|
You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS
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. |
You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS
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. Don't confuse Morkie with the facts, Buzz...He's already one step ahead of a Jim Jones cocktail as it is... Steve, K4YZ |
You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS
K4YZ wrote: Don't confuse Morkie with the facts, Buzz...He's already one step ahead of a Jim Jones cocktail as it is... Steve, K4YZ The amount of ignorance on his part is simply astounding. |
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
Al Klein wrote: On 12 Aug 2006 15:49:50 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: , 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. What's there to learn when your only "experience" in "college" is either on a tour bus or as janitorial staff...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Poking More Holes In Morkie's Mularkie: Jack Ricci, Take Note
an old friend wrote: Jack Ricci wrote: 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....(SNIP) The thought he get's across is that he's incompetent and arrogant. Dyslexia has nothing to do with it. 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. There was nothing for you to feel guilty about, Jack. Unless you were a trained speech therapist or other childhood educational clinician, how would you have known? The fact of the matter is that you probably did her more good than harm. Was it tough on her? No doubt. But that beats coddling her and allowing her to use the "I'm a victim"" escape that so many "affilicted" persons want to declare today. The point is that she knows now, can get therapy for it, and is strong enough to know that she can overcome this "problem" through education, training and technology...Not to mention the love and support of her father, of course! I was diagnosed as Duslexic and am at a better occasion verbaly of course I decided that I would not allow the mocking of the close minded to stop me expressing myself when I choose Your present problem, Mork, has nothing to do with any diagnosed condition. It has to do with your unwillingness to seek treatment and correction of it. There are copious fixes available yet you refuse to take advantage of them. THAT makes you an idiot...NOT "dyslexic". Are you a native North American, or are you an immigrant? intteresting I am a native american citizen but was in fact born abaord with my folks working in the srvice of Uncle Sam Sigh. Many immigrants, including most Central Europeans, are the recipients of a mandatory ESL, or "English as a Second Language" programs. When you did your ham test, or any test, did the teachers/instructors make these allowances or alternate testing methods for you also? nothing but given the nature of my knowledge I needed none for the written testing but the VE system bascial refuses any real accomadation in making an effort at code testing There's no accomodation for idiots, Mork. You point out that you're better at audio testing, but you simultaneously insist that you can't copy the code aurally. in tests in Hs it got easier once my dyslexia was discovered amusingly it result of the mangling I did in takeing code tests (one of the tester was also a specail ed teacher and thought I might be dyslexic) Uh huh.... Were they easy on you, or did they show frustration? depends Depends on what? How smart mouth and abusive you were on any given day? Or how willing they were to absorb your abuse and do their best to overcome the codependency you'd developed by coddling from parents who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell you "no" when you demanded something-for-nothing...?!?! Did they understand where you were coming from? agian depends Depends? You're wearing depends? Why am I not surprised? Did you have a pleasant attitude to deal with? Mork...?!?! PLEASANT...?!?!?! As pleasant as getting caught on the tracks as the 5:15 express rolls through! pleasent to a point but frankly to survie and do I wanted I have a SERIOUS pugnaous streak of course Serious selfish "me first screw you" is what you're trying to say? the posters on here seem to work to bring that to the fore No...the posters here are just too aware of what makes Mork Moron the way he is... I am not making fun of you. This is a serious question. Thanks in the arguement here frank it shows just what memorization can do Like Tom cruise I can memorize vasts amounts of data ((I do some professional acting) Mork? A PROFESSIONAL ACTOR...?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! Jack, you've just fallen prey to the clutches of Mark C. Morgan, better known in this forum as "Mork Moron"...Or if you'd care to, by his nomme-de-guerre, LtCol Mark C. Morgan of the US Army Chemical Corps. Or is it Sgt Mark Morgan of the "47th CSB (prov)"...?!?! We can't tell. He admitted to lying about being a field grade officer in the Army as he did about being drafted. Of course it didn't take a degree in astrophysics to figure out that Mork was only SEVEN years old as the last conscriptees in the United States were being mustered OUT, let alone being inducted. Nor does it take a rocket scientist to see through his current rants about being in a unit that no one can find anywhere. Oh, to be sure there are sound-alike, "almost the same" unit designators, however Mork (nor anyone else for that matter....) cannot find any reference to his "47th CSB (PROV)" that back up THIS tale. More likely and plausible is the theory that he was a visitor to Ft Sill, OK at one time and saw signs for real units, and then got confused when he started his current round to tale-telling. Markie's current rant is to try and pummel me over "trampling" the memory of some Army NCO that passed away recently and whom Morkie allegedly knew. Again it is more likely that this was a convienient ruse for Morkie to claim he knew someone in this fictional unit of his, only now the tale can't be verified. Also, Mork is a great believer in recreational lying. As a matter of fact, some posts made by him within the last couple of days record his stating that his as-of-yet-to-be-born son will be thoroughly trained in lying and encouraged to do so often. Please...Don't take my word for it. Please take the time to research some of Morkie's posts in this forum. They are nothing if not a window into the mind of a very, VERY sick man. But be prepared to have to do some amateur-detective work to find them all...To date Morkie's posted under no fewer than 26 different "nics", or screen names, that I have kept track of...I am sure there are more. Good luck. Steve, K4YZ |
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
|
You're not a real ham if you want the ARS to sound like CB. It already does around here mostly silent
|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com