You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB.
 

wrote in :

On 10 Aug 2006 10:38:09 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:


wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 20:30:59 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old idiot wrote:


Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules

WE define Ham radio

And again your compete ignorance springs fourth to show you for the
total moronic half-wit you are. But then, what's new?

§97.3 Definitions.

(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations
carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested
in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary
interest.
your poitn

We defeine Ham radio the FCC merely defines the rules we must obey in
doing so
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Get a six-year-old to read and explain to you part 97.3 (Definitions),
subpart (4) where it DEFINES the Amateur service, note the word
service, nowhere does it say hobby.
indeed you note the words

the FCC defines the rules of the service WE define the noffy aspects
of it

Try not to look so ignorant.
try it yourself
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Mark, would you put these five steps on your web blog for me? Thanks. I
also want to try to get the moon bouncers to help us out. I think by
puting the five steps on your website, a lot more hams will see and agree
the five steps are a good idea. TNX, 73

SC



Step 1: No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and
pass all elements required for their license class.

Step 2: The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%.

Step 3: Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.

Step 4: Make the no-code license one year non-renewable.

Step 5: Cancel your league membership until they decide to work
to improve things.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in :

On 10 Aug 2006 10:38:09 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:


wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 20:30:59 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old idiot wrote:


Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules

WE define Ham radio

And again your compete ignorance springs fourth to show you for the
total moronic half-wit you are. But then, what's new?

§97.3 Definitions.

(4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of
self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations
carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested
in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary
interest.
your poitn

We defeine Ham radio the FCC merely defines the rules we must obey in
doing so
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Get a six-year-old to read and explain to you part 97.3 (Definitions),
subpart (4) where it DEFINES the Amateur service, note the word
service, nowhere does it say hobby.
indeed you note the words

the FCC defines the rules of the service WE define the noffy aspects
of it

Try not to look so ignorant.
try it yourself
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



Mark, would you put these five steps on your web blog for me? Thanks. I
also want to try to get the moon bouncers to help us out. I think by
puting the five steps on your website, a lot more hams will see and agree
the five steps are a good idea. TNX, 73

SC
why would I support a sytem that tkae away my license wether you mean
next week or next year?

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 10 Aug 2006 17:25:09 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

why would I support a sytem that tkae away my license

Because you're honest?

Oh.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 17:25:09 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

why would I support a sytem that tkae away my license

Because you're honest?
how would that play out

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

you are welcome to play with it but not to us it to restrict access to
some that is part of my birthright and yours

the Congress has no power to regulate Radio except from the ITU treaty
and the "nessary and proper" clause. against the 10th amendment which
reserves powers not listed to the states or to the people.

well bud I am part of the people, and frankkly I am not pleased pleased
at the way you are not using the alloacted spectrum

nothing about CW is required

Oh.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 17:25:09 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

why would I support a sytem that tkae away my license

Because you're honest?
how would that play out

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

you are welcome to play with it but not to us it to restrict access to
some that is part of my birthright and yours

the Congress has no power to regulate Radio except from the ITU treaty
and the "nessary and proper" clause. against the 10th amendment which
reserves powers not listed to the states or to the people.

well bud I am part of the people, and frankkly I am not pleased pleased
at the way you are not using the alloacted spectrum

nothing about CW is required etc by rules that the FCC is propposing to
change

Oh.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 10 Aug 2006 18:51:34 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 17:25:09 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

why would I support a sytem that tkae away my license

Because you're honest?

how would that play out

I was being facetious.

the Congress has no power to regulate Radio except from the ITU treaty
and the "nessary and proper" clause. against the 10th amendment which
reserves powers not listed to the states or to the people.

Interstate commerce. If you don't understand how that gives the
government the right to regulate radio, you don't understand enough
about the Constitution to discuss the subject.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 18:51:34 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 17:25:09 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

why would I support a sytem that tkae away my license

Because you're honest?

how would that play out

I was being facetious.
realy

the Congress has no power to regulate Radio except from the ITU treaty
and the "nessary and proper" clause. against the 10th amendment which
reserves powers not listed to the states or to the people.

Interstate commerce.
comerence this IS AMATEUR RADIO you dolt
commerce is forbidden

how does Morse code relate to Comerce anyway?

Interstate commerce gives the Congress the right to require Morse Code
testing Id love to TJ weigh in on that

of course in fact you are beyond any convincing you have decided that
Morse is somehow vital to Ham radio

forutnately my auduince is out there

a gruop you and your postion failed to conivnce the ARRL may be getting
the FCC to drag it feet awhile but do you realy think code testing will
last amore than a few years at the outside

Indeed in last round before 2000 I could not find one of the procoders
who would state he beleived that code testing was not doomed

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It
already does around here mostly silent

do you realy distpute this title?

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

an old fraud wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 18:51:34 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 17:25:09 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

why would I support a sytem that tkae away my license

Because you're honest?

how would that play out

I was being facetious.
realy

You are too obtuse to see it.


the Congress has no power to regulate Radio except from the ITU treaty
and the "nessary and proper" clause. against the 10th amendment which
reserves powers not listed to the states or to the people.

Interstate commerce.
comerence this IS AMATEUR RADIO you dolt
commerce is forbidden

how does Morse code relate to Comerce anyway?

Poor Morkie, he uses the word "commerce" three times in a row and only
spells it right once. So much for that "college education" you claim
you have.

Interstate commerce gives the Congress the right to require Morse Code
testing Id love to TJ weigh in on that

"TJ?" T.J. Hooker?

of course in fact you are beyond any convincing you have decided that
Morse is somehow vital to Ham radio

It will get through even in the roughest band condtions, stupid.

forutnately my auduince is out there

You are out there all right, Markie.

a gruop you and your postion failed to conivnce the ARRL may be getting
the FCC to drag it feet awhile but do you realy think code testing will
last amore than a few years at the outside

Mheh. There are kids who can do CW while you can't, Morkie.

Indeed in last round before 2000 I could not find one of the procoders
who would state he beleived that code testing was not doomed

Name them, fraud.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It
already does around here mostly silent

Nobody wants to qso with you, stupid.

do you realy distpute this title?

Do you of being the newsgroup's retard?

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

wrote:
an old fraud wrote:
cease and desist

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 10 Aug 2006 19:22:53 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 18:51:34 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

the Congress has no power to regulate Radio except from the ITU treaty
and the "nessary and proper" clause. against the 10th amendment which
reserves powers not listed to the states or to the people.

Interstate commerce.

comerence this IS AMATEUR RADIO you dolt
commerce is forbidden

As I said, you don't understand the situation enough to discuss it.
Radio comes under interstate commerce laws. ALL radio does.
Broadcast, public service, CB and ham, among others.

how does Morse code relate to Comerce anyway?

It relates to radio, which the government has the power to regulate
under its mandate to regulate interstate commerce.

Interstate commerce gives the Congress the right to require Morse Code
testing Id love to TJ weigh in on that

It gives the government to require whatever doesn't violate the
Constitution. And there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting
having to know code to get a ham license.

of course in fact you are beyond any convincing you have decided that
Morse is somehow vital to Ham radio

Nope - I never claimed that it's vital. I never even claimed it's
necessary. You just don't understand conversation.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It
already does around here mostly silent

do you realy distpute this title?

"Title"? I dispute your understanding of common English.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.
before Iwas born

ywee you ever usefull yourself

you are not a good ham judging by the ham code

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 11 Aug 2006 05:56:28 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.
before Iwas born

ywee you ever usefull yourself

you are not a good ham judging by the ham code

That thing going by about 500 feet overhead was the point. WHOOSSSHHH!

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 05:56:28 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.
before Iwas born

ywee you ever usefull yourself

you are not a good ham judging by the ham code

That thing going by about 500 feet overhead was the point. WHOOSSSHHH!
you are a clearly a poor ham as maeasured by the amateur code

you clealy have this notion that that rules have ever required thing
NOT in the rules

you are rude and abusive (and then to top that object to being treated
the same by others)

that you are rude enough to call a man you have never met useless as
ignored out of coutesy not missed

the fact is Ham radio sound very miuch like cb NOW on HF and VHF the
sound in many areas is all but silence

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 11 Aug 2006 15:21:54 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

you are rude and abusive

No, I'm just biblical - I don't suffer fools gladly.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 15:21:54 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

you are rude and abusive

No, I'm just biblical - I don't suffer fools gladly.
you are just rude and abusivise and as for biblical you are not
following the injunction to not bear false witness against your
neighboor either

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 11 Aug 2006 18:54:53 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 15:21:54 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

you are rude and abusive

No, I'm just biblical - I don't suffer fools gladly.

you are just rude and abusivise and as for biblical you are not
following the injunction to not bear false witness against your
neighboor either

That the truth hurts doesn't make it a lie.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 18:54:53 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 11 Aug 2006 15:21:54 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

you are rude and abusive

No, I'm just biblical - I don't suffer fools gladly.

you are just rude and abusivise and as for biblical you are not
following the injunction to not bear false witness against your
neighboor either

That the truth hurts doesn't make it a lie.
that only applies if you tell the truth

you don't it is just that simple

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator no can that
difference by learned in any way other than memorization

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.

no can that
difference by learned in any way other than memorization

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.
a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

no can that
difference by learned in any way other than memorization

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.
at pesent their is no different when I learn the text of the right
answer to a given I leraned the answer to that question

there is no difference, none at all,

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

can you describe and USE Maxwell's equation? I can I found the
knowledge very helpfull on the rf safety question in the pools,
butstill useless without memorizing certain facts that have set as
arbitary level in the regs

the fact I need to an rf eval at at 51 watts on 2m is not something I
can know from guasses equation although guass' law allow me to easily
undertsand theprocess of doing the eval

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

I have a question for " an old friend ".

I noticed that you have a difficult time with writing the English
language, with regards to spelling and grammar, etc, but you do try to get
the thought across. I have a dyslexic daughter with the same problem, and
her teachers in grade school used to flunk her thinking she did not know
answers to the test questions, when actually, she really did know and
understand, but was afraid to write them out because of her dyslexia and the
resultant laughter and snickering that followed. When we all caught on to
this finally, we demanded that she be tested aurally, where she was asked
the questions out loud, and responded verbally with the answers instead of
writing things out. This made a hell of a difference in assessing her
learning and understanding during her education in the early years. As her
father, I was hard on her because of the frustration she caused us at first
when we did not understand what was really happening, and I still feel
guilty about it to this day.

Are you a native North American, or are you an immigrant? When you did
your ham test, or any test, did the teachers/instructors make these
allowances or alternate testing methods for you also? Were they easy on you,
or did they show frustration? Did they understand where you were coming
from? Did you have a pleasant attitude to deal with? I am not making fun of
you. This is a serious question. Thanks,

Jack


"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.
a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

no can that
difference by learned in any way other than memorization

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.
at pesent their is no different when I learn the text of the right
answer to a given I leraned the answer to that question

there is no difference, none at all,

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

can you describe and USE Maxwell's equation? I can I found the
knowledge very helpfull on the rf safety question in the pools,
butstill useless without memorizing certain facts that have set as
arbitary level in the regs

the fact I need to an rf eval at at 51 watts on 2m is not something I
can know from guasses equation although guass' law allow me to easily
undertsand theprocess of doing the eval

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Jack Ricci wrote:
I agree with the Morse Code ( or whatever exotic name it has evolved to
in modern day ) as still being useful. I think morse code is a lot of fun,
and very much a part of the ham hobby's old-time, nostalgic glamour. I see
no harm in making it part of a ham's testing and licensing requirement. I
feel that it is definitely useful, and provides communicants with an
international second language to deal with in emergencies.
if it were not treated as a go or nogo element I might be persauded to
agree with you

that isn't the case

indeed if the usa had adopted years something Canada is doing now I
would lay good money that NCI would never have existed

I do not think the newer hams are idiots for wanting to do away with
code, but I think they are missing out on a piece of irreplaceable history
that is so easy to maintain and cherish forever.
Viva le ham.

Jack

"cmdr buzz corey" wrote in message
oups.com...

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.

And still more useful today than an old idiot is.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.
a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.

, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

I doubt you learned much in college either.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On 12 Aug 2006 19:27:59 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:

an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.

And still more useful today than an old idiot is.

Urdu and Sanskrit are a lot more useful today than he is.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.
a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.

, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

I doubt you learned much in college either.

He went to clown college.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB.It already does around here mostly silent
 

STFU MORON! DROP THE SUBJECT

WHO GIVE ****.

wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:32:19 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 09:57:19 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


it is not a sign sign of any superior knowledge to know that is a
particular circut is Collpitts or hartley ocilator

It's a sign of having learned it.

a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

the knowledg is of no value to most of those people either

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

to me and the FCC and reality

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.


as it happens I did not

I ordereda copy of the tech mnaul but it did not arive before the test
so I took it and passed based on what was in my headabout rf and
working the rules question mostly from the notion just which of these
answers sounds like the work of a real "crat


, for other section you can learn some part of the
underlying theroy and use it but short of the Full course of Eltromatic
Theroy I hadin colledge you don't learn much

I doubt you learned much in college either.


perhaps not perhaps so that is another matter

and one clearly without profit to go into
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-0, 08/14/2006
Tested on: 8/14/2006 3:32:49 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB.It already does around here mostly silent
 

STFU MORON! DROP THE SUBJECT

WHO GIVE ****.

wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:33:53 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:


On 12 Aug 2006 19:27:59 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:

On 10 Aug 2006 22:12:58 -0700, "cmdr buzz corey"
wrote:


an old friend wrote:

I am honest. I don't think CW has ANY value in todays world.

Kinda like you.

Except that code was useful once.

And still more useful today than an old idiot is.

Urdu and Sanskrit are a lot more useful today than he is.

to you I am sure that is true but you are looking more like Robeson
and Wismen daily not a good thing
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-0, 08/14/2006
Tested on: 8/14/2006 3:33:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:58:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:32:19 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

It's a sign of having learned it.

a sign of havigng learned something of NO value

No value to you - that doesn't matter very much to the other 6
billion+ people on the planet.

the knowledg is of no value to most of those people either

I'm glad to know that you've been appointed to speak for them but, if
you don't mind, I'd rather hear it from them.

You still don't understand the difference between memorizing facts and
memorizing answers.

at pesent their is no different

To you - which was what I said.

to me and the FCC and reality

But not to those actually involved in the study of memory and
learning.

for some of the materail the only rational way of approuching it is
memorization

For some, yes. I'm referring to those who use the method for all the
answers - people like you.

as it happens I did not

I prefer to not take your word for something that contradicts what
you've said before.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:57:55 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

the knowledg is of no value to most of those people either

I'm glad to know that you've been appointed to speak for them but, if
you don't mind, I'd rather hear it from them.

you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either

Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?

but indeed enlight me
what value is derived from the knowledge that an occiclaotr is
colpitss type or hartley

Plenty of value to those who have to work with oscillators of various
types. It's difficult to design a circuit when you have no
understanding of it.

without adding something to mix they answer it has no value

Your contributions to these threads are what have no value.

But not to those actually involved in the study of memory and
learning.

when did you become nominated to speak for them

When those telepathic representatives of yours became appointed to
tell us what everyone thinks.

you are very sloppy about your facts

How would you know? You wouldn't recognize a fact if it came up to
you and hit you.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:38:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:

you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either

Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?

never said anything about their being telpaths but I was refering to
the FCC

The FCC doesn't tell us what the people think, it tells us what the
FCC thinks.

but indeed enlight me
what value is derived from the knowledge that an occiclaotr is
colpitss type or hartley

Plenty of value to those who have to work with oscillators of various
types. It's difficult to design a circuit when you have no
understanding of it.

nknowing the name and undertsnading the circut are 2 different things

Since you know neither, it's a distinction without a difference for
you.

why should I care if my vfo is a colpiitts or hartley occilator as
long as it ocilates at the right freq?

Oh, maybe you'd care to know why it's microphonic? Or what to look
for if it starts doing something wrong? Different circuits are prone
to different problems.

your personal attack only show the wekness of your arguement

And yours doesn't, I suppose.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB.It already does around here mostly silent
 

STFU MORON! WHO **** CARES

Al Klein wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:38:03 -0400, wrote:


On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:


you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either


Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?


never said anything about their being telpaths but I was refering to
the FCC


The FCC doesn't tell us what the people think, it tells us what the
FCC thinks.


but indeed enlight me
what value is derived from the knowledge that an occiclaotr is
colpitss type or hartley


Plenty of value to those who have to work with oscillators of various
types. It's difficult to design a circuit when you have no
understanding of it.


nknowing the name and undertsnading the circut are 2 different things


Since you know neither, it's a distinction without a difference for
you.


why should I care if my vfo is a colpiitts or hartley occilator as
long as it ocilates at the right freq?


Oh, maybe you'd care to know why it's microphonic? Or what to look
for if it starts doing something wrong? Different circuits are prone
to different problems.


your personal attack only show the wekness of your arguement


And yours doesn't, I suppose.


---
avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-1, 08/15/2006
Tested on: 8/15/2006 8:29:36 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com





---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0633-1, 08/15/2006
Tested on: 8/15/2006 8:30:10 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:57:55 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:

the knowledg is of no value to most of those people either

I'm glad to know that you've been appointed to speak for them but, if
you don't mind, I'd rather hear it from them.

you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either

Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?
never said anything about their being telpaths but I was refering to
the FCC

The same people who are interested in the fact you conversed with
bootleggers.


but indeed enlight me
what value is derived from the knowledge that an occiclaotr is
colpitss type or hartley

Plenty of value to those who have to work with oscillators of various
types. It's difficult to design a circuit when you have no
understanding of it.

nknowing the name and undertsnading the circut are 2 different things

Neither of which you can do with your limited intelligence.
You weren't born, Markie, you were **** out.

why should I care if my vfo is a colpiitts or hartley occilator as
long as it ocilates at the right freq?

That's our Markie, representing the Red States!


without adding something to mix they answer it has no value

Your contributions to these threads are what have no value.
in your opinion obviously mine differs

In everybody's opinion, stupid.


But not to those actually involved in the study of memory and
learning.

when did you become nominated to speak for them

When those telepathic representatives of yours became appointed to
tell us what everyone thinks.
then ae nopt authirized and should stop


Post when you sober up.


you are very sloppy about your facts

How would you know? You wouldn't recognize a fact if it came up to
you and hit you.
your personal attack only show the wekness of your arguement

Oh, the irony.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:38:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:

you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either

Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?

never said anything about their being telpaths but I was refering to
the FCC

The FCC doesn't tell us what the people think, it tells us what the
FCC thinks.
agred in practice but you are the one going about therory
..

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

an old friendless cocksucker wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:38:03 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:14:47 -0400, Al Klein
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:37:50 -0400, wrote:

you have heard from the appointed legel representives and you did not
listen to them either

Oh? I didn't know that we legally appointed "representatives" to tell
us what people think. Who, pray tell, are these telepathic
"representatives"?

never said anything about their being telpaths but I was refering to
the FCC

The FCC doesn't tell us what the people think, it tells us what the
FCC thinks.
agred in practice but you are the one going about therory

What the hell would you know, you are a no code beginner training wheel
ham who makes up EME contacts.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

wrote:
cease and desist your harrassment

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

wrote:
cease and desist your harrassment

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

Markthe wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 06:01:49 -0700,
wrote:


an old fraud wrote:
cease and desist your harrassment

AC5-Webproxy69.direcpc.com (66.82.9.86)

so?

So spamming like you are doing will make you lose that high speed
connection.

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

wrote:

cease desist tryong to speak for Houghton county

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
 

an old fraud wrote:

cease desist tryong to speak for Houghton county

"tryong?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
They already have received too many complaints about your trash filled
yard, Markie!

You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent - Mark, Just ignore them.