wrote:
From: "KH6HZ" on Mon, Jan 22 2007 6:53 am
wrote:
lolol.
Poor senile old boy.

I think its funny you obsess over me so much, even after 10 years.

"Judge"

has "ruled" that there is no statute of
limitartions in newsgroups. Take it to his court...

"limitartions"?


For the record, my Ship License was WCN4898, not WCD6729. Anyone with half a
brain can check the ULS and see the FRN on my (expired) ship license.

Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
"legally" defrauding the US government?

Ship radio license WCD6729 was granted 1 Feb 94, no FRN given,
FCC required mailing address given as Grapeview, WA, 98546.

Ship radio license WCN4898 was granted 13 Oct 94, FRN given
as 0003639002, mailing address given as Chepachet, RI.

Both ship radio licenses expired in 2004.

Both ship radio licenses were granted to "Deignan, Michael P."

Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
"Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
licenses at one time...PLUS having given his "residence"
address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
license application. Was "Deignan, Michael P." EVER a
RESIDENT in the state of Hawaii? Residency is not defined
as temporarily staying there as on a vacation.

"Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
and dates all point to a single individual.

FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
called a "tell" to investigators. A common characteristic
of those seeking to hide something. Anyone with a full
brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
so coincidental.

Now, I could go into the collusion you had with Jeffrey
Herman on your KH6 vanity callsign...but that has already
been done and you've been forced to give up your "club"
calls by the FCC. Tsk, tsk. The mighty "RF Commandos"
were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.

It's rather obvious also that you refused to give an
explanation for taking out so many "club" calls or the
misleading "residence address" of Hawaii for you vanity
callsign. [a KH6 must be oh, so tres chic in New England
area, much better than a plebian KD1 like your previous
license of KD1HZ, another vanity call]


Jot that down on a yellow sticky and put it next to your acoustic modem, ok,
Lennie?

I have neither "yellow stickys" nor acoustic modem.

Might wanna get the visiting nurse to come and change your diaper a little
more often too, you get so grumpy when you're soiled.

Tsk, tsk, an amateur extra betraying

boast that
all pro-coders are "polite, civil" people who never
utter personal insults?

Who said that, Len? Give us a direct quote, please.

Yes, they DO exist as proven by
the quotes above.

Not proven at all, Len. In fact, when you argue with Mike,
you are arguing with a nocodetest person.

You have obviously forgotten that KH6HZ is, and was,
*against* the Morse Code test for an amateur license.

This isn't a new thing, or a secret. Look up his 1998 comments to
the FCC on the subject, if you don't believe me.

He specifically asked FCC to do the following in response to NPRM
98-143:

1) Reduce all Morse Code testing to a single 5 wpm test, but only
because
the treaty then in effect required some sort of test

2) Include a "sunset clause" that would automatically eliminate that
test when
and if the treaty changed, *without* any further NPRMs, petitions
or other
actions being required.

IOW, he *supported* the NCI proposal of that time! He's a
dyed-in-the-wool
no-coder!

He also suggested:

3) Reduction of the number of amateur radio license classes to two.

4) Changes to the written test methods (not the content as much as the
test methods).

This was almost ten years ago. I don't think Mike has changed his

I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."
But, to drop to the vernacular of the ugly, feel free to
eat my shorts. :-)

Aloha,

Well, it's interesting to see that you can be nasty to those who agree
with you....

wrote:
...
So, you claim hams are nothing more than
"Glorified-CB'ers-with-visions-of-grandeur?"

Nah...only SOME of them. Peyote-munchers or stash
puffers or the sweet nothings desperately searching for
ANY kind of title-rank-status that they never had.


Well, don't look now! But those low-lives are about to pull a BIG
RETREAT and head for a rec.radio.amateur."something".MODERATED! thread!
You have seen the list of "moderators?" These are the high priests of
misinformation, deception and high-thievery-of-radio-frequencies about
to escape through the back door of the temple! (I can hear their "brass
heels" pounding pavement now ...)

Overranout, beep, beep,

That's a BIG TEN-FOUR Goodbuddy. Now throw that hammer down, we need to
be in Shy-Town in the morning (before the "Moderation Sheriff" shows up
and locks us outa the jail here! grin

My heart-felt regards,
JS

wrote in message
...
I think you have the worng Mork
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

CLEAN THE YARD UP!

http://i10.tinypic.com/4fzaadx.jpg


http://www.badongo.com/vid/277528



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:


meaning there NG IF it get launched will die the sma edeath as the BBs

Naaa! Let me tell you sonny--old truckers NEVER DIE--they jest git a nu
PeterBilt! AND, those old moderators 'ull niver die, they'll jist git a
new Key-Built!!!


nothing is suposed to happene to RRAP even if they start they well
controled no change no disagreement allowed NG

which if launched is not likely to amount to anything sadly

Hmmmm, about the same they did with their amateur privileges--didn't let
'em amount to nothin'?

Guess there is jest no acountin' for style ...

3's GudBuddy!,
JS

Yes, it's sad to see the standards being lowered again and again. Not
just the code test, either.


Is there really a problem here? Or is it that we have fun arguing this
issue here? Ham are. for the most part, quite well behaved, unlike the
CBers. So I don't see what is broken in ham radio testing.

wrote:
One problem with so many amateur licensees is their
imaginations leading them to believe (wrongly) that
their (defacto) hobby is a form of "national service"
just by being federally licensed.

Like I said, the Amateur Radio Service is a one-way
national service being offered *BY* the federal government
*TO* qualified members of the ARS. It is the federal
government that is serving amateur radio, not the other
way around.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote in message
ups.com...
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:


Want to see a summary of the old study guides, and some sample
questions? I'll post them if you are interested.

Always am.

Here's a sample - lots more to come.

From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:

Study Question #31:

Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components:

(a) battery with internal resistance,
(b) resistive load,
(c) voltmeter,
(d) ammeter

.
Study Question #32:

From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can
the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power
consumed by the load be determined?


Study Question #33:
In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in
order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery?


Study Question #34:
Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the
following components:

(a) triode vacuum tube,
(b) pi-network output tank
(c) high voltage source
(d) plate-current meter
(e) plate-voltage meter,
(f) rf chokes,
(g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor.


Study Question #35:
What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit?

These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that
were on the old exams.

The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the
amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe
license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e".

The question would be something like,
"which is the coupling capacitor?"
"which is an rf choke?"
"what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit
above?"

So you would have to learn the circuit, the components in it, and their
names
and functions. Then the actual exam would use a completely different
format
from the study guide.

The above questions and accompanying diagrams took up just a small part
of one page in the study guide. But look how much material was covered!

How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO
the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more
detail.

This is the first time I have ever seen the old format but I must admit I
prefer the old format to the new, without the answers published in advance.
Actually the new extra class format asks the same sort of questions but
being able to answer the old format seems to more accurately measure one's
basic understanding of an amplifier circuit. I vote for the old. Why did
they change it to multiple guess?

wrote:

Are we to assume that "coincidences" justify attempts at
"legally" defrauding the US government?

Assuming for a moment that I did, indeed, hold two ship licenses (one of
which was for an ocean-going trawler - lmao) is there a law which states I
cannot hold multiple ship licenses?


Based on long-ago "discussions" about club callsigns in
here - and on such places as the AH0A amateur statistics -
"Deignan, Michael P." had OVER 10 amateur radio "club"
licenses at one time...

So? Is there a law that places a limit on the # of callsigns one individual
can be trustee of?


PLUS having given his "residence"
address to the FCC as a Post Office Box in Hawaii, not
only for those alleged "club" calls but also his own Vanity
license application.

So? Is there a law (or Part 97 regulation) which states individuals cannot
use PO Boxes for their mailing addresses?

Doesn't Morkie use a PO Box for his license?


"Deignan, Michael P." isn't a common name. Are we to assume
that there is more than one Deignan with the same given first
name and middle initial in the USA? I think not. The names
and dates all point to a single individual.

lmao.. damn Lennie, you've done way too many drugs in your day.

I'm touched that you're so obsessed with my life. It really is quite
hilarious.

I can pick up the Rhodyland phone book and find reference to 3 other Michael
Deignan's in my state alone.

My name is neither uncommon nor unusual, it is, actually, a relatively
common Irish last name, as are my first (and middle) names.

Now, I'll grant you, in the Deep South you're not likely to find many folks
with my last name.. but in Boston? Quite a few.


FCC ULS data show that "Deignan, Michael P." prefers Post
Office Box "addresses," regardless of state. That's
called a "tell" to investigators.

What's it "tell" that Morkie uses a PO Box for his mailing address?


A common characteristic
of those seeking to hide something.

What's Morkie hiding?

I use a PO Box when I have to. No law or regulation states I cannot.


Anyone with a full
brain can see these alleged "coincidences" aren't quite
so coincidental.

But then again, Lennie, we've known for at least a decade you're not playing
with a full deck.


The mighty "RF Commandos"
were mustered out and the VA offers them NO benefits.

Oddly enough, the RF Commandos is still in full operation -- we even have
our own club callsign, used principally for the automated operation of our
hidden transmitters. And *gasp* I'm STILL the trustee! Drop by sometime,
perhaps we'll even let you be the 'fox' in our foxhunts -- though I imagine
there wouldn't be much challenge DFing a drooling old fool in a wheelchair,
would there be?


I have no "visiting nurse" and do not use or wear "diapers."

There is no other logical explanation for your attitude other than a cold,
wet diaper. Common with folks your age, Lennie. Probably explains why you
can't get a ham license too.

wrote in message
ups.com...

The law's requirements for VEs doesn't require ANY of them
to possess academic certificates or college degrees nor
experience in test-giving and test-grading. Privatization of
ALL radio operator license testing (commercial as well as
amateur) pretty much dictates the easier-to-grade multiple-
choice question-answer format. Certainly so for the all-
volunteer amateur radio test coordinators.

I hadn't thought about it that way but of course it is true that VE's can be
assumed to have no academic qualifications and must grade the tests using a
template with holes. You are absolutely correct on this Len.

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
Why did they change it to multiple guess?

Are the exam questions covered under the
freedom of information act?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com