From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:38:16 GMT

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT
wrote:

My statement is correct. N2EY has never been other than civilized with
you.

Which "civilization" are you talking about? :-)

Some Amazon River backwoods tribe using curare darts?


His demeanor is in direct contrast with yours, especially when you
reply to him.

Cranky has a psychological problem involving pedantry
and religious transgendering. His problem, not mine.

Your problem is much deeper. However, it MIGHT be
alleviated by your taking some Anger Management
counseling.


My statement is correct. The overwhelming majority of posters to this
newsgroup are licensed radio amateurs.

Should I be "overwhelmed?" :-) I'm not.

In here I'm not in the presence of gods, only some
cranky "superior" wannabes trying to push others
around.


"Precious" can be applied to a pair of cute 4-year-olds
who each got an amateur radio license in 1998.

The word "precious" may be applied to numerous things.

So, you still believe that pre-kindergarten 4-year-olds
have sufficient English comprehension to take and pass
written test elements for an amateur radio license? :-)

Good luck on that one, now.


A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio.

That's correct. This particular newsgroup deals with amateur radio.

So do several other newsgroups. However, NONE of them
seem to be concerned with getting anyone licensed in the
amateur radio service of the United States. That was
the point of "John Smith I" first posting in this thread.

So far, all that seems to be "dealt" is a bunch of middle-
school-minded macho adolescents busy tossing filth and
sexual innuendo around...or some olde-tyme "superiority"
fossils busy berating others and/or trying to push others
around.

On the whole, this newsgroup doesn't seem to be dealing
at all well with amateur radio.


You have NO AUTHORITY to demand all in here be licensed
for anything.

I've never made a demand that you obtain an amateur radio license.

That's obviously INCORRECT. YOU have wasted much memory
space with constant sniping, back-biting, arrogant
posturing (mostly on your alleged "superiority"), and
constant fabrication of others' "faults" which were no
faults, only differences of opinion.

In fact, I much prefer that you didn't.

You seem to desire that in ALL your newsgroup opponents.

Is that the very model of modern morseman amateur? To
restrict the PUBLIC airways of anyone but your own cozy
little clique of hive-mind hammatures? Yes, it does
appear to be so! :-)


Precisely. You have yet to become a radio amateur. When and if you
ever obtain such a license, you'll be a new amateur radio op.

You are CONSTANTLY dwelling on "new ops" as if that were
some kind of pejorative. Why? Is it because the FCC
will no longer have morse code testing as a necessity to
become a licensed radio amateur? Or are those your own
personal issues which might be alleviated by Anger
Management counseling?

Maybe it is some kind of EGO thing, one of your imagining
you are always "superior" to those YOU consider "inferior?"
Oh, my, it seems like you have MANY personal issues!


I don't care about it, Len. It isn't an amateur radio license.
In amateur radio, it qualifies you for nothing.

INCORRECT. MISTAKE. FAULTY. A commercial radio operator
license enables any grantee to operate a transmitter on
MORE of the EM spectrum, using MORE modes than are allocated
to radio amateurs. That involves radio technologies which
have yet to be adapted by the "amateur community."

By human-made LAW at the federal level, licensed amateurs
are restricted to LAW-specified frequency bands and only
certain, specified modes of operation and modulation.
Radio amateurs cannot broadcast, cannot get monetary
compensation for their radio activies (some rare exceptions
such as in Part 97.113 (d)), cannot permit anyone but a
licensed control operator to operate their (or other
amateur) station transmitters. Note the use of "human-
made" as a descriptor. The LAW came into being as a
political thing, not some divine edict in which (licensed)
radio amateurs are somehow "superior" to all others. What
was made by humans can be deleted by humans. FCC 06-178
is as lawful as any other US amateur radio service
regulation and it has deleted your cherished code test.

I could go on and on about my technical-operational back-
ground but you would simply dismiss it in your usual
arrogant "superior" manner as if it were "nothing." You
just did that above. This only demonstrates your spiteful
selfish desire to be some kind of "superior" over others,
amply demonstrated in here for years.

Now how do you think that looks to those who are really
new to radio, any kind of radio? Do you think they will
worship you at your feet AS IF you were some god of radio?
Do you think it makes them proud just to be in the same
newsgroup with you? If you do, then you've got a really
bad case of Superiority Complex all mixed up with an even
larger Inferiority Complex. A complex confusion.

I predict that you will never obtain an amateur radio license during
your lifetime.

It's irrelevant as to whatever I do. If you keep on treating
me as something worse than dirt, then others will think that
you will treat them as dirt, or worse. They will get the
(demonstratably correct) idea that ALL olde-tyme morsemen
are elite snobs looking down on "lesser beings." NOT a
good attitude.

Your constant prodding, poking, sneering, and general un-
wholesome behavior about "newbies" and "neophytes" makes it
clear that YOUR motivation is merely to make fun of, to
ridicule and demean all your newsgroup opponents. You are
trying to "set up" some kind of future commentary. That's
so predictable that you might as well make graphics lighted
by neon. For example, in my case, three possible courses
of your future action:

1. I take no action towards getting an amateur radio license:
No change in your attitude, the same manufactured "faults"
you've been expressing all along, a constant barrage of snide
snarly remarks about "long interest" and "no action."

2. I try testing and fail any element: Accusations of
"stupdity," "inability to be as good as four-year-olds,"
and general cat-calling of a most uncivil nature. A general
set of uncomplimentary remarks including charges of an "age"
nature.

3. I try and succeed: Modified accusations, now along the
lines of snide, snarly, berating comments about "why didn't
I do that 'sooner?'" That would be followed by a "lecture"
of how I was "supposed to have gotten an amateur license
'first'!"

For any of the three possible scenarios I would proceed
on my own, for me, NOT on any remarks from a suspected
insane individual such as yourself.


You're the biggest control freak of all, Len. You want to control
regulations in something in which you play no part.

My advocacy of eliminating the code test was about GETTING
INTO amateur radio. The FCC did eliminate that code test
effect 23 Feb 07. Thousands commented to the FCC about
eliminating that code test, including myself. There is
NO LAW WHATSOEVER that restricted such commentary to ONLY
licensed persons in a particular civil radio service.

Do YOU spend all your time GETTING INTO amateur radio
through taking morse code tests? I don't think so.
YOU spend an inordinate amount of time trying to accuse
others of pushing YOU around! Oh, my, who could EVER
DARE push Heil around?!? Why you would just fabricate
some "faults" of theirs and try to get others to believe
that!


You've told us about the "sow" you've eaten in recent months.

INCORRECT. The FDA does not require labeling of ham
as to the gender of the animal butchered and packed.

A definition of ham: "The butchered meat of swine."


You're still at the starting line, Len.

IMPOSSIBLE. The only "starting line" in radio happened in
either Switzerland of 1895 or Italy of 1896, both done by
Guglielmo Marconi. That is historical fact. The only
dispute there is Marconi's experiments (few records were
kept) in Switzerland in 1895. Popov in Russia demonstrated
radio as a communications medium in 1896.

"Amateur radio" in the USA was legalized in 1912 with the
first US radio regulating agency. That defined "amateur"
as opposed to commercial or professional radio. The FCC
was created by an Act of Congress in 1934.

I was a radio-electronics hobbyist in 1947, became a
military-professional in HF radio in 1953, was granted
a commercial radio operator license in 1956, was
given first radio engineering design responsibility
in 1962. Is that your quaint "superior" arrogance in
saying I was NOT at ANY "starting line" in the past?

Is amateur radio some kind of unique physics phenomenon
that is totally unlike all other radio? It isn't. Why
do you persist in trying to say that? You must be
INSANE.

I am not licensed to counsel the INSANE. While I enjoy
fruitcake, you are not of good taste. Get your own
handlers. All the civil radio services will continue as
they have been doing regardless of what you spout in
here.


["signature" omitted due to upset of the great Heil in
others belonging to a professional association he cannot
be a part of]

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:38:16 GMT

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT
wrote:

My statement is correct. N2EY has never been other than civilized with
you.

Which "civilization" are you talking about? :-)

I didn't write "civilization", Leonard. I wrote "civilized."

Some Amazon River backwoods tribe using curare darts?

Is that where you learned your social skills?


His demeanor is in direct contrast with yours, especially when you
reply to him.

Cranky has a psychological problem involving pedantry
and religious transgendering. His problem, not mine.


No, Len, he doesn't. You've insulted him as if he does. That is one of
your several problems.

Your problem is much deeper. However, it MIGHT be
alleviated by your taking some Anger Management
counseling.

I'm not angry at all, Len. Are you angry?


My statement is correct. The overwhelming majority of posters to this
newsgroup are licensed radio amateurs.

Should I be "overwhelmed?" :-) I'm not.

Of course you aren't.

In here I'm not in the presence of gods, only some
cranky "superior" wannabes trying to push others
around.

You're being wishy-washy again. Are they gods or are they not gods?

There's no one here crankier than you, Len.


"Precious" can be applied to a pair of cute 4-year-olds
who each got an amateur radio license in 1998.

The word "precious" may be applied to numerous things.

So, you still believe that pre-kindergarten 4-year-olds
have sufficient English comprehension to take and pass
written test elements for an amateur radio license? :-)

Are you getting nervous?

Good luck on that one, now.


A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio.

That's correct. This particular newsgroup deals with amateur radio.

So do several other newsgroups.

However, NONE of them
seem to be concerned with getting anyone licensed in the
amateur radio service of the United States. That was
the point of "John Smith I" first posting in this thread.

"John" made his point. Feel free to appoint your self advocate for
something or other and to start the process for the creation of such a
newsgroup if you feel that it is needed.

So far, all that seems to be "dealt" is a bunch of middle-
school-minded macho adolescents busy tossing filth and
sexual innuendo around...

Nobody supports the Roger Wisemans of the world even if he somehow
obtained an amateur radio license. He's mentally ill.

...or some olde-tyme "superiority"
fossils busy berating others and/or trying to push others
around.

Either you really have an inferiority complex or you are truly inferior.

On the whole, this newsgroup doesn't seem to be dealing
at all well with amateur radio.

You're a big part of the sludge, Len.

You have NO AUTHORITY to demand all in here be licensed
for anything.

I've never made a demand that you obtain an amateur radio license.

That's obviously INCORRECT.

It is completely correct. I have never made such a demand.

YOU have wasted much memory
space with constant sniping, back-biting, arrogant
posturing (mostly on your alleged "superiority"), and
constant fabrication of others' "faults" which were no
faults, only differences of opinion.

Excuse me, Leonard. Where are the demands. You specifically wrote
"demands."

Your faults really are faults.

In fact, I much prefer that you didn't.

You seem to desire that in ALL your newsgroup opponents.

Don't lump yourself with ALL newsgroup opponents, Len. I wrote about
you and I meant you.

Is that the very model of modern morseman amateur? To
restrict the PUBLIC airways of anyone but your own cozy
little clique of hive-mind hammatures?

I wrote about you, Len, not anyone but my own cozy little clique.
The fact is, I'd really prefer that you not be licensed--just you.

Yes, it does
appear to be so! :-)

You make a great many factual errors.


You aren't a new amateur radio
op and you aren't likely to become one.

I haven't been a "new" radio operator since 1953.

Precisely. You have yet to become a radio amateur. When and if you
ever obtain such a license, you'll be a new amateur radio op.

You are CONSTANTLY dwelling on "new ops" as if that were
some kind of pejorative.

Someone beginning something is new at it. That seems to trouble you.

Why?

It is fact that can't be denied.

Is it because the FCC
will no longer have morse code testing as a necessity to
become a licensed radio amateur?

That has nothing to do with it. All Morse Code tested amateur radio
licensees were new when they first obtained a license. All non-Morse
Code tested ops will be new when they are first licensed.

Or are those your own
personal issues which might be alleviated by Anger
Management counseling?

I'm not angry, Len. I've stated a fact. Every radio amateur was new at
some point.

Maybe it is some kind of EGO thing, one of your imagining
you are always "superior" to those YOU consider "inferior?"

I'm superior to some in certain areas. I'm inferior to others.
Why is it that I can write such a thing but that you seem to have a
problem with the idea. It really seems to bother you that you could be
green at something.

Oh, my, it seems like you have MANY personal issues!

....and I'm being told so by a guy with an inferiority complex.

I was granted a COMMERCIAL radio operator license 50 years
ago...it is still on record although the FCC modified all
three Radiotelephone Operator classes into on General class
about 1985. Look it up in the FCC ULS if you must.

I don't care about it, Len. It isn't an amateur radio license.
In amateur radio, it qualifies you for nothing.

INCORRECT. MISTAKE. FAULTY. A commercial radio operator
license enables any grantee to operate a transmitter on
MORE of the EM spectrum, using MORE modes than are allocated
to radio amateurs. That involves radio technologies which
have yet to be adapted by the "amateur community."

Do you keep forgetting that we're discussing your commercial ticket in
an amateur radio newsgroup? It doesn't count for squat in obtaining an
amateur radio license. It doesn't give you any amateur radio privileges.

By human-made LAW at the federal level, licensed amateurs
are restricted to LAW-specified frequency bands and only
certain, specified modes of operation and modulation.

Right. You aren't authorized to operate an amateur radio station in
those places.

Radio amateurs cannot broadcast, cannot get monetary
compensation for their radio activies (some rare exceptions
such as in Part 97.113 (d)), cannot permit anyone but a
licensed control operator to operate their (or other
amateur) station transmitters.

Other than Todd O'What's-his-face and the former holder of the K1MAN
callsign, what radio amateur is spending his time thinking that he's a
broadcaster? What are you going on about?

Note the use of "human-
made" as a descriptor. The LAW came into being as a
political thing, not some divine edict in which (licensed)
radio amateurs are somehow "superior" to all others. What
was made by humans can be deleted by humans. FCC 06-178
is as lawful as any other US amateur radio service
regulation and it has deleted your cherished code test.

That doesn't change anything for you, Len. You're still on the outside,
looking in. When it comes to amateur radio, all licensed ops are your
superiors.

I could go on and on about my technical-operational back-
ground...

And you *have*--often.

...but you would simply dismiss it in your usual
arrogant "superior" manner as if it were "nothing."

It isn't anything to me. It isn't anything to the FCC. They still
expect you to pass all the exams required for a particular class of
license if you are to be issued one. That's the only way open to you.

You
just did that above.

Sure, I did. The commercial license you keep bringing up doesn't do
anything toward getting you an amateur radio license.

This only demonstrates your spiteful
selfish desire to be some kind of "superior" over others,
amply demonstrated in here for years.

Like I said, Len, I don't care if you ever obtain an amateur ticket.
You can sulk and pout to the end of your days. I really don't care.

Now how do you think that looks to those who are really
new to radio, any kind of radio?

Let me make it clear to anyone who is a potential new ham right now:

Do it now. Take the test now. If you want to become a radio amateur,
don't wait, don't waste precious years waffling. Learn the material and
get that license. The sooner you take and pass the exam, the sooner you
can enjoy all that amateur radio has to offer. You don't need some
self-appointed advocate. You don't need to read this newsgroup. Just
order the study material and get to work on them.

There, Len, that should clear things up for the potential licensees you
might happen upon r.r.a.p. Don't misunderstand. I didn't mean the
above for you. You may spend the balance of your days on the sideline.

Do you think they will
worship you at your feet AS IF you were some god of radio?

What is this radio god fetish you have?

Do you think it makes them proud just to be in the same
newsgroup with you?

I don't spend my days wondering or worrying if some potential new ham is
going to be proud of me.

If you do, then you've got a really
bad case of Superiority Complex all mixed up with an even
larger Inferiority Complex. A complex confusion.

Well, I don't, so the rest of your rant is sort of pointless.

You cannot foretell the future. No human has proven to be
prescient.

I predict that you will never obtain an amateur radio license during
your lifetime. Now let's sit back and see if I've accurately predicted
the future.

It's irrelevant as to whatever I do.

It's relevant. You said that I couldn't foretell the future. We'll
wait for a bit and we'll find out. Maybe I'm a seer.

If you keep on treating
me as something worse than dirt, then others will think that
you will treat them as dirt, or worse.

No, Len, you aren't worse than dirt. You're just a fellow who can't
seem to behave himself.

They will get the
(demonstratably correct) idea that ALL olde-tyme morsemen
are elite snobs looking down on "lesser beings." NOT a
good attitude.

There's one of your mistakes. They might get the idea that I don't care
for you. Besides, I've addressed them above.

Your constant prodding, poking, sneering, and general un-
wholesome behavior about "newbies" and "neophytes" makes it
clear that YOUR motivation is merely to make fun of, to
ridicule and demean all your newsgroup opponents.

There's just you, Len. You aren't yet a newbie or neophyte in amateur
radio. If I can foresee the future, you won't ever be a newbie or
neophyte in amateur radio.

You are
trying to "set up" some kind of future commentary.

According to you, as soon as the Morse Test is gone, you're history.

That's
so predictable that you might as well make graphics lighted
by neon. For example, in my case, three possible courses
of your future action:

1. I take no action towards getting an amateur radio license:
No change in your attitude, the same manufactured "faults"
you've been expressing all along, a constant barrage of snide
snarly remarks about "long interest" and "no action."

Let's see...you take no action, you make good on your statement that
you'll be leaving this newsgroup and I'll have to be reminded that I can
foresee the future.

2. I try testing and fail any element: Accusations of
"stupdity," "inability to be as good as four-year-olds,"
and general cat-calling of a most uncivil nature. A general
set of uncomplimentary remarks including charges of an "age"
nature.

It would have nothing to do with age or with stupidity. There are
plenty of fellows who have failed an element. They retake it until they
pass.

3. I try and succeed: Modified accusations, now along the
lines of snide, snarly, berating comments about "why didn't
I do that 'sooner?'" That would be followed by a "lecture"
of how I was "supposed to have gotten an amateur license
'first'!"

As I've said, Len, given the way you act, I prefer if you don't obtain
an amateur radio license. I can do nothing for or against your taking
and passing an exam. I'd probably think more of you if you took and
passed an exam for any class amateur radio exam. The "sooner" doesn't
matter. The time you wasted typing your fingers to the bone here in
r.r.a.p. is your time. You wasted it.

For any of the three possible scenarios I would proceed
on my own, for me, NOT on any remarks from a suspected
insane individual such as yourself.

The first scenario doesn't have you proceeding at all, but have it your
way, Len. Get an amateur radio license or don't get an amateur radio
license. Either way, my life doesn't change.

You're the biggest control freak of all, Len. You want to control
regulations in something in which you play no part.

My advocacy of eliminating the code test was about GETTING
INTO amateur radio.

Yep. You've taken longer to get into amateur radio than any individual
I've heard of.

The FCC did eliminate that code test
effect 23 Feb 07. Thousands commented to the FCC about
eliminating that code test, including myself. There is
NO LAW WHATSOEVER that restricted such commentary to ONLY
licensed persons in a particular civil radio service.

You commented. Now what?

Do YOU spend all your time GETTING INTO amateur radio
through taking morse code tests? I don't think so.

Don't you think I could pass, Len?

YOU spend an inordinate amount of time trying to accuse
others of pushing YOU around!

I've spent no time accusing others of pushing me around. That's what
you do. You write of someone who DEMANDS something of you when no demand
has been made.

Oh, my, who could EVER
DARE push Heil around?!?

I have a better scenario, Len. Who is capable of pushing me around?
Am I going to be searching for my teeth? Is someone going to lay a
2 x 4 against my head?

Why you would just fabricate
some "faults" of theirs and try to get others to believe
that!

No one needs fabricate faults of yours, Len. There are plenty of 'em
just lying about.



The only "sow" encountered in the last decade have been
some transgendered porcine types who thought they were
gods of radio and attempted pushing many of us NCTA
around.

You've told us about the "sow" you've eaten in recent months.
You've thus eaten the gods of radio. How very, very peculiar.


INCORRECT. The FDA does not require labeling of ham
as to the gender of the animal butchered and packed.

A definition of ham: "The butchered meat of swine."

So you *may* have eaten the gods of radio. Tsk, tsk. Poor baby.


You're still at the starting line, Len.

IMPOSSIBLE. The only "starting line" in radio happened in
either Switzerland of 1895 or Italy of 1896, both done by
Guglielmo Marconi. That is historical fact. The only
dispute there is Marconi's experiments (few records were
kept) in Switzerland in 1895. Popov in Russia demonstrated
radio as a communications medium in 1896.

[balance of windy pontification snipped]

You're no closer to an amateur radio license than you were decades back.
You're no closer than you were over ten years ago when you began posting
to r.r.a.p. A standstill is always a standstill.

Dave K8MN

From: Dave Heil on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:35:35 GMT

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:38:16 GMT
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT
wrote:


I didn't write "civilization", Leonard. I wrote "civilized."

You pedant in your pants again... :-)


No, Len, he doesn't. You've insulted him as if he does. That is one of
your several problems.

Who doesn't? Who was "insulted?" What problems?


You're being wishy-washy again.

I shower regularly. Isn't that the usual result? :-)


Are you getting nervous?

Do you want a Don Knotts impersonation? You will have to
pay a minimum of scale rate. Guild rules...


Nobody supports the Roger Wisemans of the world even if he somehow
obtained an amateur radio license. He's mentally ill.

Am I supposed to discuss this "Roger Wisemans?" How
did this person enter your Dali-esque fantasy world?

Please publish your Regulations on newsgroup behavior
so that Paul Schleck can take it up with the moderators.
That's a good little Kommandant. Seig Heil!


You're a big part of the sludge, Len.

What "sludge?" Your waste matter?!?


Don't lump yourself with ALL newsgroup opponents, Len. I wrote about
you and I meant you.

You seem confused. A few sentences ago you were talking
about some "Roger Wisemans." Try to stay focussed.


I wrote about you, Len, not anyone but my own cozy little clique.

Ah! So you ADMIT to being in a cozy little clique!


The fact is, I'd really prefer that you not be licensed--just you.

Tsk. You should write the FCC and inform them of your
ORDER, Herr Kommandant.


Someone beginning something is new at it.

You are still new at being a human being in groups outside
of your cozy little clique.

That has nothing to do with it. All Morse Code tested amateur radio
licensees were new when they first obtained a license. All non-Morse
Code tested ops will be new when they are first licensed.

You say "all morse code tested amateur radio licensees..."
then say "all non-morse code tested ops." Why do you say
that non-morse code tested licensees are NOT licensed?


I'm superior to some in certain areas.

That seems to be ALL areas. :-)

I'm inferior to others.

Impossible! The Grate Heil is great at ALL things amateur!


It really seems to bother you that you could be green at something.

Tsk, I'm not green at operating a radio. :-)


...and I'm being told so by a guy with an inferiority complex.

Who is that? Are you back to talking about this "Roger
Wisemans?" Most confusing you are said Yoda


Right. You aren't authorized to operate an amateur radio station in
those places.

Which "places?" I am forbidden to operate a radio on
a test bench with a dummy load? :-)

And for some dummy of an amateur extra who doesn't know
how to set up a bench test? :-)


Other than Todd O'What's-his-face and the former holder of the K1MAN
callsign, what radio amateur is spending his time thinking that he's a
broadcaster? What are you going on about?

Do about what? You keep reminding me I am "not licensed."
Do you expect ME to do your dirty work for you, Herr
Kommandant?

You're still on the outside, looking in.

Incorrect. I am inside and looking at a computer screen.


It isn't anything to the FCC. They still
expect you to pass all the exams required for a particular class of
license if you are to be issued one.

The FCC "expects me to pass some exams?" They haven't
informed me about that. Maybe you should remind Kevin
at your regular business lunch there in DC?


Like I said, Len, I don't care if you ever obtain an amateur ticket.

You "don't care?!?" After ALL those words berating
me? Tsk, tsk. You must CARE very deeply when you
go on and on and on and on and on about it...


Do it now. Take the test now.

All four elements that includes the code test? :-)

Hmmm...its about 10:45 PM local here...I don't know of any
24/7 VEC exam places that are open in southern California
now.


If you want to become a radio amateur,
don't wait, don't waste precious years waffling.

I wasn't really planning a third career as an IHOP cook...

You don't need to read this newsgroup.

You keep saying that... :-)


I don't spend my days wondering or worrying if some potential new ham is
going to be proud of me.

You expect all to immediately recognize you innate grandness,
a sort of "divine right of kings" or something. Yes, that
is perfectly clear.


It's relevant. You said that I couldn't foretell the future. We'll
wait for a bit and we'll find out. Maybe I'm a seer.

You have a sneer. Tsk, tsk.


They might get the idea that I don't care for you.

Yas, yas, you state the obvious. :-)

Besides, I've addressed them above.

"Addressed?" To whom? "Roger Wisemans?"

Tsk, make a clear point. You ramble so.


According to you, as soon as the Morse Test is gone, you're history.

I am "history?" In which book of history am I?

Am I on a film or TV documentary?

Tsk, you keep saying I "make mistakes." Now you want me
gone and say I speak the "truth" about "going?" Which
is it? You contradict yourself.


As I've said, Len, given the way you act, I prefer if you don't obtain
an amateur radio license.

Awwww...that wouldn't have anything to do with my not
heaping gratuitous praise on your mighty diplomatic
mission in Guinea-Bisseau, would it?

How about not appreciating your "synchonizing your tele-
printers using CW?" [teleprinters have always been
designed to self-synchronize]

How about my not praising you to the skies for "receiving
'combat pay'" in Vietnam when you've never been in
combat?


I'd probably think more of you if you took and
passed an exam for any class amateur radio exam. The "sooner" doesn't
matter.

Now, now, you contradict yourself again. You just said
your couldn't care less if I didn't become a licensed
radio amateur. Try to keep your sneering arrogant
commentary on-track, OK?

The time you wasted typing your fingers to the bone here in
r.r.a.p. is your time.

Tsk, I've never "typed fingers to the bone." Skin has
always been intact. 22 years and many millions of
characters later, my fingers are still intact.


You wasted it.

I eliminate waste regularly. Remember, move your vowels
every day or you will get consonated...


You've taken longer to get into amateur radio than any individual
I've heard of.

You, of course, have "heard of all." :-) [all gods of
radio are that way...]

My advocacy in here has always been to eliminate the code
test in any amateur radio license test. Yet, you are
still confused about that. Doesn't that give you some
inclination that something is wrong with YOU?


Don't you think I could pass, Len?

Not as a human being...

As an Otto Preminger impersonator, yes, if you lost some
weight. "Stalag 17" was a stage play before it was a
movie. Keep hoping for a production near you on that and
go to the audition. I'm sure you could impress the
producers into giving that part to you.


I've spent no time accusing others of pushing me around.

True. You simply push others around. QED.


Who is capable of pushing me around?

The FCC?

Am I going to be searching for my teeth?

I don't know. Did you lose them AGAIN?



No one needs fabricate faults of yours, Len.

San Andreas kept denying HIS fault and look what happened...


You're no closer to an amateur radio license than you were decades back.

Tsk, you keep saying I was after an amateur radio license.

I kept stating what my advocacy was. You keep on with
your fabrication of "my desires." :-)

You see nothing wrong with your actions? Oh, my, you ARE
confused on what is happening.

You're no closer than you were over ten years ago when you began posting
to r.r.a.p.

INCORRECT. FAULTY. MISTAKE.

Hello, didn't you read FCC 06-178? It will order the removal
of morse code testing from amateur radio license testing
effective 23 February 2007.

Sunnuvagun! SUCCESS!!! :-)


Poor baby. Don't cry...



[end-of-message identification removed because of some who
cannot belong to my professional association and get all
snippy and snotty about it...]

On Feb 6, 5:25�pm, Leo wrote:
On 5 Feb 2007 15:43:57 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 4, 9:21?am, Leo wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *orks
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *very time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".

K8MN wrote:

"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"

Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).

And you ("Leo") replied:

"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Some might call that "the lure"....

Some might do that.

But, by definition, if a person intentionally makes an untrue
statement, intending to deceive, that person is telling a lie.

So what you are saying is that Len tells lies in order to "lure"
others.

Myself, I have never referred to anyone here as a liar, nor their
statements as lies. Mistakes or errors, yes, but not lies.

Then you wrote:

"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *very time - without
fail!"

Note that last sentence:

"Every time - without fail!"

All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Factual errors according to whom?

According to objective reality.

Unsubstantiated.

NMP

With reference to what source?

Objective sources.

Unsubstantiated.

NMP

In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?

Reality does that.

Unsubstantiated.

NMP

For example, suppose someone stated that the distance from Tokyo,
Japan, to Vladivostok, Russia, was 500 miles.

That statement could be checked against paper maps, atlases, online
mapping resources, etc.

It turns out that the actual distance between those cities is more
than 660 miles. Objective reality shows that the person who stated
"500 miles" made a factual error. A mistake.

See how easy that is? It's not a matter of belief or opinion, but of
objective reality.

Oversimplification.

How is that an oversimplification?

Is the distance from Tokyo, Japan to Vladivostok 500 miles or more
than 660 miles - or some other distance? In objective reality, it
cannot be both 500 miles and more than 660 miles at the same time.

You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you?

Not handy ;-)

I thought not! *Unsubstantiated.

NMP

It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!

Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.

...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! *pecifics would be nice, too.

"There's a flaw in your cunning plan, Baldrick!"

Although the number of Len's factual errors here is considerable, it
is by no means beyond my capabilities to provide a total, and
specifics.

Apparently, it is - as you have not done so.

That's incorrect.

The fact that I have not done something does not mean it is beyond my
capabilities.

I have not eaten any ice cream today, but it is not beyond my
capabilities to eat some before today ends.

However, that would be counterproductive.

It would be counterproductive to prove your point?

It would be counterproductive to give a total.

*Not much of a point, then.

Then why are you disputing it?

Because as soon as I did so, you would say that I had taken the lure
and verified your claim of "Every time - without fail!"

Only if you 'took the bait' on all of them - which is likely true, as
you have no examples which would prove otherwise.

I have examples.

If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?

IOW, you would say that once I provide details of a factual error made
by Len, it is no longer a factual error that I let pass, and instead
became one more "lure" that I went after.

Sounds like a guy who cannot offer any proof to the contrary to me. *

Nope.

It's someone who has seen and avoided the flaw in your cunning plan.

If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?

Of course some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.

Evasive. *Still not a single example, so far!

If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?

So the only way for me to prove that your claim of "Every time -
without fail!" is false, is for me to leave at least some of Len's
factual errors alone. Which I have already done.

Not yet, you haven't. *

Yes, I have. I have left some of Len's factual errors uncorrected.
Doing that proves my point!

All you have done so far is avoid proving your
point!

NMP

Now of course someone else could come along and point out
one or more of Len's factual errors here, and then show that I had
left those error(s) alone.

??

Think about it.

But then you could claim that the reason I left those error(s) alone
was that I had not identified it/them as factual error(s) in the first
place.

??

And again, some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.

...so there is no evidence to disprove my claim, is there?

Yes, there is.

All you have to do is look at Len's postings, note the factual errors,
and then look up which errors I have corrected and not corrected.

*I thought not.

You thought wrong.

NMP

Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Which it has.

Not.

NMP

Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.

If I were to fall for your cunning plan, you would immediately
disqualify any specific example I would give, by employing the
discussion listed above.

If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?

...so there isn't any proff that I'm wrong, is there? *


There's plenty of proof. You're not willing to look at it.

Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

I'll bet he'd be crushed!

He certainly gets upset enough over them. A mature person would simply
accept the corrections and say thank you to the person who pointed out
the factual error.

LOL! *You're his playtoy!

Not at all.

I post a few words. He posts a bunch of paragraphs in response. I am
civilized and well behaved, he is out of control.

There's your demonstration.

Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.

Yes, I have. To say more would be to fall victim to your cunning
plan.

So there really isn't any proof that I'm incorrect, is there?

Yes, there is.

I thought not (again!)

You thought wrong - (again)!

Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim.

Maybe not for you. Others have a very different experience.

Please provise substantiation for this claim too!

I have a different experience.

Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship.

Not according to the definition of "censorship".

A moderator blocking posts from others because someone finds them
offensive isn't censorship? *

No, it's not. Check your dictionary.

LOL!

*moderated group
would not suit your purpose either!

Actually, it would.

Apparently not - you need RRAP!

Not really.

I participate in several moderated email reflectors. They work and are
lots of fun.

Those are reflectors, not groups.

There's no real difference to the users who want to have real
discussions.

Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'?

"pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'?"?

That's not me at all.

Sure doesn't play out that way on RRAP......LOL!

Promoting accuracy is pathological?

I'm simply correcting some of Len's errors and expressing an opinion.

Some of? *LOL!

Yes, some of. Len makes more errors than I correct.

That really bothers him.

Does it?

Yes.

*ROTFLMAO!

NMP

Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here?
nd
encourage everyone to join them?

I don't recall - who was that?

Selective memory - no wonder you can't recall responding to all of
Len's posts! *In fact, you replied to many of Mike's posts on this
subject. *LOL!

Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!

Or maybe it didn't work.

They never do!

Moderated reflectors work. Why shouldn't moderated newsgroups? WHat's
the big difference?

You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?

Actually, I have left rrap for months at a time, except to post the
ARS license numbers. Check out google for my posting history.

Immaterial. *Everyone left here for months at a time due to the 'QRM'
from the resident psychos.

Incorrect. If *everyone* left rrap, there would have been no postings
to rrap at all.

And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?

Nope.

LOL!

Len doesn't always post misinformation. Some of what he writes is
actually true!

Correct. *(.....finally!)

And it is you, not I, that says his factual errors are intentional.

LOL!

Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?

Look it up.

It was a rhetorical question - he of course said that! *Don't you
remember?

I remember. You are the one who asked the question.

How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation?

I presumed that Len told the truth.

Why?

Did I make a mistake in assuming that Len would tell the truth?

You start off most of your posts to Len with the words "You're
wrong....". *

That's incorrect, Leo....;-)

Why would you presume that he is stating fact this time?

Benefit of the doubt.

Is it wrong to assume that Len would tell the truth?

Are you stupid?

No, Leo.

Are *you* stupid?

Is that wrong?

That's nonsensical - based on your past history. *Magical, actually.

It's nonsensical/magical to assume Len would tell the truth?

Perhaps you are right, Leo. Based on *Len's* past history, it may
really *be* nonsensical to assume he is telling the truth.

That's magical!

You're saying it's magic if Len tells the truth here? That it is more
logical to think that Len is telling untruths than to think that he is
telling the truth?

Interesting.

Your conclusion is indeed magical. *

Which conclusion?

Are you trying to lure Len into one of his rants against you?

Nonsensical question. That's your job, not mine! *LOL!

Perhaps you and Len are the same person "Leo". There is no proof that
you are not.

So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

Perhaps....

We will see.

All we have seen so far is that you have nothing to offer to
substantiate your claims.

Who is "we"?

*As usual. *Your entire post above contains
no fact, no rebuttal, and no *proof - just conjecture and
unsubstantiated claims - and an expectation that others will do your
research for you.

If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the
past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that
I have proved my point?

Which, of course, will not ...

Not My Problem!

On Feb 5, 6:12�pm, "
wrote:

* *Most of these "old regulars" love to heap abuse on
* *me,

Len old chap,

Am I one of those "old regulars" who "heap abuse" on you?

If so, could you give an objective example of a posting where I did
so?

Thanks a heap.

Jim, N2EY

wrote:

could you give an objective example of a posting where I did so?


I believe Len's definition of "abuse" is any statement that disagrees with
something he states.

As a vat of wisdom with "years" of experience as a commercial radio
operator, us lowly 'amateurs' are supposed to bow down to his 'professional'
greatness.

73
kh6hz

On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

....nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

73, Leo

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:42:00 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:40:01 -0500, Leo wrote:

On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

evasice drivel is the Hallmark of the Procoders

It's certainly the hallmark of this one - nothing useful to say, but
he says it anyway!


73, Leo
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

73, Leo

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:35:35 GMT

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:38:16 GMT
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Tue, 06 Feb 2007 01:16:22 GMT
wrote:


I didn't write "civilization", Leonard. I wrote "civilized."

You pedant in your pants again... :-)

Really, Len. I wrote "civilized". I see your new game. You'd like to
snip most of my words and those things to which I responded. I'll play
along.


Who doesn't?

Who doesn't what?

Who was "insulted?"

On which occasion?

What problems?

How can you formulate a solution if you don't recognize the problems?


You're being wishy-washy again.

Isn't that the usual result? :-)

Precisely.


Do you want a Don Knotts impersonation?

What's with your Don Knotts fetish?

You will have to
pay a minimum of scale rate. Guild rules...

It's all about money with you.


That's a good little Kommandant. Seig Heil!

Just how did you get that AFTRA card, Len?


Your waste matter?!?

It matters to me, Len.


I wrote about you, Len, not anyone but my own cozy little clique.

Ah!

I knew you'd understand.


That has nothing to do with it. All Morse Code tested amateur radio
licensees were new when they first obtained a license. All non-Morse
Code tested ops will be new when they are first licensed.

You say "all morse code tested amateur radio licensees..."
then say "all non-morse code tested ops." Why do you say
that non-morse code tested licensees are NOT licensed?

I said nothing of the kind. You are trying to make it appear that I did.


I'm superior to some in certain areas.

That seems to be ALL areas. :-)

Thanks for the compliment, but I didn't say it.

I'm inferior to others.

Impossible! The Grate Heil is great at ALL things amateur!

Again, thanks for the compliment.

Tsk, I'm not green at operating a radio. :-)

Tsk, tsk. You need to be more sensitive to the environment. :-)


Who is that?

It might have been Sean Penn. Maybe you can get his autograph.

I am forbidden to operate a radio on
a test bench with a dummy load? :-)

Do what you think will work for you, Len. :-)


I am inside and looking at a computer screen.

Can you see the fellow doing the typing on the outside of the screen?



The FCC "expects me to pass some exams?"

I don't think anyone at the Commission is making book on whether you'll
succeed. :-)


You "don't care?!?" After ALL those words berating
me? Tsk, tsk. You must CARE very deeply when you
go on and on and on and on and on about it...

You write like a fellow lobbying for a valentine. :-)


Hmmm...its about 10:45 PM local here...I don't know of any
24/7 VEC exam places that are open in southern California
now.

Rest easy. You've already put it off for seven years.

I wasn't really planning a third career as an IHOP cook...

If you need the money, you need the money... :-)


You keep saying that... :-)

Really, Len. Quit thinking about my pants. :-)


Yes, that is perfectly clear.

Are you back on the inside of the computer screen? :-)


You have a sneer. Tsk, tsk.

I have an Orion. Poor baby.

Yas, yas, you state the obvious. :-)

....and you still don't get it. :-)

"Addressed?" To whom?

The folks at Gettysburg! :-)

I am "history?" In which book of history am I?

"Famous Horse's Patoot's I Have Known". There's a whole chapter devoted
to you.

Am I on a film or TV documentary?

Apparently you're on the inside of a computer monitor.

Tsk, you keep saying I "make mistakes." Now you want me
gone and say I speak the "truth" about "going?" Which
is it? You contradict yourself.

You said you'd be gone, Len. It might be one of those things like your
"Extra right out of the box" though.


Awwww...that wouldn't have anything to do with my not
heaping gratuitous praise on your mighty diplomatic
mission in Guinea-Bisseau, would it?

You received the crate of cashews?



I'd probably think more of you if you took and
passed an exam for any class amateur radio exam. The "sooner" doesn't
matter.

Now, now, you contradict yourself again. You just said
your couldn't care less if I didn't become a licensed
radio amateur.

I don't believe that I said "couldn't care less", Len. I could care
less. I'd probably think a little better of you if you actually took
and passed a license exam. Don't get all choked up though. I said "a
little more".

Try to keep your sneering arrogant
commentary on-track, OK?

It wasn't sneering, Len. It was offered as my heart-felt thoughts on
the three scenarios you presented--the ones you snipped.

The time you wasted typing your fingers to the bone here in
r.r.a.p. is your time.

Tsk, I've never "typed fingers to the bone." Skin has
always been intact. 22 years and many millions of
characters later, my fingers are still intact.

Pedant? Pants?

I eliminate waste regularly.

Your own?

You've taken longer to get into amateur radio than any individual
I've heard of.

You, of course, have "heard of all." :-)

Over the past 43 years, I *have* heard it all. You take the cake.

[all gods of radio are that way...]

Who are the gods of radio, Len?

My advocacy in here has always been to eliminate the code
test in any amateur radio license test.

Yet, for the past decade your unpleasant and pontificating style has
gotten in the way of that self-appointed advocacy.


Yet, you are
still confused about that.

No, Len, I'm not confuse about what you say are your reasons. You've
told us oodles of times. Based upon your posts to this newsgroup, I
simply don't believe you.

Doesn't that give you some
inclination that something is wrong with YOU?

On the contrary, it gives me confidence that you are unable to realize
just how you have behaved here.




True.

Don't tense up, Len. The question was multiple choice.


Who is capable of pushing me around?

The FCC?

Nope, I'd have to violate one of the regs of my licensing. I don't do
that. Any other guesses?

Am I going to be searching for my teeth?

I don't know. Did you lose them AGAIN?

If you don't know, who would? You issued a threat and then included a
little smiley.

No one needs fabricate faults of yours, Len.

San Andreas kept denying HIS fault and look what happened...

Take heed!


You're no closer to an amateur radio license than you were decades back.

Tsk, you keep saying I was after an amateur radio license.

Naw, Len, you're waaaayyyyy before an amateur radio license.

I kept stating what my advocacy was.

....and we all know that your "advocacy" was much, much more.

You keep on with
your fabrication of "my desires." :-)

You've stated interest. You've stated desire. You've stated, "Extra
right out of the box". Then you've vacillated.

INCORRECT. FAULTY. MISTAKE.

Yes, you've been guilty of numerous factual errors. Don't be too hard
on yourself.

Dave K8MN

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:42:00 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:40:01 -0500, Leo wrote:

On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote:

...nothing but evasive drivel.

Entire post skipped!

evasice drivel is the Hallmark of the Procoders

It's certainly the hallmark of this one - nothing useful to say, but
he says it anyway!

Mindless drivel is, however, the trademark of Mark Morgan.


--
sugn you name to something