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...can you "GUARANTEE" that? :-)

To a high degree of confidence, yes!

They WILL affect all those who desire to enter HF
amateur radio without taking a code test.

So? You're not one of them.

Neither are most of the staff and all of the Commissioners at the
FCC! They MAKE the U.S. amateur radio regulations,

Because it's their *JOB*, Len. It's not your *JOB*. You're Not
Involved.

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.

"Damages?" Tsk, tsk. Who made YOU "judge" of what is "damaged?"

The US Constitution, for one.

Don't you have any other hobby besides radiotelegraphy?

Oh yes.

Don't you have any other hobby than ranting on and on for years about
a test in a radio service that you are Not Involved in?

And
making some of the longest "I'm only asking 'question'" posts
in the history of newsgrouping... :-)

Your postings are longer and more frequent than mine, Len. Also
less accurate.

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.

Taken - and passed all - REAL Tests, Jimmie. No fear.

You're afraid of the Morse Code test, Len. It's a REAL test...

Even this long one. I've ANSWERED all your questions, haven't I?

Nope. Not at all.

But that's SOP for you.