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:

"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."

That's way too much for me to parse at 5am.

Let me see if I can put it in simplier terms

"If you don't kiss Len's ass, expect to be the target of his vitriol".

Yeah, that sounds about right.


The explanation is simple: You were/are a target because you
disagreed with Len.

I laugh about it to this day. Thousands of pages of comments, hundreds (if
not thousands of hams) responding, and Lennie


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.

Something a few of the posters here (oddly enough, the most vocal/rabid
members of the No-Code Agenda, it would seem) cannot simply seem to grasp is
that gentlemen can agree to disagree without resorting to ad hominem
attacks.

I am not entirely opposed to having a "skills test" in addition to a theory
examination. There is precedent in other testing scenarios maintained by the
government. For example, to get a pilot's license, you not only take a
written test, you also have to take a 'hands on' test.

Of course, CW is a very easy method "skills test" to implement, which makes
it a natural selection for the that component in ham radio testing.

I can understand why you would support such a test. This is, IMO, a
legitimate course of reasoning on your part and I can understand the
viewpoint.

While I agree with it in principle, personally, I do not feel that a morse
test is a good selection for a skills test.

Furthermore, I cannot think of a really good alternative, either. Thus,
until someone can present a very concise idea on how to implement a
pertinent skills test in the ARS today, I'll fall back to the side of having
none.


The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC

Unfortunately, the trend with licensing in ham radio is very similiar to the
trend we saw wih CB radio licensing back in the mid 70's. It concerns me
that testing gets more and more lax.

Another disturbing trend is the desire to modify our licensing standards for
"quantity". Everyone focuses on license numbers, and continuing to grow the
number of licensed amateurs. I believe the majority of changes in our
licensing system over the past 15 years has been directly related to
people's desires to 'swell our ranks'.

I've always been a proponent of quality over quantity. I would rather have
one person interested in learning radio electronics, antenna theory, etc.
over two people who are nothing more than glorified applicance operators.


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

I may no longer be a member. Years ago Carl threatened to throw me out of
NCI over my criticism of NCI publically, under the guise of me "really not
being a no-code test advocate". What Stevenson really wanted was an army of
little mindless zealots who reguritated what they were spoon-fed by NCI --
something I was not.


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.

Lennie's fun to wind-up. Every time I post, you know his blood pressure
rises a couple of points. He can't resist the urge to throw out some acerbic
comments.

73
KH6HZ

On Jan 23, 6:23*am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
"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."That's way too much for me toparseat 5am.

Let me see if I can put it in simplier terms

"If you don't kiss Len's ass, expect to be the target of his vitriol".

Looks like a pretty accurate parsing job...

Yeah, that sounds about right.

The explanation is simple: You were/are a target because you
disagreed with Len.

I laugh about it to this day. Thousands of pages of comments, hundreds (if
not thousands of hams) responding, and Lennie

Heck, Len's comments and reply comments alone amount to dozens if not
hundreds of pages.

Consider that some poor soul at FCC had to read all of that...

What I find most amusing is that he took all that trouble to Reply
Comment to you, when your comments were so solidly in the Nocodetest
camp.

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.

Something a few of the posters here (oddly enough, the most vocal/rabid
members of the No-Code Agenda, it would seem) cannot simply seem to grasp is
that gentlemen can agree to disagree without resorting to ad hominem
attacks.

All sorts of reasons for that. Some consider acting civilized to be a
sign of weakness. Others consider being proved wrong to be a
humiliation, and lash out at the messenger.

I am not entirely opposed to having a "skills test" in addition to a theory
examination. There is precedent in other testing scenarios maintained by the
government. For example, to get a pilot's license, you not only take a
written test, you also have to take a 'hands on' test.

Of course, CW is a very easy method "skills test" to implement, which makes
it a natural selection for the that component in ham radio testing.

Plus the fact that Morse Code is widely used in amateur radio.


I can understand why you would support such a test. This is, IMO, a
legitimate course of reasoning on your part and I can understand the
viewpoint.

TNX

While I agree with it in principle, personally, I do not feel that a morse
test is a good selection for a skills test.

Why not?

Furthermore, I cannot think of a really good alternative, either. Thus,
until someone can present a very concise idea on how to implement a
pertinent skills test in the ARS today, I'll fall back to the side of having
none.

Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety of
skills tests.

For example, imagine a simple test of voice operating skill where a
person being tested has to send a message in standard form and receive
one, using standard phonetics and good amateur operating practice.

The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC

Unfortunately, the trend with licensing in ham radio is very similiar to the
trend we saw wih CB radio licensing back in the mid 70's. It concerns me
that testing gets more and more lax.

Me too.

Another disturbing trend is the desire to modify our licensing standards for
"quantity". Everyone focuses on license numbers, and continuing to grow the
number of licensed amateurs. I believe the majority of changes in our
licensing system over the past 15 years has been directly related to
people's desires to 'swell our ranks'.

I would say 25 years.

I've always been a proponent of quality over quantity. I would rather have
one person interested in learning radio electronics, antenna theory, etc.
over two people who are nothing more than glorified applicance operators.

I think one of the reasons for the recent lack of growth was
the popularization of amateur radio as a personal radio
service in the 1980s and 1990s. There's nothing wrong
with using amateur radio for that purpose, and the
repeater/HT/autopatch boom of those years made it practical

A lot of folks who started out that way turned out to be really good
hams. Some branched out into other areas of amateur radio, others did
not.

But with the proliferation of inexpensive cell phones, that source of
new hams has been greatly reduced. Some of those who did get licensed
for personal radio reasons have
let their licenses lapse because the cell phone does the job now.

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

I may no longer be a member. Years ago Carl threatened to throw me out of
NCI over my criticism of NCI publically, under the guise of me "really not
being a no-code test advocate". What Stevenson really wanted was an army of
little mindless zealots who reguritated what they were spoon-fed by NCI -- *
something I was not.

That's the old Carl.

The new (post-2001) Carl is a much nicer guy. Very reasonable and well
behaved, whether you agree with him or not. Look up some of his
more-recent posts and see.

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.

Lennie's fun to wind-up. Every time I post, you know his blood pressure
rises a couple of points. He can't resist the urge to throw out some acerbic
comments.

What will he do after Feb 23?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Plus the fact that Morse Code is widely used in amateur radio.

Yes, but that IMO doesn't justify it as a skill test with a pass/fail
result.

In fact, with the largest license class being the Tech, it would be more
logical to suggest an operating mode commonly in use by the vast majority of
techs -- FM voice.


Why not?

Several reasons. First, CW is but one of many modes in use in the ARS today.
I do not feel it is appropriate to weight the CW test heavily in testing,
such that it becomes a pass/fail element. Simply put, some people may have
no interest in operating CW.

Offhand, I do not recall the percentage of hams actively using CW. I vaguely
recall there was a study in the mid 90's. A quick google only yielded one
recent survey, and that was hardly scientific. W5ALT presented some
interesting numbers, but likewise those are questionable and only represent
activity observed, not necessarily the preferred operating mode of
(non-actively-transmitting) hams.

Falling back to 97.1, while CW facilitates an amateur to meet all those
goals, so does every other operating mode.


Seems to me that the rational compromise would be to offer a variety of
skills tests.

Perhaps. Unfortunately, a skills test requires a greater effort on the part
of VEs to implement, test, and grade. It is highly unlikely we would ever
see *ANY* suggestion that makes testing "harder" ever implemented by the
FCC. Fact is, it is politically incorrect to "fail" people. We will never
see the return of a skills test to the ARS. That's the sad reality of the
situation.


For example, imagine a simple test of voice operating skill where a
person being tested has to send a message in standard form and receive
one, using standard phonetics and good amateur operating practice.

I'd almost like to see a form of Elmering system, where as a new ham your
first few contacts are handled under the watchful eye of an older, more
experienced ham, who can show you the "ropes". Naturally, we can do this
today without any rules changes on the part of the FCC.


I would say 25 years.

I believe you've been licensed longer than I. My introduction to amateur
radio really didn't occur until 1982. I wouldn't argue your point. In the
past with the "private" question pools and examination guides, certainly
testing became "easier" when the pools went public (before my time). My own
observations since becoming licensed in the early 90's is the testing
infrastructure has been continuously weakened.


I think one of the reasons for the recent lack of growth was
the popularization of amateur radio as a personal radio
service in the 1980s and 1990s. [...] Some of those who did
get licensed for personal radio reasons have let their licenses
lapse because the cell phone does the job now.

Unfortunately true. The problem the ARS will face now is people will point
at the dropping number of hams as a reason why we have to "fix" the
licensing/testing system by dumbing it down even further.

The new (post-2001) Carl is a much nicer guy. Very reasonable and well
behaved, whether you agree with him or not. Look up some of his
more-recent posts and see.

Maybe he's mellowed with age. I have.


What will he do after Feb 23?

He'll find something to complain about. That's all he really wants to do...
bitch moan and complain. A sad cry for attention in his sunset years. We can
only hope cable internet at the retirement home drops out for a period of
time

73
KH6HZ

wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

...
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:


Now that's funny. The problem with Len is he has pulled some covers
here and pi$$ed off a few. As to Len being perfect? Well, maybe, maybe
not--I kinda like him. As for Len being "predictable", hey look in a
mirror, you are one we are making fun of for that very thing!!!

...
73 de Jim, N2EY


You guys are VERY small MEN. Len knows that, I know that, the whole
world knows that. If you attempt to step away from it, you can't. You
will now be seen for what you truly are. You know that and it irks you,
don't take that anger out on Len ...

JS

From: John Smith I on Tues, Jan 23 2007 9:35 am

wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:


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:

Now that's funny. The problem with Len is he has pulled some covers
here and pi$$ed off a few. As to Len being perfect? Well, maybe, maybe
not--I kinda like him. As for Len being "predictable", hey look in a
mirror, you are one we are making fun of for that very thing!!!

Hee hee hee hee ... ain't that some HYPOCRISY of theirs! :-)

Gotta love them "profiles." Homeland security wannabes?
:-)


You guys are VERY small MEN. Len knows that, I know that, the whole
world knows that. If you attempt to step away from it, you can't. You
will now be seen for what you truly are. You know that and it irks you,
don't take that anger out on Len ...

John, they MUST attack. They aren't respected for their
"leadership" (that they claim, either overtly or covertly).
They have a NEED to CONTROL. In der Uber Oberst's
case, it seems compounded by a NEED to push
others around.

They are, as you say, LITTLE men. Little men act that
way. It isn't restricted to amateur radio. It covers
all human activity.

I'm sure US amateur radio can be fun. It might be nice
to have a ham license other than from the FDA. But NOT
in the style these LITTLE men dictate.

Back about 44 or so years ago, it was a Saturday and I
had the morning free. Being a nice day outside, I
thought to walk two blocks to a Ralphs supermarket and
pick up a few things. Our apartment was next to a two-
block long public park and the Little League teams
were out there warming up. I watched for a while. One
of the boys just didn't want to play ball. His jock
dad kept harranging him to "get out there!" Boy
resisted. Finally dad yelled loudly to him, "You're
gonna go out there and enjoy playing whether you like
it or not!" some muffled chuckles from the sidelines

That jock dad is about like the LITTLE men in here,
pretenders at being big-league and trying to control
all via paternal terror tactics. It's not about
having "fun" in amateur radio, it's about having
"controlled fun," i.e., doing as the "jocks" (with
cute little amateur uniforms on) say everyone should
act, expecting "respect" for being so ruff and tuff,
doing as the "jocks" say one "should."

It won't be long now to the final days of amateur
morse code testing in the USA. To all those ruff,
tuff "jocks," I just flip them the bird. :-)

LA

wrote:

...
John, they MUST attack. They aren't respected for their
"leadership" (that they claim, either overtly or covertly).
They have a NEED to CONTROL. In der Uber Oberst's
case, it seems compounded by a NEED to push
others around.

Leadership? Where? I had scout masters who looked like John Wayne when
these guys attempt to stand in, even, their (the scout masters) shadows.
Fact is, boy scouts is where I built my first one tube regenerative
receiver ... solder joints looked horrible--but it worked!!!


They are, as you say, LITTLE men. Little men act that
way. It isn't restricted to amateur radio. It covers
all human activity.

Amen brother ...

Regards,
JS