RadioBanter - View Single Post - Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

Dave Heil · October 10th 06, 07:07 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sat, Oct 7 2006 11:52 pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:

It appears that Len expects me to reply to his "you have never..."
statements by saying what I have done in non-amateur radio. Old trick,
doesn't work.

It works! :-) Jimmie just hasn't done anything outside.

There you go again, Mr. Anderson. You've told another untruth.

He has never been IN the military.

He has never been IN government.

He has never stated what he does for a living.

"Id est, as in his never saying...but you MUST
call a speculation a LIE?"

--Len Anderson

Your statements don't indicate speculation. You have no information of
the first two. I know for a fact that the third in false because he has
stated to me what he does for a living. I'm aware of at least one other
who knows what he does for a living. I guess you've been left out of
the loop.

It hasn't stopped him from trying. He has never become a radio amateur
despite his several decades of self-declared "interest" in amateur radio.

How about that? I became a professional BEFORE anything
else! :-)

I've never found it necessary to so limit myself. I was capable of
being a professional in electronics and a radio amateur as well. I've
have dozens of friends who've managed to do the same.

If he tries a "you have never" and someone refutes it with details, Len
simply clams up.

Ah! "Justification" for that Imposter Robeson...a licensed
amateur extra and a pro-coder!

Did you ever find that web page, Len?

My, my, these pro-coders sure do hang together.

Cosier that way. They would otherwise hang separately. :-)

Same tired line, presented on at least six or seven separate occasions.

If they voluntarily post material describing something
they've done, Len uses that as an opportunity for insulting the poster.

I will insult any poster of Che Guevara I see. :-)

Most political posters glued to vertical spaces are
themselves insulting...

You are juvenile.

...and like ENIAC, Fessendon's feat was an advancement over what had
previously been possible.

"...had previously been possible." :-)

It makes sense to me. What fault did you find with the statement?

I'm glad we don't need that sort of thing today. I don't have room for
an ENIAC.

Sure you do in that rambling country antenna farm.

You think someone would place a room-sized computer in the middle of a
field?

But, there's only ONE ENIAC and it is now a museum
piece. Defunct. Good only for show-and-tell.

That pretty wells sums up your current situation, doesn't it?

I wonder if Len ever saw or touched ENIAC.

Why is that "necessary?" :-)

Who said it was necessary, Len?

...and a high quality, tube-type BC set from the 1950's sounds every bit
as good as its modern, LSI counterpart.

Enjoy your vacuum tube set...until one of the tubes burns
out. :-)

Yeah, I guess I'd have to walk out to the barn and get another one.

I have hundreds and hundreds of vacuum tubes, Len and if I didn't, there
are still quite a number of places selling them.

He knows very little about me and has resorted to wild speculation and
untruths for a long time.

I'm sure you have an idea of his reasons for digging for information.

You WILL reveal to the forum your "reasons," won't you?

Do I need to do so? It is pretty obvious from your decade of posts to
the newsgroup.

Of course you will, you both are pro-code amateur extras,
the 'superior' ones who know everything. :-)

I don't know everything, Len. I'm superior to you in a number of ways.

You MUST "profile" all those who don't agree with you.

No person who favors the retention of Morse testing has profiled anyone
but you.

White's is very good - for what it covers. It essentially stops long
before WW2. Its treatment is heavy on broadcasting, light on amateurs
and nonbroadcasting commercial operation. IMHO.

But Len refers to it as if it is the Bible.

Not at all. Thomas H. White's radio history in the USA is
large, illustrated, and readily accessible on the web. It
was mentioned only because of its accessibility.

McGraw-Hill's ELECTRONICS magazine of April 17, 1980, had a
special commemorative Issue on their 50th anniversary.
Volume 53, Number 9, 650 pages, excellent overview with
many details, photographs from before Marconi's time to
1980. They didn't emphasize amateur radio because amateur
radio was really a small player in that bigger game of
electronics technology. Unless one was a subscriber to
Electronics magazine or has access to a technical library,
it isn't that easy to use as a reference.

Something contained in a single magazine cannot begin to cover much of
the history of radio.

Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave: Technology and
American Radio," 1900-1932, Princeton University Press,
1985, 588 pages, soft cover, is a scholarly work, quite
complete and sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
Again, there isn't the highlighting of amateur radio a la
ARRL but that is for the real reason that amateur radio
wasn't considered a 'big player' in the technological
development of radio.

Again with the "real reason"! Where in the book is that statement made,
Leonard?

Aitken's earlier work, "Syntony and Spark: The Origins of
Radio" was done in 1976, reprinted in 1985 by Princeton
University Press. I don't have that handy at the moment
so I can't describe its size but it is another soft-
cover. Neither is readily available except from a
technical library.

What some amateurs call "The Collins Sideband Book," or
"Single Sideband Principles and Circuits," Pappenfus,
Bruene, and Schoenike, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964,
382 pages, has a good bit of HF communications history
in Chapter 1 up to copyright date of the book, more in
following chapters on various early SSB systems.

I have it and it isn't much of a history at all.

He usually follows one of
those references with some sniping at the American Radio Relay League.

There is no denying that the publications output of the
ARRL is very large. They must do that in order to get the
income necessary to perform all their "free" services to
members.

What's it to you?

The ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur-
interest publications in the USA...no denying that, either.

That is simply a false statement, Len. It is easily denied if one knows
anything about publications available to the radio amateur.

But, the ARRL is also a political organization,
maintaining both a legal firm and a lobbying organization
in DC on retainer. As a political entity, they come
under the good old American tradition of being a target
for anyone who cares to comment.

....and in the good old American tradition of having it not matter
whether the comments are untruths.

The League is NOT
without fault...except in the minds of its faithful
followers, the disciples of the Church of St. Hiram.

I've had differences of opinion with League policy and League officers
and staffers. What is any of that to you. You aren't a radio amateur
and you aren't an ARRL member.

Having a virtual monopoly on radio-amateur-interest
publications also gives them a psychological power to
mold readers' opinions to those of the League hierarchy.

Good boy, Len. If you start with a false premise, you can always make
your claim turn out the way you want it to.

To deny that is to deny the power of marketing
techniques, of psychological propaganda activities that
go on daily in nearly all human activities.

To deny your statement is to point out that your mind is made up about
the ways things are and that you aren't going to let fact stand in your way.

Nobody markets more than TV and radio. I can't tell you the last time I
drank a soft drink, ate at Applebee's or shopped at Target because of a
radio or TV ad. I've never bought a car based upon a magazine ad nor
bought a suit because of a newspaper ad. Those virtual monopolies
aren't getting their money's worth out of me.

Do you need to review the profile?

Len needs to review the profile.

No. "Profiles" work both ways.

....only if they are factual. Those you wrote were cobbled together and
fashioned after Jim's style. They didn't stick.

Heil and Miccolis have
both been "profiled" in here, not just by me but by
many others.

Many others? Where are they?

It is the Nature of the (newsgroup) Beast.

....and you *are* the newsgroup beast.

Len seldom lets the truth get in the way of one of his monologues.

Tsk, Heil speaks an untruth.

That's simply incorrect, Len.

OPINIONS are not "facts," just opinions.

I didn't write "opinions". I wrote "truth". You seldom let truth get
in the way of one of your monologues.

Miccolis tries to manuever all opinion statements as "facts"
written by those he has problems with...thus garnering the
"accusations" of "untruth" or "error" when some just plain
don't like him.

"Maneuver", Len. Your statement doesn't make sense. Don't you like
Jim? Are the non-factual statements you issue done to show Jim that you
don't like him?

That he often comes across as an arch-
typical "mother superior" (complete with spanking ruler) is
lost on him.

If you could see yourself as others see you, Len...

Prissy, as if sucking on sourballs when
writing up "error" "error" on those disagreeing with him.

I'm sure it seems that way to a guy who makes a great many factual errors.

Heil comes across as a stereotypical WW2 propaganda movie
Waffen SS officer, ordering others around, telling them
what they "should" do (his way, naturally).

You have a rich fantasy life.

What, pray tell, is your view of an individual who is not involved in
any way in amateur radio, telling radio amateurs that regulations should
be changed (ordering others around, telling them what they "should" do
(his way naturally)?

One can
almost see the sneer on his face, the monocle ready to
drop as his face gets more livid with order-barking,
the heels clicking.

Godwin will getcha if you don't watch out! What orders have been given,
Len?

I've noticed the talk of his workshop, but nothing about what comes out
of it.

Why should it? It is for MY enjoyment for myself, not
some "hey-look-at-me-and-what-marvelous-things-I've-done"
self promotion on some website. :-)

That hasn't stopped your frequent self-promotion in this newsgroup.

I've had it for four decades. Those I know have been
in it and we've talked mutual interest stuff about any
project then on-going. Material like that has been
exchanged privately. No need to make it public.

Do you recall the things you've said about Jim's work? I'm not going to
do as you do and turn those words back toward you. You might want to
think about what you typically do.

For sure. SS is coming up fairly soon.

"Waffen?" Jahwhol! [click, click] :-)

You're a juvenile geezer, Len.

Dave K8MN