Diaper's wet, eh, Lennie? You always get cranky.

KH6HZ wrote nothing worth while:

Oh, my, Mikey D. is going to ignore the big who-haa in here about
his Dirty
Dozen "clubs?"

It looks like you were "collecting" OTHER callsigns in 1994. For
example, private ship call WCD6729 for the "trawler" named
"HORNBLOWER." [ship identification # 526927] Now I
suppose that is normally okay except for the required mailing
address you supplied:
Deignan, Michael P.
P. O. Box 465
Grapeview, WA 98546

Tsk. Grapeview is a tiny place on one of the innermost waterways
that make up the huge Puget Sound. It's about as far removed from
Rhode Island as is anyplace in CONUS. You'd have to steam for a
couple hours just to pass under the (old) Tacoma Narrows bridge and
then it would take lots more hours to get into International Waters.
WCD6729 states that this ship "makes international voyages!"
Ship radio license was cancelled in 2004.

A TRAWLER in Puget Sound, state of Washiington, for a
Rhode Island resident? What were you phishing phor?

Now, I can understand your other ship radio license, WCN4898,
for the motorboat "EFFLUVIA." [ship ID # MS5499FT] At least
your required mailing address was Chepachet, RI. Love that boat's
name...so fitting with what you post in here. :-)

Curiosity makes me wonder who gave you that P.O. Box in
Grapeview? It was kind of far away from Jeffie Herman's P.O.
Box in Hawaii.

Hey, no sweat, your Effluvia (the boat) radio license was also
cancelled in 2004 after ten years. You must have bailed Rhode
Island before then, right? But, your effluvia continues.

All these FACTS courtesy of the FCC's own search engine.

Aloha,

LA

wrote:

lolol.

Poor senile old boy.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 Miccolis' boast that
all pro-coders are "polite, civil" people who never
utter personal insults? Yes, they DO exist as proven by
the quotes above.

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,

LA

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:

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

Lennie's had the proverbial "hard on" for me since he showed up on USENET
back in the mid 90's. I can only conclude his obsession with me is due to
the fact that I have a ham radio license while, alas, he does not.


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.

What is even more amusing is if you look up Lennie's comments to the FCC,
out of thousands of pages of comments, he felt the need to rebut my comments
virtually line for line.


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

I have always felt stronger (not read: more difficult) theory examinations
were more important to the ARS than morse code testing. It is an opinion
that I hold to this day.


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

I actually have my NCI membership certificate packed someone in my boxes.


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

I still feel two license classes - a 50MHZ+ and a 30MHZ- would not
necessarily be a bad idea.


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

Not at all. I still feel all my ideas presented 8 years ago hold merit
today.

I do not really see any need for two HF licenses. The FCC should simply
eliminate the General license and have a Class A and Class B license.


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

Since Lennie's first appearance... oh, 10? years ago, he's pretty much been
a nasty fellow.

As I've posted in the past, he reminds me a great deal of my
long-since-departed paternal grandmother, who was so miserable, she had to
try and make everyone else around her miserable too. I can only conclude
that Lennie's inability to get a ham license has made him very, very
miserable.

73
KH6HZ

KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

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

Lennie's had the proverbial "hard on" for me since he showed up on USENET
back in the mid 90's. I can only conclude his obsession with me is due to
the fact that I have a ham radio license while, alas, he does not.

No, that's not it, Mike.

The problem Len has with you isn't your license, or lack of it. It's
the fact that
you dared to disagree with him, and/or correct one or more of his
mistakes
here. Once someone does either or both of those things, Len's reaction
is
100% predictable. In fact, there's a handy profile that pretty much
sums it all up:

"No matter what employment, education, life experience or
government/military
service a person has, if that person disagrees with any of Len's
views, or
corrects any of Len's mistakes, he/she will be the target of Len's
insults,
ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs,
excessive
emoticons and general infantile behavior."

What you did was to disagree with Len. That's all it takes.

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.

What is even more amusing is if you look up Lennie's comments to the FCC,
out of thousands of pages of comments, he felt the need to rebut my comments
virtually line for line.

Pages and pages worth, too, even though your comments were 100% in
support
of the maximum possible Morse Code test reduction under the treaty, and
complete
Morse Code test elimination at the earliest possible moment if/when the
treaty changed.

Think about it. If all Len *really* wanted was Morse Code test
elimination, why would
he send in all those pages refuting someone who wanted exactly that,
and who
supported that part of the NCI agenda to the letter? The explanation is
simple: You
were/are a target because you disagreed with Len.

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

I have always felt stronger (not read: more difficult) theory examinations
were more important to the ARS than morse code testing. It is an opinion
that I hold to this day.

Well, we agree on the desirability of better written tests. We disagree
on the
Morse Code test in that you support complete elimination of that test
and I
don't.

However, FCC's response has been to reduce both the number of written
tests and the total number of questions required for every class of
license.
The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC

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

I actually have my NCI membership certificate packed someone in my boxes.

You mean you haven't got it "right out of the box"?

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

I still feel two license classes - a 50MHZ+ and a 30MHZ- would not
necessarily be a bad idea.

Well, we disagree on that, too.

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

Not at all. I still feel all my ideas presented 8 years ago hold merit
today.

Len does not want to discuss the merit of anyone's ideas if they
disagree with *his* ideas, or if they correct his mistakes.

I do not really see any need for two HF licenses. The FCC should simply
eliminate the General license and have a Class A and Class B license.

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

Since Lennie's first appearance... oh, 10? years ago, he's pretty much been
a nasty fellow.

About 10 years, and an enormous volume of verbiage under a variety of
screen
names. He used the screen name " for several posts
here,
then later denied ever using that name in rrap.

Of course someone (ahem) pointed out that he had, indeed, posted to
rrap
using that screen name. Len's reaction was quite predictable.

As I've posted in the past, he reminds me a great deal of my
long-since-departed paternal grandmother, who was so miserable, she had to
try and make everyone else around her miserable too. I can only conclude
that Lennie's inability to get a ham license has made him very, very
miserable.

See the paragraph above about Len's behavior here. All anyone has to
do is disagree with Len, or correct a mistake he makes, and it's
showtime.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.