wrote:

your hate you enagment in a multiyear effort to hound me of the USENET
and prehaps off the air

lmao.

you're seriously deluded.

I can "hound" you off usenet any time i want. I simply killfile you.

From: John Smith I on Sat, 27 Jan 2007
13:56:45 -0800

---Following was posted about two weeks ago and deserves
highlighting---

================================================== ====================
To Whom It May Concern:

Let us take a little bit better look at this "unwritten policy" here,
see if we can make any logical analysis about it-get the "feel" for
it,
if you will.

First, there are quite a bit of threads which make up the
rec.radio.amateur.??? "family of threads":
rec.radio.amateur.antenna
rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
rec.radio.amateur.dx
rec.radio.amateur.equipment
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
rec.radio.amateur
rec.radio.amateur.misc
rec.radio.amateur.packet

Do you see one which is close to say "rec.radio.amateur.new-
licensees?"
Or, "rec.radio.amateur.license .help?"
"rec.radio.amateur.recruitment?"

No, you will not find a one. Sorry thing ...

So, let us examine the existing threads, do any seem to be active in
new
recruitment/licence help? No, you don't see much of that either.

OK. So, examine them again, see may of these threads engaged in
dialog
about how to recruit and spark interest in potential-new licensees?
No,
not much of that either ...

Hmmm, so what do we see?

We see a bunch of protective, selfish, self-serving individuals out
to
protect their "turf!"

Now, why don't we have more "new-blood" here? What, speak up, I
can't
seem to hear you?

Well, I'll make one exception, Dee, she has expressed some desire,
willing to attempt and willingness towards the above.

What we really have is a bunch of these
"high-mighty-self-centered-jerks" attempting to get their new club
house
built and escape there firmly shutting the door behind them, so as to
BAR any of the above from occurring.
================================================== ============

As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here.

With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of
the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars,"
all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old
habits of putting themselves on their self-built
pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as
They." That's the self-serving selfishness John
speaks of. The best they can do is mouth old, trite
phrases used in the 1930s. The year 2007 is over
seven decades from that. Society and technology
has changed remarkably from that old time.

Most of these "old regulars" love to heap abuse on
me, a person who has been IN "radio" since 1952 but
has "failed" to get an amateur radio license. [my
Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow
cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol]
Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long
before. Doesn't faze me.

I'm still undecided on whether or not to take
advantage of the NO-CODE-TEST regulations coming
up. Of what advantage would it be? For me or
anyone not licensed as an amateur? Our society is
fully engaged in using "radio" in many (and
remarkable) ways, usually without any need for an
amateur license. What "need" is it? Belonging to
an "exclusive community?" Dozens of ways to do
that anywhere in this country. To belong to a
"proud heritage" of pioneers? Sorry, but the vast
majority of actual radio pioneering was done by the
professionals, the entrepreneurs, the academics,
the folks in the electronics industry. Perhaps
to be able to "sign" an amateur station call sign
behind their name? That's a misuse of honors, a
copy-catting of pretend significance, of puffing
out enlarged egos. Passing any amateur radio
test is NOT any sort of academic achievement.

If you can't get into the electronics industry or
academia, then the Masons, Shriners, Elks or Moose
or similar fraternal orders can satisfy "belonging
to a 'proud tradition of fraternalism'" and they
probably have a nice bar in their local hang-out.
If you happen to just LIKE radio-electronics then it
is best NOT ever to mention that; olde-tymers don't
want to hear "fun" expressed unless it is to THEIR
"standards" of having fun.

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. *Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every 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. *Every 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.

*With reference to what source?

Objective sources.

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

Reality does that.

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.

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

Not handy ;-)

*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! * *Specifics 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.

However, that would be counterproductive.

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!"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Which it has.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Not according to the definition of "censorship".

*A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! *

Actually, it would.

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

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.

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

That really bothers him.

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? *And
encourage everyone to join them?

I don't recall - who was that?

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

Or maybe it didn't work.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Look it up.

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

I presumed that Len told the truth.

Is that wrong?

*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.

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

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

Perhaps....

We will see.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here.

With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of
the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars,"
all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old
habits of putting themselves on their self-built
pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as
They."

....except that your pronouncement isn't true. There are precious few
potential radio amateurs appearing here. You have haunted this
newsgroup for over a decade without bothering to take an amateur radio
licensing exam, much less to pass one. You aren't a new amateur radio
op and you aren't likely to become one. Your posting style is full of
insults and rudeness. As you have found, you reap what you sow.

That's the self-serving selfishness John
speaks of.

You aren't a licensed radio amateur. Your posts are certainly
self-serving. I've never heard of self-serving selfishness.

The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s.

....while you use the same, tired Stephen Wright jokes over and over.

The year 2007 is over seven decades from that.

Your boast of getting that "Extra right out of the box" is itself seven
years old. Your first post to this newsgroup took place over ten years
ago.

Society and technology
has changed remarkably from that old time.

No kidding, Len? Do you think that things that represent societal norms
are better now than they were decades ago?

Most of these "old regulars" love to heap abuse on
me, a person who has been IN "radio" since 1952 but
has "failed" to get an amateur radio license.

You failed to mention your behavior here--the behavior which allows you
to heap abuse on others without expecting it in return.

In regard to your failure to achieve an amateur radio license, you
declared an interest in amateur radio spanning decades. You've posted
to an amateur radio interest newsgroup for better than a decade. You've
boasted that you would obtain the highest class U.S. amateur radio
license "right out of the box" in a statement made seven years ago.
Have you acted on obtaining that or any amateur radio license?


[my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow
cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol]
Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long
before. Doesn't faze me.

Your commercial First Phone ticket is not an amateur radio license.
This is not a commercial radio newsgroup. A commercial license is "cast
aside" by the FCC with regard to the obtaining of an amateur radio
license. You would have to meet the same amateur radio licensing
requirements as anyone else before you'd be issued an amateur license.

I'm still undecided on whether or not to take
advantage of the NO-CODE-TEST regulations coming
up. Of what advantage would it be?

I'll try to make this as uncomplicated as I can, Len:
You would be able to operate an amateur radio station in the amateur bands.

For me or anyone not licensed as an amateur?

Your non-sentence aside, the result would be the same for you as for
anyone else.

Our society is
fully engaged in using "radio" in many (and
remarkable) ways, usually without any need for an
amateur license.

As interesting as I find your statement, one who expresses interest in
amateur radio, haunts an amateur radio newsgroup and boast that he is
going to get the top license immediately must have found a reason to
obtain an amateur radio license.

What "need" is it?

Why not tell us what you perceived your need to be?

Belonging to
an "exclusive community?" Dozens of ways to do
that anywhere in this country.

You could live in a gated community with country club privileges. You
could wear Gucci loafers and sip Campari in an ultra-expensive night
spot. You cold live in an area which fights tooth and nail to prevent
zoning changes which would change the neighborhood or you could belong
to that very exclusive group of newsgroup crackpots which plagues groups
in which it does not participate.

To belong to a
"proud heritage" of pioneers? Sorry, but the vast
majority of actual radio pioneering was done by the
professionals, the entrepreneurs, the academics,
the folks in the electronics industry.

Then you might have misdirected your haunting of newsgroups.

Perhaps
to be able to "sign" an amateur station call sign
behind their name? That's a misuse of honors, a
copy-catting of pretend significance, of puffing
out enlarged egos. Passing any amateur radio
test is NOT any sort of academic achievement.

It isn't up to you to worry over someone who uses his amateur radio
callsign, Len. You aren't involved. Your plaintive cries over pretend
significance and enlarged egos are those of an outsider shouting, "but
look at what I've done!"

If you can't get into the electronics industry or
academia, then the Masons, Shriners, Elks or Moose
or similar fraternal orders can satisfy "belonging
to a 'proud tradition of fraternalism'" and they
probably have a nice bar in their local hang-out.

All of those options are open to you, Len. If that is your object, join
one of those organizations. They likely have a nice, warm lodge hall
where you might be accepted as one of the gang. By the way, Shriners
*are* Masons.

If you happen to just LIKE radio-electronics then it
is best NOT ever to mention that; olde-tymers don't
want to hear "fun" expressed unless it is to THEIR
"standards" of having fun.

You are able to have all of the fun you are capable of having by
tinkering with electronics. That isn't amateur radio, but why let that
bother you? Lots of folks who aren't radio amateurs enjoy electronics.
Amateur radio may not be the thing for you.



Is that sig of yours a misuse of honors or a copycatting of pretend
significance?

Dave K8MN

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

wrote:

As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here.

With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of
the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars,"
all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old
habits of putting themselves on their self-built
pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as
They."

...except that your pronouncement isn't true.

Incorrect, faulty, mistaken. Your whole reply is a
REAFFIRMATION of what I wrote. :-)

There are precious few
potential radio amateurs appearing here.

Incorrect, faulty, mistaken...except for "precious."

The standout in here was Val Germann of Missouri,
making "precious" noises about morse code. Germann
has yet to upgrade from Tech.

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

You have haunted this
newsgroup for over a decade without bothering to take an amateur radio
licensing exam, much less to pass one.

A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio. No "license" is needed
to either read or post in a newsgroup.

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

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.

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.

You cannot foretell the future. No human has proven to be
prescient. What you blurt out is nothing but a rude and
insulting remark.

Your posting style is full of insults and rudeness.

Incorrect. I am direct, sometimes terse, and do not
back down from rude, insulting control-freaks who
love not radio but just to shove others around.

As you have found, you reap what you sow.

The only thing I've sown is some grass seed. That came up
nicely. The California Pocket Gophers in this neighbor-
hood attempted to eat it from below. They were gassed.

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.

That's the self-serving selfishness John
speaks of.

You aren't a licensed radio amateur.

Quite true. I am a LICENSED COMMERCIAL (professional)
radio operator. The FCC said I was.

Everyone who does not have an amateur radio license
is not licensed in the amateur radio service. Of
course. Obvious. You are being very redundant.
As well as rotund. Going in circles, nowhere.

Your posts are certainly self-serving.

No. My computer(s) have no AI capability. They won't
serve me anything. All they do is act like computers.

I've never heard of self-serving selfishness.

That was a FIGURE OF SPEECH, Herr Pedant. Everytime I
use a figure of speech, you pedant in your pants.

The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s.

...while you use the same, tired Stephen Wright jokes over and over.

I do not know of this "Stephen Wright." For what it is
worth, I am also a paid joke writer selling only ORIGINAL
material. Would you like to see my AFTRA card?


Your boast of getting that "Extra right out of the box" is itself seven
years old. Your first post to this newsgroup took place over ten years
ago.

Irrelevant. I did not "boast" anything. That is your
FABRICATION.

My first post in any computer-modem venue took place in
the first week of December, 1984. That was 22 years ago
(and a fraction).

In the period of 7 years, one can conceive a child, teach
it all about morse code and English language comprehension
sufficient to score correct written answers on an amateur
radio test, get their picture published by the ARRL, then
enter kindergarten. Have you done this? Has Miccolis
done this?

Have you EVER treated a human being in a friendly manner
without ordering them around? There is "precious" little
evidence of that in here...other than with a few like-
minded morse-inflated ego types.


You failed to mention your behavior here--the behavior which allows you
to heap abuse on others without expecting it in return.

Incorrect, Mistaken, False. You do not understand true
debate and the exchange of opinions. You don't because
you've never attempted to do that. What you EXPECT is
gratuitous "congratulations" and the mistaken notion of
innate "respect" you think is owed you...just because you
once passed the highest-rate morse code exam and some
extra questions.

I am quite used to your type of personality, one of the
self-inflated ego-driven variety. I've been immersed
in social interaction with your kind all of my adult life.
I've survived none the worse for wear...yet you are the
bitter fabricator, the sore loser personified over a
very recent federal agency decision and ruling.

In regard to your failure to achieve an amateur radio license, you
declared an interest in amateur radio spanning decades.

Incorrect, Mistaken, Faulty. YOU fabricated some specialized
"interest" out of my (several) statements expressing an
interest in radio-electronics.

I've explained of how my interest in radio came about
as an adult: A fortuitous assignment to a large HF
communications station while in the US Army. None of
that involved "amateur radio."

You've posted
to an amateur radio interest newsgroup for better than a decade.

I've written and edited in an amateur radio magazine
over a decade before that. I've written letters on
the advocacy of eliminating the morse code test. My
advocacy in this newsgroup has been to eliminate the
code test for an amateur radio license. That was
stated out in the open in here during that whole
decade. I have several friends who have been licensed
radio amateurs for much longer than a decade, much
longer than several decades.

You've
boasted that you would obtain the highest class U.S. amateur radio
license "right out of the box" in a statement made seven years ago.

I have not "BOASTED." That is your fabrication. I
made a statement that I "could" based on the amateur
radio written tests of that time.

If all you have to attempt discrediting me is some
FABRICATIONS, then

Have you acted on obtaining that or any amateur radio license?

I am not an actor and don't play one on TV. I've
only done voice-overs. Would you like to see my
AFTRA card? :-)

[my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow
cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol]
Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long
before. Doesn't faze me.

Your commercial First Phone ticket is not an amateur radio license.

I've never said it was anything but a "First Class
Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License"
to quote the FCC on my first certificate of that, or
the colloquial "First 'Phone."

This is not a commercial radio newsgroup.

Yet all can see the usual subliminal ads for the ARRL in
the Believers' evangelical parroting of their words and
phrases. [St. Hiram be praised]

A commercial license is "cast
aside" by the FCC with regard to the obtaining of an amateur radio
license.

The FCC has NEVER "cast aside" my First 'Phone nor
subsequent GROL. It is still in the FCC URL records
and still current.

The requirements for an amateur radio license are all
explained in Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97.501 and following.
The requirements for commercial radio operator
licenses are given in regulations of Title 47 C.F.R.
Part 13. Do you understand these instructions as they
have been explained to you? If not, the court will
appoint an attorney to assist you.

You would have to meet the same amateur radio licensing
requirements as anyone else before you'd be issued an amateur license.

I've not said anything to the contrary. The LAW is
quite clear enough on the issue of civil US radio.
You seem confused as to the differences of LAW and
your imaginings.

YOU are NOT any law official. You are merely officious.


I'll try to make this as uncomplicated as I can, Len:
You would be able to operate an amateur radio station in the amateur bands.

I am quite able to "operate an amateur radio station."
With or without a license. You failed (once more) to
make your point that it would be ILLEGAL to operate
AS IF one were a licensed radio amateur if no US amateur
radio license had been granted to that operator.

Any radio operator license does NOT automatically
ENABLE anyone to "operate an amateur radio station."
ABILITY of anyone to "operate an amateur radio station"
has nothing at all to do with licensing. The license
is merely an AUTHORIZATION by the US federal government
to operate. Do you understand the definition as it has
been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint
a dictionary to assist you.

As they said in the TV control booth, "Take Black."
In this case "Black's Law Dictionary." :-)


As interesting as I find your statement, one who expresses interest in
amateur radio, haunts an amateur radio newsgroup and boast that he is
going to get the top license immediately must have found a reason to
obtain an amateur radio license.

No "BOAST" was ever made. I do not "HAUNT." I may
PLAY at being a ghost on Halloween...and have. Boooo!

I "express an interest" in ALL radio. So much so
that I made electronics and radio a life career early-
on, despite having an aptitude for (called "talent")
and experience IN commercial illustration ("art" where
the artist draws/paints/inks things as they really are).

Why do YOU attempt constant "haunting" of anyone who
does not agree with your mighty claims and boasts of
"radio operation" to/from faraway lands?

Why not tell us what you perceived your need to be?

Why indeed? Have you understood my previous explanations
as I've explained them to you? If not, the court will
appoint a psychiatrist to assist and analyze you.


You could live in a gated community with country club privileges.

I live (in the southern house) back-yard to back-yard
with a gated community called "Montelena." 44 homes
built on 15 acres of what was undeveloped wilderness.
That community has NO "country club" there.

You
could wear Gucci loafers and sip Campari in an ultra-expensive night
spot.

? Is that one of your "requirements" for amateur radio?

Strange. Strange.

You cold live in an area which fights tooth and nail to prevent
zoning changes which would change the neighborhood or you could belong
to that very exclusive group of newsgroup crackpots which plagues groups
in which it does not participate.

Are you suffering from a plague? See medical assistance as
soon as possible!

Are you suffering from plaque? Seek dental assistance as
soon as possible.

"Fighting tooth and nail?" No nails were used in the attempt
to change a local zoning board ruling, just the democratic
processes of the neighborhood getting together (also meeting
at the local church), petitioning, then speaking before the
zoning commission in public. Neither were "teeth" involved.
See your dentist regularly for better oral hygience. That
will help keep your dentures in place when you snarl and
grimace so much. Especially when you boil over and shout.

That SINGLE LOCAL zoning incident resulted in a change from
residential single-family homes to residential multiple
family (apartments, condos, etc) homes. The gated community
you and Miccolis refer to is the "Montelena" I mentioned
above...which has only single-family homes now. Nothing
whatsoever in that alleged "tooth and nail" debate involved
any "radio" subjects, not even TV cable or satellite down-
link, certainly not amateur radio antenna installations.

Now, if your parroting Miccolis MANUFACTURED moral-ethical
"fault" would stop we might all learn to get along. That was
NOT a "radio" issue of any kind. It had absolutely NOTHING
to do with "radio," either amateur or commercial. Do you
understand those explanations as they have been given you?
If not the court will appoint a two-by-four to lay across
your head at no cost to you.


Then you might have misdirected your haunting of newsgroups.

Tsk. You don't have a ghost of a chance of understanding
anything but "professional amateurism," do you? :-)


It isn't up to you to worry over someone who uses his amateur radio
callsign, Len.

NO "worrying" was done. :-) A high degree of persistence
in advocacy of eliminating the morse code test from
license testing done over a period greater than two
decades was done. That was just a POLITICAL matter that
was finally settled by FCC 06-178 released on 15 Dec 06.
Do you understand those explanations as they've been
explained to you? If not the court will appoint someone
of sound mind to attempt making you understand.

You aren't involved.

Yes, I was quite involved. FCC 06-178 resulted on the
part of thousands who "involved" themselves in making
their lawful comments to the US federal government.
The code test for any class amateur radio license in the
USA will be GONE very soon. Do you understand FCC
Reports and Orders as they've been explained to you?
If not, the court will appoint a federal attorney to
explain the Consitution of the US and basic civics to
you.

Your plaintive cries over pretend
significance and enlarged egos are those of an outsider shouting, "but
look at what I've done!"

I've never worked Frenchmen out of band. I've never had
to "synchronize teleprinters" by means of on-off keying
morse code in the 1980s. I've never served in the State
Department and bragged about BEING "DX."

Your continuing PRETENSE at being a near-equivalent god of
radio through amateurism has been duly noted. By all
readers of this newsgroup.


You are able to have all of the fun you are capable of having by
tinkering with electronics.

"Tinkering?" :-) A working career that included duties
of responsible project engineer is just "tinkering?!?" :-)

That isn't amateur radio, but why let that
bother you?

"Amateur" is a regulatory definition of one who engages
in an activity WITHOUT monetary compensation. That is
ALSO the definition of a HOBBY. HOBBY.

LICENSED amateur radio is what you should have written.
LICENSED, AUTHORIZED by the only civil radio regulatory
agency of the United States government. Have you under-
stood the definitions as they were explained to you?
If not, the court may appoint a bailiff to place you
under arrest until medical science has come up with an
explanation for your serious mental confusion.

Lots of folks who aren't radio amateurs enjoy electronics.

...and you think ALL of them are monetarily compensated if
they do not have federal authorization to transmit RF on
certain bands with certain modulation modes according to
federal regulations? Not so.

See? That is your extreme CONFUSION. You mistakenly
label "radio amateurs" as ONLY the "licensed." Your EGO
has given way to logic and reason...but, then, everyone
has already seen that...



Is that sig of yours a misuse of honors or a copycatting of pretend
significance?

My end-of-message IDENTIFICATION is merely an E-MAIL
FORWARDING ALIAS. See the header "From" line. My
professional association (IEEE, 34 years) provides
that forwarding alias free of charge to all IEEE
Members. That one-way forwarding alias includes some
"spam" filtering as an extra "filter" to remove
unwanted advertising e-mail. Such a forwarding
alias in little different than that used by the ARRL
for amateur radio members, conveying no more
significance than any other forwarding alias.

Do you understand this e-mail forwarding definition as
it has been explained to you? If not, the court will
appoint yet another dead horse for you to beat upon.

[...and the beat goes on...]

LA

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

wrote:

As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here.

With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of
the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars,"
all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old
habits of putting themselves on their self-built
pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as
They."

...except that your pronouncement isn't true.

Incorrect, faulty, mistaken. Your whole reply is a
REAFFIRMATION of what I wrote. :-)

There are precious few
potential radio amateurs appearing here.

Incorrect, faulty, mistaken...except for "precious."

The standout in here was Val Germann of Missouri,
making "precious" noises about morse code. Germann
has yet to upgrade from Tech.

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

You have haunted this
newsgroup for over a decade without bothering to take an amateur radio
licensing exam, much less to pass one.

A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio. No "license" is needed
to either read or post in a newsgroup.

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

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.

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.

You cannot foretell the future. No human has proven to be
prescient. What you blurt out is nothing but a rude and
insulting remark.

Your posting style is full of insults and rudeness.

Incorrect. I am direct, sometimes terse, and do not
back down from rude, insulting control-freaks who
love not radio but just to shove others around.

As you have found, you reap what you sow.

The only thing I've sown is some grass seed. That came up
nicely. The California Pocket Gophers in this neighbor-
hood attempted to eat it from below. They were gassed.

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.

That's the self-serving selfishness John
speaks of.

You aren't a licensed radio amateur.

Quite true. I am a LICENSED COMMERCIAL (professional)
radio operator. The FCC said I was.

Everyone who does not have an amateur radio license
is not licensed in the amateur radio service. Of
course. Obvious. You are being very redundant.
As well as rotund. Going in circles, nowhere.

Your posts are certainly self-serving.

No. My computer(s) have no AI capability. They won't
serve me anything. All they do is act like computers.

I've never heard of self-serving selfishness.

That was a FIGURE OF SPEECH, Herr Pedant. Everytime I
use a figure of speech, you pedant in your pants.

The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s.

...while you use the same, tired Stephen Wright jokes over and over.

I do not know of this "Stephen Wright." For what it is
worth, I am also a paid joke writer selling only ORIGINAL
material. Would you like to see my AFTRA card?


Your boast of getting that "Extra right out of the box" is itself seven
years old. Your first post to this newsgroup took place over ten years
ago.

Irrelevant. I did not "boast" anything. That is your
FABRICATION.

My first post in any computer-modem venue took place in
the first week of December, 1984. That was 22 years ago
(and a fraction).

In the period of 7 years, one can conceive a child, teach
it all about morse code and English language comprehension
sufficient to score correct written answers on an amateur
radio test, get their picture published by the ARRL, then
enter kindergarten. Have you done this? Has Miccolis
done this?

Have you EVER treated a human being in a friendly manner
without ordering them around? There is "precious" little
evidence of that in here...other than with a few like-
minded morse-inflated ego types.


You failed to mention your behavior here--the behavior which allows you
to heap abuse on others without expecting it in return.

Incorrect, Mistaken, False. You do not understand true
debate and the exchange of opinions. You don't because
you've never attempted to do that. What you EXPECT is
gratuitous "congratulations" and the mistaken notion of
innate "respect" you think is owed you...just because you
once passed the highest-rate morse code exam and some
extra questions.

I am quite used to your type of personality, one of the
self-inflated ego-driven variety. I've been immersed
in social interaction with your kind all of my adult life.
I've survived none the worse for wear...yet you are the
bitter fabricator, the sore loser personified over a
very recent federal agency decision and ruling.

In regard to your failure to achieve an amateur radio license, you
declared an interest in amateur radio spanning decades.

Incorrect, Mistaken, Faulty. YOU fabricated some specialized
"interest" out of my (several) statements expressing an
interest in radio-electronics.

I've explained of how my interest in radio came about
as an adult: A fortuitous assignment to a large HF
communications station while in the US Army. None of
that involved "amateur radio."

You've posted
to an amateur radio interest newsgroup for better than a decade.

I've written and edited in an amateur radio magazine
over a decade before that. I've written letters on
the advocacy of eliminating the morse code test. My
advocacy in this newsgroup has been to eliminate the
code test for an amateur radio license. That was
stated out in the open in here during that whole
decade. I have several friends who have been licensed
radio amateurs for much longer than a decade, much
longer than several decades.

You've
boasted that you would obtain the highest class U.S. amateur radio
license "right out of the box" in a statement made seven years ago.

I have not "BOASTED." That is your fabrication. I
made a statement that I "could" based on the amateur
radio written tests of that time.

If all you have to attempt discrediting me is some
FABRICATIONS, then

Have you acted on obtaining that or any amateur radio license?

I am not an actor and don't play one on TV. I've
only done voice-overs. Would you like to see my
AFTRA card? :-)

[my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow
cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol]
Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long
before. Doesn't faze me.

Your commercial First Phone ticket is not an amateur radio license.

I've never said it was anything but a "First Class
Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License"
to quote the FCC on my first certificate of that, or
the colloquial "First 'Phone."

This is not a commercial radio newsgroup.

Yet all can see the usual subliminal ads for the ARRL in
the Believers' evangelical parroting of their words and
phrases. [St. Hiram be praised]

A commercial license is "cast
aside" by the FCC with regard to the obtaining of an amateur radio
license.

The FCC has NEVER "cast aside" my First 'Phone nor
subsequent GROL. It is still in the FCC URL records
and still current.

The requirements for an amateur radio license are all
explained in Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97.501 and following.
The requirements for commercial radio operator
licenses are given in regulations of Title 47 C.F.R.
Part 13. Do you understand these instructions as they
have been explained to you? If not, the court will
appoint an attorney to assist you.

You would have to meet the same amateur radio licensing
requirements as anyone else before you'd be issued an amateur license.

I've not said anything to the contrary. The LAW is
quite clear enough on the issue of civil US radio.
You seem confused as to the differences of LAW and
your imaginings.

YOU are NOT any law official. You are merely officious.


I'll try to make this as uncomplicated as I can, Len:
You would be able to operate an amateur radio station in the amateur bands.

I am quite able to "operate an amateur radio station."
With or without a license. You failed (once more) to
make your point that it would be ILLEGAL to operate
AS IF one were a licensed radio amateur if no US amateur
radio license had been granted to that operator.

Any radio operator license does NOT automatically
ENABLE anyone to "operate an amateur radio station."
ABILITY of anyone to "operate an amateur radio station"
has nothing at all to do with licensing. The license
is merely an AUTHORIZATION by the US federal government
to operate. Do you understand the definition as it has
been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint
a dictionary to assist you.

As they said in the TV control booth, "Take Black."
In this case "Black's Law Dictionary." :-)


As interesting as I find your statement, one who expresses interest in
amateur radio, haunts an amateur radio newsgroup and boast that he is
going to get the top license immediately must have found a reason to
obtain an amateur radio license.

No "BOAST" was ever made. I do not "HAUNT." I may
PLAY at being a ghost on Halloween...and have. Boooo!

I "express an interest" in ALL radio. So much so
that I made electronics and radio a life career early-
on, despite having an aptitude for (called "talent")
and experience IN commercial illustration ("art" where
the artist draws/paints/inks things as they really are).

Why do YOU attempt constant "haunting" of anyone who
does not agree with your mighty claims and boasts of
"radio operation" to/from faraway lands?

Why not tell us what you perceived your need to be?

Why indeed? Have you understood my previous explanations
as I've explained them to you? If not, the court will
appoint a psychiatrist to assist you.


You could live in a gated community with country club privileges.

I live (in the southern house) back-yard to back-yard
with a gated community called "Montelena." 44 homes
built on 15 acres of what was undeveloped wilderness.
That community has NO "country club" there.

You
could wear Gucci loafers and sip Campari in an ultra-expensive night
spot.

? Is that one of your "requirements" for amateur radio?

Strange. Strange.

You cold live in an area which fights tooth and nail to prevent
zoning changes which would change the neighborhood or you could belong
to that very exclusive group of newsgroup crackpots which plagues groups
in which it does not participate.

Are you suffering from a plague? See medical assistance as
soon as possible!

Are you suffering from plaque? Seek dental assistance as
soon as possible.

"Fighting tooth and nail?" No nails were used in the attempt
to change a local zoning board ruling, just the democratic
processes of the neighborhood getting together (also meeting
at the local church), petitioning, then speaking before the
zoning commission in public. Neither were "teeth" involved.
See your dentist regularly for better oral hygience. That
will help keep your dentures in place when you snarl and
grimace so much. Especially when you boil over and shout.

That SINGLE LOCAL zoning incident resulted in a change from
residential single-family homes to residential multiple
family (apartments, condos, etc) homes. The gated community
you and Miccolis refer to is the "Montelena" I mentioned
above...which has only single-family homes now. Nothing
whatsoever in that alleged "tooth and nail" debate involved
any "radio" subjects, not even TV cable or satellite down-
link, certainly not amateur radio antenna installations.

Now, if your parroting Miccolis MANUFACTURED moral-ethical
"fault" would stop we might all learn to get along. That was
NOT a "radio" issue of any kind. It had absolutely NOTHING
to do with "radio," either amateur or commercial. Do you
understand those explanations as they have been given you?
If not the court will appoint a two-by-four to lay across
your head at no cost to you.


Then you might have misdirected your haunting of newsgroups.

Tsk. You don't have a ghost of a chance of understanding
anything but "professional amateurism," do you? :-)


It isn't up to you to worry over someone who uses his amateur radio
callsign, Len.

NO "worrying" was done. :-) A high degree of persistence
in advocacy of eliminating the morse code test from
license testing done over a period greater than two
decades was done. That was just a POLITICAL matter that
was finally settled by FCC 06-178 released on 15 Dec 06.
Do you understand those explanations as they've been
explained to you? If not the court will appoint someone
of sound mind to attempt making you understand.

You aren't involved.

Yes, I was quite involved. FCC 06-178 resulted on the
part of thousands who "involved" themselves in making
their lawful comments to the US federal government.
The code test for any class amateur radio license in the
USA will be GONE very soon. Do you understand FCC
Reports and Orders as they've been explained to you?
If not, the court will appoint a federal attorney to
explain the Consitution of the US and basic civics to
you.

Your plaintive cries over pretend
significance and enlarged egos are those of an outsider shouting, "but
look at what I've done!"

I've never worked Frenchmen out of band. I've never had
to "synchronize teleprinters" by means of on-off keying
morse code in the 1980s. I've never served in the State
Department and bragged about BEING "DX."

Your continuing PRETENSE at being a near-equivalent god of
radio through amateurism has been duly noted. By all
readers of this newsgroup.


You are able to have all of the fun you are capable of having by
tinkering with electronics.

"Tinkering?" :-) A working career that included duties
of responsible project engineer is just "tinkering?!?" :-)

That isn't amateur radio, but why let that
bother you?

"Amateur" is a regulatory definition of one who engages
in an activity WITHOUT monetary compensation. That is
ALSO the definition of a HOBBY. HOBBY.

LICENSED amateur radio is what you should have written.
LICENSED, AUTHORIZED by the only civil radio regulatory
agency of the United States government. Have you under-
stood the definitions as they were explained to you?
If not, the court may appoint a bailiff to place you
under arrest until medical science has come up with an
explanation for your serious mental confusion.

Lots of folks who aren't radio amateurs enjoy electronics.

...and you think ALL of them are monetarily compensated if
they do not have federal authorization to transmit RF on
certain bands with certain modulation modes according to
federal regulations? Not so.

See? That is your extreme CONFUSION. You mistakenly
label "radio amateurs" as ONLY the "licensed." Your EGO
has given way to logic and reason...but, then, everyone
has already seen that...



Is that sig of yours a misuse of honors or a copycatting of pretend
significance?

My end-of-message IDENTIFICATION is merely an E-MAIL
FORWARDING ALIAS. See the header "From" line. My
professional association (IEEE, 34 years) provides
that forwarding alias free of charge to all IEEE
Members. That one-way forwarding alias includes some
"spam" filtering as an extra "filter" to remove
unwanted advertising e-mail. Such a forwarding
alias in little different than that used by the ARRL
for amateur radio members, conveying no more
significance than any other forwarding alias.

Do you understand this e-mail forwarding definition as
it has been explained to you? If not, the court will
appoint yet another dead horse for you to beat upon.

[...and the beat goes on...]

LA

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

wrote:

As of 5 Feb 07 the above is unfortunately true in here.
With a couple of exceptions (Dee and Hans Brakob of
the past), and some mentions by a few "non-regulars,"
all the "regulars" have degenerated into their old
habits of putting themselves on their self-built
pedestals and sneering at others "not as good as
They."
...except that your pronouncement isn't true.

Incorrect, faulty, mistaken. Your whole reply is a
REAFFIRMATION of what I wrote. :-)

My statement is correct. N2EY has never been other than civilized with
you. His demeanor is in direct contrast with yours, especially when you
reply to him.

There are precious few
potential radio amateurs appearing here.

Incorrect, faulty, mistaken...except for "precious."

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

The standout in here was Val Germann of Missouri,
making "precious" noises about morse code. Germann
has yet to upgrade from Tech.

You should be happy for him.

"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.

You have haunted this
newsgroup for over a decade without bothering to take an amateur radio
licensing exam, much less to pass one.

A newsgroup is NOT amateur radio.

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

No "license" is needed
to either read or post in a newsgroup.

Lucky for you.

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

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.

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.

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.

What you blurt out is nothing but a rude and
insulting remark.

Pity we don't know what remark that is. You seemed to have snipped it.

Your posting style is full of insults and rudeness.

Incorrect.

My statement is absolutely correct.

I am direct, sometimes terse, and do not
back down from rude, insulting control-freaks who
love not radio but just to shove others around.

You're the biggest control freak of all, Len. You want to control
regulations in something in which you play no part. Your rudeness under
a variety of posting names is archived.

As you have found, you reap what you sow.

The only thing I've sown is some grass seed.

It isn't true, but have it your way. You're grass seed.


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.

That's the self-serving selfishness John
speaks of.
You aren't a licensed radio amateur.

Quite true. I am a LICENSED COMMERCIAL (professional)
radio operator. The FCC said I was.

So what?

Everyone who does not have an amateur radio license
is not licensed in the amateur radio service.

Exactly. How many of them haunt an amateur radio newsgroup for ten years?

Of
course. Obvious. You are being very redundant.
As well as rotund. Going in circles, nowhere.

You're still at the starting line, Len. I predict that is where you'll
stay.

Dave K8MN

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

wrote:

Your posts are certainly self-serving.

No. My computer(s) have no AI capability. They won't
serve me anything. All they do is act like computers.

Then you must have been addressing AI when you made your ludicrous comment.

I've never heard of self-serving selfishness.

That was a FIGURE OF SPEECH, Herr Pedant.


It was a poorly constructed one, Foghorn.

Everytime I
use a figure of speech, you pedant in your pants.

"Every time", PROFESSIONAL writer. Perhaps you'll learn to construct
better figures of speech. Try to quit thinking about my pants.


The best they can do is mouth old, trite phrases used in the 1930s.
...while you use the same, tired Stephen Wright jokes over and over.

I do not know of this "Stephen Wright." For what it is
worth, I am also a paid joke writer selling only ORIGINAL
material.

From what I've seen of your attempts as humor, I don't imagine you sell
much. It has been demonstrated that what you *use* isn't necessarily
original.

Would you like to see my AFTRA card?

I have as much interest in seeing your AFTRA card as I have in seeing
your DD-214.


Your boast of getting that "Extra right out of the box" is itself seven
years old. Your first post to this newsgroup took place over ten years
ago.

Irrelevant.

It is completely relevant, Len. You posted it right here.


I did not "boast" anything.

You must have some sort of Gary Hart complex. You know your wrote it.
You know it is archived and still you deny it.

That is your
FABRICATION.

You can type all of the capital letters you like. You boasted. Now you
may eat your own words.

In the period of 7 years, one can conceive a child, teach
it all about morse code and English language comprehension
sufficient to score correct written answers on an amateur
radio test, get their picture published by the ARRL, then
enter kindergarten. Have you done this?

Why no, Leonard. Then again, I made no boast about doing so.

Has Miccolis
done this?

Why are you asking me?

Why all of the misdirection, the tap dancing, the smoke and mirrors?
None of that has anything to do with your boast of getting the "Extra
right out of the box" seven years ago.

Have you EVER treated a human being in a friendly manner
without ordering them around?

Quite often, Len, but I've never ordered you around.

There is "precious" little
evidence of that in here...other than with a few like-
minded morse-inflated ego types.

You've set up some exceptions and made certain that you insulted the
exceptions.


You failed to mention your behavior here--the behavior which allows you
to heap abuse on others without expecting it in return.

Incorrect, Mistaken, False.

Hang on, Len....I'm looking around in your initial post. Nope, I've
looked high and low for it. You failed to mention your behavior.


You do not understand true
debate and the exchange of opinions.

I think you're the individual who doesn't understand it. True debate
does not involve names like "Sister Nun of the Above", "you little USMC
Feldwebel", "little man", "Herr Oberst" and the the like.

You don't because
you've never attempted to do that.

You've never attempted that, Len. You've been an overbearing and
insulting churl.

What you EXPECT is
gratuitous "congratulations"...

I don't expect any contratulations, Len. I expect civilized behavior
from an elderly gentleman. I've thusfar been disappointed in your behavior.

...and the mistaken notion of
innate "respect" you think is owed you...

I expect civilized behavior from an elderly gentleman, not insults being
hurled as he swings from a chandelier. You may need a time out.

...just because you
once passed the highest-rate morse code exam and some
extra questions.

I feel entitled to civilized behavior from you. You're a big let down, Len.

I am quite used to your type of personality, one of the
self-inflated ego-driven variety.

You discount your own self-importance and attempt to tranfer that
behavior to those who know more about something than you. In this case,
that something is amateur radio. You're a Leonard-come-lately.

I've been immersed
in social interaction with your kind all of my adult life.

I'll bet you sincerely believe that statement. Your inferiority complex
drives it.

I've survived none the worse for wear...

There are folks who might be inclined to disagree with you.

...yet you are the
bitter fabricator, the sore loser personified over a
very recent federal agency decision and ruling.

I'm confused by your writing, Len. Am I the sore loser personified or
am I personified over a very recent decision? I'm not a fabricator.
Maybe you could issue a correct version with the sentence structure
cleaned up a bit.

In regard to your failure to achieve an amateur radio license, you
declared an interest in amateur radio spanning decades.

Incorrect, Mistaken, Faulty. YOU fabricated some specialized
"interest" out of my (several) statements expressing an
interest in radio-electronics.

No, Len. No fabrication was done. You've made statements that your
interest in *amateur radio* spans several decades. Your statements were
not about an interest in radio-electronics.


I've explained of how my interest in radio came about
as an adult: A fortuitous assignment to a large HF
communications station while in the US Army. None of
that involved "amateur radio."

Your life still doesn't involve amateur radio.

You've posted
to an amateur radio interest newsgroup for better than a decade.

I've written and edited in an amateur radio magazine
over a decade before that.

You wrote an amateur radio magazine? That's news to me. Did the folks
at "Ham Radio" know about that?

I've written letters on
the advocacy of eliminating the morse code test.

Letters on the advocacy, huh?

My
advocacy in this newsgroup has been to eliminate the
code test for an amateur radio license. That was
stated out in the open in here during that whole
decade.

Yes, it was. Then you went on to demonstrate through your behavior,
that your self-appointed advocacy was about much, much more. It was
about minimum age requirements for an amateur radio license and it was
about insulting the ARRL and insulting radio amateurs who have never
posted to this newsgroup as well as those posters who disagreed with
your stance on a number of issues.

I have several friends who have been licensed
radio amateurs for much longer than a decade, much
longer than several decades.

Does that qualify you for something?

You've
boasted that you would obtain the highest class U.S. amateur radio
license "right out of the box" in a statement made seven years ago.

I have not "BOASTED."

You most certainly have boasted (or BOASTED).

That is your fabrication.

It is not a fabrication at all. You've recently seen the entire message
re-posted here. Want to see it again?

I
made a statement that I "could" based on the amateur
radio written tests of that time.

No, Leonard, that is a fabrication. Want to see your exact words again?


If all you have to attempt discrediting me is some
FABRICATIONS, then

Then what?

Have you acted on obtaining that or any amateur radio license?

I am not an actor and don't play one on TV. I've
only done voice-overs.

I can only imagine.

Would you like to see my
AFTRA card? :-)

No, thanks. I'm not interested in seeing your DD-214 or your pdf file
of your military experiences.

[my Commercial First 'Phone granted in 1956 is somehow
cast aside in their personal vendettas and vitriol]
Hey, no sweat, I've heard all of that acidity long
before. Doesn't faze me.

Your commercial First Phone ticket is not an amateur radio license.

I've never said it was anything but a "First Class
Radiotelephone (Commercial) Radio Operator License"
to quote the FCC on my first certificate of that, or
the colloquial "First 'Phone."

Then why, pray tell, do you keep bringing it up in an amateur radio
newsgroup? What has it to do with amateur radio?

This is not a commercial radio newsgroup.

Yet all can see the usual subliminal ads for the ARRL in
the Believers' evangelical parroting of their words and
phrases. [St. Hiram be praised]

Thanks ever so much for including the type material which reinforces
what I've written about you.

A commercial license is "cast
aside" by the FCC with regard to the obtaining of an amateur radio
license.

The FCC has NEVER "cast aside" my First 'Phone nor
subsequent GROL. It is still in the FCC URL records
and still current.

The Commission won't want to see it, your AFTRA card or your laminated
tiny copy of your DD-214 if you take an amateur radio license exam.
None of 'em count for squat.

The requirements for an amateur radio license are all
explained in Title 47 C.F.R. Part 97.501 and following.
The requirements for commercial radio operator
licenses are given in regulations of Title 47 C.F.R.
Part 13.

I'm not the individual who has problems telling the difference between
an amateur radio license and a commercial radio license. You continue
to bring up your First Phone as if it had some bearing on obtaining an
amateur radio license. It doesn't.


Do you understand these instructions as they
have been explained to you? If not, the court will
appoint an attorney to assist you.

You haven't given any instructions.

Dave K8MN

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

wrote:

You would have to meet the same amateur radio licensing
requirements as anyone else before you'd be issued an amateur license.

I've not said anything to the contrary.

Then why do you continue to trot out gibberish about your commercial
license? Of what relevance is it?

The LAW is
quite clear enough on the issue of civil US radio.
You seem confused as to the differences of LAW and
your imaginings.

On the contrary, I'm not the individual who continues to mention his
commercial radio license. You are that guy.

YOU are NOT any law official. You are merely officious.

Did you order your amateur radio operator badge yet?


[The comment below was my response to Len's asking why he needs an
amateur radio license]

I'll try to make this as uncomplicated as I can, Len:
You would be able to operate an amateur radio station in the amateur bands.

I am quite able to "operate an amateur radio station."
With or without a license. You failed (once more) to
make your point that it would be ILLEGAL to operate
AS IF one were a licensed radio amateur if no US amateur
radio license had been granted to that operator.

You might have been the only person who didn't understand what I wrote,
Len. Good luck in finding a control op who'll allow you to play radio
amateur.


Any radio operator license does NOT automatically
ENABLE anyone to "operate an amateur radio station."
ABILITY of anyone to "operate an amateur radio station"
has nothing at all to do with licensing. The license
is merely an AUTHORIZATION by the US federal government
to operate.

Fine, Leonard. You aren't authorized. Happy?

Do you understand the definition as it has
been explained to you? If not, the court will appoint
a dictionary to assist you.

Are you a court, Len? A librarian?

As interesting as I find your statement, one who expresses interest in
amateur radio, haunts an amateur radio newsgroup and boast that he is
going to get the top license immediately must have found a reason to
obtain an amateur radio license.

No "BOAST" was ever made.

Sure it was, Len--by you. Want to see it again? I'll be happy to post
the entire message so you won't be able to claim that it was taken out
of context or that it was simply a comment or that it was a throwaway line.

I do not "HAUNT."

You might want to check things out then. There's been some guy
impersonating you here on r.r.a.p.

I may
PLAY at being a ghost on Halloween...and have. Boooo!

You like to play at being one of the gang here. See-kyoooooo.


I "express an interest" in ALL radio.


Great. This isn't an all radio newsgroup.

So much so
that I made electronics and radio a life career early-
on, despite having an aptitude for (called "talent")
and experience IN commercial illustration ("art" where
the artist draws/paints/inks things as they really are).

This isn't a commercial how-much-do-I-get-paid radio newsgroup nor is it
a commercial art newsgroup. Why the misdirection, tap dancing and smoke
and mirrors?


Why do YOU attempt constant "haunting" of anyone who
does not agree with your mighty claims and boasts of
"radio operation" to/from faraway lands?

If I've boasted of anything, Len, I've done it.

Why not tell us what you perceived your need to be?

Why indeed?

If you've not identified a need, you'll likely never obtain an amateur
radio license. You've wasted ten years here and I'm getting closer to
being prescient.

Have you understood my previous explanations
as I've explained them to you? If not, the court will
appoint a psychiatrist to assist you.

Are you a court, Len?

Belonging to
an "exclusive community?" Dozens of ways to do
that anywhere in this country.

You could live in a gated community with country club privileges.

I live (in the southern house) back-yard to back-yard
with a gated community called "Montelena." 44 homes
built on 15 acres of what was undeveloped wilderness.
That community has NO "country club" there.

It doesn't matter. You aren't "in" there and you aren't "in" amateur
radio. Living next to a gated community doesn't meet your dozens of
ways to belong to an exclusive community.

You
could wear Gucci loafers and sip Campari in an ultra-expensive night
spot.

? Is that one of your "requirements" for amateur radio?

Is that what you meant when your wrote of the dozens of ways to belong
to an exclusive community?

Strange. Strange.

You most certainly are.

You cold live in an area which fights tooth and nail to prevent
zoning changes which would change the neighborhood or you could belong
to that very exclusive group of newsgroup crackpots which plagues groups
in which it does not participate.

Are you suffering from a plague? See medical assistance as
soon as possible!

You aren't funny, Len.

Are you suffering from plaque? Seek dental assistance as
soon as possible.

You aren't funny, Len.

"Fighting tooth and nail?" No nails were used in the attempt
to change a local zoning board ruling, just the democratic
processes of the neighborhood getting together (also meeting
at the local church), petitioning, then speaking before the
zoning commission in public. Neither were "teeth" involved.
See your dentist regularly for better oral hygience. That
will help keep your dentures in place when you snarl and
grimace so much. Especially when you boil over and shout.

Sure, the democratic process of making sure that your exclusive little
community remained exclusive.

That SINGLE LOCAL zoning incident resulted in a change from
residential single-family homes to residential multiple
family (apartments, condos, etc) homes. The gated community
you and Miccolis refer to is the "Montelena" I mentioned
above...which has only single-family homes now. Nothing
whatsoever in that alleged "tooth and nail" debate involved
any "radio" subjects, not even TV cable or satellite down-
link, certainly not amateur radio antenna installations.

Your dozens of ways to belong to an exclusive community didn't mention
radio or amateur radio. You simply snipped your own comment and began
drifting. I put your statement back so others could note your attempt.

Now, if your parroting Miccolis MANUFACTURED moral-ethical
"fault" would stop we might all learn to get along.

Jim provided a perfectly valid analogy. You didn't like it a single
bit. You'd have betters odds of getting along if you changed your
behavior and acted like an adult.

That was
NOT a "radio" issue of any kind. It had absolutely NOTHING
to do with "radio," either amateur or commercial.

No, it didn't. It didn't have to have anything to do with radio to be a
valid analogy. Did I mention that you didn't like it one little bit?

Do you
understand those explanations as they have been given you?
If not the court will appoint a two-by-four to lay across
your head at no cost to you.

Are you a court, Len? Are you going to try to lay a 2 x 4 across my head?


Then you might have misdirected your haunting of newsgroups.

Tsk. You don't have a ghost of a chance of understanding
anything but "professional amateurism," do you? :-)

There isn't any "professional amateurism", Len. :-) :-)

Perhaps
to be able to "sign" an amateur station call sign
behind their name? That's a misuse of honors, a
copy-catting of pretend significance, of puffing
out enlarged egos. Passing any amateur radio
test is NOT any sort of academic achievement.

It isn't up to you to worry over someone who uses his amateur radio
callsign, Len.

NO "worrying" was done. :-) A high degree of persistence
in advocacy of eliminating the morse code test from
license testing done over a period greater than two
decades was done.

You're drifting again, Leonard. What has that to do with your comments
about how radio amateurs use their callsigns?

That was just a POLITICAL matter that
was finally settled by FCC 06-178 released on 15 Dec 06.

What has that to do with how radio amateurs choose to use their
callsigns, Len?

Do you understand those explanations as they've been
explained to you?

I'm still trying to figure out how they relate to amateur radio ops
using their callsigns.

If not the court will appoint someone
of sound mind to attempt making you understand.

Are you a court, Len? Are you of sound mind?

You aren't involved.

Yes, I was quite involved. FCC 06-178 resulted on the
part of thousands who "involved" themselves in making
their lawful comments to the US federal government.
The code test for any class amateur radio license in the
USA will be GONE very soon. Do you understand FCC
Reports and Orders as they've been explained to you?
If not, the court will appoint a federal attorney to
explain the Consitution of the US and basic civics to
you.

What has that to do with how radio amateurs use their callsigns. How
are you involved in that?

Your plaintive cries over pretend
significance and enlarged egos are those of an outsider shouting, "but
look at what I've done!"

I've never worked Frenchmen out of band.

You've never been a radio amateur. It isn't unusual to someone to run
into a foreign or domestic scofflaw.

I've never had
to "synchronize teleprinters" by means of on-off keying
morse code in the 1980s.

You still don't have it right, Leonard. Maybe Google can help.

I've never served in the State
Department...

Precisely. That never stopped you from telling me what my job was or
how I should have done it.

...and bragged about BEING "DX."

I never bragged about being DX either, Len. I was DX during six
different foreign postings. I didn't boast that I was going to be DX
and then not follow through. See the difference?

Your continuing PRETENSE at being a near-equivalent god of
radio through amateurism has been duly noted. By all
readers of this newsgroup.

You don't speak for all readers of this newsgroup. I've never pretended
to be a god of radio or even a near-equivalent of a god of radio.
In fact, I've corrected you a number of times. You've been confused a
number of times, first saying that I was a god of radio then stating
that I'm not a god of radio. Now we have you issuing a statement that I
have a pretense of being a near-equivalent through amateurism.

You've never been able to make up your mind.


You are able to have all of the fun you are capable of having by
tinkering with electronics.

"Tinkering?" :-)

Sure, Len. You're a radio hobbyist. You said so.

A working career that included duties
of responsible project engineer is just "tinkering?!?" :-)

You told us that you're a radio hobbyist. That doesn't involve a
working career.

That isn't amateur radio, but why let that
bother you?

"Amateur" is a regulatory definition of one who engages
in an activity WITHOUT monetary compensation.

If the word "radio" doesn't appear, how is it a regulatory definition?

That is
ALSO the definition of a HOBBY. HOBBY.

What does the FCC say amateur radio is, Len? I've asked you three
times, but you don't seem to know how to respond.

LICENSED amateur radio is what you should have written.

Amateur radio is amateur radio, Len. There is no need to add the word
"licensed". There is no other kind of amateur radio.

LICENSED, AUTHORIZED by the only civil radio regulatory
agency of the United States government.

I understand what an amateur radio license is, Len. You don't have one.

Have you under-
stood the definitions as they were explained to you?
If not, the court may appoint a bailiff to place you
under arrest until medical science has come up with an
explanation for your serious mental confusion.

Are you a court, Len? Are you going to arrest me?

Lots of folks who aren't radio amateurs enjoy electronics.

...and you think ALL of them are monetarily compensated if
they do not have federal authorization to transmit RF on
certain bands with certain modulation modes according to
federal regulations? Not so.

Why no, Len, I don't think that. They aren't called radio amateurs.
An interest in electronics doesn't make one an amateur radio op.

See? That is your extreme CONFUSION. You mistakenly
label "radio amateurs" as ONLY the "licensed."

No, Len, I didn't write that. The confusion seems to be in the Anderson
home comm center--where the same message was transmitted twice.

Your EGO
has given way to logic and reason...but, then, everyone
has already seen that...

You aren't wrapped too tightly, Len.


Is that sig of yours a misuse of honors or a copycatting of pretend
significance?

My end-of-message IDENTIFICATION is merely an E-MAIL
FORWARDING ALIAS. See the header "From" line. My
professional association (IEEE, 34 years) provides
that forwarding alias free of charge to all IEEE
Members. That one-way forwarding alias includes some
"spam" filtering as an extra "filter" to remove
unwanted advertising e-mail. Such a forwarding
alias in little different than that used by the ARRL
for amateur radio members, conveying no more
significance than any other forwarding alias.

But, according to your logic, the use of such a callsign by a radio
amateur for purposes other than to identify an amateur radio station
would be "a misuse of honors or a copycatting of pretend significance."

Do you understand this e-mail forwarding definition as
it has been explained to you?

No, I don't, Leonard.

If not, the court will
appoint yet another dead horse for you to beat upon.

Don't trouble yourself, Judge Anderson, you'll do just fine.

Dave K8MN

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.


ith reference to what source?

Objective sources.

Unsubstantiated.


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

Reality does that.

Unsubstantiated.


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.


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

Not handy ;-)

I thought not! Unsubstantiated.


t 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.


However, that would be counterproductive.

It would be counterproductive to prove your point? Not much of a
point, then.


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.


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.


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!


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


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.

??


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? I thought
not.


Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Which it has.

Not.


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.

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


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!


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? I
thought not (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!


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? LOL!



moderated group
would not suit your purpose either!

Actually, it would.

Apparently not - you need RRAP!


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

Those are reflectors, not groups. Please learn how the Internet
works.


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!


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

Some of? LOL!


That really bothers him.

Does it? ROTFLMAO!


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!


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.


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?


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

I presumed that Len told the truth.

Why? You start off most of your posts to Len with the words "You're
wrong....". Why would you presume that he is stating fact this time?
Are you stupid?


Is that wrong?

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


hat'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.


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

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


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. 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.

Which, of course, will not happen. That job belongs to you - should
you be up to the task, step up and get it done!

You have facts? Let's see 'em.


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo