wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code.

How do you know?

:-) Try reading the No-Code International website and
researching the statements in there.

Which statements?

ALL of them.

Please be more specific.

Those are true statements.

How do you know for sure?

I can read the English version of individual countries'
radio regulations and check it out for myself.

Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.

Why is that so important?

It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking
Believer. :-)

IOW, you can't explain it.

It takes too much time and too much effort to bang it into
your morse-conditioned brain. You are too confirmed a
Believer.

That is not true.

The problem is that you can't explain it.

You CAN begin to realize YOURSELF by checking out electronics
and radio history done by organizations OTHER than the ARRL.

I've done that, Len. The ARRL is not a major source of "radio history"
to me.

Try the privatized frequency coordinators of non-amateur
US radio services.

Why? What do they have to do with amateur radio policy?

Try LISTENING to HF without turning a
deaf ear to anything but morse beeping.

I've listened to HF since the mid 1960s, Len. Both the amateur bands
and other services' bands. Lots of Morse Code and other modes on the
amateur bands.

What's your point?

Try going out on
ships and private watercraft, see if there are morse rigs
on them now. Try going into civil aircraft of now and see
if there are any morse rigs in them.

Why? What does that have to do with amateur radio policy?

It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of
morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't
worth having a license TEST for it.

You're presuming your conclusion.

The FCC already said that in 1990. shrug

Old stuff, Len. If it's so obvious, why hasn't FCC eliminated Element
1? Why didn't they just drop it in the summer of 2003?

Could it be that FCC may be rethinking the issue? Or maybe they're just
bogged down reading hundreds of pages of comments?

FCC grants amateur radio licenses in the USA. Not you.

You don't grant them either, Len. You're not involved.

Especially since the
FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio-
telegraphy for years.

Did they ever?

Yes. Long ago

When?

there was a minimum time for "CW" that had
to be logged in order to renew a license. So what?

Why did you bring it up if it's "so what"?

Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?

It's not about 'special significance".

Yes, it is. :-)

See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements
for 20 WPM code tests.

What's wrong with vanity callsigns?

VANITY. :-)

You've demonstrated your high level of vanity here, Len...

See all the "gotta upgrade!"
agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way
over all other modes.

Where? All I ever saw was encouragement.

You NEVER see anything wrong with the ARRL. :-)

Another untruth.

And as far as "promoted way over other modes", the amount of space
given to Morse Code in ARRL publications is not out of line with the
mode's popularity.

Prove your point. Read everything ever printed by the ARRL
and then Poll every US radio amateur. Come back when you
have some results.

The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code.

There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those
who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the
written tests.

Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time,
cannot understand that a federal court decision in the
early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC.
:-)

A court cannot change the facts, Len. All that court decision did was
to render an opinion on some patents.

It changed the minds of the IEEE, the ACM, and many writers
of computer history and a lot of later textbooks. :-)

But not everyone.

The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time.

You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience,

Is my statement correct, Len?

Tsk, give us YOUR first-hand experience with that military
aptitude test.

You're ducking the issue. It's not about me. It's about whether my
statement is correct. I think you know it *is* correct, but won't admit
it.

No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was
the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-)

So what? Is the statement correct or not?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you keep saying *I* am always "mistaken" or
"incorrect."

That's not true.

You are *often* mistaken, or incorrect. Not "always".

You should not try to change the subject so
readily since YOU have NO experience with military aptitude
tests.

I stated:

"The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time."

Is that statement correct or not?

I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with
about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952.

And you didn't score near the top on the Morse Code aptitude, did you?
I think that was the start of your anti-Morse crusade.

You are MISTAKEN. You are in ERROR.

Did you score near the top? I think not.

Are you on an anti-Morse crusade? That's pretty clear.

But, you were NEVER in the military, were you? YOU never had
to go through all those new recruit things, did you?

It's not about me, Len.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.

The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS,

The US Navy had higher requirements, Len.

I wasn't speaking about the USN.

The subject was about *military* radio telegraphers. Is the US Navy not
part of "the military"?

But, YOU were NEVER in the USN, were you?

It's not about me, Len.

Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

But not the same requirements, Len. Did the Army consider one minute
out of five to be a passing grade? Did the Army use multiple-choice or
fill-in-the-blank Morse Code tests?

I never took the Field Radio course when I was in.

So you don't know.

My MOS
and training was in Microwave Radio Relay.

*Not* "Radio Operator".

However, I *DID*
learn *while*in* the military a number of things about other
MOSs.

A civilian could learn the same things about other MOSs, couldn't they?

I stand by my statement.

You ought to lie down.

Why? Is my statement incorrect?

Since you were never in any military
you have NO direct experience with military communications.
You have no standing.

By that logic, since you have never been a radio amateur, you have NO
direct experience with amateur radio communications. You have no
standing.

btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.

you just crapped. :-)

"Crapped:" Colloquial term said to be derived from the dice
game, also synonymous with ejecting too much feces. It means
you told an unsupportable factoid out of your imagination.

How so?

Why would the US military do Morse Code aptitude testing in wartime if
they didn't need large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators
for WW2?

All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written.

Not at all, Len. It's the reason why such testing was done. Why else?

You have NO direct knowledge of such "testing" and NO experience
in any military. Sigh. You just can't understand any radio
history unless the ARRL spoon-feeds it to you...

You're avoiding the issue, Len. It's not about me. It's about whether
my statement is correct. I think you know it *is* correct, but won't
admit it.

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago]

So what? Morse Code played an important role in both.

How do you KNOW? Is that recorded history by ANY branch of the
military?

Yes.

The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history.

Who lobbied for those requirements, Len?

ARRL, of course. :-)

Where is that documented?

Other than the ARRL's own words on it, it should be found in the
FCC Reading Room or wherever the FCC keeps documents.

Be more specific, please.

Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)

You are telling an untruth, Len. I have never stated anything like
that.

Maybe I have mistaken you for that Waffen SS guy who writes
that **** all the time... :-)

"Waffen SS"?

But, you say I will NEVER be a radio amateur.

Probably never.

You can, of
course, TELL THE FUTURE? Of course. You passed the high-
rate amateur radio morse test that enables you to Do
Anything! :-)

I've done lots of things that you have not, Len.

Why "worse," ? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

What Great Emotional Harm came to you as a result of the zoning change
in your neighborhood, Len? The change you tried to stop?

That hasn't a single thing to do with AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Yes, it does. It's a clear analogy to how rules changes happen.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are busy, busy, busy trying to MANUFACTURE
some kind of "unethical, immoral SIN" about neighbors together
to preserve the zoning laws that were present when their HOMES
were built? :-)

Where have I written anything like that, Len? That's *your* guilt and
shame coming out, not anything from me.

You tried to stop a change in your neighborhood's zoning regulations
because you thought it was a bad change. You think that was A Good And
Right Thing To Do.

Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio
regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize
them.

See the hypocrisy and double standard of your behavior?

Do you live in your radio? Do you live in your radio bands?

You said that "some of us [yourself and others] live in the
bands."

Where did I say that? Show me.

You've claimed I wrote that, but you can't show us where or when I did.
You are either mistaken or being deceptive.

If I really wrote that, show us. Prove me wrong by quoting where I
wrote the phrase you quoted. You quoted it with the " symbol, meaning a
direct, verbatim quote.

Is that true or not?

I can't confirm what I didn't write.

[DON'T say "I never said that." You did.]

When? Show us.

NONE of MY neighbors live in their radios or "on the bands."
One of them *IS* a licensed radio amateur. Another one is a
licensed Commercial radio operator. The other few hundred have
varying occupations. All of us live in our homes, pay taxes,
have incomes that support keeping our homes. We all expect
our homes to be used as dwellings, for shelter, for security,
for raising families, for having visitors, for enjoying LIFE
itself.

How does that have anything to do with resisting change to zoning laws?
Or forcing change to amateur radio regs?

WE (the neighborhood association) are not SHEEP to meekly
accept whatever orders and direction we are told.

Neither are radio amateurs "sheep" who have to accept what you propose.

WE had
ample opportunity to democratically object at a public
meeting several times.

But you lost. The change happened over your objections.

In a true democracy, the majority opinion counts for something. Your
neighborhood's majority was overridden, wasn't it? Do you think that
was democracy in action?

In the comments to the FCC, the majority of comments were to retain at
least some Morse Code testing. Do you think *that* majority opinion
should be overridden? Do you think that would be democracy in action?

Now, at the time, NONE in my
neighborhood association were home builders. Yet, we could
OBJECT freely and openly.

Because you were land owners and residents. That's the key factor -
land ownership and residency, not whether you were builders or not. Did
that objection stop the change?

The analogy with amateur radio is equipment manufacturers vs. licensed
radio amateurs.

YOU, with your absolute faith
in amateur regulations of your youth, bought into the ideas
of then and now RESIST change to bring the ARS regulations
up to the NOW if not the future. You are like the sheep.

Yet another untruth, Len.

I think you're really talking about yourself.

With your absolute faith in the zoning regulations of your youth,
bought into the ideas
of then and now resisted change to bring the zoning regulations up to
the present if not the future. You and your neighbors are like the
sheep. Classic case of "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY).

I think in your case, it was *literally* behind your back yard, wasn't
it?

Now, opening zoning laws to permit multi-family dwellings
(legalspeak for 'apartments') we would DECREASE the monetary
value of our HOMES for the future

Whoa there!

Who was it that wrote:

"You can, of course, TELL THE FUTURE? Of course."

why, it was you, Len!

How do you know the proposed change would decrease the monetary value
of your homes?

And was the proposal for apartment houses? Single family residences
with attached apartments? Townhomes? Condos? Mixed development?

Or did you just not want anything other than the little boxes on the
hillside of the 1960s?

and DECREASE the area of
our neighborhood in general for the future.

How? The land would still be there.

If you wanted the land to remain undeveloped, why didn't you buy it?
The developer *owned* the land, didn't he?

That isn't
"progress" for the future as you termed it. We didn't want
to increase a single builder's fortune at the expense of ours
for our future.

Here's that quote again:

"You can, of course, TELL THE FUTURE? Of course."

Seems to me that you view the *possible* loss of house value as Great
Emotional Harm.

That ONE builder got what he wanted, FAILED to get loans to
permit construction, and had to sell his ownership to another
construction corporation. THAT corporation took great pains
to meet with our neighborhood organization and did NOT build
apartments. Single-family dwellings were built in a Walled
Community, 44 homes within a literal wall and with an entrance
gate.

Why a wall?

Is the wall to keep the residents in? Or to keep outsiders out?

The value of our homes has since increased both in value
for resale but not for our real estate taxes. It was win-win
in the end for us in our neighborhood.

You don't know what would have happened if the first developer had
built on the property. And the building of those new homes *did*
"DECREASE the area of our neighborhood in general for the future."

That is all recorded history in Los Angeles County. Sorry, but
the ARRL has taken no interest in the matter. :-)

The point is that you resisted a change you thought was bad. Yet you
criticize radio amateurs for resisting a change they think is bad.

YOU seem terribly upset by all of that.

How? I'm not shouting and carrying on like you do. I'm not upset at
all. You are.

YOU do NOT live out here, about 3K miles away.

Check a map. I think you have overstated the distance...

So what? I might want to move out there to retire. One of your
neighbors might be a relative of mine, too. I have a considerable
number of relatives, Len, with a variety of last names.

You are not a radio amateur. You are about as involved in Amateur Radio
as I am in Los Angeles county real estate.

You do NOT know the full
circumstances of what happened out here. You were NOT here
then or afterwards.

How do you know for sure where I was in 1990?

But, you feel COMPELLED to go on and
on and on about it. Why?

I know why. You NEED to act the character assassin, to
impossibly connect disparate dots in a vain effort to
"prove" something BAD about me!

You tried to stop a change in your neighborhood's zoning regulations
because you thought it was a bad change. You think that was A Good And
Right Thing To Do.

Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio
regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize
them.

Any other reason you have in trying to equate amateur radio
regulations with regional urban zoning laws is INSANE.

No, Len.

It's an analogy.

I think you don't like my real-estate analogy because of what it
proves.

Yes, Len. You're not involved.

Only if you and other PCTAs say so. :-)

You're not a radio amateur and will probably never be one.

You CAN know the future, ey? :-)

See the word "probably"?

You don't make, sell or buy any products for the
amateur radio market, you don't write books or articles for radio
amateurs, and there's no indication you'll do any of that in the
future.

We are all required to "report to you on what we expect
to do in the future?"

You have delusions of god-hood.

Another untruth

All you do is write a few long, error-filled posts in a couple
of Usenet newsgroups and spam ECFS.

Now, now, you aren't being nice...


Your boast about "going for Extra right out of the box" remains
unfulfilled after almost 7 years.

Six-plus. It's not like you NOT to be exact. :-)

Okay, I changed my mind. Or do you ALLOW that? :-)

I did not swear an oath before a magistrate in here long
ago. It isn't binding in any way. :-)


Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.

So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Is there a point to all that?

Tsk. YOU are not the ONLY user of the EM environment. :-)
Amateurs get only a SMALL portion of the EM spectrum...be
thankful for what you do have.

We amateurs have what we have because we asked for it and defended it.

You were not and are not involved.

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before.

When did I say anything like that?

Let's see your "proof", Len.

You are GUILTY by INTENT, Jimmie Noserve, by THOUGHT, by
IMPLICATION, by malice aforethought, premeditated.

Let's see your proof of any of that.

All to
keep your precious code test for future amateurs...because
that is YOUR personal desire.

Is personal desire a bad thing?

It was your personal desire to keep your neighborhood unchanged. A
personal desire unthinking
of future residents whom you've never met, of whom you know nothing.
You wanted to force them to do your wishes, meet your requirements, or
live someplace else.


A personal desire unthinking
of future radio hobbyists whom you've never met, whom you know
nothing.

'*of* whom you know nothing'

You want to FORCE them to do YOUR wishes.

You tried to stop a change in your neighborhood's zoning regulations
because you thought it was a bad change. You think that was A Good And
Right Thing To Do.

Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio
regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize
them.

See the analogy - and the problem?

As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked...

Is that the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do"? Because that's what
you're telling us, Len.

From: on Sat, Nov 4 2006 5:08 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message


Jimmie Noserve rides again, trying to prove only HE is "correct"



You are *often* mistaken, or incorrect. Not "always".

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

You are using your OWN subjective opinion as a "fact."
In itself that is WRONG.


You're avoiding the issue, Len. It's not about me.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

YES, your replies are about YOU. You MUST show YOUR
statements are "correct" and your challengers' statements
are "wrong." :-)

You just can't get that monkey off your back... :-)



World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago]

So what? Morse Code played an important role in both.

How do you KNOW? Is that recorded history by ANY branch of the
military?

Yes.

Be more specific, please.




Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio
regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize
them.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

I criticize their OPINIONS because I do not think elimination
of the amateur radio code test is "bad."



Where did I say that? Show me.

You've claimed I wrote that, but you can't show us where or when I did.
You are either mistaken or being deceptive.

Tsk, even if the EXACT QUOTE is presented to you, you will
claim "no error" somehow. :-)

You know, everyone knows what YOU wrote in here recently.
Your ploy of misdirection is itself a misdirection. Stay
on the subject.


If I really wrote that, show us. Prove me wrong by quoting where I
wrote the phrase you quoted. You quoted it with the " symbol, meaning a
direct, verbatim quote.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

Google doesn't accept italics. As a result, double-quote marks
are used for a variety of uses in writing here.

Double-quote marks are NOT SOLELY descriptive of "quotations."

Either ANSWER the amateur radio policy subject or quit
the misdirection into punctuation use.




I think you don't like my real-estate analogy because of what it
proves.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

YOU are NOT INVOLVED with Los Angeles laws.

YOU do NOT live here.

YOU do NOT pay real estate taxes here.

That "analogy" has NO BEARING on the subject of this newsgroup,
NOTHING concerning amateur radio.



You have delusions of god-hood.

Another untruth

You mean you think you ARE god?!?




We amateurs have what we have because we asked for it and defended it.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

"You amateurs" bought into existing regulations. YOU did
NOT make the law.

If you think you "made" the law, be specific and present
proof that you did do so.


You were not and are not involved.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

Federal regulations are NOT closed to the public. US amateur
radio is NOT a fraternal organization were ONLY "members"
get to say anything.

I know considerable about US amateur radio, know several
radio amateurs personally, have written for an amateur
radio periodical as both contributor and editor.




A personal desire unthinking
of future radio hobbyists whom you've never met, whom you know
nothing.

'*of* whom you know nothing'

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

I know several not yet licensed in amateur radio.

US amateur radio is NOT a secret society. It is not a
government-classified secret.


Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio
regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize
them.

Yes. How is that "wrong?"


As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked...

Is that the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do"?

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

Use your mighty web searching skills and FIND OUT for
yourself. YOU can do it. You seem to be too LAZY to
find out! Tsk, tsk, the mighty newsgroup morse warrior
NOT DEDICATED ENOUGHT to find out!

If you cannot search the 'net, get help from those who can.
I will not help you since you "*often*" say I am "mistaken."
PCTAs cannot tell the amateur extra morsemen gods of
radio much of anything... :-)

As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked.

wrote:
From: on Sat, Nov 4 2006 5:08 am
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

You are *often* mistaken, or incorrect. Not "always".

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

How is that possible, Len?

Are you *always* mistaken or incorrect? That's what you seem to be
saying.

You are using your OWN subjective opinion as a "fact."

What subjective opinion? I have commented on some of your mistakes
here. Your errors are frequent enough that any rational person would
conclude that you are often mistaken, or incorrect.

In itself that is WRONG.

How?

Is it WRONG to express ideas that do not agree with your ideas?

You're avoiding the issue, Len. It's not about me.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

YES, your replies are about YOU.

They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me.

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago]

So what? Morse Code played an important role in both.

How do you KNOW? Is that recorded history by ANY branch of the
military?

Yes.

Be more specific, please.

Here's a first-person account:

http://www.smecc.org/albert.htm

Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio
regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize
them.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

You do criticize them for opposing what they think is a bad change.
That's a fact.

I criticize their OPINIONS because I do not think elimination
of the amateur radio code test is "bad."

You criticize far more than OPINIONS, Len. That's a fact.

Where did I say that? Show me.

You've claimed I wrote that, but you can't show us where or when I did.
You are either mistaken or being deceptive.

Tsk, even if the EXACT QUOTE is presented to you, you will
claim "no error" somehow. :-)

Can you tell the future, Len? I think not.

You know, everyone knows what YOU wrote in here recently.

Just show the quote, Len.

Your ploy of misdirection is itself a misdirection. Stay
on the subject.

You can't find the quote, can you, Len? You realize you misquoted me
but won't admit it.

If I really wrote that, show us. Prove me wrong by quoting where I
wrote the phrase you quoted. You quoted it with the " symbol, meaning a
direct, verbatim quote.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

How? You have not shown us the exact quote.

Google doesn't accept italics. As a result, double-quote marks
are used for a variety of uses in writing here.

Double-quote marks are NOT SOLELY descriptive of "quotations."

Then show us the exact quote.

Either ANSWER the amateur radio policy subject or quit
the misdirection into punctuation use.

You're not the moderator, Len.

Just show us the exact quote - if you can. I think you can not.

I think you don't like my real-estate analogy because of what it
proves.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

Really? Your behavior proves otherwise.

YOU are NOT INVOLVED with Los Angeles laws.

So what? Real estate laws are not that much different here.

YOU do NOT live here.

How do you know for sure?

YOU do NOT pay real estate taxes here.

Even if that's true, so what? That has no effect on the validity of the
analogy. Do you think only those who pay real estate taxes can comment
on real estate laws?

That "analogy" has NO BEARING on the subject of this newsgroup,
NOTHING concerning amateur radio.

Yes, it does.

Here's how it works:

You opposed a change to the real estate zoning in your neighborhood
because you thought it was a bad change. You wanted to keep the zoning
as it was when you were young and had just moved into your house, more
than 40 years ago.

You don't like "outsiders" trying to change the zoning, or even
*commenting* on it in a public forum.

BUT,

You are an outsider to amateur radio. You are not a radio amateur, have
never been one, and will probably never be one. Your only involvement
in amateur radio is your wordy, error- and insult-ridden postings to
Usenet, and your lengthy comments to FCC.

Yet you are trying to force changes in amateur radio regulations. And
when radio amateurs, who *are* involved with amateur radio, oppose
those changes, you criticize them.

We amateurs have what we have because we asked for it and defended it.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

"You amateurs" bought into existing regulations. YOU did
NOT make the law.

If you think you "made" the law, be specific and present
proof that you did do so.

We amateurs have gotten the laws changed. Just like that real estate
developer....

You were not and are not involved.

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

How? Did you get an amateur radio license? Set up a station?

Federal regulations are NOT closed to the public. US amateur
radio is NOT a fraternal organization were ONLY "members"
get to say anything.

Who said anything different?

You've been spamming the FCC for years, but you haven't been very
effective at it.

And besides those windy comments and your postings to usenet, you just
aren't involved in amateur radio, Len.

I know considerable about US amateur radio,

All of it second-hand.

know several radio amateurs personally,

So what? Doesn't mean you are involved.

have written for an amateur
radio periodical as both contributor and editor.

And that ended almost a quarter century ago. Old stuff.

A personal desire unthinking
of future radio hobbyists whom you've never met, whom you know
nothing.

'*of* whom you know nothing'

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

You made the error, Len. I just pointed it out.

I know several not yet licensed in amateur radio.

So do I.

US amateur radio is NOT a secret society. It is not a
government-classified secret.

Who said it was?

All I said is that you're not involved. And you're not.

Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio
regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize
them.

Yes.

You just admitted that you criticize them personally - not just their
opinions.

How is that "wrong?"

How is it wrong for someone to try to change zoning laws?

As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked...

Is that the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do"?

No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG.

How? All I did was ask a question. How can it be wrong to ask a
question?

Can't you answer that question?

Use your mighty web searching skills and FIND OUT for
yourself. YOU can do it. You seem to be too LAZY to
find out! Tsk, tsk, the mighty newsgroup morse warrior
NOT DEDICATED ENOUGHT to find out!

"ENOUGHT"?

If you cannot search the 'net, get help from those who can.
I will not help you since you "*often*" say I am "mistaken."

Nope.

I say you are often mistaken.

And you are.

wrote:
... They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me. ...

I strongly disagree with the above. They are about you. They describe,
and I feel quite accurately, the depth, width and breadth of you, your
thinking and your abilities.

I ask you, "If not, then why would you not structure your words
differently?"

NOTE: This message makes NO statement as to your words worth. It only
points out the error in your statement.

JS

John Smith wrote:
wrote:
... They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me. ...

I strongly disagree with the above. They are about you. They describe,
and I feel quite accurately, the depth, width and breadth of you, your
thinking and your abilities.

Well, I disagree somewhat. My posts simply state my thoughts and
observations on certain subjects. They do not "describe,....., the
depth, width and breadth of you, your
thinking and your abilities."

There's more to me than what I post on Usenet. In fact, I try to post
as little about myself here as possible.

OTOH, they *do* say something about me, their writer. They don't say
everything, but they do say something. So you do have a point - they
*are* about me to some extent.

I ask you, "If not, then why would you not structure your words
differently?"

I structure my words as best I can to convey the meanings intended.
That does not mean my postings are flawless!

NOTE: This message makes NO statement as to your words worth. It only
points out the error in your statement.

Good point. Thanks

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in
ups.com:

John Smith wrote:
wrote:
... They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me. ...

I strongly disagree with the above. They are about you. They
describe, and I feel quite accurately, the depth, width and breadth of
you, your thinking and your abilities.

Well, I disagree somewhat. My posts simply state my thoughts and
observations on certain subjects. They do not "describe,....., the
depth, width and breadth of you, your
thinking and your abilities."

There's more to me than what I post on Usenet. In fact, I try to post
as little about myself here as possible.

OTOH, they *do* say something about me, their writer. They don't say
everything, but they do say something. So you do have a point - they
*are* about me to some extent.

I ask you, "If not, then why would you not structure your words
differently?"

I structure my words as best I can to convey the meanings intended.
That does not mean my postings are flawless!

NOTE: This message makes NO statement as to your words worth. It only
points out the error in your statement.

Good point. Thanks

73 de Jim, N2EY


Anyone that enjoys CW and supports keeping the requirement is okay in my
book.

SC