RadioBanter - View Single Post - Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...

Dave Heil · February 6th 07, 09:16 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT

wrote:

Your posts are certainly self-serving.

No. My computer(s) have no AI capability. They won't
serve me anything. All they do is act like computers.

Then you must have been addressing AI when you made your ludicrous comment.

I've never heard of self-serving selfishness.

That was a FIGURE OF SPEECH, Herr Pedant.

It was a poorly constructed one, Foghorn.

Everytime I
use a figure of speech, you pedant in your pants.

"Every time", PROFESSIONAL writer. Perhaps you'll learn to construct
better figures of speech. Try to quit thinking about my pants.

The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s.
...while you use the same, tired Stephen Wright jokes over and over.

I do not know of this "Stephen Wright." For what it is
worth, I am also a paid joke writer selling only ORIGINAL
material.

From what I've seen of your attempts as humor, I don't imagine you sell
much. It has been demonstrated that what you *use* isn't necessarily
original.

Would you like to see my AFTRA card?

I have as much interest in seeing your AFTRA card as I have in seeing
your DD-214.

Your boast of getting that "Extra right out of the box" is itself seven
years old. Your first post to this newsgroup took place over ten years
ago.

Irrelevant.

It is completely relevant, Len. You posted it right here.

I did not "boast" anything.

You must have some sort of Gary Hart complex. You know your wrote it.
You know it is archived and still you deny it.

That is your
FABRICATION.

You can type all of the capital letters you like. You boasted. Now you
may eat your own words.

In the period of 7 years, one can conceive a child, teach
it all about morse code and English language comprehension
sufficient to score correct written answers on an amateur
radio test, get their picture published by the ARRL, then
enter kindergarten. Have you done this?

Why no, Leonard. Then again, I made no boast about doing so.

Has Miccolis
done this?

Why are you asking me?

Why all of the misdirection, the tap dancing, the smoke and mirrors?
None of that has anything to do with your boast of getting the "Extra
right out of the box" seven years ago.

Have you EVER treated a human being in a friendly manner
without ordering them around?

Quite often, Len, but I've never ordered you around.

There is "precious" little
evidence of that in here...other than with a few like-
minded morse-inflated ego types.

You've set up some exceptions and made certain that you insulted the
exceptions.

You failed to mention your behavior here--the behavior which allows you
to heap abuse on others without expecting it in return.

Incorrect, Mistaken, False.

Hang on, Len....I'm looking around in your initial post. Nope, I've
looked high and low for it. You failed to mention your behavior.

You do not understand true
debate and the exchange of opinions.

I think you're the individual who doesn't understand it. True debate
does not involve names like "Sister Nun of the Above", "you little USMC
Feldwebel", "little man", "Herr Oberst" and the the like.

You don't because
you've never attempted to do that.

You've never attempted that, Len. You've been an overbearing and
insulting churl.

What you EXPECT is
gratuitous "congratulations"...

I don't expect any contratulations, Len. I expect civilized behavior
from an elderly gentleman. I've thusfar been disappointed in your behavior.

...and the mistaken notion of
innate "respect" you think is owed you...

I expect civilized behavior from an elderly gentleman, not insults being
hurled as he swings from a chandelier. You may need a time out.

...just because you
once passed the highest-rate morse code exam and some
extra questions.

I feel entitled to civilized behavior from you. You're a big let down, Len.

I am quite used to your type of personality, one of the
self-inflated ego-driven variety.

You discount your own self-importance and attempt to tranfer that
behavior to those who know more about something than you. In this case,
that something is amateur radio. You're a Leonard-come-lately.

I've been immersed
in social interaction with your kind all of my adult life.

I'll bet you sincerely believe that statement. Your inferiority complex
drives it.

I've survived none the worse for wear...

There are folks who might be inclined to disagree with you.

...yet you are the
bitter fabricator, the sore loser personified over a
very recent federal agency decision and ruling.

I'm confused by your writing, Len. Am I the sore loser personified or
am I personified over a very recent decision? I'm not a fabricator.
Maybe you could issue a correct version with the sentence structure
cleaned up a bit.

In regard to your failure to achieve an amateur radio license, you
declared an interest in amateur radio spanning decades.

Incorrect, Mistaken, Faulty. YOU fabricated some specialized
"interest" out of my (several) statements expressing an
interest in radio-electronics.

No, Len. No fabrication was done. You've made statements that your
interest in *amateur radio* spans several decades. Your statements were
not about an interest in radio-electronics.

I've explained of how my interest in radio came about
as an adult: A fortuitous assignment to a large HF
communications station while in the US Army. None of
that involved "amateur radio."

Your life still doesn't involve amateur radio.

You've posted
to an amateur radio interest newsgroup for better than a decade.

I've written and edited in an amateur radio magazine
over a decade before that.

You wrote an amateur radio magazine? That's news to me. Did the folks
at "Ham Radio" know about that?

I've written letters on
the advocacy of eliminating the morse code test.

Letters on the advocacy, huh?

My
advocacy in this newsgroup has been to eliminate the
code test for an amateur radio license. That was
stated out in the open in here during that whole
decade.

Yes, it was. Then you went on to demonstrate through your behavior,
that your self-appointed advocacy was about much, much more. It was
about minimum age requirements for an amateur radio license and it was
about insulting the ARRL and insulting radio amateurs who have never
posted to this newsgroup as well as those posters who disagreed with
your stance on a number of issues.

I have several friends who have been licensed
radio amateurs for much longer than a decade, much
longer than several decades.

Does that qualify you for something?

You've
boasted that you would obtain the highest class U.S. amateur radio
license "right out of the box" in a statement made seven years ago.

I have not "BOASTED."

You most certainly have boasted (or BOASTED).

That is your fabrication.

It is not a fabrication at all. You've recently seen the entire message
re-posted here. Want to see it again?

I
made a statement that I "could" based on the amateur
radio written tests of that time.

No, Leonard, that is a fabrication. Want to see your exact words again?

If all you have to attempt discrediting me is some
FABRICATIONS, then

Then what?

Have you acted on obtaining that or any amateur radio license?

I am not an actor and don't play one on TV. I've
only done voice-overs.

I can only imagine.

Would you like to see my
AFTRA card? :-)

No, thanks. I'm not interested in seeing your DD-214 or your pdf file
of your military experiences.

[my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow
cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol]
Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long
before. Doesn't faze me.

Your commercial First Phone ticket is not an amateur radio license.

I've never said it was anything but a "First Class
Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License"
to quote the FCC on my first certificate of that, or
the colloquial "First 'Phone."

Then why, pray tell, do you keep bringing it up in an amateur radio
newsgroup? What has it to do with amateur radio?

This is not a commercial radio newsgroup.

Yet all can see the usual subliminal ads for the ARRL in
the Believers' evangelical parroting of their words and
phrases. [St. Hiram be praised]

Thanks ever so much for including the type material which reinforces
what I've written about you.

A commercial license is "cast
aside" by the FCC with regard to the obtaining of an amateur radio
license.

The FCC has NEVER "cast aside" my First 'Phone nor
subsequent GROL. It is still in the FCC URL records
and still current.

The Commission won't want to see it, your AFTRA card or your laminated
tiny copy of your DD-214 if you take an amateur radio license exam.
None of 'em count for squat.

The requirements for an amateur radio license are all
explained in Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97.501 and following.
The requirements for commercial radio operator
licenses are given in regulations of Title 47 C.F.R.
Part 13.

I'm not the individual who has problems telling the difference between
an amateur radio license and a commercial radio license. You continue
to bring up your First Phone as if it had some bearing on obtaining an
amateur radio license. It doesn't.

Do you understand these instructions as they
have been explained to you? If not, the court will
appoint an attorney to assist you.

You haven't given any instructions.

Dave K8MN