On Mar 12, 2:31�pm, "
wrote:
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!

Why?

I've always acknowledged and corrected my mistakes
here. When they were genuine, objective mistakes,
that is.

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.

So what?

In 1998 you were not a radio amateur. How did
my saying that simple fact blow it all away?

* *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). *

And the FCC, ITU, and most radio amateurs.

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.

But you were not a radio amateur then.

Gee, for somebody who claims not to need
"rank, title and status", you sure do put yours
out there often enough.

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

You're a radio amateur, Len. When you got the
license, you got that title. Anyone who holds a
valid Amateur Radio license (regardless of
license class) is a radio amateur. Nobody else.

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

Do you think that being called a radio amateur
is an insult, Len?

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?

"Harangues", Len. One 'n'.

I brought it up this time because it proved
"hot-ham-and-cheese" to be mistaken.

As for being a "SUGGESTION" - everything
proposed to FCC in Comments and Reply
Comments is essentially a "SUGGESTION".

You wrote what you wanted FCC to do: ban
anyone under the age of 14 from Amateur Radio.
I think you still want that. FCC looked at your
idea/proposal/suggestion/reasoning/arguments
about that and chose not to act on it.

"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. *

No, right.

I pointed it out.

The FCC did NOT "believe" it..

Sure they did. If they did not, they would
not have issued the licenses.

.the FCC
* *accepted the input of the ARRL VEC. *Pro forma
* *stuff done electronically.

In 1998? Can you be sure?

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

Not exactly.

There has *never* been *any* age restriction for a US amateur radio
license. The FCC and all its
predecessors in amateur radio regulations never
ever saw the need for any such restriction. Not
since the beginning of mandatory licensing in 1912.

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 ARRL story was presented to FCC in your
Reply Comments, Len. You went into detail about
it as a reason to impose a minimum age requirement
for an amateur radio license.

Someone at FCC reads all the Comments and
Reply Comments. So *people* at FCC knew all about
the licensing of those 4 year olds, from your
Reply Comments and the ARRL story.

FCC also enforces their rules, and
has investigated claims of rules violations at VE
sessions. But they did not investigate that VE session, nor revoke any
licenses or VE accreditation in connection with it.

FCC clearly believed, and continues to believe, that
there were no rules violations committed at the VE
session which licensed those 4 year olds.

FCC accepts the ARRL story as valid, not "preposterous". Otherwise
they would have acted.

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

* *Bull****. *Another fabrication of yours.

Why? Because I proved "hot-ham-and-cheese" to
be mistaken?

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.

I don't think you would say these things in person.

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?

I don't think you'd say it to the VEs by yourself.

* *Otherwise, DROP this stupid harrangue of yours
* *that is already SEVEN YEARS OLD.

Who are you to tell me to shut up?

*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.

Nobody is complaining except you, Len.

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. *

OK for DX but not optimum for USA contacts, except maybe to the
coasts. Rhombics are so
1930s. too - the modern way is Yagis. Three elements on 40, for
example.

And why stop at 40? At this point in the sunspot
sunspot cycle, an 80 meter quad is indicated...

The octet is, naturally, for
* *DX on 40m CW and up in frequency along with a remote
* *switching selection to eliminate rotator needs.

That's nice, Len. But who will operate it for you?

* *[the cattle can graze peacefully underneath it all]
* *I'm even considering abondoning that Wyoming
* *territory in favor of Nevada or Arizona. *Takes time.

Seven more years?

* *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.

They don't make ham rigs.

* *Thanks for asking.

You're welcome!

So I guess you won't be on the amateur bands
any time soon. Particularly "40 CW and up".

I could be mistaken about that, of course.

7037 kHz is the RRAP CW frequency, btw. I've
worked quite a few there....


Jim, N2EY