RadioBanter - View Single Post

[email protected] · January 22nd 07, 11:40 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:

Was I really slavering over the promise of a ham call?
I don't think so.

You wrote here that you were going to get an amateur radio license,
Len.
Not just any license, but the Amateur Extra. But you haven't done it.

Now, according to the exaggerated FABRICATIONS of Jimmie
NOserve, it sounds like I had made some sort of pact with
my dying mother, as if promising I would "get an extra out
of the box" (if it was the last thing I did).

You wrote here that you were going to get an amateur radio license,
Len.
Nobody says it was some sort of promise, nor has anyone fabricated your
words. I just reposted a link to what *you* actually claimed you would
do.
But you haven't done it.

Did I "boast" anything? No, I think not because, given all
the requirements, I COULD have done it, even with a code
test. I say "could" because that had a high probability of
completion.

That's an idle boast in itself, Len. You claim you could have done it,
but
you didn't.

Suppose - just SUPPOSE - I were to claim that I could have gotten a
First 'Phone commercial license at the age of 16, way back in 1970.
Toss in a Second Telegraph commercial license, too.

Would you accept that as having a high probability? I think not. Even
though
I probably could have done both.

Much earlier I had gotten up to about 8 WPM
(when the minimum was 13)

The minimum Morse Code speed for an FCC-issued amateur license stopped
being
13 wpm in 1951. After the restructuring of 1951, it was 5 wpm. Soon it
will be 0 wpm.

on morse code cognition and I had
passed my FCC First 'Phone exam in one sitting at an FCC
Field Office.

So what? None of that means you could pass the FCC exams for the
Amateur Extra
in 2000. Or in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Claiming
what you could
have done in the recent past based on what you allegedly did in the
distant past sure
sounds like idle boasting.

But, "seven years ago," whatinhell was the
PURPOSE of spending my own time on bringing back code
cognition? To get an AMATEUR radio license so I could
"work HF" when I had already done that without a test
nearly a half century past? Would it have been to add a
callsign behind my name? WHY?

Tell us, Len. Tell us your actual motivations.

btw, an amateur license is more than a callsign.

If you don't want such a license, why did you write that you were going
to get one?
Not just any license, but the Amateur Extra. But you haven't done it.
Why say you
were going to get something you really don't want?

Thank you, I was already
secure enough in myself NOT to need some fancy-schmansy
amateur Titles to boast about or preen or tell tall tales
in front of other amateurs. I've had my regular-hours
work experience with its attendant titles and business
cards.

Len, we've all seen you "boast about or preen or tell tall tales" here
without an amateur license. Heck knows how you'd behave with one!

On whatever design task I've done or been assigned
to, that work got done successfully.

Doesn't mean *you* did it, though, just that it got done.....;-)

If I wanted to hear tall tales it was an easy matter to
join a local fraternal order and hang around their bar;
I'm not a fraternal order member and don't care to spend
lots of time drinking. If I wanted to see Moose or Elk
or little Kiwanis flapping their gums I would travel to
their natural habitat and observe them.

You mean like folks who were never actually on the receiving
end of an artillery barrage, but who tell what it's like, based solely
on the words of others?

Or folks who bitterly oppose changes to, say, zoning regulations in
their own neighborhoods (aka NIMBY), because such changes may
affect their 'enjoyment', but then insist on trying to change the rules
in a radio service where they are completely uninvolved?

I don't know "most hams" just about two dozen. The three
I know best all favor retention of the code test...yet we
still get along fine.

Do they know how you behave here?

Would they tolerate it if you addressed them they way you address
those who disagree with you here?

Perhaps your definition of "getting along fine" is that you don't
physically assult each other?

Come in here, though, and the Mighty
Macho Morsemen are so damn "superior" to everyone else that
they can leap tall pile-ups at a single bound. They are
the "gods of radio" and HAVE NO FLAWS!

Well, that leaves me out. I've got a few flaws.

They are all self-
described GENIUSES of English syntax and spelling (if not
of the Hunnish language which one apparently writes...even
if there was no recording of that ancient tongue)...they are
Masters of Correction, or rather "correction carnivores,"
eager to seize the slightest mistake or typo and shout to
the world (that they perceive) that the corrected party is
UNFIT for all. They will NEVER admit their own flaws of
English and try to put the blame on their accusers if
they are caught at it.

Isn't that exactly what *you* are doing, Len? You're really describing
yourself and your behavior here!

Was your "out of the box" statement of seven years ago a mistake in
English syntax, Len?

What is a "throwaway comment", Len? You've described some of your own
words
that way - does it mean you write things here that you don't really
mean?

It seems to me that what you *really* want is to simply rant and rave
at those
who disagree with you here. You want to carry on in a very immature
fashion, yet
never have your own words or behavior commented on or tossed back at
you.

You want to claim that others have written and/or done certain things
without ever providing any evidence, but then get all upset and nasty
when evidence of your own behavior is provided.

Classic "do as Len says, not as Len does" behavior.

Well, it doesn't work that way.

Is THAT what modern US radio
amateurs are all about?

Don't you know, Len? You claim to know all about amateur radio - now
it turns out that you actually know only about a dozen amateurs.

If so, I want NO part of it. If
so, only masochists would want to join it.

False conclusion!

But, as an optimist (not the fraternal order), I think there
might be some hope for a FUN HOBBY of amateur radio. Little
pockets of activity here and there where a few folks are
actually enjoying radio for radio's sake...NOT because some
strident (unofficial) "boss" tries to beat them into
submission to the "bosses" idea of what they "should" do.

Actually, Len, there are large numbers of radio amateur's actually
enjoying "radio for its own sake" on the amateur bands. Including
me.

But even though you are not one of them - not part of that
neighborhood - you want to change the rules for it. And not
just about the Morse Code test.

How is that any different from an outsider trying to change
zoning laws in your neighborhood?

I'm not going to fall for the "bosses" emotional-baggage
chastisement of "failing" to get a ham license or any of
that bull****.

Who are these alleged "bosses"?

Why did you say you were going to do something if you did
not intend to do it? If you really could do so, as you claimed,
was there really no time in the past 7 years? Your postings
here prove you had plenty of time to hurl insults at others.

Thanks but I've had a whole successful
career in radio-electronics and its been (and still is)
lots of fun in itself.

Then why are you posting here so much? Some of us
have a stake in amateur radio policy, because it affects us
directly. You don't. You're not the FCC, either.

If these "bosses" want to rummage
around in their FANTASY of being Gods of Radio as code-
tested extras, they can go right ahead making fools of
themselves. I can't control them but I CAN try to show
them and others how damn foolish they really are.

Perhaps the foolishness is in bothering to read what you write.

WHAT are the Mighty Macho Morsemen going to be "busy"
about? Sitting around in here trying to spank those who
don't care for morse code mode?

"Spank"? How?

Calling non-coders
names? [they've had LOTS of practice at that]

When have I called here anyone names, Len? You're the one who
does that. Heck, you can't even call those who disagree with you
by their first names or callsigns - you have to make up insulting
nicknames for them.

There's a challenge for you. Try addressing everyone here by their
first names
and/or callsigns *only*. Not by insulting nicknames, last names, etc.
Just first names and/or callsigns. Can you do that? I think not.

Pretending
they are ruff tuff Dill Instructors chewing out recruits?
[they've had LOTS of practice at that, too] Most of them
seem busy, busy, busy at exaggerating their own
experiences (if not telling outright lies). Let them.
It's the only "life" they seem to have.

How about someone who insists on knowing what others do for
a living, their family situations, their education, military/government
service, and much more stuff unconnected to the subject of this NG,
so it can be used as a basis for insults?

Why are you so upset and angry, Len? All I did was to post a link to
something you wrote.

Is that not allowed? Is there a statute of limitations on newsgroup
postings?