On Feb 2, 10:16?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
What does amateur radio not offer now that it once did?

One example: First on the scene with emergency
mobile communications.

In the 1950's, I was the fifth person to arrive
upon the scene of a severe auto accident and the
first one with mobile communications with which
to call for help.

Nowadays, the first four people would have cell
phones. Even if I were the first on the scene,
I would use my cell phone, not my mobile ham rig.

I've been in that situation too, Cecil, and a lot more recently than
the 1950s.

And yes, if it were to happen today, my first reaction would be 911 on
the cell phone. Only if that didn't work would I consider ham radio.

But consider this:

How many hams got their license so they could be the first on the
scene with mobile emergency communications, compared with those who
got their license because they thought "radio for its own sake" is
fun?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
How many hams got their license so they could be the first on the
scene with mobile emergency communications, compared with those who
got their license because they thought "radio for its own sake" is
fun?

As a member of Intel's iEARS, the majority of people
within Intel that I recruited to be new hams were
primarily interested in emergency communications.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Feb 3, 8:36?am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
How many hams got their license so they could be the first on the
scene with mobile emergency communications, compared with those who
got their license because they thought "radio for its own sake" is
fun?

As a member of Intel's iEARS, the majority of people
within Intel that I recruited to be new hams were
primarily interested in emergency communications.
--
But were they primarily interested in being first on the scene with
mobile emergency communications, for things like auto accidents?

Or were they primarily interested in emergency communications between
fixed points, in situations where the normal communications
infrastucture was unavailable?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
But were they primarily interested in being first on the scene with
mobile emergency communications, for things like auto accidents?

Or were they primarily interested in emergency communications between
fixed points, in situations where the normal communications
infrastucture was unavailable?

The latter. The point is that Intel probably doesn't
rely on hams for emergency communications anymore.
I would guess they use commercial satellites now.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Feb 2, 8:09?pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:16?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:
What does amateur radio not offer now that it once did?

One example: First on the scene with emergency
mobile communications.

In the 1950's, I was the fifth person to arrive
upon the scene of a severe auto accident and the
first one with mobile communications with which
to call for help.

Nowadays, the first four people would have cell
phones. Even if I were the first on the scene,
I would use my cell phone, not my mobile ham rig.

I've been in that situation too, Cecil, and a lot more recently than
the 1950s.

Oh? Was that when you served the country in your
"other ways?"

Or was that when you shot bears for naval intellgence?
No, that couldn't be you...was another who also served
his country in "other ways."

Or maybe you were the military hero "in a country at
war?" No, that was your buddie wearing the little red
hat of a morse monkey, a former REMF who implies
all those things without being specific.

You couldn't have been a "resident of Hawaii" scarfing
up "club" calls for non-existant "radio clubs." No, that's
another poster entirely, the captain of the "Hornblower"
and the "Effluvia" motorboat (on that "three-hour tour").

And yes, if it were to happen today, my first reaction would be 911 on
the cell phone. Only if that didn't work would I consider ham radio.

But consider this:

How many hams got their license so they could be the first on the
scene with mobile emergency communications, compared with those who
got their license because they thought "radio for its own sake" is
fun?

So, how many DID get their hobby radio license "just for
being an 'emergency communicator?'"

Aren't you the one with their pulse on the numbers and
KNOWING what everyone's "intent and purpose" is?

Of course you are! C'mon out with the "real reasons."

Gotta love all those code-tested knowitalls. :-)

beep beep,
LA

wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:09?pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:16?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:
What does amateur radio not offer now that it once did?
One example: First on the scene with emergency
mobile communications.
In the 1950's, I was the fifth person to arrive
upon the scene of a severe auto accident and the
first one with mobile communications with which
to call for help.
Nowadays, the first four people would have cell
phones. Even if I were the first on the scene,
I would use my cell phone, not my mobile ham rig.
I've been in that situation too, Cecil, and a lot more recently than
the 1950s.

Oh? Was that when you served the country in your
"other ways?"

[This space reserved for "Leo's" comments about Len was unjustly set upon]

Or was that when you shot bears for naval intellgence?
No, that couldn't be you...was another who also served
his country in "other ways."

[This space reserved for the profile of Leonard Anderson actions]

Or maybe you were the military hero "in a country at
war?" No, that was your buddie wearing the little red
hat of a morse monkey, a former REMF who implies
all those things without being specific.

[This space reserved for the Len Anderson assertion that he would never
denigrate a fellow military veteran, despite his frequent denigration of
several military veterans right here in this newsgroup]

I've never been very specific with you about my Vietnam service because
I've seen the kind of things you have done to others. I've done no
boasting about my service in Southeast Asia and have not gotten into
specifics. I've never claimed any heroics nor have I described any
artillery barrages.

You are the individual who made the now famous sphincter post about what
it was like to undergo an artillery barrage, except that you were never
in an artillery barrage. That ties in nicely with your posts over a ten
year period here. You rant about getting into amateur radio but you've
never gotten into amateur radio or even tried to do so.

You couldn't have been a "resident of Hawaii" scarfing
up "club" calls for non-existant "radio clubs." No, that's
another poster entirely, the captain of the "Hornblower"
and the "Effluvia" motorboat (on that "three-hour tour").

Did someone get a callsign that you'd placed dibs on, Len?

And yes, if it were to happen today, my first reaction would be 911 on
the cell phone. Only if that didn't work would I consider ham radio.

But consider this:

How many hams got their license so they could be the first on the
scene with mobile emergency communications, compared with those who
got their license because they thought "radio for its own sake" is
fun?

So, how many DID get their hobby radio license "just for
being an 'emergency communicator?'"

Aren't you the one with their pulse on the numbers and
KNOWING what everyone's "intent and purpose" is?

Do you have your finger on the pulse of amateur radio, Leonard?

Of course you are! C'mon out with the "real reasons."

Gotta love all those code-tested knowitalls. :-)

One who has passed a Morse Code exam or an amateur radio written exam
has done one more thing than you've done. You're still sitting on the
sidelines, telling us which play the coach *should* have sent in.

beep beep,

Be-bop

LA

Dave K8MN

From: Dave Heil on Sat, 03 Feb
2007 19:32:42 GMT

wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:09?pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:16?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

What does amateur radio not offer now that it once did?
One example: First on the scene with emergency
mobile communications.
In the 1950's, I was the fifth person to arrive
upon the scene of a severe auto accident and the
first one with mobile communications with which
to call for help.
Nowadays, the first four people would have cell
phones. Even if I were the first on the scene,
I would use my cell phone, not my mobile ham rig.
I've been in that situation too, Cecil, and a lot more recently than
the 1950s.

Oh? Was that when you served the country in your
"other ways?"

You are so intimate with Miccolis that you speak for him?

Miccolis, as usual, INFERRED something but never supplied
any details. Inference is NOT fact.

That fine example of the modern American amateur extra,
Steven James Robeson was doing that for years. Never
supplied ANY true, references of HIS involvement. That
is like another who INFERRED combat experience "in a
country at war," yet never supplied any references to
same.


I've never been very specific with you about my Vietnam service because
I've seen the kind of things you have done to others.

Bull****. Rhymes with bluffing. You never did much in
Vietnam therefore you don't have any details to supply.
You were never in combat against the Viet Cong and at
best, got into barracks brawls. It's the Robesin syndrome.
You are just a clone of Robesin.

I know exactly what I did in Japan, have even made available
a publicly-accessible photo essay on it...plus made a
publicly-available digital copy of what my Signal Battalion
produced a few years after I was returned to the States.
I am still in contact with both civilian and military
personnel who worked at the same signal facilities I did and
at the same time. That's not INFERRING anydamnthing.
It is history. It is FACT. It has been reviewed by people
that were there and no "faults" or "mistakes" were found.

I've done no
boasting about my service in Southeast Asia and have not gotten into
specifics.

You said you were "in a country at war." So were millions
of other military NON-combatants. You were a REMF.

I've never claimed any heroics nor have I described any
artillery barrages.

USAF enlisted personnel seldom trained for artillery
spotting and only commissioned officers were forward
observers for air strikes. I was given training as an
artillery spotter in addition to doing regular Signal Corps
duties. "Provisional Infantry Platoon" training in basic
fighting skills was standard practice in the US Army
during the 1950s, involving all those NOT in the "line"
outfits (infantry, artillery, armor).

How much military training has Miccolis received?

Answer: NONE. He's never even served his government
as a civilian. He wants to "lecture me" on how I
treat REAL military veterans? He thinks he is "better"
than those who served in the military. Maybe your
romance with him is going sour?

You are the individual who made the now famous sphincter post about what
it was like to undergo an artillery barrage, except that you were never
in an artillery barrage.

It is "famous" only in that you choose to highlight it. But,
you should have used the proper word - INFAMOUS.

Factual error, minus one point for Heil.

I was learning how to DIRECT artillery fall as an artillery
forward observer. Training. When one battery goofs and a
six rounds fall mistakenly within a couple hundred yards of
an observer team, one KNOWS what it must feel like to
enemies. That includes the cadre who were regular
artillerymen. They were definitely NOT happy with what
happened.

Another factual error of Heil's, now at two negative points.

That ties in nicely with your posts over a ten year period here.

You don't believe my PDF on Hal Hallikainen's website is
factual? Have you any proof that it is false? Can you
testify to that in a court of law? Or are you just testy?

I've stated in the beginning in here, and continuously
up to now that my purpose was the advocacy of elimination
of the code test for a license. No more, no less. You
and other bluffmanship extras kept inferring it was
otherwise. FCC 06-178 is a "go for launch." It WILL
HAPPEN. Code test go bye-bye. Very, very soon.

Big 5-point Bonus Factual Error on Heil's part, score now
at -7.

You rant about getting into amateur radio but you've
never gotten into amateur radio or even tried to do so.

"Rant?!?" :-) Ooooo! Ooooo!

BIG 25-POINT FACTUAL ERROR! [Heil now at -32!]

Tsk, tsk, tsk...WTF do you think my GETTING INTO big
time HF comms was? Three years worth of 24/7 comms,
long-haul stuff...*NO* "license" or morse code skill
required. Did you think a single test sitting for a
First Radiotelephone (Commercial) license was an easy
thing that one could just waltz through?!? In 1956.
90-mile train trip to Chicago (no snow, no hills, kept
shoes on during that March trip).

Riiiight...you consider a whole working career in
electronics (including "radio"), relying on a paycheck
for food and shelter to be a NOTHING compared to the
almighty high-rate-morse-tested amateur extra rank-
status-privilege you puff out your chest about? Wow,
all that from an EX-federally-employed State Department
"veteran" who got to be Mr. DX complete with living
accomodations. Riiiight...we real workers in the
electronics industry are all pikers in your pointy
little mind, couldn't possibly be as saintly as you
pensioners. To you the real Pros must seem less than
****, worse than river-bottom slime, right?

Sweaty, my 1951 high school yearbook has a mention of
"work done towards amateur radio." In real ink on
real paper. Wanna see? Wanna shove it up yer bum?
After the ignorance of adolescence I got into the REAL
world. Realized that AMATEUR radio was a HOBBY, not
the "profession" that so many want to imagine in their
own fantasies.

Now, a HOBBY is a fine thing. I am still fascinated
by "radio" (a subset of the larger, miraculous
technology of ELECTRONICS). I stay aware and informed
about as much as I can and, once in a while, do some
work for actual money! That limits what I've been doing
for a hobby for over a half century (the last 42 years in
my center-of-the-house workshop, rebuilt to that by me).
No sweat. It's all enjoyable.

Why do you think you are so double-damned "important"
that you can act so arrogant, bossy, and self-righteous
in here? Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. "Radio"
technology is neither a secret to nor separate from
all other radio services in the USA. The FCC doesn't
restrict communications from ONLY amateurs about the
amateur radio service. It doesn't restrict ANY citizen
from commenting on ANY US civil radio service. Got
that, pale rider?

After 23 Feb 07 there will be NO requirements for
morse code skill to obtain ANY amateur radio license.
Yet you just can't get it, can you? Your years of
posturing and preening as the mighty macho morseman
"masters" are of NO value except to you and other
pale riders of the Four Morsemen of the Apolcalypse.


Do you have your finger on the pulse of amateur radio, Leonard?

No, only what the ARRL and a handful of other ham radio
websites show. The ARRL is, or very shortly will be,
in a crisis condition on memberships. They need the
members to sustain their proof-of-readership so that
they can sell ad space in QST to keep it alive. Their
large publication and re-sell business side of the
house is making all the cash that sustains their "free"
services for members.

If I want fairy stories all I need to do is tickle one
of the self-righteous, self-defined "experts in radio"
(morsemen all) to hear fairy stories about the "service
to the nation" of hamateur radio. Lord knows they want
to spout that **** often enough in here without
provocation.

If I want REAL information on US amateur radio, I can
go to dozens of friends and acquaintences, people I
KNOW, have worked with, are friends in-person, not the
pseudo-friendship of on-line-only familiarity. They
will level with me. YOU will NOT. You never have.

Of course you are! C'mon out with the "real reasons."

Gotta love all those code-tested knowitalls. :-)

One who has passed a Morse Code exam or an amateur radio written exam
has done one more thing than you've done.

Ooooo! Oooooo! I guess you think you "really told me"
dintcha? :-)

I've never gotten a Masters degree, never gotten a PhD,
never breast-fed an infant, never put on women's clothing,
never done a cylinder replacement on a car engine, never
cured cancer, never climbed Mt. Everest, never tried out
to be an astronaut, never flew an ultra-light, never
"pioneered the (radio) airwaves" in the 1930s, never did
hang-gliding, never ran a marathon, never stood watch
on 500 KHz as a coastie, never "slept with" a man, never
got divorced, never ran away from a good fight.

Wanna call me a "failure?!?" Wanna pick up those
teeth of yours littering the floor? :-)

You're still sitting on the
sidelines, telling us which play the coach *should* have sent in.

"Telling YOU something?" IMPOSSIBLE! Nobody can tell
YOU what you don't want to hear.

"Sidelines:" Attempt at a metaphor. A typical football
(American version) is a hundred yards long, narrow.
But, it is bordered by THE REST OF THE WORLD! 99+
percent of all the rest of the world ARE on the "sidelines!"

I live in the real world. Not some closed, private little
enclave of dreamers thinking They are some kind of
masters of radio. Little men. Pretenders at being
professional as amateurs. Oxymoronic. Brain damage
from lack of honest oxygen, turning into moronic mumblers
about "superiority."

Keep your mighty Rank-Status-Titles as long as you can.
It seems to be all you have...besides bigotry and
sociopathy rampant in your clan and sept. Little man.

FU,
LA

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sat, 03 Feb
2007 19:32:42 GMT

wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:09?pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:16?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

What does amateur radio not offer now that it once did?
One example: First on the scene with emergency
mobile communications.
In the 1950's, I was the fifth person to arrive
upon the scene of a severe auto accident and the
first one with mobile communications with which
to call for help.
Nowadays, the first four people would have cell
phones. Even if I were the first on the scene,
I would use my cell phone, not my mobile ham rig.
I've been in that situation too, Cecil, and a lot more recently than
the 1950s.
Oh? Was that when you served the country in your
"other ways?"

You are so intimate with Miccolis that you speak for him?

Allow me to paraphrase Leonard Anderson and advise you that this is a
public newsgroup where anyone may respond to any post.

Miccolis, as usual, INFERRED something but never supplied
any details. Inference is NOT fact.

You aren't quoting Jim correctly and you know it.

That fine example of the modern American amateur extra,
Steven James Robeson was doing that for years. Never
supplied ANY true, references of HIS involvement.

Let's face it, Len. You don't know if Steve's statements are accurate
or not. Confirmation of his USMC service can easily be found on the
web. Did you ever find it?

That
is like another who INFERRED combat experience "in a
country at war," yet never supplied any references to
same.

References? I need to supply you references?

Let's review facts, shall we? I served *in* Vietnam, a country which
was at war during my service. I drew combat pay for the entire period
of that Vietnam service.


I've never been very specific with you about my Vietnam service because
I've seen the kind of things you have done to others.

Bull****. Rhymes with bluffing.

No, Len, the two don't rhyme. I've done no bluffing at all.

You never did much in
Vietnam therefore you don't have any details to supply.

I could supply you with plenty of details. I've advised that you could
easily find almost exactly what I did elsewhere on the internet. Look
for it or not, I don't care.

You were never in combat against the Viet Cong...

Fact: You have no idea what I did in Vietnam.

...and at
best, got into barracks brawls.

No, Leonard, I was never even in a barracks shoving match.

It's the Robesin syndrome.
You are just a clone of Robesin.

No, Len, I've never met the man. We aren't related by genetics.

I know exactly what I did in Japan, have even made available
a publicly-accessible photo essay on it...plus made a
publicly-available digital copy of what my Signal Battalion
produced a few years after I was returned to the States.

And?

I am still in contact with both civilian and military
personnel who worked at the same signal facilities I did and
at the same time.

And? Do you believe yourself to be the only person on the planet who
maintains contact with those he served with in the military?

That's not INFERRING anydamnthing.

Who said it was?

It is history. It is FACT. It has been reviewed by people
that were there and no "faults" or "mistakes" were found.

My service, like yours, is also history and fact. The big difference is
that I haven't shared my history with you. Now what?

I've done no
boasting about my service in Southeast Asia and have not gotten into
specifics.

You said you were "in a country at war."

Yes, I wrote that because it is fact.

So were millions
of other military NON-combatants.

I understand that there were others in Vietnam. I never claimed to be
the only person serving there.

You were a REMF.

You simply don't know that. You don't have any information. We can see
what you do without facts and we know what you've written about others
when you have a few facts.

I've never claimed any heroics nor have I described any
artillery barrages.

USAF enlisted personnel seldom trained for artillery
spotting and only commissioned officers were forward
observers for air strikes. I was given training as an
artillery spotter in addition to doing regular Signal Corps
duties.

I'm happy for you, Len. You never put that into practice.

"Provisional Infantry Platoon" training in basic
fighting skills was standard practice in the US Army
during the 1950s, involving all those NOT in the "line"
outfits (infantry, artillery, armor).

You never put that into practice. You weren't serving in a war zone.

How much military training has Miccolis received?

He hasn't told me. I don't suppose that he has told you either.

Answer: NONE.

You don't know that.

He's never even served his government
as a civilian.

You don't know that either.

He wants to "lecture me" on how I
treat REAL military veterans?

I think he can observe your actions here.

He thinks he is "better"
than those who served in the military.

I don't believe that to be true and you can't know that it is true.

Maybe your
romance with him is going sour?

You're directing this kind of talk to the wrong r.r.a.p. participant.

You are the individual who made the now famous sphincter post about what
it was like to undergo an artillery barrage, except that you were never
in an artillery barrage.

It is "famous" only in that you choose to highlight it. But,
you should have used the proper word - INFAMOUS.

The word "infamous" works well. I'll be happy to highlight it if Jim
ever forgets to highlight it.

Factual error, minus one point for Heil.

I made no factual error there, Len.

I was learning how to DIRECT artillery fall as an artillery
forward observer. Training. When one battery goofs and a
six rounds fall mistakenly within a couple hundred yards of
an observer team, one KNOWS what it must feel like to
enemies.

This is your third variant in the fantasy tale. In the first, you
describe a combat experience. More recently you've told us that another
soldier told you what it was like. Now we have this training scenario.


That includes the cadre who were regular
artillerymen. They were definitely NOT happy with what
happened.

....or so you were told.

Another factual error of Heil's, now at two negative points.

What's the factual error--not being able to tell the difference between
versions one, two and three?

That ties in nicely with your posts over a ten year period here.
You rant about getting into amateur radio but you've
never gotten into amateur radio or even tried to do so.

You don't believe my PDF on Hal Hallikainen's website is
factual? Have you any proof that it is false? Can you
testify to that in a court of law? Or are you just testy?

I moved the "You rant about getting into amateur radio but you've never
gotten into amateur radio or even tried to do so" portion of my quote
text back to where it belongs to illustrate the lengths you'll go to in
order to create diversion, to pretend that my words were about something
else. You tale about the artillery barrage you were never in relates to
the amateur radio service you were never in.

I've stated in the beginning in here, and continuously
up to now that my purpose was the advocacy of elimination
of the code test for a license.

So? Who asked you?

No more, no less.

Now you've told a deliberate falsehood, Len. It has never been less,
but it has mostly been much, much more.

You
and other bluffmanship extras kept inferring it was
otherwise.

I'm not familiar with the term "bluffmanship extras". What does it mean
to you? Did you mean to use the term "Extras." If so, what does the
term "bluffmanship" convey?

FCC 06-178 is a "go for launch." It WILL
HAPPEN. Code test go bye-bye. Very, very soon.

And?

Big 5-point Bonus Factual Error on Heil's part, score now
at -7.

I made no error. I didn't make a statement about Morse Code testing.
Are you feeling alright, Len?

You rant about getting into amateur radio but you've
never gotten into amateur radio or even tried to do so.

"Rant?!?" :-) Ooooo! Ooooo!

Yes, Len, you often rant.

BIG 25-POINT FACTUAL ERROR! [Heil now at -32!]

I made no error, Len.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...WTF do you think my GETTING INTO big
time HF comms was?

It was not about getting into amateur radio. It was a story you've told
countless times here, but it was not about getting into amateur radio.

Three years worth of 24/7 comms,
long-haul stuff...

Great, Len. A number of us have experience with long haul HF
communications for periods of much longer than three years.

*NO* "license" or morse code skill
required.

Right, 'cuz it wasn't about getting into amateur radio.

Did you think a single test sitting for a
First Radiotelephone (Commercial) license was an easy
thing that one could just waltz through?!? In 1956.
90-mile train trip to Chicago (no snow, no hills, kept
shoes on during that March trip).

Nope. That isn't about getting into amateur radio either.

Riiiight...you consider a whole working career in
electronics (including "radio"), relying on a paycheck
for food and shelter to be a NOTHING...

No, Len, I've never said it is NOTHING or even nothing. It isn't about
getting into amateur radio.

...compared to the
almighty high-rate-morse-tested amateur extra rank-
status-privilege you puff out your chest about?

I didn't compare any of it to obtaining an amateur radio license, Len.
YOU keep trying to tie all of that in somehow.

Wow,
all that from an EX-federally-employed State Department
"veteran" who got to be Mr. DX complete with living
accomodations.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that my work permitted me to operate from
some rare spots. The house came with the job. I don't know why that
should bother you.

Riiiight...we real workers in the
electronics industry are all pikers in your pointy
little mind, couldn't possibly be as saintly as you
pensioners.

You have a real inferiority complex, don't you? I never wrote anything
like the stream-of-conciousness rambling that you provided but it is
there in your head, isn't it?

To you the real Pros must seem less than
****, worse than river-bottom slime, right?

I'm no less the "real pro" than you, Leonard. I also managed to obtain
the amateur radio license.

Sweaty, my 1951 high school yearbook has a mention of
"work done towards amateur radio." In real ink on
real paper. Wanna see? Wanna shove it up yer bum?

Are you losing control of yourself, Len?

After the ignorance of adolescence I got into the REAL
world.

That's what we all do after adolescence, Len. It isn't unique to you.

Realized that AMATEUR radio was a HOBBY, not
the "profession" that so many want to imagine in their
own fantasies.

I don't know of any radio amateur who is under the illusion that amateur
radio is a profession. Interestingly, the FCC nevers refers to amateur
radio as a hobby.

Now, a HOBBY is a fine thing. I am still fascinated
by "radio" (a subset of the larger, miraculous
technology of ELECTRONICS). I stay aware and informed
about as much as I can and, once in a while, do some
work for actual money!

You say that a hobby is a fine thing. You post for over ten years to an
amateur radio newsgroup. Yet you are not a licensed radio amateur.
That's very, very odd.

That limits what I've been doing
for a hobby for over a half century (the last 42 years in
my center-of-the-house workshop, rebuilt to that by me).
No sweat. It's all enjoyable.

You've created a self-limiting atmosphere. If it makes you happy, I say
continue to the end of your days, Len.

Why do you think you are so double-damned "important"
that you can act so arrogant, bossy, and self-righteous
in here?

Let me turn that around for you, Len. You act arrogant, bossy and
self-righteous here and you aren't even involved in amateur radio.
You're a non-participant in amateur radio.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

What does the FCC call it, Len?

"Radio"
technology is neither a secret to nor separate from
all other radio services in the USA.

The Amateur Radio Service is separate from all other radio services in
the U.S.A. Amateur radio is not only about radio technology.

The FCC doesn't
restrict communications from ONLY amateurs about the
amateur radio service. It doesn't restrict ANY citizen
from commenting on ANY US civil radio service. Got
that, pale rider?

You've commented. You still are not a part of amateur radio.
Got that, wizened geezer?

After 23 Feb 07 there will be NO requirements for
morse code skill to obtain ANY amateur radio license.

I knew that.

Yet you just can't get it, can you?

I got it.

Your years of
posturing and preening as the mighty macho morseman
"masters" are of NO value except to you and other
pale riders of the Four Morsemen of the Apolcalypse.

My life isn't going to change over this, Leonard. I'll still do all of
the things I've been doing. I still won't run into you on the amateur
bands.


Do you have your finger on the pulse of amateur radio, Leonard?

No...

Precisely.

...only what the ARRL and a handful of other ham radio
websites show.

That's pretty limiting, don't you think?

The ARRL is, or very shortly will be,
in a crisis condition on memberships. They need the
members to sustain their proof-of-readership so that
they can sell ad space in QST to keep it alive. Their
large publication and re-sell business side of the
house is making all the cash that sustains their "free"
services for members.

There is nothing to indicate that your scenario is based in fact. There
simply aren't many free services from the ARRL, Len. It charges
additional fees for most things. The DXCC program used to cost the
League quite a bit of money. I think it is largely, if not completely
self-sustaining these days. That's simply one example. There are
numerous others.

If I want fairy stories all I need to do is tickle one
of the self-righteous, self-defined "experts in radio"
(morsemen all) to hear fairy stories about the "service
to the nation" of hamateur radio.

Oh, that's right, you're some sort of puppet master and we all dance to
your tune. ;-) We been hYPnO-tIZeD!

Lord knows they want
to spout that **** often enough in here without
provocation.

No one has spouted more deliberate distortion and untruths in this
newsgroup regarding the state of amateur radio than you, Len.

If I want REAL information on US amateur radio, I can
go to dozens of friends and acquaintences, people I
KNOW, have worked with, are friends in-person, not the
pseudo-friendship of on-line-only familiarity.

I can think of only a few pseudo-friends you have here in the newsgroup,
Leonard. I don't care for you at all. Your circle of friends and
acquaintances seems to have grown since the last telling.

They
will level with me.

Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Maybe some of them are simply
pseudo-friends.

YOU will NOT.

I've leveled with you very often, Len. You didn't like it.

You never have.

There's another factual error on your part.

Of course you are! C'mon out with the "real reasons."
Gotta love all those code-tested knowitalls. :-)
One who has passed a Morse Code exam or an amateur radio written exam
has done one more thing than you've done.

Ooooo! Oooooo! I guess you think you "really told me"
dintcha? :-)

I knew it'd never sink in.

I've never gotten a Masters degree, never gotten a PhD,
never breast-fed an infant, never put on women's clothing,
never done a cylinder replacement on a car engine, never
cured cancer, never climbed Mt. Everest, never tried out
to be an astronaut, never flew an ultra-light, never
"pioneered the (radio) airwaves" in the 1930s, never did
hang-gliding, never ran a marathon, never stood watch
on 500 KHz as a coastie, never "slept with" a man, never
got divorced, never ran away from a good fight.

Now you can add to your list!

Wanna call me a "failure?!?"

I think there are things in which you've been a success, Len and I
believe that there are things in which you've been a failure.
Additionally, there are things you've failed to do. Now I don't know if
you ever boasted that you'd lick cancer in a week or climb Everest
blindfolded. You did boast seven years back of getting the "Extra right
out of the box". It hasn't happened. You never even tried.

Wanna pick up those
teeth of yours littering the floor? :-)

Since I know your age, I'll agree that you mean the smiley in this instance.

You're still sitting on the
sidelines, telling us which play the coach *should* have sent in.

"Telling YOU something?" IMPOSSIBLE! Nobody can tell
YOU what you don't want to hear.

....or that which I know to be false or specious.

"Sidelines:" Attempt at a metaphor.

Yes, an attempt and a success.

A typical football
(American version) is a hundred yards long, narrow.
But, it is bordered by THE REST OF THE WORLD! 99+
percent of all the rest of the world ARE on the "sidelines!"

99+ percent of the world don't post to this newsgroup, claim that they
know best how to regulate U.S. amateur radio, denigrate and insult radio
amateurs, denigrate and insult the ARRL and boast that they're going to
get an "Extra right out of the box".

I live in the real world.

There's not any really solid indication that your statement is factual.
You still seem to think that you are somehow involved, that you're
"one of the guys" in amateur radio. The name "Walter Mitty" comes to
mind when I think of you.

Not some closed, private little
enclave of dreamers thinking They are some kind of
masters of radio.

None of them have ever written of themselves as "masters of radio" or
"gods of radio". You've done so.

Little men.

The little men have done something you haven't done. They'll continue
to do so long after you've gone.

Pretenders at being
professional as amateurs. Oxymoronic.

None have claimed that they are "professional as amateurs". Certainly
none have claimed to be "pretenders at being professional as amateurs".
Sure, it's an oxymoron. It is YOUR oxymoron.

Brain damage
from lack of honest oxygen, turning into moronic mumblers
about "superiority."

Sure, Len, we all sit around breathing that dishonest oxygen when we
aren't breathing regular air.

Keep your mighty Rank-Status-Titles as long as you can.

There are always folks better at something than others. There are
always folks who can meet the established requirements for partaking in
an endeavor and there are those who can't.

It seems to be all you have...besides bigotry and
sociopathy rampant in your clan and sept.

I told you that you don't know me. You have precious little in the way
of fact.

Little man.

I'm a large man, Len and I've stomped the old terra. I've enjoyed 43
years of amateur radio and I plan to enjoy another decade or two.

I'm not pained to see that you won't be joining in on the fun.

FU,

WVU

Dave K8MN

From: Dave Heil on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 05:39:16 GMT

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sat, 03 Feb
wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:09?pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:16?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

I've been in that situation too, Cecil, and a lot more recently than
the 1950s.
Oh? Was that when you served the country in your
"other ways?"

You are so intimate with Miccolis that you speak for him?

Allow me to paraphrase Leonard Anderson and advise you that this is a
public newsgroup where anyone may respond to any post.

Tsk, you are NOT answering Miccolis' question.

I'll try again:

Are you so intimate with Miccolis that you speak for him?

Yes or no.

"Intimate" does not automatically include sexual intimacy.

Why can't Miccolis answer for himself?


Miccolis, as usual, INFERRED something but never supplied
any details. Inference is NOT fact.

You aren't quoting Jim correctly and you know it.

Writing "I've been in that situation too...more recently
than the 1950s" says NOTHING of detail. It has NO factual
basis. It is INFERENCE.

That fine example of the modern American amateur extra,
Steven James Robeson was doing that for years. Never
supplied ANY true, references of HIS involvement.

Let's face it, Len. You don't know if Steve's statements are accurate
or not. Confirmation of his USMC service can easily be found on the
web. Did you ever find it?

WHERE "on the web" is this "confirmation?"

Tsk, I was the one pointing out the authoritative source
for military records at NARA, National Archives and
Records Administration, in St. Louis. I also repeated
their explanation of who is entitled to information.

Didn't you read that? It is still available at NARA.
But only to law enforcement personnel or the individual
who is on the records or his blood relations.

Are you in law enforcement? Do you have a nice shiny
shield in a wallet with your station callsign on it?
That is NOT an ID of real law enforcement.

Robesin is a FAKE, a FRAUD, a bluffer who has NOT ONCE
made available ANY document copies of HIS to anyone.

Why do you defend fakes, frauds, and bluffers? Maybe
you LIKE those types of sociopaths?


Let's review facts, shall we?

You have NO "facts" which are referencible.

I served *in* Vietnam, a country which
was at war during my service. I drew combat pay for the entire period
of that Vietnam service.

"Drawing combat pay" is NO "reference" to actually being
IN combat. Military pay is an administrative function.
Neither do you have third-party PROOF of this "combat
pay" (a supplement to regular military monthly income)
that is visible to anyone.

Your statement is INFERENCE and only YOUR statement.


You never did much in
Vietnam therefore you don't have any details to supply.

I could supply you with plenty of details.

Feel free to do so.

I've advised that you could easily find almost exactly what
I did elsewhere on the internet. Look for it or not, I don't care.

WHERE is this "easily found" data?

WHO can access it?

You are BLUFFING.

You were never in combat against the Viet Cong...

Fact: You have no idea what I did in Vietnam.

Quite true! You will NOT supply any information.

You don't know where third-party records are kept.

You wish to make braggart claims made by yourself and
state those are "FACTS." They are NOT fact. They are
simply CLAIMS.

You are behaving exactly like that fraud Robesin
behaved for years in here.



I am still in contact with both civilian and military
personnel who worked at the same signal facilities I did and
at the same time.

And? Do you believe yourself to be the only person on the planet who
maintains contact with those he served with in the military?

I do not. But, you have NOT said anything of substance,
only substituted a QUESTION in an attempt to misdirect.

You use a good misdirection ploy, but it is ONLY a
misdirection ploy.

If you have actual PROOF, then copies of such proof will
(if not forged) be enough proof. You have NOT provided
such proof.

You are behaving exactly like Robesin...his bluff was just
"call the VA." A delaying tactic until he could think up
another bluff.

The Veterans Administration will NOT automatically divulge
such information to just anyone. They confirm such data
through NARA.


My service, like yours, is also history and fact. The big difference is
that I haven't shared my history with you. Now what?

Now you must prove your "history and fact." Personal claims
are NOT fact.

Your bluffing period is over. Produce some copies of
referenced documents, OFFICIAL documents.


You simply don't know that. You don't have any information.

Tsk, you CANNOT PROVE something with null data.

You are trying to misdirect again. If you have this
"information" then you should have no qualms about
sharing it. So far you haven't revealed ANY data
other than your CLAIM.

We can see
what you do without facts and we know what you've written about others
when you have a few facts.

I call obvious bluffers for bluffers. I call obvious
liars for liars. I call obvious "snake oil salesmen"
for "snake oil salesment." I put you down for all three.


How much military training has Miccolis received?

He hasn't told me. I don't suppose that he has told you either.

Answer: NONE.

You don't know that.

Miccolis said he never served in any military.

Are there "easy places on the web" where one can find
personal data about the NEVER SERVING?

Show us how you "PROVE" something with a NOTHING.

All one can prove with a nothing is nothing.


He wants to "lecture me" on how I
treat REAL military veterans?

I think he can observe your actions here.

"WE" call all see YOUR actions here.

You simply disguise your personal hatred for someone with
allegations of misconduct or lying, whether it be on
personal military service or anything else.

That is quite visible to all.


I made no factual error there, Len.

You have "made" nothing. You have NO references, will
not tell anyone where those "easy" references are found
on the Internet.

You are simply trying to "PROVE" something with NOTHING.

That is bluffing, that is lying. That is the standard
operating procedure of Robesin in here for years.



I moved the "You rant about getting into amateur radio but you've never
gotten into amateur radio or even tried to do so" portion of my quote
text back to where it belongs to illustrate the lengths you'll go to in
order to create diversion, to pretend that my words were about something
else.

You are describing YOUR actions in here, not mine.

You are acting as "reply agent" for Miccolis. Why are you
inserting all these statements of YOUR personal dislike and
terrible "CHARGES" of misconduct in here? If you are reply
agent, why cannot you include his personal dislike instead
of your own.

Answer: You are attempting a technique of denigration of
others through selective editing, false "interpretations"
of what "others really think or do." Example:

You tale about the artillery barrage you were never in relates to
the amateur radio service you were never in.

There is NO relation. That is a MANUFACTURED charge.

Are you trying to say that "amateur radio service" is
involved in artillery fire? [other than in newsgroups]

Are you saying that ONLY radio amateurs "experience
combat?"

Other than making specious CLAIMS of your own, what is
your point OTHER than trying to denigrate and defame
your perceived opponents in here?

You and alleged "military expert" Miccolis have gone on
and on and on and on about a long-ago post in here as if
it were some sort of "prime moral-ethical felony" that
should be "punished" in a court of law. Why? For only
one plausible reason: Your own personal vendetta
against someone who doesn't agree with your own self-
aggrandizement, self-defined "importance" AS IF you
were "superior" in all aspects of everything. BS.

You and Miccolis have MANUFACTURED some mytical moral
perfidy of "not completing" some sort of imaginary
"promise" to achieve an amateur extra class license
exam. That seven-year-old statement was NEVER a
"promise" but a simple comment AT THE TIME. Miccolis
began manufacture out of his own SPITE to "get back"
at one of his critics. You, as well-behaved little
monkey, took up the chittering for the same reason.

You two have made a spiteful little noise in here about
past statements, ones that were NOT DONE AT THE TIME
of the original posting. You wish to keep OLD arguments
going and going and going for WHAT reason? Other than
to please yourself. You wish to be JUDGE OF ALL, yet
have NO authorization and are "guilty" of other
"crimes."

I've stated in the beginning in here, and continuously
up to now that my purpose was the advocacy of elimination
of the code test for a license.

So? Who asked you?

No one. Are you the "new moderator" for RRAP? Are you
"qualified" to pick and choose who gets to say what?

You are NOT so qualified, indeed should RECUSE yourself
from any such attempts and trying to silence your
opponents.

The code test for ALL amateur radio licenses will be
gone after 23 Feb 07. That has nothing to do with
your "combat pay" (whether that was real or imaginary
in your mind) nor of your attempts at being JUDGE OF
ALL just because you feel you are. FCC 06-178 was
a decision of the FCC based upon a democratic process
of proposal-commentary-decision by the only civil
radio regulating agency of the United States. Whether
YOU like it or not has no bearing on your own
sociopathic conduct in here, one-sided thinking and
attempts at silencing (by any means you feel necessary)
your own "opponents."


It was not about getting into amateur radio. It was a story you've told
countless times here, but it was not about getting into amateur radio.

"Countless times?" No. "Countless" relates towards
infinity. Your own mind, busy busy trying to
MANUFACTURE some false moral-ethical perfidy, has
conjured so badly you've lost the ability to count.

Are YOU "involved in getting into amateur radio?"
How is such "involvement" done? By sitting in an
amateur radio newsgroup and berating all who do not
agree with you? Or are you constantly going to VE
sessions and taking tests all the time?

How do you "qualify" BERATING all who disagree with
your opinions (and greatness of self-worth) with
getting anyone IN AMATEUR RADIO (other than sado-
masochists)?

Why do you set yourself up as some kind of "king" or
"emperor," the only one to JUDGE what others can do?


Great, Len. A number of us have experience with long haul HF
communications for periods of much longer than three years.

A "number of you?" '1' is a number. I would count
Hans Brakob as that one, having served the USN in
radio. Who are the "YOU" you refer to?

You've related snippets of information about the
Department of State stations at Embassies (counsolates?)
but have yet to provide any NUMBERS. Did ANY of them
have three dozen high-power HF transmitters capable of
24/7 operation? Plus VHF and UHF microwave radio relay
equipment to back up links with a command center?
Did any of "your" State stations relay messages at a
rate of greater than 200 thousand a month? Well,
did they?

You wish to denigrate the efforts of a whole battalion
of signalmen on keeping one of many links of federal
government communication operating during the Cold War
just on the basis of your personal dislike of a
newsgroup opponent? Why are you so anti-Army? Why do
you wish to denigrate the whole Department of Defense
of the United States of America?


I'm sorry that it bothers you that my work permitted me to operate from
some rare spots.

Bothers me NOT. Embassies and consulates are necessary
for the United States. They are NOT "amateur radio
station" are they? They are NOT "military radio
stations," are they?

Just WHY do you think that military radio networks
were "smaller" than State's? That they are "lesser"
in importance so much that you feel free to denigrate
and defame anyone who served in them? Why do you
seem to hate the US military so much?


You have a real inferiority complex, don't you?

None at all. I know what I am, I know what I've done,
I know my capabilities. I am content with what I've
accomplished and have enthusiasm for what I MIGHT
do in the future. I don't need to brag or bluff or
make vague CLAIMS of what I've done at any time in
my life. You see, I DO have references, third-
party references, am not afraid to post public data
on such where it does not conflict with national
security or business details. I HAVE posted some
of that. Not for my personal aggrandizement, not for
bragging or bluffing, just as personal history or for
those who might be interested in radio as it was
done a half century ago. I can post much more of
that but it takes away time that I would rather
spend enjoying for my own activities.

You seem to conveniently IGNORE statements I've
made in the past on what I've done, the available
digital copies of documents I have. Naturally you
want to ignore those or simply shine them off.
They are in opposition to your little personal
vendettas of denigrating all your "opponents."


Let me turn that around for you, Len. You act arrogant, bossy and
self-righteous here and you aren't even involved in amateur radio.
You're a non-participant in amateur radio.

Tsk. Are you constantly trying to be JUDGE of who
gets access in "your" newsgroup? Who appointed you?
Besides yourself, that is. Or do you think you ARE
God?!?

I act firmly, actively, and don't go in for gratuitous
nice-nice phrases to the obvious "superiority complex"
types such as yourself. I don't honor and respect the
ARRL. I don't honor and respect olde-tyme morsemen
who insist that their morsemanship makes them "superior"
to all others.

Why do you have such a failure to understand what I've
said? I stated long ago and kept repeating that I was
an advocate for eliminating the morse code test for
US amateur radio testing. I never said I was a
"participant" in licensed radio amateurism. I have
been a HOBBYIST in radio and electronics since 1947.
NO license was required for that. Why do you
constantly look down on hobbyists who are not
"licensed?"

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.

What does the FCC call it, Len?

What part of "BASICALLY a hobby" does Heil not understand?


You've commented. You still are not a part of amateur radio.
Got that, wizened geezer?

"Wizened geezer?"

Is that Heil's habit to continue denigration of others
who are chronologically older than he? Must be.


There is nothing to indicate that your scenario is based in fact. There
simply aren't many free services from the ARRL, Len. It charges
additional fees for most things. The DXCC program used to cost the
League quite a bit of money. I think it is largely, if not completely
self-sustaining these days. That's simply one example. There are
numerous others.

What some New Englanders do as a business while disguised
as a "non-profit" membership organization is not my
concern. If it is yours, then complain to THEM.


If I want fairy stories all I need to do is tickle one
of the self-righteous, self-defined "experts in radio"
(morsemen all) to hear fairy stories about the "service
to the nation" of hamateur radio.

Oh, that's right, you're some sort of puppet master and we all dance to
your tune. ;-) We been hYPnO-tIZeD!

Puppeteers do not hypnotize. I can, and have, yanked
chains. Have you considered oiling yours? They are
rather rusty.


No one has spouted more deliberate distortion and untruths in this
newsgroup regarding the state of amateur radio than you, Len.

Tsk. "Big Brother truths." "Truthspeak." George Orwell
would have a chuckle or two over your statement.

I know of none who've spouted (and spit) more deliberate
distortion and untruths than the olde-tyme morsemen.
Yourself included. See? You aren't forgotten!


I can think of only a few pseudo-friends you have here in the newsgroup,
Leonard.

I have few "friends" in this newsgroup. I do not expect
to have any. I don't look for "love" in the wrong places.
Some of us are like-minded on opposition to the code test.
We feel various degrees of victory in FCC 06-178. Tsk,
that must make the pro-coders very irritated. Boo hoo.

My friends and acquaintences OUTSIDE of this newsgroup
are more and varied than you think. There's no sense
is being detailed about that since your hatred would
only cause you to insult THEM as well...

I don't care for you at all.

NO?!? :-) Irrelevant. Newsgroups are NOT cozy little
kaffeklatsch gatherings of hive minds, all "enjoying" the
same nice-nice about shared likes. They are places of
DEBATE ABOUT IDEAS, LAWS, and SUBJECTS, not personalities
who feel they should DICTATE who says what and where.

Why do you DICTATE so much?


I've leveled with you very often, Len. You didn't like it.

"Leveled?!?" Hardly. You've been busy busy busy
INFERRING things, telling half-truths, insulting all
who disagreed with you.

Heh, if your "level" were used in Pisa, that leaning
tower would have fallen centuries ago...



I think there are things in which you've been a success, Len and I
believe that there are things in which you've been a failure.

I admit to failure in not inventing anti-gravity. Something
was always holding me down...


... You did boast seven years back of getting the "Extra right
out of the box".

I've toasted. I've never boasted.

It hasn't happened.

Has the universe ended? :-)

You never even tried.

I've never been tried for anything. Have you been tried?
If so, what was the REAL judges' ruling? That you pay a
certain amount of alimony? [I was never divorced]


Wanna pick up those
teeth of yours littering the floor? :-)

Since I know your age, I'll agree that you mean the smiley in this instance.

For yourself then. My teeth are firmly in place, do not come
out at night, will only come out if a DDS does it under
anaesthetic. Are you now an "expert" on dentistry?

Of course you are an "expert" on dentistry...you were tested
and passed under maximal-rate morse code!


There's not any really solid indication that your statement is factual.

Believe what you want to believe. Fairy tales for you?
Pipe-dreams? Peyote-induced glory and magnificence?


You still seem to think that you are somehow involved, that you're
"one of the guys" in amateur radio.

I was just trying to eliminate the code test for US amateur
radio licensing. No "licensing requirements" needed for
that. Hello? That code test was all about GETTING INTO
amateur radio.

What part of "being IN a licensed radio service" do you NOT
understand? Hello? Getting INTO something does NOT mean
"being IN" something. Are you clear on that?

We all get the idea that YOU consider hobbists without an
"official" amateur license to be anything but "lesser" than
Mighty Macho Masters of Morse who've been licensed forever
in the marvelous SERVICE of amateurism. sigh Some
folks are SO deluded...may even harbor delusions of
immortality!

I've been IN the larger world of ALL radio, little man.
For a long time now. I was only advocating the elimination
of the code test for a US amateur radio license. There is
NO law that forbids me from commenting to my government
on such advocacy. In HERE, there is some misguided "law"
which "forbids" such advocacy?

Too bad. My governmen listened and acted. Bye-bye code
test after 23 Feb 07.

All that seems to be left are all you mighty macho masters
of morse sitting around spitting and spouting and trying to
heap abuse on us NCTAs. Now just WHO is the delusional,
the sociopathic sunsabishes sweating over keyboards NOW?
Hmmm?

The name "Walter Mitty" comes to mind when I think of you.

Danny Kaye played that role in a funny movie. Nice guy.
Went to one of his TV shows long ago, enjoyed it with
the rest of the audience. Kaye (rest his soul) had
appreciation for a wide group of people he entertained.

Now, how come I think of an overweight Don Knotts for
you? :-)


There are always folks better at something than others. There are
always folks who can meet the established requirements for partaking in
an endeavor and there are those who can't.

"Endeavor?" That's not the space shuttle I saw being
built by Rockwell. Husband of one of my schoolchums
worked on that. I've helped test out space shuttle
main engines at another division of Rockwell (now a
Boeing division). "Atlantis" was the SS I saw up close
and personal. Not "Endeavor."

Can you be more specific?

I've been an electronics design engineer for over three
decades. Proof is in all kinds of documents, from
personnel records to drawing sign-offs as approving
project engineer.

I've been a part-time professional writer, some on
hobby electronics. Was a part-time Associate Editor
of a ham-interest monthly...was listed on the
masthead.

I'm also an illustrator (an artist who draws things as
they really are). Have done that for both money and
for my own pleasure.

I've even rebuilt several rooms in our southern house,
some of that requiring government approval. None of
the above required I be LICENSED AS AN AMATEUR with
the federal government!

Oh, my, I've "failed established requirements?" No.
I 'partook.' Things got done. Oh, my, and the FCC
eliminated the morse code test for US amateur radio
license testing! Oh, my! And I was a Commenter on
the NPRM! [my name is listed in the last half of
FCC 06-178, sunnuvagun!]


I told you that you don't know me.

"Countless" times! :-)

Hey, if you don't wanna share anything then go sit in
the corner and pout.

You have precious little in the way of fact.

Tsk, tsk, I have lots and lots of FACT. Bookshelves
full of books and notebooks of things I've done in
my workshop. Now it may not be "precious" but it
DOES exist.


I'm a large man, Len and I've stomped the old terra.

Tsk, was that a Scottish terra or a wire-haired terra?

Why do you treat dogs so brutally?

Would you "stomp" a german shepherd?

I've enjoyed 43
years of amateur radio and I plan to enjoy another decade or two.

Have a ball, "Mr. DX." Is anyone stopping you? :-)

A newsgroup is NOT licensed amateur radio.

I'm not pained to see that you won't be joining in on the fun.

You have precious little in the way of fact. :-)

You have NO ability to predict the future. Some wonder
if you have any future at all...

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sun, 04 Feb 2007 05:39:16 GMT

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Sat, 03 Feb
wrote:
On Feb 2, 8:09?pm, wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:16?pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

I've been in that situation too, Cecil, and a lot more recently than
the 1950s.
Oh? Was that when you served the country in your
"other ways?"
You are so intimate with Miccolis that you speak for him?
Allow me to paraphrase Leonard Anderson and advise you that this is a
public newsgroup where anyone may respond to any post.

Tsk, you are NOT answering Miccolis' question.

Tsk, I answered your question.

I'll try again:

Are you so intimate with Miccolis that you speak for him?

See response already provided above.

Yes or no.

I didn't choose to respond with a yes or no.

"Intimate" does not automatically include sexual intimacy.

Explain just how you meant the word, Len.

Why can't Miccolis answer for himself?

He can and may. You'll have to be patient.


Miccolis, as usual, INFERRED something but never supplied
any details. Inference is NOT fact.
You aren't quoting Jim correctly and you know it.


Writing "I've been in that situation too...more recently
than the 1950s" says NOTHING of detail. It has NO factual
basis. It is INFERENCE.

That is incorrect. The statement may be completely factual. That
aren't able to verify it does not negate its factuality.

That fine example of the modern American amateur extra,
Steven James Robeson was doing that for years. Never
supplied ANY true, references of HIS involvement.

Let's face it, Len. You don't know if Steve's statements are accurate
or not. Confirmation of his USMC service can easily be found on the
web. Did you ever find it?

WHERE "on the web" is this "confirmation?"

Oh, no. Seek and you shall find.

Tsk, I was the one pointing out the authoritative source
for military records at NARA, National Archives and
Records Administration, in St. Louis. I also repeated
their explanation of who is entitled to information.

I didn't write a word about NARA. You once said that there were no free
sites where such information could be found, yet I found one. I even
shared the url with others who post here.

Didn't you read that? It is still available at NARA.
But only to law enforcement personnel or the individual
who is on the records or his blood relations.

That's nice.

Are you in law enforcement?

No, Len, but then I didn't request information from NARA.

Do you have a nice shiny
shield in a wallet with your station callsign on it?

No, Len, I don't, but there's an idea for you. Get one of those
"amateur radio operator" badges and you can pretend that you're one of
the gang.

That is NOT an ID of real law enforcement.

No kidding? Do you think many people are fooled by it?

Robesin is a FAKE, a FRAUD, a bluffer who has NOT ONCE
made available ANY document copies of HIS to anyone.

No, Len, you statement is not factual. It is simply that he hasn't
presented any confirming documentation to you.

Why do you defend fakes, frauds, and bluffers? Maybe
you LIKE those types of sociopaths?

I told you, I've found information on a free site which confirms Steve's
service in the USMC.


Let's review facts, shall we?

You have NO "facts" which are referencible.

"Referenceable", Len.

A fact is a fact whether you can confirm it or not.

I served *in* Vietnam, a country which
was at war during my service. I drew combat pay for the entire period
of that Vietnam service.

"Drawing combat pay" is NO "reference" to actually being
IN combat.

Military pay is an administrative function.

Did you receive combat pay in Japan during the Korean War or any period
after the Korean War?

Neither do you have third-party PROOF of this "combat
pay" (a supplement to regular military monthly income)
that is visible to anyone.

That's incorrect, Leonard. I have proof of my statement and it is most
certainly visible. It just isn't visible to you.


Your statement is INFERENCE and only YOUR statement.

That's also incorrect. A fact is a fact whether confirmation has been
submitted to Leonard H. Anderson or not.


You never did much in
Vietnam therefore you don't have any details to supply.

I could supply you with plenty of details.

Feel free to do so.

I am free to do so, but I don't feel like providing it to you.

I've advised that you could easily find almost exactly what
I did elsewhere on the internet. Look for it or not, I don't care.

WHERE is this "easily found" data?

I just told you.

WHO can access it?

You could access it if you could find it.

You are BLUFFING.

No, Len, I am not bluffing.

You were never in combat against the Viet Cong
and at best, got into barracks brawls.

Fact: You have no idea what I did in Vietnam.

Quite true! You will NOT supply any information.

Precisely!

...and at
best, got into barracks brawls.


You don't know where third-party records are kept.

I don't?

You wish to make braggart claims made by yourself and
state those are "FACTS."

I've made no "braggart claims".

They are NOT fact. They are
simply CLAIMS.

Everything I have provided you about my military service is factual.
It is just that I have not providing confirmation to you. I don't
intend to do so.

You are behaving exactly like that fraud Robesin
behaved for years in here.

No, Leonard, I am not.

I am still in contact with both civilian and military
personnel who worked at the same signal facilities I did and
at the same time.

And? Do you believe yourself to be the only person on the planet who
maintains contact with those he served with in the military?

I do not. But, you have NOT said anything of substance,
only substituted a QUESTION in an attempt to misdirect.

To misdirect what, Len? Who cares whether you maintain contact with
anyone you served with in the military? That isn't unique.

You use a good misdirection ploy, but it is ONLY a
misdirection ploy.

Not at all, Leonard, it is an indication of the likelihood that few
people care.

If you have actual PROOF, then copies of such proof will
(if not forged) be enough proof. You have NOT provided
such proof.

That's right, I have not provided it and will not provide it. Now what
will you do?

You are behaving exactly like Robesin...his bluff was just
"call the VA."

There is no one named "Robesin" who has posted here. If you mean Steve
Robeson, I'm not behaving like him at all. I haven't told you to call
the VA. I've told you that I've posted material on the internet that
states what I did in the military and that I am not going to provide you
with any information.

A delaying tactic until he could think up
another bluff.

For a PROFESSIONAL writer, you certainly come up with some non-sentences.

The Veterans Administration will NOT automatically divulge
such information to just anyone. They confirm such data
through NARA.

Precisely.

My service, like yours, is also history and fact. The big difference is
that I haven't shared my history with you. Now what?

Now you must prove your "history and fact."

I must? *grin*

Personal claims
are NOT fact.

A personal claim can certainly be fact. You simply don't have any way
to verify mine.

Your bluffing period is over.

I've done no bluffing whatever.

Produce some copies of
referenced documents, OFFICIAL documents.

Or you'll do what--stamp your feet and make another demand?


You were a REMF.

[I'm not about to let you get away with snipping the above material.
It is to it that I replied below]

You simply don't know that. You don't have any information.

Tsk, you CANNOT PROVE something with null data.

You're the guy seeking proof, aren't you?

You are trying to misdirect again. If you have this
"information" then you should have no qualms about
sharing it.

Where's the misdirection, Len. The misdirection can be found in your
deliberate falsehoods regarding my military service. You're doing it
with no information. You write "REMF" and "barracks brawls" and you
have no facts on which to base those statements. You've previously
written statements to the effect that you'd never denigrate the military
service of another veteran. Your most recent statements give lie to
your words.

So far you haven't revealed ANY data
other than your CLAIM.

No, I haven't. You have no copy of my DD-214, no copies of any of my
orders and no copies of any other personnel files. What will you do now?

We can see
what you do without facts and we know what you've written about others
when you have a few facts.

I call obvious bluffers for bluffers.

You've also called people who aren't bluffing "bluffers".

I call obvious
liars for liars.

You've also called people who aren't lying "liars".

I call obvious "snake oil salesmen"
for "snake oil salesment."

I'm not selling my military experiences to you or anyone, Len.

I put you down for all three.

....and you've shown yourself to be a dishonorable humbug.


How much military training has Miccolis received?

He hasn't told me. I don't suppose that he has told you either.

Answer: NONE.

You don't know that.

Miccolis said he never served in any military.

Has he?

Are there "easy places on the web" where one can find
personal data about the NEVER SERVING?

Is Jim someone who is "NEVER SERVING"?

Show us how you "PROVE" something with a NOTHING.

I don't care if you prove something or not. I do know that when it
comes to my military service, you've got NOTHING.

All one can prove with a nothing is nothing.

Then how you have you proven me a liar, a bluffer, a snake oil salesman,
an REMF, one who only engaged in barracks brawls and one who was never
in combat with the information you have--which is NOTHING.


He wants to "lecture me" on how I
treat REAL military veterans?

I think he can observe your actions here.

"WE" call all see YOUR actions here.

Yes, you can see my actions. My actions don't include what you are doing.

You simply disguise your personal hatred for someone...

I don't hate you, Len. There are times when I almost feel sorry for
you. You aren't the kind of guy I'd want to pal around with or live
next door to.

...with
allegations of misconduct or lying, whether it be on
personal military service or anything else.

There is one rather large piece of fabrication on your part, Len:

Your tale of what it is like to undergo an artillery barrage when, in
fact, you never experienced being under an artillery barrage.
We have, at last count, three separate explanations from you. None of
them involve your being under an artillery barrage.

There are other occasions when you've made factual errors, deliberate
distortions and even some outright falsehoods.

That is quite visible to all.

The above are visible to all.

You are the individual who made the now famous sphincter post
about what
it was like to undergo an artillery barrage, except that you were
never
in an artillery barrage.

It is "famous" only in that you choose to highlight it. But,
you should have used the proper word - INFAMOUS.

The word "infamous" works well. I'll be happy to highlight it if
Jim ever forgets to highlight it.

Factual error, minus one point for Heil.

I made no factual error there, Len.

You have "made" nothing. You have NO references, will
not tell anyone where those "easy" references are found
on the Internet.

You seem to be getting mixed up in what you're responding to. I put the
snipped material back to refresh your memory.

You are simply trying to "PROVE" something with NOTHING.

I'm not trying to prove anything, Len.

That is bluffing, that is lying.

No, Len, I've done no bluffing and no lying.

That is the standard
operating procedure of Robesin in here for years.

Thou sayeth.

I moved the "You rant about getting into amateur radio but you've never
gotten into amateur radio or even tried to do so" portion of my quote
text back to where it belongs to illustrate the lengths you'll go to in
order to create diversion, to pretend that my words were about something
else.

You are describing YOUR actions in here, not mine.

You're being dishonest again, Len. I put the words back to show exactly
what you try to pull. I've replaced the snipped material twice in this
response to indicate where you've done it since our last exchange.
Why pretend? The posts are archived.

You are acting as "reply agent" for Miccolis.

That's another falsehood on your part. I'm acting as a reply agent for
myself.

Why are you
inserting all these statements of YOUR personal dislike and
terrible "CHARGES" of misconduct in here?

Where was the term "terrible 'CHARGES' of misconduct" use by me?
You've manufactured, in at least one case, an artillery tale you never
experienced. In another instance you made a boast that you couldn't
follow through.

If you are reply
agent, why cannot you include his personal dislike instead
of your own.

But I'm not a reply agent. Jim is free to add personal dislike or to
call you on your factual errors if he chooses to do so.

Answer: You are attempting a technique of denigration of
others through selective editing, false "interpretations"
of what "others really think or do." Example:

There can be no selective editing of something that is my own original
statement.

You tale about the artillery barrage you were never in relates to
the amateur radio service you were never in.

There is NO relation. That is a MANUFACTURED charge.


Sure there's a relation. Those are two things in which you never took
part--that artillery barrage and obtaining an amateur radio license.

Are you trying to say that "amateur radio service" is
involved in artillery fire? [other than in newsgroups]

No, Leonard, I'm saying that you were never under an artillery barrage
and that you are not a radio amateur despite your "Extra right out of
the box" boast.

Are you saying that ONLY radio amateurs "experience
combat?"

No, Leonard. Some of them experienced combat. You didn't.

Other than making specious CLAIMS of your own, what is
your point OTHER than trying to denigrate and defame
your perceived opponents in here?


I'll be quite happy to respond, just as soon as I see your explanation
for "Spanky, Sister Nun of the Above, Kolonel Klunk, Herr Oberst" and
the like. After you, Leonard.

You and alleged "military expert" Miccolis have gone on
and on and on and on about a long-ago post in here as if
it were some sort of "prime moral-ethical felony" that
should be "punished" in a court of law.

About which thing, Len? There've been a number of things we could be
discussing. Which do you mean?

Why? For only
one plausible reason: Your own personal vendetta
against someone who doesn't agree with your own self-
aggrandizement, self-defined "importance" AS IF you
were "superior" in all aspects of everything. BS.

Careful, Len. You throw in a few of your cutesy, insulting names and
you'll be able to answer your own question.

You and Miccolis have MANUFACTURED some mytical moral
perfidy of "not completing" some sort of imaginary
"promise" to achieve an amateur extra class license
exam.

The only person to refer to your boast as a promise is *you*.

That seven-year-old statement was NEVER a
"promise" but a simple comment AT THE TIME.

Ir has been reposted here a couple of times. Why the pretense, Len?
Only you have called it a promise. It wasn't a comment, though I
thought it was pretty simple at the time you made it. It was a boast.
It was bragging on your part. The only problem with your having made it
is that you farted and fell. You didn't follow through.

Miccolis
began manufacture out of his own SPITE to "get back"
at one of his critics.

There was no manufacturing done at all, Len. Do you want to see your
own words again? They've been reposted recently. If you want to stick
to the word "manufacture" you'll be a bald-faced liar.

You, as well-behaved little
monkey, took up the chittering for the same reason.

Ask me that question about why you are insulted and denigrated again, Len.

You two have made a spiteful little noise in here about
past statements, ones that were NOT DONE AT THE TIME
of the original posting.

It must appear spiteful to you in that you wrote words which now
embarrass you. Your "NOT DONE AT THE TIME" is simply crap. How could
anyone know at the time that your boast would be an empty one?

You wish to keep OLD arguments
going and going and going for WHAT reason?

Oh, it is probably the same reason that leads you to write snippets
about Guinea-Bissau, my military service, the Foreign Service and a
number of other things. Why do you think it is, Len?

Other than
to please yourself.

I like to see you painted in your true colors, Len. I like seeing your
hide on the barn wall.

You wish to be JUDGE OF ALL, yet
have NO authorization and are "guilty" of other
"crimes."

Read back up the page and see the things you've written about my
military service, Len. Then pick up a mirror and stare at yourself for
a while.

I've stated in the beginning in here, and continuously
up to now that my purpose was the advocacy of elimination
of the code test for a license.

So? Who asked you?

No one.

Precisely!

Are you the "new moderator" for RRAP?

R.R.A.P. isn't moderated, Len. I doubt we'd have seen much of your
copious output it had been.

Are you
"qualified" to pick and choose who gets to say what?

You are NOT so qualified...

Why ask the questions if you're going to provide your own answers?


...indeed should RECUSE yourself
from any such attempts and trying to silence your
opponents.

I've never attempted silencing you, Len. You've posted here for better
than a decade. I've attempted to ridicule you and belittle you because
you aren't involved in amateur radio and because you honk people off.

The code test for ALL amateur radio licenses will be
gone after 23 Feb 07.

You mentioned that earlier. I was aware of that.

That has nothing to do with
your "combat pay"...

Then why were you writing of my military experience, Len?

...(whether that was real or imaginary
in your mind)...

Ask me again about why you are denigrated and insulted.

...nor of your attempts at being JUDGE OF
ALL just because you feel you are.

That's sort of like appointing oneself as advocate for
something-or-other, isn't it?

FCC 06-178 was
a decision of the FCC based upon a democratic process
of proposal-commentary-decision by the only civil
radio regulating agency of the United States.

If it were a democratic process, it wouldn't have passed, Len.
You know that and I know that.


Whether
YOU like it or not has no bearing on your own
sociopathic conduct in here, one-sided thinking and
attempts at silencing (by any means you feel necessary)
your own "opponents."

Len, you've been a churl here. You have no redeeming qualities that I
can find. You blow into a group about amateur radio, start regaling
those present with tales of your long ago past in radio and expect folks
to hang on your words. You failed to gain respect. Your windy
pontifications ****ed people off.

It was not about getting into amateur radio. It was a story you've told
countless times here, but it was not about getting into amateur radio.

"Countless times?" No. "Countless" relates towards
infinity. Your own mind, busy busy trying to
MANUFACTURE some false moral-ethical perfidy, has
conjured so badly you've lost the ability to count.

I can count as well as I ever could. Your tale has been told enough
times that I can't remember the number.

Are YOU "involved in getting into amateur radio?"

I got into amateur radio. I've assisted others in getting into amateur
radio.

How is such "involvement" done?

By you? It isn't.

By sitting in an
amateur radio newsgroup and berating all who do not
agree with you?

Well, that's certainly been one of the ways you've attempted it.

Or are you constantly going to VE
sessions and taking tests all the time?

I have no need to do that, Len.

How do you "qualify" BERATING all who disagree with
your opinions (and greatness of self-worth) with
getting anyone IN AMATEUR RADIO (other than sado-
masochists)?

Again, that's something I've seen you attempt. Check with your
sado-masochistic chum here. He can likely fill you in on that part.

Why do you set yourself up as some kind of "king" or
"emperor," the only one to JUDGE what others can do?

That's impossible, Len. You claim to know best how amateur radio should
be regulated and you have not limited yourself to the Morse Code testing
debate. Yet, you aren't a participant in amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...WTF do you think my GETTING INTO big
time HF comms was?

It was not about getting into amateur radio. It was a story you've
told countless times here, but it was not about getting into amateur
radio.

Three years worth of 24/7 comms,
long-haul stuff...


Great, Len. A number of us have experience with long haul HF
communications for periods of much longer than three years.

A "number of you?" '1' is a number. I would count
Hans Brakob as that one, having served the USN in
radio. Who are the "YOU" you refer to?

I didn't refer to a "YOU". I referred to an "us". Remember Jim Hampton?
Remember me? There are numerous others who are radio amateurs but who
do not post here.

You've related snippets of information about the
Department of State stations at Embassies...

(counsolates?)

"consulates". I never served at a consulate.

but have yet to provide any NUMBERS.

As you mentioned earlier, 1 is a number.

Did ANY of them
have three dozen high-power HF transmitters capable of
24/7 operation? Plus VHF and UHF microwave radio relay
equipment to back up links with a command center?

No, Len, none of the places I served had anything like that.
Nonetheless, a number of them had HF long haul primary communications.
You're now attempting to massage things a bit. You want to add how many
transmitters and how much power and how many VHF and UHF links your
station had. What was your part in operations?

Did any of "your" State stations relay messages at a
rate of greater than 200 thousand a month? Well,
did they?

At least one of 'em did that and a lot of high speed stuff that didn't
exist in your day.

You wish to denigrate the efforts of a whole battalion
of signalmen on keeping one of many links of federal
government communication operating during the Cold War
just on the basis of your personal dislike of a
newsgroup opponent?

Why no, Leonard. I wish to denigrate just you. You blew a bunch of
smoke about your ancient history at ADA.

Why are you so anti-Army?

Who said I was? You aren't the Army.

Why do
you wish to denigrate the whole Department of Defense
of the United States of America?

You aren't the Department of Defense of the United States of America.

In fact, you seem to think that the only long haul HF work I've done,
other than in 43 years as a radio amateur, is with the Department of
State. Much of my HF experience was during my time in the Air Force.


I'm sorry that it bothers you that my work permitted me to operate from
some rare spots.

Bothers me NOT.

It certainly seemed to bother you.

Embassies and consulates are necessary
for the United States.

A couple of weeks ago, you hadn't approved of the State Department and
hadn't like a Secretary of State since George Marshall. Do you know how
long ago *that* was?

They are NOT "amateur radio
station" are they?

I didn't operate my amateur radio station from an embassy, Len.

They are NOT "military radio
stations," are they?

Who wrote anything about them being military radio stations, Len?

Just WHY do you think that military radio networks
were "smaller" than State's?

Who wrote that, Len?

That they are "lesser"
in importance so much...

Who wrote that, Len?

...that you feel free to denigrate
and defame anyone who served in them?

Anyone who served in them? There's just you, Len. I have more long
haul HF radio experience than Leonard H. Anderson.

Why do you
seem to hate the US military so much?

You aren't the U.S. military, Len. I don't hate the military and I
don't hate you. Of the two, I dislike only you.


You have a real inferiority complex, don't you?

None at all.

Yes, Len, you do. Your post (and others like it) revealed much about you.

I know what I am,

So do I, Len.

I know what I've done,

So do I, Len.

I know my capabilities.

....and surely you know those things which you are incapable of.

I am content with what I've
accomplished and have enthusiasm for what I MIGHT
do in the future.

I'm not going to start cheering for what you MIGHT do.

I don't need to brag or bluff or
make vague CLAIMS of what I've done at any time in
my life.

....but you haven't let that stand in the way of your doing so.
You've told the ADA tale over and over and over. You recounted what is
now known as the "sphincter post" about the artillery barrage. It
turned out that there was no brag or bluff and it wasn't vague. It just
wasn't factual. Then there was the brag of the "Extra right out of the
box".

You see, I DO have references, third-
party references, am not afraid to post public data
on such where it does not conflict with national
security or business details.

We have some common ground then. I have paperwork which can confirm all
of my military service. I'm not afraid to post public data but I do not
choose to provide it to you. There are details of my State Department
career which, for reasons of National Security, I cannot share with you
and would likely not share with you if I could.


I HAVE posted some
of that. Not for my personal aggrandizement, not for
bragging or bluffing, just as personal history or for
those who might be interested in radio as it was
done a half century ago.

I've posted some of my military experiences as well, Len. That material
can be found on the web, but I'm not going to tell you where to look.
Unlike you, I have not chosen to post much information about my military
service here. That might look like bragging, bluffing or personal
aggrandizement.

I can post much more of
that but it takes away time that I would rather
spend enjoying for my own activities.

Don't bother on my account.

You seem to conveniently IGNORE statements I've
made in the past on what I've done, the available
digital copies of documents I have.

You noticed, did you? That's probably because I don't care. It has
nothing to do with this newsgroup.

Naturally you
want to ignore those or simply shine them off.

That's right. They aren't important to me or for purposes of this
newsgroup.

They are in opposition to your little personal
vendettas of denigrating all your "opponents."

I can't see a thing about them which makes a hill of beans to Morse Code
testing in amateur radio, to a minimum age requirement for amateur radio
licensing or to me personally.


Let me turn that around for you, Len. You act arrogant, bossy and
self-righteous here and you aren't even involved in amateur radio.
You're a non-participant in amateur radio.

Tsk. Are you constantly trying to be JUDGE of who
gets access in "your" newsgroup?

I don't have a newsgroup, Len. You've posted here for better than ten
years. During that period, you've not obtained an amateur radio license
and you've swayed very few readers of this group to your point of view.

Who appointed you?

It must have been that guy who appointed you advocate for
something-or-other in amateur radio.

Besides yourself, that is. Or do you think you ARE
God?!?

Don't get into that. After all, I've never claimed deity status.
You've constantly vacillated back and forth over whether I am a god or
not a god. Make up your mind.

I act firmly, actively, and don't go in for gratuitous
nice-nice phrases to the obvious "superiority complex"
types such as yourself.

...and therein lies part of your problems with me and others.

I don't honor and respect the
ARRL. I don't honor and respect olde-tyme morsemen
who insist that their morsemanship makes them "superior"
to all others.

You don't honor much of anything, Len.

Why do you have such a failure to understand what I've
said?

Your poor skills as a persuader of people?

I stated long ago and kept repeating that I was
an advocate for eliminating the morse code test for
US amateur radio testing.

Right. You never stopped there. You were an advocate for a minimum
licensing age. You have been an insulting boor toward licensed amateur
radio ops who disagreed with your views.


I never said I was a
"participant" in licensed radio amateurism.

That's a good thing. If you'd said that, you'd have been promulgating a
falsehood. It isn't "licensed radio amateurism", Leonard. "Amateur
radio" is good enough.

I have
been a HOBBYIST in radio and electronics since 1947.
NO license was required for that.

Think of all the years you've wasted here then! You could have been
spreading your joy in some electronics hobbyist newsgroup. This
newsgroup deals with amateur radio.

Why do you
constantly look down on hobbyists who are not
"licensed?"

See above.

1. You have declared an interest in *amateur radio* spanning several
decades.

3. You have posted to this newsgroup for better than a decade. During
that period, you could have obtained at least some level of amateur
radio license.

3. You made your boast of getting and "Extra right out of the box"
seven years back.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY.
What does the FCC call it, Len?

What part of "BASICALLY a hobby" does Heil not understand?

What does the FCC call it, Len?


You've commented. You still are not a part of amateur radio.
Got that, wizened geezer?

"Wizened geezer?"

Yes, wizened geezer.

Is that Heil's habit to continue denigration of others
who are chronologically older than he?

No, Len. It is just for you.

Must be.

You've jumped to yet another false conclusion.


There is nothing to indicate that your scenario is based in fact. There
simply aren't many free services from the ARRL, Len. It charges
additional fees for most things. The DXCC program used to cost the
League quite a bit of money. I think it is largely, if not completely
self-sustaining these days. That's simply one example. There are
numerous others.

What some New Englanders do as a business while disguised
as a "non-profit" membership organization is not my
concern. If it is yours, then complain to THEM.

The ARRL is not governed by New Englanders and it is not operated as a
"for profit" business. You're right about it being none of your
concern. You are as involved in the ARRL as you are in amateur radio.


If I want fairy stories all I need to do is tickle one
of the self-righteous, self-defined "experts in radio"
(morsemen all) to hear fairy stories about the "service
to the nation" of hamateur radio.

Oh, that's right, you're some sort of puppet master and we all dance to
your tune. ;-) We been hYPnO-tIZeD!

Puppeteers do not hypnotize.

How else would the puppet master get humans to act as his marionettes?

I can, and have, yanked
chains.

You've also yanked our lanyards.

Have you considered oiling yours?

I've never seen a chain-driven puppet, Len.

They are
rather rusty.

They are? You've seen my chains?


No one has spouted more deliberate distortion and untruths in this
newsgroup regarding the state of amateur radio than you, Len.

Tsk. "Big Brother truths." "Truthspeak." George Orwell
would have a chuckle or two over your statement.

He'd have laughed out loud at some of your absurd statements.

I know of none who've spouted (and spit) more deliberate
distortion and untruths than the olde-tyme morsemen.
Yourself included. See? You aren't forgotten!

That's it. Give us more of that "olde-tyme morsemen" stuff.
It'll probably endear you to us.


I can think of only a few pseudo-friends you have here in the newsgroup,
Leonard.

I have few "friends" in this newsgroup.

Well, DUH!

I do not expect
to have any.

I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I don't look for "love" in the wrong places.

Do you mean outside your front door?

Some of us are like-minded on opposition to the code test.

Are you and Mark Morgan like-minded?

We feel various degrees of victory in FCC 06-178.

That's pretty bizarre, don't you think. After all, what will it do for you?

Tsk,
that must make the pro-coders very irritated. Boo hoo.

You act pretty childish at times.

My friends and acquaintences...

"Acquaintances", Len.

...OUTSIDE of this newsgroup
are more and varied than you think.

Oh, I'll bet they're varied. I'm thinking of a Fellini cast party.

There's no sense
is being detailed about that since your hatred would
only cause you to insult THEM as well...

I have no hatred of you, Len. I just dislike you.

I don't care for you at all.

NO?!? :-) Irrelevant. Newsgroups are NOT cozy little
kaffeklatsch gatherings of hive minds, all "enjoying" the
same nice-nice about shared likes.

It is quite relevant. Your behavior leaves a lot to be desired.

They are places of
DEBATE ABOUT IDEAS, LAWS, and SUBJECTS, not personalities
who feel they should DICTATE who says what and where.

You've had more than your say, more than your fifteen minutes of fame,
Len. You have gone far beyond debate about ideas and have often delved
into personalities with your personal attacks and attempts at belittling
Morse Code testing advocates, Morse Code operators, radio amateurs in
general and the American Radio Relay League.

Why do you DICTATE so much?

Have you had your say here, Len?


I've leveled with you very often, Len. You didn't like it.

"Leveled?!?" Hardly.

Leveled. Assuredly.

You've been busy busy busy
INFERRING things, telling half-truths...

I've stated things and I've been truthful. I've been so truthful that
you snipped all of my comments above about your three variations on your
artillery barrage story.

...insulting all
who disagreed with you.

You aren't "all", Len.


Heh, if your "level" were used in Pisa, that leaning
tower would have fallen centuries ago...

I've not been around for as long as you.


I think there are things in which you've been a success, Len and I
believe that there are things in which you've been a failure.

I admit to failure in not inventing anti-gravity. Something
was always holding me down...

That's the fourth or fifth time you've lifted the Stephen Wright lines.

... You did boast seven years back of getting the "Extra right
out of the box".

I've toasted. I've never boasted.

Yes, Len, you made a boast.

It hasn't happened.

Has the universe ended? :-)

Nope, just your credibility.

You never even tried.

I've never been tried for anything. Have you been tried?
If so, what was the REAL judges' ruling? That you pay a
certain amount of alimony? [I was never divorced]

You substitute nonsense for a response.


Wanna pick up those
teeth of yours littering the floor? :-)
Since I know your age, I'll agree that you mean the smiley in this instance.

For yourself then. My teeth are firmly in place, do not come
out at night, will only come out if a DDS does it under
anaesthetic. Are you now an "expert" on dentistry?

You brought up teeth, Len? You made an idle threat from several
thousand miles away.

Of course you are an "expert" on dentistry...you were tested
and passed under maximal-rate morse code!

Your end of the horse doesn't have teeth.

The ARRL is, or very shortly will be,
in a crisis condition on memberships. They need the
members to sustain their proof-of-readership so that
they can sell ad space in QST to keep it alive. Their
large publication and re-sell business side of the
house is making all the cash that sustains their "free"
services for members.

[relevant material "unsnipped"]

There's not any really solid indication that your statement is factual.

Believe what you want to believe.

I shall. You aren't an ARRL member and you seem short on facts.

Fairy tales for you?

What part is the fairy tale--your claims about the ARRL being in a
"crisis condition"?

Pipe-dreams? Peyote-induced glory and magnificence?

What part of your fantasy about the ARRL has to do with me?


You still seem to think that you are somehow involved, that you're
"one of the guys" in amateur radio.

I was just trying to eliminate the code test for US amateur
radio licensing.

Again, that is not "just" what you have been trying to do.

No "licensing requirements" needed for
that. Hello?

You've had your say.

That code test was all about GETTING INTO
amateur radio.

You aren't getting into amateur radio.

What part of "being IN a licensed radio service" do you NOT
understand? Hello? Getting INTO something does NOT mean
"being IN" something. Are you clear on that?

You aren't "IN". You aren't "getting INTO". You've haunted an amateur
radio newsgroup for better than a decade, despite your boast of seven
long years ago.

We all get the idea that YOU consider hobbists without an
"official" amateur license to be anything but "lesser" than
Mighty Macho Masters of Morse who've been licensed forever
in the marvelous SERVICE of amateurism. sigh

Sigh all you'd like, Len. There is no unofficial amateur radio license.
You're either licensed in amateur radio or you are not. Morse Code
isn't the issue. There are plenty of radio amateurs who have never
taken or passed a Morse Code exam.

Some
folks are SO deluded...may even harbor delusions of
immortality!

Yeah, imagine that! To hang around an amateur radio newsgroup for
longer than a decade and to never achieve an amateur radio license.


I've been IN the larger world of ALL radio, little man.

Stow your "little man" talk, Leonard. You bluster and boast about your
experience in radio but there is little indication that you've done
anything in radio in recent years. Your last Ham Radio article was done
what--twenty or more years back? Your empty "Extra right out of the
box" boast has made you toast. Instead, you've offered up challenges
like your peculiar one about a gymkhana. Would you be up for a real
radio challenge, "little man"?

For a long time now. I was only advocating the elimination
of the code test for a US amateur radio license.

Your statement is a falsehood.

There is
NO law that forbids me from commenting to my government
on such advocacy.

You've commented.

In HERE, there is some misguided "law"
which "forbids" such advocacy?

You've posted. You aren't guaranteed a polite reception.


Too bad. My governmen listened and acted. Bye-bye code
test after 23 Feb 07.

You're still on the outside looking in. Too bad.

All that seems to be left are all you mighty macho masters
of morse sitting around spitting and spouting and trying to
heap abuse on us NCTAs.

How is my amateur radio operation going to be changed, Len? Will I be
encountering you on the amateur radio bands? Will I be forced to give
up my use of CW?

Now just WHO is the delusional,
the sociopathic sunsabishes sweating over keyboards NOW?
Hmmm?

I vote for you, Len.

The name "Walter Mitty" comes to mind when I think of you.

Danny Kaye played that role in a funny movie.

You aren't Danny Kaye and the book was better. The book is always better.

Nice guy.

Irrelevant.

Went to one of his TV shows long ago, enjoyed it with
the rest of the audience. Kaye (rest his soul) had
appreciation for a wide group of people he entertained.

Irrelevant.

Now, how come I think of an overweight Don Knotts for
you? :-)

I'm married. I'm not interested in an overweight Don Knotts.


Oh, my, I've "failed established requirements?" No.
I 'partook.' Things got done. Oh, my, and the FCC
eliminated the morse code test for US amateur radio
license testing! Oh, my! And I was a Commenter on
the NPRM! [my name is listed in the last half of
FCC 06-178, sunnuvagun!]

You're still pressing your face against the window pane at the cozy
lodge hall. You're not a radio amateur despite a decade of posting to
an amateur radio newsgroup.


I've enjoyed 43
years of amateur radio and I plan to enjoy another decade or two.

Have a ball, "Mr. DX." Is anyone stopping you? :-)

No one.

A newsgroup is NOT licensed amateur radio.

No kidding. If it were, you wouldn't be able to post.

I'm not pained to see that you won't be joining in on the fun.

You have precious little in the way of fact. :-)

Fact: You aren't a radio amateur.

You have NO ability to predict the future. Some wonder
if you have any future at all...

Let's see...

My prediction is that I'll never have to think about encountering
Leonard H. Anderson on the amateur radio bands.

I imagine that you're very busy figuring out how to spend your idle hours
in the post 2/23 period.

Dave K8MN