|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote: On 13 Sep 2006 16:59:53 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 13 Sep 2006 16:42:44 -0700, wrote: Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [snip] There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any consequence. Yeah the same reason that 75% of the people I know don't belong to organizations of whatever hobby they do participate in. They're just not "joiners". Dee D. Flint, N8UZE But this isn't stamp collecting or fly-tying. It isn't even soccer or la crosse. This is amateur radio where lives are saved and we are everybody's comm back-up. Don't you think we could get a little more participation? have you noticed it is hobby when that serves to excuse something, and a Service like the army or at least CAP when there is something being promoted as vital it (like code testing) A-yup. I notice it all. How are we to "join" in an emergency when we cannot join in everday life? I know you did notice but the rest of the boozos need it pointed out They have a very odd way of looking at the world. I don't volonteer much myself becuase of Ham's Like Robeson and in a real emergency my dad health is my first concern as well as the BS "courses" they want to you take these days I think the ARRL courses are probably good, though I haven't actually seen them. Standardization of terms and procedures has to be a good thing. The Fed, State, and Local governments are standardizing on the FEMA NIMS/ICS protocol. If they want Fed money, that is. Recall the thread where I asked if anyone here had actually taken any of the ARRL courses??? I think I'm going to sign up for the antenna modelling course this winter for an inside activity. |
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: But the point is that the judicial system has methods besides self-disqualification to prevent conflict of interest. It does not rely solely or primarily on judges or jurors disqualifying themselves. No. Yes, that's the point. It wasn't the point I made. The point is that ethical people behave ethically. People who behave ethically at all times don't need safeguards. So ARRL leaders need safeguards? Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. You missed that part. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. And who defines what "ethics" are the right ones? Apparently, ONLY the BoD. And the membership. Was it ethical to appoint someone with no emergency management experience to head FEMA? Should the Democrats eventually regain a majority in the House, or the Whitehouse, will they behave ethically, or as they've always behaved? They don't have to behave to a very high standard to be more ethical than the Current Occupants. Was it ethical to give lucrative no-bid contracts to a company that used to be run by a top administrator who helped make the decision? That's exactly what Pres. Clinton did in 1995 when he attacked Yugoslavia. Haliburton, no-bid, huge cost overruns. NO PROBLEM. Who says it wasn't a problem? And the contracts I referred to were for 2005 hurricane relief efforts. Hurricanes aren't a new thing, yet the efforts to deal with them were handled a lot better by previous administrations. And was it Clinton who went into Yugoslavia - or the UN? Was it done to start a war or to stop one? And how did that effort turn out? Was there more violence, disorder and destruction in Yugoslavia after "Mission Accomplished" than before? |
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: But the point is that the judicial system has methods besides self-disqualification to prevent conflict of interest. It does not rely solely or primarily on judges or jurors disqualifying themselves. No. Yes, that's the point. It wasn't the point I made. The point is that ethical people behave ethically. People who behave ethically at all times don't need safeguards. So ARRL leaders need safeguards? Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment? You missed that part. No, I didn't. Yes, you did. And who defines what "ethics" are the right ones? Apparently, ONLY the BoD. And the membership. So why in 20 years of ARRL membership have I never encountered an ethics issue on the ballots? Was it ethical to appoint someone with no emergency management experience to head FEMA? Should the Democrats eventually regain a majority in the House, or the Whitehouse, will they behave ethically, or as they've always behaved? They don't have to behave to a very high standard to be more ethical than the Current Occupants. Perhaps. But no matter how low the bar, the Democrats probably cannot rise to it. Was it ethical to give lucrative no-bid contracts to a company that used to be run by a top administrator who helped make the decision? That's exactly what Pres. Clinton did in 1995 when he attacked Yugoslavia. Haliburton, no-bid, huge cost overruns. NO PROBLEM. Who says it wasn't a problem? You never mentioned it before. And the contracts I referred to were for 2005 hurricane relief efforts. Hurricanes aren't a new thing, yet the efforts to deal with them were handled a lot better by previous administrations. Bush Sr. August 1992. "Andrew would ultimately become the most expensive natural disaster in American history. More than 60 people were killed and scores more injured, 117,000 homes were destroyed or suffered major damage, some two million residents had to be temporarily evacuated. Flooding and high winds destroyed thousands of acres of crops. And overall estimates placed the storm's cost at more than $20 billion." And was it Clinton who went into Yugoslavia - or the UN? You know the answer to that one, and you know that I know, so don't lie to me. Was it done to start a war or to stop one? We had absolutely no interests in Yugoslavia. It was a European problem that they could have handled. And how did that effort turn out? Lots and lots of new DX. Was there more violence, disorder and destruction in Yugoslavia after "Mission Accomplished" than before? Clinton had an exit strategy. No matter what, we would be out in one year. Clinton was saying that as I tagged people during the 1995 Thanksgiving week. Just the other day I ran into some soldiers that were returning from Bosnia. |
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
"Slow Code" wrote in message link.net... "Unit 200" anon@anon wrote in : Long time no hear, Len. Good to see that you are out and about and belaboring Usenet with your tripe. I'm sure that you feel much relieved after posting a ten paragraph diatribe...you oldsters seem to feel like youngsters after passing a few cubic feet of natural gas. Did you rattle your Rely diapers while so doing? You didn't "brit your ****ches", did you? I hate it when Flatulent Old Men play their tunes while pretending they are not the fartee.... ROFLMAO That was good. Sc Psssssst! I hate to break this to you, but if you are lucky enough to survive, you too will be old some day. Come to think of it, with your smartassed attitudes, the chances of that happening are pretty slim. Sparky |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote:
wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment? If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to remove safeguards. And it's not just Democrats: Quoting Wikinews: Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. --- It seems like the word "Patriot" gets attached to all sorts of things in an attempt to avoid criticism or scrutiny. |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment? If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to remove safeguards. And it's not just Democrats: Quoting Wikinews: Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. --- It seems like the word "Patriot" gets attached to all sorts of things in an attempt to avoid criticism or scrutiny. ...just like each and every radio amateur is "being a 'service' to their country"? :-) Beep, beep, |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment? If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to remove safeguards. And it's not just Democrats: Quoting Wikinews: Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you? And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11. He's trying to go the least disruptive route for the most people. Most people aren't terrorists. Since the birth of this nation, the US Post Office has been looking at the addressee and the return address on every piece of first class mail that they've handled. The government even goes so far as to walk right up to the addressee, even if private property, and give them their message. And if something suspicious shows up in the US Mail, the Postmaster is allowed to open it. The sender and the receiver are both subject to investigation. Today, under the "Patriot Act," the US Government gets to see the originating phone number, the destination phone number, and if there are suspicious trigger words, the contents of the message may be seen. I think the two systems of communications should share similar risks of eavesdropping. Why shouldn't it be so? If you are choosing to afford terrorists equal protection, I think you're nuts. |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment? If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to remove safeguards. And it's not just Democrats: Quoting Wikinews: Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. --- It seems like the word "Patriot" gets attached to all sorts of things in an attempt to avoid criticism or scrutiny. ...just like each and every radio amateur is "being a 'service' to their country"? :-) Beep, beep, Yep, every Robesin taunt is a service... |
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
"Ed Cregger" wrote in
: "Slow Code" wrote in message link.net... "Unit 200" anon@anon wrote in : Long time no hear, Len. Good to see that you are out and about and belaboring Usenet with your tripe. I'm sure that you feel much relieved after posting a ten paragraph diatribe...you oldsters seem to feel like youngsters after passing a few cubic feet of natural gas. Did you rattle your Rely diapers while so doing? You didn't "brit your ****ches", did you? I hate it when Flatulent Old Men play their tunes while pretending they are not the fartee.... ROFLMAO That was good. Sc Psssssst! I hate to break this to you, but if you are lucky enough to survive, you too will be old some day. Come to think of it, with your smartassed attitudes, the chances of that happening are pretty slim. Sparky I'd rather be a smartass than a dumb ass, Dumb Ass. Lenny is full of hot air. It was hilarious watching the original poster point that out to him. Now don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. SC |
slow code stalker at large
Slow Code wrote: slow code stalker at large |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote:
wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment? If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to remove safeguards. And it's not just Democrats: Quoting Wikinews: Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you? I'm not from SC. But that's not the point. The question you asked was why *Democrats* are/were so bothered by the Patriot Amendment. Which implies that Republicans aren't bothered by it, and that it's a partisan thing, with the usual spin of "Party A is good, Party B is bad". The fact that there are Republicans who are concerned demonstrates that ity's not so simple. Guess where Sen. Arlen Specter is from.... And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11. Could he? For the whole country or just parts of it? Maybe in theory. In practice, I don't know of any time in the history of the Republic where nationwide or even widespread martial law was imposed. The use of such power has always been very limited. To declare martial law for the whole country in the wake of 9/11 would have been an overreaction. He's trying to go the least disruptive route for the most people. That's one way to look at it. Here's another: If someone in power tries to make radical changes all at once, there is usually strong opposition. But if the changes are made in stages, a little at a time, they can often be packaged in such a way as to result in an overall change that is much more radical. A little here, a little there, and pretty soon an awful lot is gone. Most people aren't terrorists. Very true. Since the birth of this nation, the US Post Office has been looking at the addressee and the return address on every piece of first class mail that they've handled. The government even goes so far as to walk right up to the addressee, even if private property, and give them their message. And if something suspicious shows up in the US Mail, the Postmaster is allowed to open it. The sender and the receiver are both subject to investigation. The US Post Office is also a government-run organization - it's not private industry. Reading the addresses is a practical necessity, in order to know where to send the mail. Today, under the "Patriot Act," the US Government gets to see the originating phone number, the destination phone number, and if there are suspicious trigger words, the contents of the message may be seen. I thought the discussion was about the "Patriot Amendment". I think the two systems of communications should share similar risks of eavesdropping. Why shouldn't it be so? "Eavesdropping"? I would call it "monitoring". And I agree that if a communication of *any* kind - written, "wired", radio, etc. - is suspicious, the govt. should be able to monitor it. At the same time, there need to be safeguards against misuse of the monitoring. Checks and balances. You may not remember the Nixon Administration, but I sure do. There were things done which were clear misuse of power, in order to insure that RMN got elected and re-elected. There were serious attempts to hide it under the umbrella of "national security". The truly odd thing was that RMN did not need any of those 'dirty tricks' to get elected or re-elected. If you are choosing to afford terrorists equal protection, I think you're nuts. The problem isn't terrorists getting equal protection. If they're really terrorists, they should be dealt with as needed. The problem is that while most people aren't terrorists, we all get looked at as if we are. And the safeguards start disappearing, one by one, always for "national security". Then there's no equal protection for anyone. Is that what the USA is about? |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote: wrote: wrote: Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you? I'm not from SC. But that's not the point. The question you asked was why *Democrats* are/were so bothered by the Patriot Amendment. Which implies that Republicans aren't bothered by it, not particularly or nessaryly it suggests any republican objection are different |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote: wrote: wrote: Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you? I'm not from SC. But that's not the point. The question you asked was why *Democrats* are/were so bothered by the Patriot Amendment. Which implies that Republicans aren't bothered by it, not particularly or nessaryly it suggests any republican objection are different what america iseem to e about in your mind is presevring yur little fiefdom at the ARRL oand on air the rst doesn't seem to matter to you jim |
The "Patriot Amendment"
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment? If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to remove safeguards. And it's not just Democrats: Quoting Wikinews: Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived," Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you? I'm not from SC. But that's not the point. You're not from SC, Sen Graham doesn't represent you, and Len is not an amateur. But that's not the point. The question you asked was why *Democrats* are/were so bothered by the Patriot Amendment. Which you didn't answer. Instead you bring up the name of a representative who is from a district that you don't live in and who doesn't represent you. Which implies that Republicans aren't bothered by it, and that it's a partisan thing, with the usual spin of "Party A is good, Party B is bad". The fact that there are Republicans who are concerned demonstrates that ity's not so simple. By and large, democrats are told by their leadership that the republicans are up to something nefarious. Guess where Sen. Arlen Specter is from.... Not Rochester NY. And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11. Could he? For the whole country or just parts of it? Maybe in theory. In practice, I don't know of any time in the history of the Republic where nationwide or even widespread martial law was imposed. The use of such power has always been very limited. To declare martial law for the whole country in the wake of 9/11 would have been an overreaction. And to ignore the fact that there are jihadists out there trying to kill Americans on American soil would be an underreaction. He's trying to go the least disruptive route for the most people. That's one way to look at it. Here's another: If someone in power tries to make radical changes all at once, there is usually strong opposition. But if the changes are made in stages, a little at a time, they can often be packaged in such a way as to result in an overall change that is much more radical. A little here, a little there, and pretty soon an awful lot is gone. Such as Roosevelt's Social Security Administration? The next thing you know, your social security number is needed to open a bank account, to get a driver's license, or purchase a firearm. What does any of that have to do with FICA taxes? What does it have to do with infants? Most people aren't terrorists. Very true. We've found common ground!!! Since the birth of this nation, the US Post Office has been looking at the addressee and the return address on every piece of first class mail that they've handled. The government even goes so far as to walk right up to the addressee, even if private property, and give them their message. And if something suspicious shows up in the US Mail, the Postmaster is allowed to open it. The sender and the receiver are both subject to investigation. The US Post Office is also a government-run organization - it's not private industry. Reading the addresses is a practical necessity, in order to know where to send the mail. You might be on to something. Today, under the "Patriot Act," the US Government gets to see the originating phone number, the destination phone number, and if there are suspicious trigger words, the contents of the message may be seen. I thought the discussion was about the "Patriot Amendment". As you wish. I think the two systems of communications should share similar risks of eavesdropping. Why shouldn't it be so? "Eavesdropping"? I would call it "monitoring". And I agree that if a communication of *any* kind - written, "wired", radio, etc. - is suspicious, the govt. should be able to monitor it. Then what's this all about??? At the same time, there need to be safeguards against misuse of the monitoring. Checks and balances. You may not remember the Nixon Administration, but I sure do. During my teen years there was little on TV except the Vietnam War, the Protests to the Vietnam War, and the Watergate Trial. There were things done which were clear misuse of power, in order to insure that RMN got elected and re-elected. There were serious attempts to hide it under the umbrella of "national security". Breaking in to an office building is very different than delivering mail or "monitoring" where phone calls are coming from and going to. The truly odd thing was that RMN did not need any of those 'dirty tricks' to get elected or re-elected. The democrats absolutely need "dirty" campaign ads to get elected. How many children died from the school lunch program as the democrats claimed would die in their ads? If you are choosing to afford terrorists equal protection, I think you're nuts. The problem isn't terrorists getting equal protection. If they're really terrorists, they should be dealt with as needed. How is that? Should they get their Miranda Rights? Should they get the very best army of attorneys that a Saudi Prince can afford? The problem is that while most people aren't terrorists, we all get looked at as if we are. The democrats set-up the legal system so that we can't put the most law enforcement resources against the most likely suspects. So we have to waste billions having women drink suspicious fluids (breast milk) found in baby bottles when travelling with their infants, and monitoring -all- phone calls and not just some. What is needed is something called "profiling" which the dems have outlawed. And the safeguards start disappearing, one by one, always for "national security". Then there's no equal protection for anyone. Dems have America's hands tied with the "racist profiling" conundrum. Thanks. Is that what the USA is about? So ramp up your propaganda machine and vote them out. |
off topic bs rom Jim
wrote: On 16 Sep 2006 12:07:00 -0700, wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. Jimmy Noserve didn't say anything when an "ethical" extra amateur morseman thought he could "just pick up a phone, talk to authorities to have anyone of us picked up." Imagine that, a single "ethical" phone call. :-) Jimmy "serves" his country by having amateur radio as a hobby. Geez, that's as good as Nursie Stevie being a CAP Major, defending his country flying SAR missions! Yowza. |
off topic bs rom Jim
wrote: wrote: On 16 Sep 2006 12:07:00 -0700, wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. Jimmy Noserve didn't say anything when an "ethical" extra amateur morseman thought he could "just pick up a phone, talk to authorities to have anyone of us picked up." Imagine that, a single "ethical" phone call. :-) maybe Jim believed him and thought he wold be next if he saaid anything |
off topic bs rom Jim
an old friend wrote: wrote: wrote: On 16 Sep 2006 12:07:00 -0700, wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. Jimmy Noserve didn't say anything when an "ethical" extra amateur morseman thought he could "just pick up a phone, talk to authorities to have anyone of us picked up." Imagine that, a single "ethical" phone call. :-) maybe Jim believed him and thought he wold be next if he saaid anything Nah...Jimmy Noserve has (according to him) "practical courage" (rationalization for fear of stating details). Besides, amateur morsemen all stick together. THEY are the only ones in the "right" and all others are "wrong." Now let's all be 'patriotic.' Learn morse code to DEFEAT TERRORISTS! :-) |
off topic bs rom Jim
|
The "Patriot Amendment"
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 4:15 am
wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times. People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards. [yawn] "Jimmy explains Politics" the title of this treatise? If someone in power tries to make radical changes all at once, there is usually strong opposition. But if the changes are made in stages, a little at a time, they can often be packaged in such a way as to result in an overall change that is much more radical. Isn't that how the ARRL managed to get the final version of Incestuous Licensing plan in US amateur radio regulations? A little here, a little there, and pretty soon an awful lot is gone. "At first the FCC took away 20 wpm testing...and the coders couldn't do anything..." [in 2000, six years ago] :-) Are you Pastor Niemuller? Most people aren't terrorists. Very true. Except for the no-code-test advocates. Those threaten the existance of amateur radio AS THE PRO-CODERS KNOW IT!" Ergo, to pro-coders the no-code-test advocates are "terrorists?" I thought the discussion was about the "Patriot Amendment". I thought this whole newsgroup was about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY?!? You may not remember the Nixon Administration, but I sure do. Bully for Jimmy. yawn How did Richard Milhous Nixon affect US amateur radio? Answer: Not a helluva lot... There were things done which were clear misuse of power, in order to insure that RMN got elected and re-elected. There were serious attempts to hide it under the umbrella of "national security". There were things done by the ARRL which were a clear misuse of power...in order to insure membership growth. They had serious attempts to hide it under the patriotic bunting of a "representative of amateur radio." Of course the membership only got so far and remains at less than a quarter of all licensed US radio amateurs. The truly odd thing was that RMN did not need any of those 'dirty tricks' to get elected or re-elected. "RMN" failed to get elected as California's Governor. The problem isn't terrorists getting equal protection. If they're really terrorists, they should be dealt with as needed. No-code-test advocates are NOT 'terrorists' but you feel that they should be "dealt with as needed." The problem is that while most people aren't terrorists, we all get looked at as if we are. Why do you feel guilty? And the safeguards start disappearing, one by one, always for "national security". Yes, the amateur radio code test has now dropped to 5 wpm for all license classes. Is your "amateur radio security" threatened? Then there's no equal protection for anyone. In amateur radio there is NO equality...to get privileges operating below 30 MHz, one must still take a manual telegraphy test...even though the FCC as long since dropped any mandatory manual radiotelegraphy operation. Is that what the USA is about? Isn't (in your mind) USA amateur radio all about telegraphy? Beep, beep, |
The Perpetuated Lies Of Mark C. Morgan...Why Does He Do It?
|
The Perpetuated Lies OfStevene J robeson OF WHO...?!?!
|
More Morkie Mularkie
|
KB9RQZ Provides Own Evidence He's A Misquoting Liar...Again...
|
Brain Bouncing Blindly
|
More Morkie Mularkie
|
Robesin: cyber vandal at work
|
Robesin: cyber vandal at work
wrote: wrote: On 6 Dec 2006 02:08:15 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: Creepy. Yes, Brain, you are. Does your wife LIKE creepy? Or maybe it's YOU that likes "creepy"...?!?! more of you insuation be a man and leave your fight betwen those online Robesin is not a man. He always has to bring the womenfolk into the fray. Is it any wonder I think he's creepy? I know he is no man, but prehaps he could fake it online womenfolks father mothers sons and daughter but only HE is so prevleved BTW he is charging that I lying when I state that YOU have agreed tat he has threatened to murder me all those years ago, care to comnet |
Morkie Run Amok
nobodys_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: On 6 Dec 2006 02:08:15 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: Creepy. Yes, Brain, you are. Does your wife LIKE creepy? Or maybe it's YOU that likes "creepy"...?!?! more of you insuation be a man and leave your fight betwen those online Robesin is not a man. He always has to bring the womenfolk into the fray. Is it any wonder I think he's creepy? You think I am creepy becasue it's necessary for you to minimize others around you. You're a liar and you're weak. Therefore it's necessary for you to try. I know he is no man, but prehaps he could fake it online womenfolks father mothers sons and daughter but only HE is so prevleved It's oh-so-confusing when you run words together into meaningless tripe, Morkie. BTW he is charging that I lying when I state that YOU have agreed tat he has threatened to murder me all those years ago, care to comnet Not if he doesn't want to have to re-read his own previous posts telling you that he has no interest in supporting you, Morkie. Steve, K4YZ |
Morkie Run Amok
wrote: On 13 Dec 2006 17:49:48 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote: nobodys_old_friend wrote: wrote: wrote: On 6 Dec 2006 02:08:15 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: Creepy. Yes, Brain, you are. Does your wife LIKE creepy? Or maybe it's YOU that likes "creepy"...?!?! more of you insuation be a man and leave your fight betwen those online Robesin is not a man. He always has to bring the womenfolk into the fray. Is it any wonder I think he's creepy? You think I am creepy becasue it's necessary for you to minimize others around you. no steve because make stament like the one I just quoted in tht etitle You mean what you MISquoted in the title, fatboy... The Truth is that Steve can't face the the truth,"What it's like to lick my excrement off of another man's genitals"sayth Robeson and then deny The truth is that you continue your lying from 1998, "Colonel". The truth is you're misquoting me. The truth is you have a poor comprehension of simple English...Even when YOU keep requoting the very words that prove you an idiot over and over..... The truth is you're a welfare abusing, miseducated, sexually deviant lying fool. See...Not a lie in it. becuase you are conatantl y involing other poepl in your stalking No stalking, Morkie. You came here...I didn't come after you. You're a liar and you're weak. Therefore it's necessary for you to try. try what? Try to read what was said above and follow along. I know he is no man, but prehaps he could fake it online womenfolks father mothers sons and daughter but only HE is so prevleved It's oh-so-confusing when you run words together into meaningless tripe, Morkie. The Truth is that Steve can't face the the truth,"What it's like to lick my excrement off of another man's genitals"sayth Robeson you are crystal clear in your lie that I eat your ##### I never said you did...YOU said I said it, but then you quoted the very paragraph which proved your assertion was a lie, Morkie. I see you're now back to just misquoting it again...Trying to cover your tracks, no doubt, but it's too late...YOU have already made MY point for me! Thanks! Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com