RadioBanter - View Single Post

[email protected] · March 12th 07, 07:31 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am

On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote:
From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am

And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to
FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still
believed it.

NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143
on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-)

You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad.
Apologies all around.

Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with
an APOLOGY! The world may be coming to an end!

It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur
at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC.

Oh, my, Jimmie BLEW IT ALL AWAY...!

In 1998 I was NOT licensed as any radio amateur but
was ALREADY licensed as a COMMERCIAL radio operator
for 42 years...and had actual experience in long-
distance HF communications 45 years before.

Further, I had been a hobbyist in radio and
electronics since 1947 (hobbies are classified as
'amateur' activities by almost everyone else except
olde-tyme ham morsemen). Not only that, in 1998
I had already retired from a four-decade career as
an electronics engineer in southern California
aerospace industries...and was already in a new
career that had involved a Private Land Mobile
Radio Services station of which I was co-owner.

So, you are wanting to still label me as an "amateur"
in radio?

Of course you do. You can't help but attempt to
denigrate anything I post in here. :-(

Here's why I brought up the "age limit" thing:

That's just this latest go-around. What about all
those OTHER past harrangues you've tried to hang
on my SUGGESTION on minimum age limits?

"hot-ham-and-cheese" claimed that nobody
but me believed the story about the young
amateurs. He said the whole thing was preposterous.

I pointed out that not only did I believe it, but
so did the FCC.

WRONG. The FCC did NOT "believe" it...the FCC
accepted the input of the ARRL VEC. Pro forma
stuff done electronically.

The FCC had long before introduced the "no age
restrictions" on license applicants.

So "hot-ham-and-cheese" was simply mistaken
about me being the only one who believed the
story.

NO. You are confusing an ARRL "story" (an
article on their website) with what YOU
"think the FCC believes." You only IMAGINE
what "the FCC believes."

The "age limit thing" also has a direct bearing on the
VE system.

Bull****. Another fabrication of yours.

You accused complete strangers of
"fraud" and "hypocrisy" with no evidence at all.

TS. I will CONTINUE to do so, electronically
or face-to-face in-person ANY time there is
the OBVIOUS sign of such things.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of the
VEs who administered your testing to your
accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at
the ARRL and some Indiana VEs.

No problem to me. Just pay for their transport
and lodging out here, along with yourself, and
you can "see" all you want. Record it if you
want. I'll just gather a group of local licensed
(and unlicensed) radio amateurs of like opinions
and we can all have a big gang-bang. Okay?

Otherwise, DROP this stupid harrangue of yours
that is already SEVEN YEARS OLD. You aren't
"winning' a damn thing and you are annoying
the rest of the folks (with the exception of
Heil, Deignan, and probably Kelly) with your
"endless summer" of "no-age-limit" harrangues.

Say - got that LP and tower up yet Len?
How do you like the Icom IC-7800?

I'm considering a Request for Quote from Harris on
the station and for an octet of rhombics on a large
ranch in Wyoming. The octet is, naturally, for
DX on 40m CW and up in frequency along with a remote
switching selection to eliminate rotator needs.
[the cattle can graze peacefully underneath it all]
I'm even considering abondoning that Wyoming
territory in favor of Nevada or Arizona. Takes time.

No, I'm not buying stock in any of the Big3 in
Japan. The shares of General Electric and AT&T
here are doing just fine.

Thanks for asking.

74s, Len AF6AY