wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 3 2005 8:28 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 2, 5:33 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am
wrote:
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm

Sure there is - it's called wigwag.

No, those are called SEMAPHORE FLAGS.

No, they're not. Semaphore and wigwag are two different things.
Look it up.

Two dictionaries I have say "see 'semaphore'" under several
different definitions of "wigwag."

Wig-wag and sempahore are not the same thing.

Can you wigwag in morse?

Yes.

[no such thing]

You are mistaken, Len. As usual, you are resistant to new
information.

http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/Muse...GES/wigwag.gif

I've already worn the collar insignia of the United States Army
Signal Corps, a torch over two crossed signal flags.

The US Army also used wig wag signalling

http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/Muse...GES/wigwag.gif

but you don't seem to know about that.

You've never done that.
You can never do that.

I can never wear the insignia of the Signal Corps? You are
quite mistaken, Len.

Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using
sail power about 100 years ago.

Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are
real.

Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces.

You've already argued with Hans Brakob on that. You wound up
all wet.

How did I wind up "all wet", Len?

I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on
3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-)

Did you flunk out? Or perhaps you just GAVE UP?

I changed my studies from illustration to engineering. Career
choice change.

In other words, you GAVE UP on illustration as a career after a year
of school. Tsk, tsk.

You do seem to flit about, Len, with all those different jobs and
activities...

I can't "give up" something I have a natural talent for.

"Talent"?

..that's
built-in, has been used in previous employment. I was accepted
by Art Center on the basis of submitted work that I sent them.

Yet after a year you GAVE UP.

Tsk. You are being HOSTILE again, trying to say I "flunked out"
or "gave up."

How is it being hostile? I'm pointing out that you GAVE UP on
illustration
as a career.

"Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying
that."

What did you mean by that sentence?

Maybe they want to be on TV? You know, like "CSI" (the first one
from Las Vegas), "CSI: Miami," and "CSI: New York"? :-)

I don't think so.

All are popular shows about forensics and criminology. Then there's
"Bones" on the Fox network, the various "Law and Order" crime
dramas. Viewing audience likes that stuff.

Doesn't fit

Pasadena isn't far from the center of movie-TV production in
Los Angeles. Gosh, you could be on TV! :-)

Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience."

Well, you're wrong about that.

That MUST have been where you got all your "military expertise."

Nope. Guess again.

Oh, my, you'll have to tell all the illustrators everywhere that
their techniques are "dying!"

It's what you've told us about Morse Code, even though you're not
involved.

Sorry, I was VERY INVOLVED in illustration.

But not in Morse Code.

And you GAVE UP on both illustration as a career and learning Morse
Code at the very modest speed of 13 wpm.

I was VERY INVOLVED
in radio and electronics. Both for over a half century.

Past tense, I see.

Where are all the commercial morse code communications sites now?

Where are all the military morse code communications sites now?

Where are all the 100 wpm mechanical teleprinters now?

Where are all the big multitransmitter HF sites like ADA now?

Once there was nothing else besides morse code in radio
communications.

That ended about 1900 when Reginald Fessenden began transmitting
voice and music by radio.

Now all there is of that is on amateur bands.

Not true, Len. Have you not heard of KSM/KPH?

Tsk, you aren't "dying" but your time in Intensive Care Unit is
coming to a close...

?? I'm a lot healthier than you, Len.

"Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying
that."

What did you mean by that?

You tell me... :-)

You were trying to threaten me physically. You've done that before,
Len.

Can you show any physics textbooks or courses that include
electronic design or analysis?

Yes.

Such as?

Tsk, tsk. I read Ben's biography entitled "Benjamin
Franklin - An American Life," by Walter Isaacson.

So?

It's a relatively recent biography, extensively researched,
takes an objective look at the life of Franklin. It does
not glorify him with gratuitous phrases but explains what
he did during his long lifetime...facts that were
referenced by historical documents.

Such as invent lightning protection systems - the first practical
electrical devices.

Franklin the scientist determined the nature of
lightning.

Franklin was hardly schooled. He had only HONORARY
degrees.

So he founded a great University that thrives today.

Franklin was a prosperous printer and a POLITICIAN.

Also a genius.

Money and power can do lots of things.

Not without direction.

His University flourishes today. Also the hospital he founded (first in
the USA),
his fire-protection societies, his free-library concepts, and much
more.

He also got current flow in the wrong direction...:-)

Nope, he was just ahead of his time. He described the flow of holes
rather than electrons.

It's good stuff. Our country was born right here in
Philadelphia.

Been there.

NADC to be exact, right? You weren't exactly begged to
stay there, were you, Len?

However, the center of United States government is in
the District of Columbia, not even in Pennsylvania.

That's a good thing! The District of Columbia was invented
so that the nation's capital would not be inside any state.

The nation's capital is nowhere near California, either...

You mean UNIFORM Code of Military Justice? :-)

Yep - not "universal" as you mistakenly wrote.

I've worn the UNIFORM of the United States Army. I've been
under the UNIFORM Code of Military Justice for four years.

Yet you messed up on what "UCMJ" meant.

You've done nothing like that.

How do you know for sure?

You can never do anything like that.

What does it matter?

I think you didn't really read and understand all the comments.

Doesn't bother me at all what you think of me now.

Apparently it does, because you get so defensive.

I do
have all 3,800 filings in WT Docket 05-235 on both hard
disk and CD archives.

Bully for you.

As far as I'm concerned, there was
NO "vote for 'CW'" as Speroni put his "analysis" of
NPRM 05-143 commentary in WT Docket 05-235.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. You can deny
all you want, but 55% of those individuals who expressed a
preference in comments on 05-235 supported at least some
Morse Code testing. Only 45% supported complete
removal of all Morse Code testing. That's a "vote for CW" to
anyone who thinks rationally.

Of course the FCC doesn't have to follow that "vote" and
probably won't. But to deny its existence is to deny reality.

The Commission
was notified on what I thought/analyzed in my Exhibit filing
of 25 Movember 2005 along with a final tally sheet of
the four categories of general comment opinions.

Yes, you spammed them with dozens and dozens of pages
of your verbiage. I feel sorry for the poor souls at FCC who
have to read all the worthless junk you send them, Len. ;-)

Yes, Len, we know you can't deal with facts and opinions different
from your own.

:-) You are really going the way of Dudly the Imposter.

I DEAL with them as they occur.

You deal by denial.

Yes. You're obviously very jealous. Green with envy. Your
behavior shows it.

The Hawaiian Morseman?

There you go, acting all jealous and envious because someone
did a better analysis than you did.

"Better?" :-)

Yes. Your analysis counts those who file multiple comments as if
they are separate opinions. As if the wordiest person's opinion
somehow counts more because they typed more.

If someone had written Reply Comments to every procodetest
comment, your system would have counted them as separate
opinions even though they had the same author. That's not a
valid way of analyzing opinion. In short, it stinks.

You don't have any Petitions before the Commission, Len. You're
too afraid to write one and have it DENIED.

Tsk. You are teetering on the edge of sanity. :-)

Wait...where is the MICCOLIS Petition? We don't see it!

Could it be that Miccolis is "afraid?"

You didn't recognize it when you saw it, Len.

More important, you didn't follow the rules on Reply Comments
back in 1999.

"Rules?" The "rules" are given by the Commission,

That's right.

And you didn't follow them back in 1999.

Reply Comments are only supposed to be a
reply to comments made by others - they are not supposed to
bring up new suggestions.

Show us that "regulation" or "law," Jimmie.

Look up the definition of "Reply Comments", Len.

If you wanted to suggest an age
requirement, the time to do that was during the Comment
period, not the Reply Comment period.

Show us that "regulation" or "law," Jimmie.

Look up the definition of "Reply Comments", Len.

You're just as guilty
of procedural mistakes as the folks who send in comments
long after the deadline.

Show us the "procedural regulations/rules/law" applying
to filings' CONTENT, Jimmie.

Look up the definition of "Reply Comments", Len.

Why ARE you so obsessed with putting down all who want the
code test eliminated?

Where have I done that?

In this newsgroup. "Google provides." :-)

Then show us a link to this alleged "putting down".

You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges
regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays.

It's not about those things at all, Len.

No? Then why are you so worried and agitated by it?

Code testing doesn't involve you at all.

Yes, it does. If the Amateur Radio Service is changed for the
worse, I am affected.

It's about what's good and bad for the Amateur Radio Service.

Well there we have it! The Lord High Commissioner of
Goodness has RULED on what is "good" and what is "bad!"

Anyone who comments to FCC is saying what is good and what is bad.

I see the code test as being a good thing for the Amateur Radio service.

Sorry, NOT strong enough. As self-appointed Lord High
whatever, you MUST state firmly and resolutely ALL that
everyone MUST do!

Why?

You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio
station,
Len.

How do you know? :-)

Because you're not licensed.

FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC has "said" no such thing to me.

Yes, they have.

In a real document addressed to ME? :-)

Maybe in a telephone call? :-)

In the regulations.

My name isn't mentioned once in the five-volume bound set of Title
47 C.F.R. Not in any Part therein.

The ONLY place where my name appeared was on the Government Post
Office shippling label that sent me those five volumes.

Show us WHERE my name, with appropriate statement of
"unqualifications" appears in Title 47 C.F.R.

Your name is not in the FCC database of amateur radio licenses.
Therefore
you are not qualified.

Wow! Several months ago I was looking at the Burbank HRO store
station, even tweaked a transceiver dial to tune in a SSB signal
clearer! Hey, get the surveilance camera tapes! You might find
me on them doing that! Wowee! You can make an ARREST!

That's not "operating".

Define OPERATING. :-)

Being the control operator of an amateur radio station. You
are not qualified to do that - have never been qualified. I've
been qualified, and doing that, since 1967.

I have served in the military of the United States. Volunteering
during a war time. Taking an oath to defend the United States
and its Constitution with my life if needs be.

That's a brave act, Len. But it was more than a half-century ago.

Tsk. It's something you've NEVER done, Jimmie.

How do you know?

I decided it was time to serve my country and volunteered to do
so during a war time. You've done NOTHING like that at any time.

How do you know?

Besides, you seem to think that one brave act means all must defer
to your opinions and whims. Doesn't work that way.

I said you were afraid - and you are.

"Afraid of what?" :-)

People are afraid of all sorts of things.

You must have been AFRAID to risk your precious body in real
military service since you didn't volunteer. shrug

Suppose you had been born in 1954, Len.

Would you have volunteered to fight in Vietnam in 1972?

You were afraid to let your neighbors build two-story houses....

W R O N G .

(Cluck-cluck!)

NOT "afraid."

You were afraid of how the neighborhood would change.

MY neighbors did not want the development
started that would cut off our view...so much so that we
all formed an action committee and we presented our case to
the zoning commission in a regular meeting.

Just your neighbors? Or you too?

That VACANT land
(about 15 acres) was then UNdeveloped. The contractor won a
change of zoning from only Residential to Residential-with-
apartments...the existing neighbors lost that fight.

In other words, you and your neighbors wanted to stop other people
from building certain types of buildings on *their own land* - because
it would mess up your *view*.

The contractor went bankrupt, couldn't develop the land, sold
the land to another contractor.

So what?

THAT contractor built 44 homes
(average price $500,000 five years ago)

So they were worth more than your house....

after spending 9 months
of re-arranging the vacant land.

How does anyone "rearrange" land? With a bulldozer?

44 homes on 15 acres is about a third of an acre each.
Half a million each is a starter home, right?

Our (original 'neighbors')
views' were spoiled by those new homes.

So - you thought your "view" was more important than
the newcomers' property rights. You thought that those
15 acres should not be developed, even though you
didn't own them. You resisted changes that brought in
new people and more progress. You clung to the past
and tried to hold back the future.

And you failed.

My neighborhood was NOT "afraid."

Yes, you were. You feared the loss of your "views".

We took ACTION.

And you FAILED.

That is
recorded in the minutes of the City Zoning Commission's
meetings. Okay, we neighbors tried and lost. That's the
breaks in politics.

What I find most interesting is that you fought change, progress,
and newcomers. And you thought your views should count for
more than the wants and needs of those who owned the land.

What you've done is to RE-WRITE what was originally written in
here with some weird spin on "courage" and "fear" that YOU
invented, fabricated, LIED about.

What spin? What fabrication? What lies?

I simply point out that you and your neighbors feared and opposed
change in the neighborhood. That's the truth.