From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm

wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:


I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.

Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test? No harm will come
to you if the test is eliminated.


Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]

You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.

Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
regulations.

You've commented, ranted,
railed and have generally acted like a small child here.

Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
again. :-)


No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license.

WRONG. Driving inspectors MUST hold valid drivers
licenses in Illinois and California.

You don't work at the DMV or the FCC.

Clear something up for us: Do you REQUIRE that anyone
work at a Department of Motor Vehicles in order to talk
and discuss US amateur radio regulations?!?

A most irrational statement you made.

Here's a plain and simple fact: The FCC does NOT require
any commissioner or staffer to be granted amateur radio
licenses in order to regulated US civil radio. Really.


You don't regulate.

Regulate WHAT? There are many many things that I
regularly regulate. :-) US civil radio regulations
are NOT something I regulate.

You aren't a radio amateur.

True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?

You have no stake in amateur radio.

Now, now, Count Dracula, don't get worried. :-)

Tsk, you are still angry and petulant. NOT a good
attitude.

YOU are an amateur extra but YOU do NOT regulate US
amateur radio. The FCC does that, grants amateur
radio licenses, shuts down amateur radio stations for
rules violations, can even establish federal fines for
such violations.


I'm fully aware that I don't "rule" amateur radio.

You don't rule there. You don't regulate amateur radio.

I'm fully aware that the FCC does "rule" amateur radio.

Are you SURE about that? You vacillate back and forth
so much...

I'm fully aware that you aren't the FCC or a radio amateur.

Remarkable 'awareness!' Do you think that will get you
a cookie? :-)


The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license.

When it comes to amateur radio, you are not bound by FCC regulations
unless you decide to take to the air illegally.

Tsk, angry, petulant, and now ACCUSATORY of something you
state "I am going to do!"

You ARE wrong about FCC regulations. I am very much bound
by FCC regulations, both by radio but also for certain
wireline communications. You really need the entire Title
47 C.F.R. to confirm that (for your own edification).


I'm quite happy to observe the regulations governing amateur radio in
this country. I've received not as much as a single warning letter from
the FCC in nearly 43 years.

Marvelous! Should we chip in get you a nice little gold
star for your report card?

I don't recall that anyone was accusing you of anything
other than a bad temper, irrational behavior, or trying
to imitate some Waffen SS offizier in here. FCC doesn't
regulate behavior.


You aren't entering amateur radio.

I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?


I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.

Now, now, you are adding a mean streak to your bad temper,
petulance, and irrationality. Try playing "nice." :-)


I've not ordered you to obtain an amateur
radio license or not to obtain an amateur radio license.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You certainly gone on and on and on and
on about my "not having one!" Why is that?

I've not told
you to comment to the FCC or not to comment to the FCC.

You've certainly gone on and on and on and on and
on about attempting ridicule of what I've written
to the FCC. :-)

If you don't like my "smug arrogance", change your own tactics.

Now, now, you ARE telling me what to do! Hypocrite.


Len, why don't you address the IEEE Code of Ethics?

Oh, but I DID! Here is the address again:

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscatawny, NJ 08855-1331
USA

I apologize for not giving the web address: www.ieee.org

You are free to talk all you want with the IEEE Ethics
Committee.

You might even consider membership in the IEEE, but you
will have to get three IEEE members to vouch for you.
You probably won't live long enough to qualify for a
Life Member status (it is a free upgrade and doesn't
require dues payments after that).


Anyone who chooses to obtain an amateur radio license may do so without
any interference from me.

How wonderfully magnanimous of Heil! :-)

You've been braying in this newsgroup for better than a decade.

"Braying?" Neighhhh, Wilbur. :-)

You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

I had nothing to do with your failure to do so.

"Failure?!?" Tsk, tsk, never tried.

I've had a Commercial radio operator license since 1956.
Why do you insist I have an AMATEUR license?

Tsk, Heil is exhibiting irrationality again.

You're a victim of inertia.

Must be that why my anti-gravity project failed; Something
was holding me down! Should I channel Isaac N. for a cure?

Well, maybe you're right. I've had an abiding interest,
indeed a GREAT interest in women since the beginning of
my teens...but, never ONCE had I any interest in BECOMING
one! How about that?

Beep, beep,


Life Member

IEEE is a Professional Association with 397 thousand members
worldwide.

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm

wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Fri, Sep 22 2006 4:09 pm
writes:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 12:21 pm
writes:


I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.

Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test?

You keep making the same mistake, over and over. I'm not angry. I'm
ridiculing you, Len Anderson.

No harm will come
to you if the test is eliminated.

Any change made to regulations dealing with amateur radio effect me and
all others current licensees.


Heil is fixated on his one-cannot-possibly-talk-about-
getting-into-amateur-radio until one is already in
amateur radio. [the "chicken and the egg" arrived
at the same time logic...]
You've talked. You've commented to the FCC.

Ah, but Heil has NOT answered his illogical stance on
WHO may comment or otherwise talk about amateur radio
regulations.

My stance isn't illogical at all. It can't begin to compare to a fellow
who spends ten years of his life obsessed with something in which he has
no involvement. You're amateur radio fetish is beyond compare.

You've commented, ranted,
railed and have generally acted like a small child here.

Now, now, you are beginning to act angry and petulant
again. :-)

I'm not at all angry. I'm pointing out a fact.


No one at any state's DMV needs hold a drivers license.

WRONG. Driving inspectors MUST hold valid drivers
licenses in Illinois and California.

Great. I'll grant that those administering actual driving tests are
quite likely to need a driving license. Those who work inside, the
clerks who transfer titles, issue licenses and such, don't need such a
license.

You don't work at the DMV or the FCC.

Clear something up for us: Do you REQUIRE that anyone
work at a Department of Motor Vehicles in order to talk
and discuss US amateur radio regulations?!?

Clear something up for "us": Do you have anything at all to do with any
state DMV or the Federal Communications Commission?

A most irrational statement you made.

Here's a plain and simple fact: The FCC does NOT require
any commissioner or staffer to be granted amateur radio
licenses in order to regulated US civil radio. Really.

And? If any of those FCC employees or commissioners want to take part
in amateur radio, they need to obtain a license in the same manner as
anyone else who becomes licenses. Really.


You don't regulate.

Regulate WHAT? There are many many things that I
regularly regulate. :-)

Oh, yes. When a man gets to a certain age, he is likely to need more
fiber in his diet. :-)

US civil radio regulations
are NOT something I regulate.

I thought I said that.

You aren't a radio amateur.

True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?

Nobody has stopped you from talking. What you want is a quiet audience.
You aren't entitled to that.

You have no stake in amateur radio.

Now, now, Count Dracula, don't get worried. :-)

I'm not at all worried, Len.

Tsk, you are still angry and petulant. NOT a good
attitude.

You make the same mistake over and over and over.

YOU are an amateur extra but YOU do NOT regulate US
amateur radio.

I recall saying that.

The FCC does that, grants amateur
radio licenses, shuts down amateur radio stations for
rules violations, can even establish federal fines for
such violations.


That's right. You have the hang of it. I've not been shut down nor
fined. You, on the other hand, aren't involved in amateur radio.

I'm fully aware that I don't "rule" amateur radio.

You don't rule there. You don't regulate amateur radio.

I used the term which was stated by Leonard H. Anderson.

I'm fully aware that the FCC does "rule" amateur radio.

Are you SURE about that? You vacillate back and forth
so much...

I haven't stated that I'm going to obtain an Extra right out of the box,
then that I have no intention of obtaining an amateur radio license and
then that I am getting into amateur radio and then that I have no desire
to obtain an amateur radio license. Now *that* is vacillation!

I'm fully aware that you aren't the FCC or a radio amateur.

Remarkable 'awareness!' Do you think that will get you
a cookie? :-)

It already did.


The FCC tells Heil "what to do" and Heil has no choice
but to obey...or lose his precious amateur extra class
license.

When it comes to amateur radio, you are not bound by FCC regulations
unless you decide to take to the air illegally.

Tsk, angry, petulant, and now ACCUSATORY of something you
state "I am going to do!"

Are you familiar with the term "unless"?

You ARE wrong about FCC regulations. I am very much bound
by FCC regulations, both by radio but also for certain
wireline communications. You really need the entire Title
47 C.F.R. to confirm that (for your own edification).

The point is, Leonard, that you aren't going to run afoul of Part 97
regs unless you're a radio amateur. You aren't a radio amateur.


I'm quite happy to observe the regulations governing amateur radio in
this country. I've received not as much as a single warning letter from
the FCC in nearly 43 years.

Marvelous! Should we chip in get you a nice little gold
star for your report card?

Who is "we"? Do you have a Vibroplex in your pocket? I don't feel the
need for any special recognition from you. After all, you aren't involved.

I don't recall that anyone was accusing you of anything
other than a bad temper, irrational behavior, or trying
to imitate some Waffen SS offizier in here. FCC doesn't
regulate behavior.

If it did, you wouldn't be here. If you have nothing to say, you resort
to the Nazi stuff. That makes you look foolish.


You aren't entering amateur radio.

I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?

I can only go by your last definitive statement on the subject. There
have been reversals in the past though. What's your stand this week?


I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.

Now, now, you are adding a mean streak to your bad temper,
petulance, and irrationality. Try playing "nice." :-)

I provided an exceptionally frank opinion based upon years of
observation. There wasn't a hint of temper, petulance or irrationality,
Leonard.


I've not ordered you to obtain an amateur
radio license or not to obtain an amateur radio license.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You certainly gone on and on and on and
on about my "not having one!" Why is that?

It is because you'd have radio amateurs believe that an inexperienced
fellow who has never obtained an amateur radio license knows what is
best for amateur radio. Tsk, tsk, poor baby, toad-in-a-hole and Bob's
your uncle.

I've not told
you to comment to the FCC or not to comment to the FCC.

You've certainly gone on and on and on and on and
on about attempting ridicule of what I've written
to the FCC. :-)

I surely have. Then again I've never tried to disparage your views by
ridiculing you *to* the FCC in official comments. You have done that to
others.

If you don't like my "smug arrogance", change your own tactics.

Now, now, you ARE telling me what to do! Hypocrite.

Can you understand the words, "if you don't like"? I've let you know
how to play nicely with others.


Len, why don't you address the IEEE Code of Ethics?

Oh, but I DID! Here is the address again:

No, you didn't. Aren't you bound by that code of ethics?

IEEE
445 Hoes Lane
Box 1331
Piscatawny, NJ 08855-1331
USA

I apologize for not giving the web address: www.ieee.org

You are free to talk all you want with the IEEE Ethics
Committee.

You're an IEEE member. I asked you. After all, I haven't seen the IEEE
violating its code of ethics.

You might even consider membership in the IEEE, but you
will have to get three IEEE members to vouch for you.
You probably won't live long enough to qualify for a
Life Member status (it is a free upgrade and doesn't
require dues payments after that).

I haven't expressed any desire to join the IEEE. I'm not an engineer.
Would you like to join the ARRL? You can write them at:

The American Radio Relay League
225 Main Street
Newington, CT 06111

Alternatively, you can find them at http://www.arrl.org


Anyone who chooses to obtain an amateur radio license may do so without
any interference from me.

How wonderfully magnanimous of Heil! :-)

I'm not being magnanimous, Len. I'm stating a fact.

You've been braying in this newsgroup for better than a decade.

"Braying?" Neighhhh, Wilbur. :-)

When you aren't braying, you are often to found acting like a horse.
Usually you act like the other end.

You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

No temper was exhibited. I made a statement of fact. You've talked
about amateur radio. That doesn't make you a radio amateur.

I had nothing to do with your failure to do so.

"Failure?!?" Tsk, tsk, never tried.

You've expressed a decades-long interest in amateur radio. You told us
that you were going to get an "Extra right out of the box". You have
posted to this newsgroup for better than ten years. You have failed to
obtain an amateur radio license. It doesn't matter if you tried once or
several times and failed or if you failed by never trying.

I've had a Commercial radio operator license since 1956.

You're in the wrong newsgroup. This one concerns amateur radio and Mark
Morgan's fetishes.

Why do you insist I have an AMATEUR license?

I've never insisted that you have to have one. In fact, I rather hope
that you never get one.

Tsk, Heil is exhibiting irrationality again.

If I'd insisted that you obtain an amateur radio license, that might be.
I didn't do so. Your statement is absurd.

You're a victim of inertia.

Must be that why my anti-gravity project failed; Something
was holding me down! Should I channel Isaac N. for a cure?

You keep using the same purloined Stephen Wright joke as if it'll get
funnier through repetition.

Well, maybe you're right. I've had an abiding interest,
indeed a GREAT interest in women since the beginning of
my teens...but, never ONCE had I any interest in BECOMING
one! How about that?

And so it is in your relationship to amateur radio.

Beep, beep,
Tisket, tasket



Life Member


Life Member

IEEE is a Professional Association with 397 thousand members
worldwide.

You'd think that being a PROFESSIONAL organization which grants FREE
life membership under certain conditions, it could do better than that.

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote

I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.

Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test?

Dave's not angry. Neither am I.

You sure seem to be angry, Len.

As for "antagaonistic", we're just opposing what we think is a bad
idea. You seem to have a very difficult time with disagreement - your
behavior rapidly deteriorates when someone here disagrees with you.

No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.

Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.

The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.

Worst of all, he did a lot of damage to the public image of amateur
radio.

Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
the air.

One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.

If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed. Those like you who are
not involved in amateur radio will not be affected.

btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
house. He's pretty close to your age, too.

It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
people.

Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
to *your* age.

You aren't a radio amateur.

True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?

You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.

The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well. You don't
want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
examined, criticized, or refuted.

FCC doesn't regulate behavior.

Actually, they do.

You aren't entering amateur radio.

I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?

Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
right out of the box". Hasn't happened - in fact, you have not obtained
an amateur radio license of any kind. Almost 8 years and you haven't
taken the first step.

The Technician class license has not required a code test since
February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
step.

It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license, Len.

I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.

Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?

You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
about it.

wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote

I lose no privileges whether morse code testing disappears or not.

Then WHY are you so angry and antagonistic to those of
us who want to eliminate the code test?

Dave's not angry. Neither am I.

You sure seem to be angry, Len.

As for "antagaonistic", we're just opposing what we think is a bad
idea. You seem to have a very difficult time with disagreement - your
behavior rapidly deteriorates when someone here disagrees with you.

Which is pretty much everyone except for Morkie, Toiddie and Brain.

Those three options in and of themselves ought to "say something"
about the company he keeps, though.

No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.

Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.

Sure it will.

Lennie keeps uttering that silliness as if "coded licensees" would
never share the same bandwidth as these folks. How idiotic.

The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.

Lennie is a Gerritsen without the mic. Imagine what he could do
if he go ahold of one...?!?!?

Worst of all, he did a lot of damage to the public image of amateur
radio.

Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
the air.

Amateur Radio...flying...model rockets...skateboarding...

There's always ONE putz that wants to ruin things for everyone
else.

Amateur Radio had one and a half...One still doesn't have a
license...

One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.

If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed. Those like you who are
not involved in amateur radio will not be affected.

btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
house. He's pretty close to your age, too.

And temperment...and responsibility....and maturity...

It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
people.

Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
to *your* age.

I wonder how well it would have sat if Lennie had proposed an age
CAP...?!?!

You aren't a radio amateur.

True, but what DOES that have to do with talking about
US amateur radio regulations?

You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.

The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well. You don't
want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
examined, criticized, or refuted.

Bingo.

FCC doesn't regulate behavior.

Actually, they do.

Guess Lennie's not been paying attention to all those efforts to
"can" the licenses of persons who have non-radio-related legal issues.

Personally, I think the FCC needs to be put in thier place for
that.

You aren't entering amateur radio.

I'm "not"?!?" What do you KNOW what I'm doing? Are you
Claire Voyant in some ham radio column or something?

Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
right out of the box". Hasn't happened - in fact, you have not obtained
an amateur radio license of any kind. Almost 8 years and you haven't
taken the first step.

He can't. He can't retain the knowledge long enough to get to the
front door...And they won't let him take his computer into the test
exam with him.

The Technician class license has not required a code test since
February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
step.

It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license, Len.

There is a god.

I've encountered no sane person posting here who plays less well with
others than Leonard H. Anderson.

Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?

Why should we presume he was talking about himself... OUR "Leonard
H Anderson" does NOT "play well" with ANYone, let alone anyone in this
forum.

You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
about it.

Biut only those who ARE licensed and DO have some PRACTICAL
EXPERIENCE are in a position to make INFORMED opinions. Lennie is NOT
licensed and hs NO practical experience as a radio OPERATOR.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:

YOU-ARE-A-PUTZ" says Steve the sex feind

K4YZ wrote:

There's always ONE putz that wants to ruin things for everyone
else.

73

Steve, K4YZ

The spoiler?

His name is Steve. His call sign is K4YZ.

His face story can be read on QRZ.com.

His heinous acts can be read in the Google archives.

From: on Mon, Sep 25 2006 3:45 pm

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 24 2006 2:59 pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Sep 23 2006 7:06 pm
Dave Heil wrote


No harm will come to you if the test is eliminated.

Can you guarantee that, Len? I think not.

Did you think some no-coder would meet you outside the
school and beat you up if the code test is eliminated?

Not to worry, Jimmy, David Heil will protect you! :-)

David Heil served in the USAF! In a country AT war!

Poor Jimmy NEVER served, volunteered for military
service nor civil government.


The subject of this thread is "Gerritsen Sentenced". Gerritsen is a
former radio amateur who caused harm to many amateurs and others in his
area - jamming their transmissions, tying up repeaters, deliberately
interfering, etc. It took years to get him convicted and sentenced.

Why so long? Weren't there enough David Heils to
handle the task right away?


Obviously letting someone like Gerritsen get a license in the first
place was a mistake. The testing process did not insure that he would
follow the rules. He obviously did not care about proper behavior on
the air.

So, what are YOU doing about it?

Have you Petitioned the FCC for rough, tough Test regulations?
Have you communicated with the VEC QPC? No? Are you still
waiting for someone to "serve you" instead of the other way
around?


One concern many of us have about continued reductions in the license
test requirements - both code and written - is that more folks like
Gerritsen will get licenses and behave as he did.

Tsk, tsk, starting in with "guilt by association?" :-)

Gerritsen got his ham license under the EXISTING rules,
Jimmy.


If changes in the license requirements let in more like him, those of
us who are currently licensed *will* be harmed.

Irrational fear of the future, Jimmy?

What have you done about keeping the regulations the
way they were when you were young? What, no Petitions
or Kvetching the QPC?


btw, Len, Gerritsen lived over in Bell, CA, about a half-hour from your
house. He's pretty close to your age, too.

Ah, yes, you ARE doing the Guilt by Association thing!

BTW, Jimmy, Bell is farther away than what you say...unless
one has a helicopter. :-)


It's interesting that you proposed an age requirement that would ban
anyone under the age of 14 from getting an amateur radio license,
without any examples of problems caused by the licensing of young
people.

Oh, my, you should have heard me years and years ago when I
was a bachelor...I was propositioning all over the place! :-)
Sometimes it worked! :-)

Go get laid, Jimmy. It will improve your disposition.


Yet the worst amateur radio offender in recent history is pretty close
to *your* age.

Tsk, are you proposing euthanasia or something?

"Never trust anyone over 30?"

No, not that one, you are 20 past the limit...:-)

Did you watch some old rerun of "Logan's Run" on TV?
The stars were all Brits and you love Brits...


You can "talk" all you want, Len. Nobody is saying you shouldn't.

How magnanimous of you! :-)

The problem is that you do not deal with disagreement well.

Whatever. :-)

You don't
want to discuss, you want to lecture and not have your lectures
examined, criticized, or refuted.

Now now Mother Superior, I'm not trying to take away
your job at the convent school and you can keep your
ruler for spanking the little kiddies.

You ARE going to continue to LECTURE everyone (after telling
them they are "wrong") on the Right and Proper Way of Life
in everything, including history, world affairs, aero-
space, and, especially, the Military!

Go ahead and continue with your "military personnel are
'subsidized' for their service." You've never served,
never volunteered to serve, never took the Oath...yet
you LECTURE everyone on some hilarious "why" of your
words "not being insulting" (they are definitely
insulting to veterans) and supposedly'correct' use
of your words.


Back on January 19, 2000, you wrote here that you were "going for Extra
right out of the box".

Yes. Well, I must have changed my mind. :-)

Did I make some kind of "solemn promise?" Swear to St. Hiram
on a stack of Handbooks?


Almost 8 years and you haven't taken the first step.

Tsk, tsk, I took the first step back in infancy. :-)

The Technician class license has not required a code test since
February 14, 1991. Almost 16 years and you haven't taken the first
step.

Now, now, I TOLD you I took the first step way back
in time...in fact before you were conceived. :-)


It's a pretty good bet that you're not going to get an amateur radio
license, Len.

Am I supposed to attend the Church of St. Hiram and get
converted? Or are you saying I've been ex-communicated? :-)

Guess I'll have to study radio theology some more...like
how one becomes a Priest of the Order of St. Hiram and
promises lifelong devotion to the Church and always,
always fulfilling one's "promises!"


Why should anyone presume Len is "sane"?

Oh, my, Jimmy want a "sanity clause" in here?

Tsk, tsk, you'll have to wait for Christmas time... :-)

Act nice, "sanity" is making a list, checking it twice.


You have not made an attempt to obtain an amateur radio license.

Now, now, there you go again with your bad temper and
terrible insistence that ONLY amateur licensees can
talk about amateur radio!

You are mistaken, Len. No one is insisting that only licensees can talk
about it.

No? If I believed what you said I would have been a
Val Germann.

Remember to act nice, Jimmy, "sanity clause" is coming to
town in a few months.

Try not to INSULT so many military VETERANS or the military
still serviing.


And, as always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked!


["signature" omitted due to hissy fits of Paul Schleck]

wrote:

Did you think some no-coder would meet you outside the
school and beat you up if the code test is eliminated?

Not to worry, Jimmy, David Heil will protect you! :-)

David Heil served in the USAF! In a country AT war!

Poor Jimmy NEVER served, volunteered for military
service nor civil government.

Why so long? Weren't there enough David Heils to
handle the task right away?

So, what are YOU doing about it?

Have you Petitioned the FCC for rough, tough Test regulations?
Have you communicated with the VEC QPC? No? Are you still
waiting for someone to "serve you" instead of the other way
around?

Tsk, tsk, starting in with "guilt by association?" :-)

Gerritsen got his ham license under the EXISTING rules,
Jimmy.

Irrational fear of the future, Jimmy?

What have you done about keeping the regulations the
way they were when you were young? What, no Petitions
or Kvetching the QPC?

Ah, yes, you ARE doing the Guilt by Association thing!

BTW, Jimmy, Bell is farther away than what you say...unless
one has a helicopter. :-)

Oh, my, you should have heard me years and years ago when I
was a bachelor...I was propositioning all over the place! :-)
Sometimes it worked! :-)

Go get laid, Jimmy. It will improve your disposition.

Tsk, are you proposing euthanasia or something?

"Never trust anyone over 30?"

No, not that one, you are 20 past the limit...:-)

Did you watch some old rerun of "Logan's Run" on TV?
The stars were all Brits and you love Brits...

How magnanimous of you! :-)

Whatever. :-)

Now now Mother Superior, I'm not trying to take away
your job at the convent school and you can keep your
ruler for spanking the little kiddies.

You ARE going to continue to LECTURE everyone (after telling
them they are "wrong") on the Right and Proper Way of Life
in everything, including history, world affairs, aero-
space, and, especially, the Military!

Go ahead and continue with your "military personnel are
'subsidized' for their service." You've never served,
never volunteered to serve, never took the Oath...yet
you LECTURE everyone on some hilarious "why" of your
words "not being insulting" (they are definitely
insulting to veterans) and supposedly'correct' use
of your words.

Yes. Well, I must have changed my mind. :-)

Did I make some kind of "solemn promise?" Swear to St. Hiram
on a stack of Handbooks?
Tsk, tsk, I took the first step back in infancy. :-)

Now, now, I TOLD you I took the first step way back
in time...in fact before you were conceived. :-)

Am I supposed to attend the Church of St. Hiram and get
converted? Or are you saying I've been ex-communicated? :-)

Guess I'll have to study radio theology some more...like
how one becomes a Priest of the Order of St. Hiram and
promises lifelong devotion to the Church and always,
always fulfilling one's "promises!"

Oh, my, Jimmy want a "sanity clause" in here?

Tsk, tsk, you'll have to wait for Christmas time... :-)

Act nice, "sanity" is making a list, checking it twice.

No? If I believed what you said I would have been a
Val Germann.

Remember to act nice, Jimmy, "sanity clause" is coming to
town in a few months.

Try not to INSULT so many military VETERANS or the military
still serviing.

And, as always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked!


["signature" omitted due to hissy fits of Paul Schleck]

Well, Len, you've convinced me.

Any doubt I had has vanished.

I'm completely convinced.