REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

From: The Big-8 Management Board on Thu, 15 Feb 2007
15:17:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 7:17 am

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Note: "Discussion" is defined herein as 'Doing What We Say.'

The B8MB plans to begin voting on this proposal after five days. Please
offer any final discussion or comments before the end of this waiting
period. Voting may take up to one week (7 days); a result will be posted
following the end of the voting period.

Translation: We're going to get what we want regardless
of commentary.


SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:

The proposal in its current form reflects the results of feedback from
posters to news.groups.proposals in response to the 1st and 2nd RFD's
and a Straw Poll. It is also, realistically, a reflection of what Big-8
board members - including Tim Skirvin, Steve Bonine, and Kathy Morgan -
indicated that they would support, and vote for.

Translation: We're going to get what we want regardless
of commentary.


Creation of an all-encompassing moderated amateur radio newsgroup is
consistent with the findings of a Straw Poll in news.groups.proposals,
where approximately 60% of respondents were in the categories of
"Support initial name, no stated preference for scope" or "Support
initial name and all-amateur-radio scope. Trying to characterize or
summarize the opinions of those who might have been leaning towards a
misc+policy scope proved difficult, and resulted in two respondents out
of 21 polled (Jim Riley and Kathy Morgan) following up to clarify their
own positions and correct their categorization in the Straw Poll. Jim
indicated that he should be moved to the Straw Poll category of "Support
initial name, no stated preference for scope," instead. Kathy indicated
that she would support a proposal where the newsgroup name matched the
scope. No one who was initially categorized in the Straw Poll as,
"Support initial name, no stated preference for scope," or, "Support
initial name and all-amateur-radio scope," followed up to
news.groups.proposals to object to their own categorization. Because of
all of this, the alternative of a misc+policy-only newsgroup was not
seen as one that could gain political traction, broad readership
support, or majority Big-8 board support.

Translation: A NAME is everything. Content is superfluous.


Less than 15% of respondents expressed objection to the creation of a
moderated newsgroup entirely. None of these respondents objected to
their categorization in the Straw Poll.

Objection is useless, all shall be subject to assimilation.


The rec.radio.amateur.equipment and rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
newsgroups are being added to the distribution of a pointer to this 3rd
RFD as a courtesy, and for their information.

Noblesse oblige?


They were not added
previously because the existence or form of a moderated discussion
newsgroup was not seen by the proponents or most of the RFD discussion
participants as something that would seriously affect them. Nor has
there been any significant discussion in the recent past for making
moderated alternatives for those topics, either specifically or
generally, on the newsgroups. Making them aware of this 3rd RFD, and
the opportunity to object during this Last Call for Comments, was seen
as a reasonable compromise between informing them as a courtesy versus
not subjecting them to unwelcome amounts of off-topic meta-discussion.

Resistance is useless, objectors shall be assimilated.


rec.radio.amateur.moderated is a moderated alternative to at least the
existing rec.radio.amateur.misc and rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroups.
The rec.radio.amateur.misc newsgroup is chartered to discuss amateur
("ham") radio practices, contents, events, rules, etc., including
anything related to amateur radio not specifically covered by another
rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroup. The rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroup
is chartered to discuss ham radio rules, regulations, and policy. Over
the past several years, the traffic on both groups has become largely
flame wars, spam, and personal ad-hominem discussions of past, present,
and future violations and violators, having little or no bearing on
amateur radio. Polite requests by serious group posters to the
offenders to refrain from such behavior have not resulted in elimination
of such behavior and has in fact resulted in another series of flame
wars. As a result, many knowledgeable and concerned posters in both
groups have ceased being active therein.

Flame wars, spam, personal "ad-hominem discussions" were
all present on both RRAM and RRAP ten years ago. Where
was the Hue and Cry for moderation by some "Big8" then?
[nowhere]


Prior to the deterioration of rec.radio.amateur.misc and
rec.radio.amateur.policy, both groups had active discussion of their
chartered topics.

Perhaps there was prior to ten years ago, but a rewrite
of history using rose-colored pens doesn't make it so.
However, a constant repetition of "the way it was" will
cause others to believe it is so.


It is expected that offering a moderated group will
persuade those who formerly participated to resume their participation
in rational, focussed, and informed discussion.

Yes, and the USA invaded Iraq to get rid of Weapons of
Mass Destruction.

Proper moderation will
enable serious postings to the group to remain on topic while not
limiting who can voice opinions or what opinions can be voiced.

Resistance is futile, all will be assimilated.




General communications law or government policy of various government
agencies is also on-topic, as long as the discussion relates to amateur
radio. Examples would be emergency communications, local antenna
restrictions, and property deed restrictions applying to operation of
amateur radio stations.

Discussion of other types of radio, such as Citizens Band, Broadcast,
other Personal Radio Services, Commercial or Private Land Mobile, and
Marine or Aviation services are off-topic, except when *directly*
related to amateur radio.

"*Directly*" is not defined. The assumption seems to be that
all amateur radio technology is unique and separate from radio
tecnology that all other radio services use. That is a violation
of known physical laws.

Similarly, discussion of methods violating
applicable communications law and regulations concerning radio equipment
or operations are off-topic.

Translation: Human law supersedes known physical laws.



The following are prohibited:

* Personal attacks and flames, as defined by the moderation team.

...resistance is futile, all shall be assimilated.


* Crossposting is generally not allowed, with the general exception of
crossposts of bulletins, FAQ's, and other informational articles to
rec.radio.info, rec.answers, and news.answers. Infrequent
administrative crossposts may occasionally be allowed at the sole
discretion of the moderator.

FINALLY, a rule that makes sense.


Individual posters may be temporarily banned for consistently violating
the group charter.

...such as negative opinions, however slight, about ARRL.

...such as negative opinions, however slight, about the
past regulatory law concerning amateur radio, especially
if the group could never have had life experience in that
time period. N.B.: All "history" of amateur radio shall
be as defined by the sole authority, the ARRL.

...such as definition examples of "MARS IS amateur
radio" or "CW gets through when nothing else will."


Posters who feel that their posts have been unfairly
rejected or banned, either for specific content or by a specific
moderator, may appeal the decision. They may do so by contacting the
Appeals Board, consisting of a rotating group of 2 or more moderators,
at the Administrative Contact address below. The Board will discuss and
vote on the appeal and respond within 14 days if the appeal is
successful. The Board will also reply within 14 days to unsuccessful
submitters of any appeal that is on-topic, reasoned, civilly stated, and
is not substantially an attempt to revisit the subject matter and
arguments of a previous unsuccessful appeal.

Appeals are useless, all shall be assimilated.


The moderators are seeking additional candidates for the moderation team
in order to ensure minimal posting delays and to avoid any appearance of
bias. We would especially like to find moderators in other time zones,
countries/continents, etc.

Assimilation into the Collective not going well?

"Minimal posting delays?" With two-week turn-around times on
"discussions," message throughput might be faster through the
NTS via CW.

"Appearance" of bias?!?

Tsk, tsk, the Internet is the Internet, regardless of those
clinging to the ancient 'Usenet' ideal (that never was). Those
who live in little cozy cloisters of like opinions will praise
one another without end, deluded into believing their tiny
clubhouse is "the world" and they the spokespersons for it.

No amount of high-sounding rhetoric and emulation of law
language nor doctorate dissertaions on Roberts Rules of
Order will ever make an effective gathering place for new
ideas nor visions of the future. All it will do is re-enforce
delusions of grandeur about "expertise" and "judgement" that
becomes ludicrous when viewed by others.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 15, 3:15 pm, "
wrote:
From: The Big-8 Management Board on Thu, 15 Feb 2007
15:17:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 7:17 am

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup, rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

Note: "Discussion" is defined herein as 'Doing What We Say.'
i wish that instruction on voting would just be given then we vote and
see what the big is finaly going to do

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 15, 12:48�pm, "an_old_friend" wrote:
On Feb 15, 3:15 pm, "
wrote: From: The Big-8 Management Board on Thu, 15 Feb 2007
15:17:03 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Thurs, Feb 15 2007 7:17 am

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
moderated Usenet newsgroup,rec.radio.amateur.moderated.

* *Note: *"Discussion" is defined herein as 'Doing What We Say.'

i wish that instruction on voting would just be given then we vote and
see what the big is finaly going to do

I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

LA

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

wrote:

I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

Of course, you could always post your support, or lack thereof, in
news.groups.proposals.

However, as is evidenced by your behaviour here for the past decade, I doubt
you could "behave" yourself long enough to construct a concise statement of
approval/disappoval which would pass the muster of the moderators of
news.groups.proposals.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 15, 4:05�pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. *Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

Of course, you could always post your support, or lack thereof, in
news.groups.proposals.

Tsk, tsk...you didn't look far enough...it is there also.


However, as is evidenced by your behaviour here for the past decade, I doubt
you could "behave" yourself long enough to construct a concise statement of
approval/disappoval which would pass the muster of the moderators of
news.groups.proposals.

Not being of the UK, I don't have a "behaviour."

But, "admonishment" from someone who had FAKE HAWAIIAN
RESIDENCY and a dozen FAKE "clubs" with trusteeship
calls for same, your "admonishment" is ten kinds of
HYPOCRISY. Tsk, tsk.

What you "doubt" is of no concern to me. You have been
ever so critical of my viewpoints for years. Why stop to
consider anything if your mindset is set in concrete? :-)

You might consider that the FCC announced (on 15 Dec 06)
that 06-178 would ELIMINATE code testing for ALL U.S.
amateur radio licenses. That is only about 7 days away.
My advocacy has always been to eliminate that code test.
Can you put two and two together and get the 100%-
correct 4?

Go QRT little man.

LA

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 15, 7:05 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I doubt that "we" are going to get to vote on anything. Only those
who consider themselves to be "eligible" are allowed to "vote."

Of course, you could always post your support, or lack thereof, in
news.groups.proposals.

However, as is evidenced by your behaviour here for the past decade, I doubt
you could "behave" yourself long enough to construct a concise statement of
approval/disappoval which would pass the muster of the moderators of
news.groups.proposals.

I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

wrote:

I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

"KH6HZ" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

(as if it makes a difference what HH&C thinks...)

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 15, 5:40?pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

Nobody seems to care for a call thief, either.

Aloha,
LA

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

The following was received on 15 Feb 07 in private e-mail
apparently as a response to my double-posted commentary
on the "Third RFD" posting by Paul Schleck:

news.groups.proposals was established to provide a congenial and
constructive place for discussion of new groups or changes to the
group list. Your submission has been rejected because it is not
consistent with this goal.

Of course...

I refuse to be assimilated into the Collective. :-)

"Congenial and constructive" discussion is apparently
making gratuitous nice-nice to the Big 8. shrug

Content that is not conducive to the development of a proposal is
disallowed, including personal attacks, derogatory nicknames,
repetitive arguments, and flames.

"Flames?" For mentioning a popular villain-figure
in the Star Trek fictional universe? Of course...

"Repetitive arguments?" Much of the "Third RFD" posting
was repetitive (almost to an extreme).

"Derogatory nicknames?" I think not. No one person was
NAMED in any way. However, it is clear I've "nicked"
some un-named person. Dreadfully sorry, old chop.

"Personal attacks?" How can there be such if NO person
was named?

You may wish to tone down your language and resubmit.

I do not.

Unless there has been a Revolution in the United States
of America in the last few hours, we citizens still
enjoy a measure of Freedom in expressing ourselves. That
is a Constitutional Right. I spent four years of my
life serving my country in the U.S. Army in order to help
defend that Constitution.

"Form letters" are common in the publishing industry.
I did not submit any manuscript for consideration of
purchase by the "Big 8." Ergo, with no money involved,
the "Big 8" has NO control over my actions, nor should
it expect to. All it can do is control and suppress
(partially) my commentary. It has successfully
suppressed my comments to "the Collective," but it has
failed to suppress my comments here. Tsk.

Best wishes for further Control and Suppression in the
future. Please be cognizant of the very real fact of
MANY avenues of free expression still open to all.

You can read
the charter of news.groups.proposals at http://www.big-8.org/~ngp/.

Done some while ago. Try not to assume that all are
ignorant of Ozymandias' Mighty Works.

I must congratulate this anonymous "moderator" on the
assumption that I CAN read. Yes, I can. Thank you.

Please direct your queries to .

Please direct YOUR queries to fellow members of the
Collective. Enjoy the hive mind experience.

Thank you,

- Moderator.

You are welcome, I'm sure, Your (or whomever).

genuflect

LA

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

sputtered and stammered:

Nobody seems to care for a call thief, either.

I'll always have 1 more amateur radio license than you, Len!

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

wrote :

"Congenial and constructive" discussion is apparently
making gratuitous nice-nice to the Big 8. shrug

Nope, "congenial and constructive" means to behave yourself, without
resorting to immature antics you are so famous for in this forum over the
past decade.

It is no surprise your posting was rejected.

I doubt you are capable of submitting any posting which would meet the
requirements of civility, as you seem to habitually unable to be control
your little temper tantrums that result in you stomping your feet and
calling people names.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 16, 2:36�am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote :

* "Congenial and constructive" discussion is apparently
* making gratuitous nice-nice to the Big 8. *shrug

Nope, "congenial and constructive" means to behave yourself, without
resorting to immature antics you are so famous for in this forum over the
past decade.

It is no surprise your posting was rejected.

It wasn't any surprise to me, either, since it was expected.

It served to prove that this "moderated" group would be little
more than Olde-Tyme Hamme Raddio good-old-boys club
where all can sit around and marvel at each other's
expertise in emulating the radio ops of the 1930s. Sort of
an "ARRL South" relfector.

I doubt you are capable of submitting any posting which would meet
the requirements of civility, as you seem to habitually unable to be
control your little temper tantrums that result in you stomping your
feet and calling people names.

Oh, my, admonishment from a PROVEN CALL SIGN THIEF
and FRAUDULENT RESIDENCY REPORTER.

Perhaps you should petition the "Big Ate" to call this new
moderated olde-tyme Blog as "The Liars Club?" You can
nominate Major Dud as President-for-Life and look to him
for "leadership" as you bark orders to the "RF Commandos."

Telling the world of your misdeeds is not "incivility"...
except to other thieves. Telling the world of your fraud in
reporting your false residency to the federal government
is NOT a "temper tantrum." Pointing out that your co-
conspirator has confessed in public his wrong-doing on
"loaning" you a Hawaiian Post Office box number for
this "residency" is not "stomping feet" and having
"tantrums."

LA

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 16, 2:23�am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
sputtered and stammered:

* Nobody seems to care for a call thief, either.

I'll always have 1 more amateur radio license than you, Len!

A DOZEN more, in fact, but in PAST tense.

And I will have had 51 years of licensing as a Radiotelephone
(Commercial) Radio Operator...being co-owner of a PLMRS
business radio...a 55-year career in radio-electronics as a
professional...with design engineering responsibility...all
for a living since 1960...and four years active duty in the
United States Army serving my country.

I will NEVER EVER top you as a fraudulent residency
person, one who "borrows" others' Post Office box
numbers to scam the government into getting some
AMATEUR radio station license call sign. Sorry, I've
lived AT my present address for 44 years and enjoy
that. My address is on file with the United States
government in several agencies including the FCC and
I have no need for fraudulently reporting any other
address for any reason.

By the way, another licensed radio amateur has you
BEAT by a ratio of about 2.5:1 on EXCESS amateur
radio station call signs. He even has a website
bragging of that. Go "top" him...if you can. I don't
think you've got the cojones to do it. Easterners
aren't good for that sort of thing.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

wrote:

It wasn't any surprise to me, either, since it was expected.

What's really sad, Len, is that if you are half as knowledgable as you claim
to be, people could actually learn something from you.

Instead, you seem to want to be intentionally caustic in your personal, much
like my long since departed grandmother wanted to be.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 16, 10:44�am, wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 10:32:15 -0800, "

wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:36?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote :

*"Congenial and constructive" discussion is apparently
*making gratuitous nice-nice to the Big 8. shrug

Nope, "congenial and constructive" means to behave yourself, without
resorting to immature antics you are so famous for in this forum over the
past decade.

It is no surprise your posting was rejected.

* It wasn't any surprise to me, either, since it was expected.

good that was not quite clear to this point in the exchange

"Not CLEAR?!?" Oh, my, how quickly some forget... :-(

* It served to prove that this "moderated" group would be little
* more than Olde-Tyme Hamme Raddio good-old-boys club
* where all can sit around and marvel at each other's
* expertise in emulating the radio ops of the 1930s. *Sort of
* an "ARRL South" relfector.

if even that

No, it will be a cozy cameraderie, a catty coterie of olde-
tymers busy, busy making nice-nice about each other's
ability to "work DX on HF with CW." And talking about
Olde Dayes such as "Bandplans of 1940" (that none ever
had any life experience with).

In truth, there isn't anything 'wrong' with that. If someone
(or several someones) want to engage in constant nostalgia,
of "doing the right thing" as it was told to them by the ARRL,
fine. It is their choice.

However, that is so far from PROGRESS or even keeping
up with the times as Stonehenge architecture differs from
NYC's Empire State building. Stonehenge appears to be
an old religious-rite site in the UK. Olde-tyme hamme
raddio a la 1930s is also a quasi-religious-rite thing with
some olde-tymers. Let those radio-religious zealots
practice what they preach...in their own cozy cabins of
protection from outside influence.

Apparently, some in here have their whole lives tied up
in this amateur radio thing and are busy being amateur
professionals. Or is that professional amateurs? (hard to
tell the difference sometimes) Some in here have a
desperate NEED to be "better" than others, regardless of
the diminutive status of that "betterment." Those will lie,
cheat, steal in addition to being as abusive as possible
against others to attempt proving it. They seldom "prove"
anything other than being liars, thieves, scam-artists, and
general-class sons of bitches.

Amateur radio has never been more than a HOBBY radio
activity in the real world of ALL radio. In itself that is a fun
thing, an enjoyable pastime, perhaps a relief from having
to work for food and shelter in the real world. It can be
self-educational in a constantly-changing state-of-the-art
technology. But that is all it is, a HOBBY. It has no
academic standing for awarding "degrees" of
accomplishment...yet, some hobbyists try to equate it
with "life goals" or "expertise" well beyond reality.

A certain Massachussetts resident (formerly of Rhode
Island) has stated he "has one more amateur radio
license" than I. Acknowledged, plus at least 11 MORE
(at one time in the past). Now, in the quasi-religious
sanctuary of amateur radio bloggery (as in here), that
is supposed to make him "better" than I? Only in his
mind. To the rest of the world he has been exposed.
Even some of the olde-tyme hammes cannot condone
what he has done...except, in their 'choosing up sides'
they cannot admit to that publicly.

Fine say I to their myriad ways of trying to prove they
are "better" than others. The variety of ways they
express this "betterment" is morbidly fascinating to
me. The ultimate might be the actions of the trustee
of W6NUT (or whatever) who had scammed the FCC
into being granted 2 1/2 times Deignan's dirty dozen
call signs. [I think most have been pulled by now]

The "record" has been SET. Deignan can't possibly
hope to "better" that. All he can do is act the middle
school adolescent bully and be "better" than those not
licensed in amateur radio. That is what so many of
the olde-tymers do in here...Miccolis, Heil, Kelly, and
an assortment of anonymous fruits and nuts.
[some days in here its like an open farmers' market]

LA

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 16, 11:41�am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
*It wasn't any surprise to me, either, since it was expected.

What's really sad, Len, is that if you are half as knowledgable as you claim
to be, people could actually learn something from you.

What's even more "sad" is that so many already think
they know it all and refuse to learn anything new.

I can't help how other people think and react to their
boasting of "having more calls than me." If the
completion of an unethical/morally-wrong act has
been a success in their eyes, it remains an unethical/
morally-wrong act to all others.

If anyone really wants to learn some knowledge that I've
acquired, they can. But, I have no experience in
scamming or otherwise finding loopholes in FCC regs
so as to obtain more amateur radio callsigns.

Instead, you seem to want to be intentionally caustic in your personal,
much like my long since departed grandmother wanted to be.

I do not know your "grandmother" and such knowledge is
irrelevant. What IS germane to this newsgroup is the act
of one in the past who has flaunted having a dozen FAKE
"club" callsigns and fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur radio
station call sign. That "knowledge" (facts, really) is in
Google archives and was once visible at www.ah0a.org
in the "multiple-club" listings.

If discussion of FLAUNTING REGULATIONS as well as
outright FRAUD of residency is "caustic" to you, tough
****. Now do you really think that the moderators of this
new (maybe) to be newsgroup have "forgotten" things
and will "accept" YOUR caustic commentary as "okay?"
I don't think so.

Feel free to FLAUNT all you wish. Then we will all know
you suffer from 'flauntulence.' No problem. The smell
will go away after a while...

LA

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

If discussion of FLAUNTING REGULATIONS as well as
outright FRAUD of residency is "caustic" to you, tough
****. Now do you really think that the moderators of this
new (maybe) to be newsgroup have "forgotten" things
and will "accept" YOUR caustic commentary as "okay?"
I don't think so.

Feel free to FLAUNT all you wish. Then we will all know
you suffer from 'flauntulence.' No problem. The smell
will go away after a while...

LA
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Oh, would that the same be true fo you.

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 16, 3:55�pm, "
wrote:

fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
* *Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
* *that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur radio
* *station call sign. *

Len:

I suggest you read Part 97 again.

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address. In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

FCC used to care about where a licensee lived, and the
actual station location. But all that changed many years
ago, and all they have required for may years is a valid
mailing address where the licensee may receive mail
from FCC.

After all, the FCC did accept and process the vanity call
applications, and did issue the callsigns. Perhaps it was
simply a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules,
rather than the letter of the law.

FCC has issued some vanity callsigns that some consider
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. Those callsigns
would not normally be issued in sequence, so the FCC is
aware of the controversy, yet they issued those callsigns
when requested through the vanity program.

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old. Why are you living in the past? Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

Jim, N2EY

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

wrote:

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address. In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

Yup. Exactly.


Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old. Why are you living in the past? Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

Comeon, Jim... You don't wanna spoil their fun crying "FRAUD!" and all sorts
of other chicken-little claims, do you?

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

"an old friend" wrote:

Mike could end it almost at once by admitting what we all know he was
obliged to give up the call based on threat of action by the FCC
wether than tell th e CUURENT LIE he did so of his own free will

There was no "threat of action" by the FCC.

The FCC asked for documents.
I opted not to supply them.
FCC cancelled the callsigns.

Pretty simple.

At no time was there any "threat of action", i.e. a "warning notice" which
would later become a "license revocation" or a "forfeiture proceeding". No
matter how much you wish it true, it ain't gonna change history, available
for anyone to google if they so wish.

Of course, there's an entire argument to be made that the documentation
requested by the FCC in their correspondence to me (i.e. meeting minutes,
meeting times) is not required under Part 97. 97.5(b)(2) only states that
"The club must be composed of at least four persons and must have a name, a
document of organization, management, and a primary purpose devoted to
amateur service activities consistent with this part." There is no
requirement stated in 97.5(b)(2) that an organization keep minutes or
publish a schedule of meetings -- in fact, the way 97.5(b)(2) reads, you
could have 1 meeting every 10 years and still be in compliance.


If I was so inclined, and if I was so "dishonest" as some people in this
forum claim, I could have easily created such documents and supplied them.

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 16, 2:49�pm, wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:55?pm, "
wrote:

* *fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
? ?Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
? ?that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur radio
? ?station call sign. ?

I suggest you read Part 97 again.

I suggest you stuff it up yer nose.

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address. In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

FCC used to care about where a licensee lived, and the
actual station location. But all that changed many years
ago, and all they have required for may years is a valid
mailing address where the licensee may receive mail
from FCC.

So, you NOW work for the US government in the FCC?

Riiiiiiight..."may receive mail from FCC." Four, maybe six
days to get to Hawaii, several days before Herman would
pick it up and forward it to Deignan's real postal address,
then four to six days to get back to DC with a needed
reply. At least two weeks elapsed time. Real "quick"
and "fast-moving" communications, right?

After all, the FCC did accept and process the vanity call
applications, and did issue the callsigns. Perhaps it was
simply a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules,
rather than the letter of the law.

Sweetums, you are indeed NAIVE. "Misunderstanding
the intent of the rules" is total bull**** on your part.
Deignan saw what others were already doing and wanted
a piece of the action, plus getting a spiffy Hawaiian call
in the same process. He took advantage that few would
notice it in Gettysburg (they didn't) and bingo, there was
the spiffy "vanity call" denoting the state of Hawaii!

You never saw all the "club call" listings at www.ah0a.org?
Must not have (you turn a blind eye on many things).

FCC has issued some vanity callsigns that some consider
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. Those callsigns
would not normally be issued in sequence, so the FCC is
aware of the controversy, yet they issued those callsigns
when requested through the vanity program.

Go and admonish some yokel who thinks you are some
kind of ancient guru-figure official. We regulars know
better.

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old.

Tsk, tsk! That's one year NEWER than your many-times-
repeated "boast of mine" about getting "an extra out-of-the-
box."

Why are you living in the past?

...so asks the ancient guru of hamme raddio expounding on
"Bandplans of 1940" in www.eham.net AS IF they ever applied
to His life experience.

Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

Total bull****, ancient guru. Deignan was always out for Deignan.
Yeah, he passed an extra test at one time in the past. He got
an extra call. But...the ex-captain of the "Effluvia" WANTED
MORE. So, with the aid of a buddie in Hawaii, he conspires to
get a spiffy HAWAIIAN call (the "KH6" prefix) that would NOT
be issued to a (then) Rhode Island resident. Not only that, he
dreamed up a dozen FAKE "clubs" and got callsigns for them,
too.

Why don't you go back to your private little corner of OLDE TYMES
and memorize all the OLD rules so you can play the ancient guru
"authority" on times long gone? Or go get laid. [have you lost
your
virginity yet?]

Better yet, why don't you arrange a 'sked' with K4YZ on "CW."
Then you can slap him directly over your very own raddio instead
of pretending to be a tuff guy in here?

LA

Morgasm
 

you are a fraud you invented clubs and got caught

you borrowed poboxes and you got caught doing something

Morkie knows fraud when he sees it. After all, he's been one for years.

Another Morgasm
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:41:13 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:

"an old friend" wrote:

Mike could end it almost at once by admitting what we all know he was
obliged to give up the call based on threat of action by the FCC
wether than tell th e CUURENT LIE he did so of his own free will

There was no "threat of action" by the FCC.

lying agin Mike

The FCC asked for documents.

they demanded the docs or else

My. You're feeling pretty sassy this evening, Mark. You must have just
finished one of your beer enemas.

Morgasm
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:58:14 -0500, "Paul W. Schlock" PWS@Flatulence
wrote:


You must have just
finished one of your beer enemas.

you just can't post without sex dloyd


What does a beer enema have to do with sex? Unless of course YOU think of it
as a sexual act.
And just as your name is not Markie, mine is not "dloyd".


--
you have again demotrated your blantant disresgard

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 15, 8:40 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

Welp, Riley came around to my way of thinking, so I don't care that
you don't care...

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 16, 5:23 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
sputtered and stammered:

Nobody seems to care for a call thief, either.

I'll always have 1 more amateur radio license than you, Len!

Did Riley guarantee that?

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 16, 1:51 pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:23?am, "KH6HZ" wrote:

sputtered and stammered:

? Nobody seems to care for a call thief, either.

I'll always have 1 more amateur radio license than you, Len!

A DOZEN more, in fact, but in PAST tense.

And I will have had 51 years of licensing as a Radiotelephone
(Commercial) Radio Operator...being co-owner of a PLMRS
business radio...a 55-year career in radio-electronics as a
professional...with design engineering responsibility...all
for a living since 1960...and four years active duty in the
United States Army serving my country.

I will NEVER EVER top you as a fraudulent residency
person, one who "borrows" others' Post Office box
numbers to scam the government into getting some
AMATEUR radio station license call sign. Sorry, I've
lived AT my present address for 44 years and enjoy
that. My address is on file with the United States
government in several agencies including the FCC and
I have no need for fraudulently reporting any other
address for any reason.

By the way, another licensed radio amateur has you
BEAT by a ratio of about 2.5:1 on EXCESS amateur
radio station call signs. He even has a website
bragging of that. Go "top" him...if you can. I don't
think you've got the cojones to do it. Easterners
aren't good for that sort of thing.

But Mike is the toughest of the tuff RF Commandos of the Eastern
variety. He might have even been in seven (7) hostile RF
environments.

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 16, 5:49 pm, wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:55?pm, "
wrote:

fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
? ?Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
? ?that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur radio
? ?station call sign. ?

Len:

I suggest you read Part 97 again.

I suggest you go to your local Post Office and ask them about renting
a PO Box then using it for other people.

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address.

Just any valid mailing address?

In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

Just any valid mailing address?

FCC used to care about where a licensee lived, and the
actual station location. But all that changed many years
ago, and all they have required for may years is a valid
mailing address where the licensee may receive mail
from FCC.

What do the Postal Regulations say about it?

After all, the FCC did accept and process the vanity call
applications, and did issue the callsigns. Perhaps it was
simply a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules,
rather than the letter of the law.

The government can be defrauded as well as anyone, and there was no
misunderstanding. It was poor amateur practice.

FCC has issued some vanity callsigns that some consider
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. Those callsigns
would not normally be issued in sequence, so the FCC is
aware of the controversy, yet they issued those callsigns
when requested through the vanity program.

We're not talking about Kim, we're talking about Michael P. Deignan of
the RF Commandos.

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old. Why are you living in the past?

In ham years that was barely yesterday.

Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

It's because the individual incessantly tells others how to live their
ham-lives, then defrauds his friend and the FCC.

Jim, N2EY

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 16, 7:41 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"an old friend" wrote:

Mike could end it almost at once by admitting what we all know he was
obliged to give up the call based on threat of action by the FCC
wether than tell th e CUURENT LIE he did so of his own free will

There was no "threat of action" by the FCC.

The FCC asked for documents.
I opted not to supply them.
FCC cancelled the callsigns.

Pretty simple.

Cancelling a dozen fraudulent callsigns is "inaction."

At no time was there any "threat of action", i.e. a "warning notice" which
would later become a "license revocation" or a "forfeiture proceeding". No
matter how much you wish it true, it ain't gonna change history, available
for anyone to google if they so wish.

Cancelling a dozen fraudulent callsigns is "inaction."

Of course, there's an entire argument to be made that the documentation
requested by the FCC in their correspondence to me (i.e. meeting minutes,
meeting times) is not required under Part 97. 97.5(b)(2) only states that
"The club must be composed of at least four persons and must have a name, a
document of organization, management, and a primary purpose devoted to
amateur service activities consistent with this part." There is no
requirement stated in 97.5(b)(2) that an organization keep minutes or
publish a schedule of meetings -- in fact, the way 97.5(b)(2) reads, you
could have 1 meeting every 10 years and still be in compliance.

What? You just had "verbal" meeting minutes? You didn't get them in
writing???

If I was so inclined, and if I was so "dishonest" as some people in this
forum claim, I could have easily created such documents and supplied them.

Like a cat covering up "something."

There were no clubs, there were no members, and there were no
documents of organization.

There were no meetings, and there were no minutes recorded.

At best there were a couple of guys who wanted a bigger piece of the
public pie than was reasonable. A much bigger piece.

You should be in politics.

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 16, 7:17 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address. In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

Yup. Exactly.

My neighbor has a valid mailing address. It is not where I receive my
mail. Neither is a PO Box 7,000 miles away.

Should my neighbor come to me with a letter for you from Riley, I'll
be sure to let you know.

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old. Why are you living in the past? Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

Comeon, Jim... You don't wanna spoil their fun crying "FRAUD!" and all sorts
of other chicken-little claims, do you?

What? "Once a fraud, always a fraud" doesn't apply?

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 16, 7:50 pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:49?pm, wrote:

On Feb 16, 3:55?pm, "
wrote:

? ?fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
? ?Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
? ?that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur radio
? ?station call sign. ?

I suggest you read Part 97 again.

I suggest you stuff it up yer nose.

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address. In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

FCC used to care about where a licensee lived, and the
actual station location. But all that changed many years
ago, and all they have required for may years is a valid
mailing address where the licensee may receive mail
from FCC.

So, you NOW work for the US government in the FCC?

Riiiiiiight..."may receive mail from FCC." Four, maybe six
days to get to Hawaii, several days before Herman would
pick it up and forward it to Deignan's real postal address,
then four to six days to get back to DC with a needed
reply. At least two weeks elapsed time. Real "quick"
and "fast-moving" communications, right?

After all, the FCC did accept and process the vanity call
applications, and did issue the callsigns. Perhaps it was
simply a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules,
rather than the letter of the law.

Sweetums, you are indeed NAIVE. "Misunderstanding
the intent of the rules" is total bull**** on your part.
Deignan saw what others were already doing and wanted
a piece of the action, plus getting a spiffy Hawaiian call
in the same process. He took advantage that few would
notice it in Gettysburg (they didn't) and bingo, there was
the spiffy "vanity call" denoting the state of Hawaii!

Jim will wail and cry about Haliburton giving a service in the most
dangerous part of the world and expecting to be paid a high price for
it. But if another Extra wants a bunch of "club" calls and gloms a
KH6 personal call, then he rightly deserves them and is ENTITLED
(RHIP).


You never saw all the "club call" listings atwww.ah0a.org?
Must not have (you turn a blind eye on many things).

Jim has never been to the AH0A site. Hi!

FCC has issued some vanity callsigns that some consider
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. Those callsigns
would not normally be issued in sequence, so the FCC is
aware of the controversy, yet they issued those callsigns
when requested through the vanity program.

Go and admonish some yokel who thinks you are some
kind of ancient guru-figure official. We regulars know
better.

Kim's callsign was just a diversion, unrelated to fraud.

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old.

Tsk, tsk! That's one year NEWER than your many-times-
repeated "boast of mine" about getting "an extra out-of-the-
box."

Selective ham years.

Why are you living in the past?

...so asks the ancient guru of hamme raddio expounding on
"Bandplans of 1940" inwww.eham.netAS IF they ever applied
to His life experience.

Jim is the reincarnation of Hiram.

Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

Total bull****, ancient guru. Deignan was always out for Deignan.

That's a fact, Jack!

Yeah, he passed an extra test at one time in the past. He got
an extra call. But...the ex-captain of the "Effluvia" WANTED
MORE. So, with the aid of a buddie in Hawaii, he conspires to
get a spiffy HAWAIIAN call (the "KH6" prefix) that would NOT
be issued to a (then) Rhode Island resident. Not only that, he
dreamed up a dozen FAKE "clubs" and got callsigns for them,
too.

But he's an Extra. RHIP.

Why don't you go back to your private little corner of OLDE TYMES
and memorize all the OLD rules so you can play the ancient guru
"authority" on times long gone? Or go get laid. [have you lost
your
virginity yet?]

Yikes! Jim's sexuality or lack thereof has no place in RRAP.

Better yet, why don't you arrange a 'sked' with K4YZ on "CW."
Then you can slap him directly over your very own raddio instead
of pretending to be a tuff guy in here?

LA

You must have seen the awesome "Who's Morky?" remark.

Jim stood toe to toe with the Robesinner and didn't blink (Tom Petty
playing "Won't Back Down" in the background).

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 15, 8:40 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

Welp, Riley came around to my way of thinking, so I don't care that
you don't care...

Welp (grin) I don't care that you don't care that I don't care that you
don't care...
Oh, wait. Am I being redundant here?

'scuse me while I check the dictionary for the definition of cantankerous.
Maybe I are.

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Feb 16, 7:50 pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:49?pm, wrote:

On Feb 16, 3:55?pm, "
wrote:

? ?fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
? ?Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
? ?that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur radio
? ?station call sign. ?

I suggest you read Part 97 again.

I suggest you stuff it up yer nose.

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address. In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

FCC used to care about where a licensee lived, and the
actual station location. But all that changed many years
ago, and all they have required for may years is a valid
mailing address where the licensee may receive mail
from FCC.

So, you NOW work for the US government in the FCC?

Riiiiiiight..."may receive mail from FCC." Four, maybe six
days to get to Hawaii, several days before Herman would
pick it up and forward it to Deignan's real postal address,
then four to six days to get back to DC with a needed
reply. At least two weeks elapsed time. Real "quick"
and "fast-moving" communications, right?

After all, the FCC did accept and process the vanity call
applications, and did issue the callsigns. Perhaps it was
simply a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules,
rather than the letter of the law.

Sweetums, you are indeed NAIVE. "Misunderstanding
the intent of the rules" is total bull**** on your part.
Deignan saw what others were already doing and wanted
a piece of the action, plus getting a spiffy Hawaiian call
in the same process. He took advantage that few would
notice it in Gettysburg (they didn't) and bingo, there was
the spiffy "vanity call" denoting the state of Hawaii!

Jim will wail and cry about Haliburton giving a service in the most
dangerous part of the world and expecting to be paid a high price for
it. But if another Extra wants a bunch of "club" calls and gloms a
KH6 personal call, then he rightly deserves them and is ENTITLED
(RHIP).


You never saw all the "club call" listings atwww.ah0a.org?
Must not have (you turn a blind eye on many things).

Jim has never been to the AH0A site. Hi!

FCC has issued some vanity callsigns that some consider
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. Those callsigns
would not normally be issued in sequence, so the FCC is
aware of the controversy, yet they issued those callsigns
when requested through the vanity program.

Go and admonish some yokel who thinks you are some
kind of ancient guru-figure official. We regulars know
better.

Kim's callsign was just a diversion, unrelated to fraud.

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old.

Tsk, tsk! That's one year NEWER than your many-times-
repeated "boast of mine" about getting "an extra out-of-the-
box."

Selective ham years.

Why are you living in the past?

...so asks the ancient guru of hamme raddio expounding on
"Bandplans of 1940" inwww.eham.netAS IF they ever applied
to His life experience.

Jim is the reincarnation of Hiram.

Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

Total bull****, ancient guru. Deignan was always out for Deignan.

That's a fact, Jack!

Yeah, he passed an extra test at one time in the past. He got
an extra call. But...the ex-captain of the "Effluvia" WANTED
MORE. So, with the aid of a buddie in Hawaii, he conspires to
get a spiffy HAWAIIAN call (the "KH6" prefix) that would NOT
be issued to a (then) Rhode Island resident. Not only that, he
dreamed up a dozen FAKE "clubs" and got callsigns for them,
too.

But he's an Extra. RHIP.

Why don't you go back to your private little corner of OLDE TYMES
and memorize all the OLD rules so you can play the ancient guru
"authority" on times long gone? Or go get laid. [have you lost
your
virginity yet?]

Yikes! Jim's sexuality or lack thereof has no place in RRAP.

Better yet, why don't you arrange a 'sked' with K4YZ on "CW."
Then you can slap him directly over your very own raddio instead
of pretending to be a tuff guy in here?

LA

You must have seen the awesome "Who's Morky?" remark.

Jim stood toe to toe with the Robesinner and didn't blink (Tom Petty
playing "Won't Back Down" in the background).

Thanks for the memory jog. I always liked that song. Guess I'll have to fire
up Limewire and see if I can d-load it.
Yup, Markie, before you jump, I am willfully violating copyright laws by
downloading old songs such as this. Like you, who conveniently blames
everybody else, I'll blame HH&C for putting me in mind of this great old
song. He made me do it.

Thanks, HH&C. Have you any more songs to suggest?

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

wrote:

I suggest you go to your local Post Office and ask them about renting
a PO Box then using it for other people.

Perfectly 100% legal within postal regulations.


What do the Postal Regulations say about it?

Since you're the "expert" Brain, why don't you tell us?

Free clue: Be sure to refer to the pre-9/11 / Patriot Act postal
regulations.


The government can be defrauded as well as anyone, and there was no
misunderstanding. It was poor amateur practice.

Says you. But then, you don't count.


It's because the individual incessantly tells others how to live their
ham-lives, then defrauds his friend and the FCC.

Neither the FCC nor my friend were defrauded, despite your repeated
foot-stomping and tantrums to the contrary.

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

wrote:

Cancelling a dozen fraudulent callsigns is "inaction."

The FCC never cancelled a dozen callsigns. One has to wonder how you passed
an amateur radio exam given you seem to fail basic math. Perhaps Riley
should require you to be retested.

Nor were the callsigns "fraudulent". The cancelled callsigns were 100% valid
callsigns issued by the FCC. A callsign issued by the FCC cannot be
fraudulent by its very definition.


What? You just had "verbal" meeting minutes? You didn't get them in
writing???

Where in 97.5(b)(2) does it state meeting minutes are a requirement?


There were no clubs, there were no members, and there were no
documents of organization.

Define a "document of organization". Charter issed by the State? IRS
recognition as a non-profit organization? A 1-sheet piece of paper that says
"We're a club, this is what we do, and the club license trustee is manager
ad infinitum"?

Guess what? That 97.5(b)(2) doesn't define what a 'document of organization'
is, so a 1-page or 1-paragraph description suffices.


There were no meetings, and there were no minutes recorded.

There is no definition in 97.5(b)(2) as to how often a club has to have
meetings, how long those meetings have to be, how the meetings have to be
publicized, or that the 'minutes' of any meetings held be maintained.

A group of 5 hams getting together informally several times a year, chatting
over coffee, and participating in a DF "foxhunt", fully meets the
requirements of 97.5(b)(2)


If you want to stomp your feet and jump up and down some more, be my guest.
Doesn't change the facts -- which anyone can google and see for themselves.


Now, go take a quinapril, we don't want you to burst a blood vessel.

REPOST: 3rd RFD: rec.radio.amateur.moderated moderated (LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS)
 

On Feb 17, 12:49 am, "Paul W. Schlock" PWS@Flatulence wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com... On Feb 15, 8:40 pm, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I disapprove of individual amateurs collecting a bunch of club
callsigns.

Nobody really cares about your approval, or lack thereof.

Welp, Riley came around to my way of thinking, so I don't care that
you don't care...

Welp (grin) I don't care that you don't care that I don't care that you
don't care...
Oh, wait. Am I being redundant here?

'scuse me while I check the dictionary for the definition of cantankerous.
Maybe I are.

Did Riley come around to your way of thinking, too?

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 17, 7:13 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
Cancelling a dozen fraudulent callsigns is "inaction."

The FCC never cancelled a dozen callsigns. One has to wonder how you passed
an amateur radio exam given you seem to fail basic math. Perhaps Riley
should require you to be retested.

Nor were the callsigns "fraudulent". The cancelled callsigns were 100% valid
callsigns issued by the FCC. A callsign issued by the FCC cannot be
fraudulent by its very definition.

What? You just had "verbal" meeting minutes? You didn't get them in
writing???

Where in 97.5(b)(2) does it state meeting minutes are a requirement?

There were no clubs, there were no members, and there were no
documents of organization.

Define a "document of organization". Charter issed by the State? IRS
recognition as a non-profit organization? A 1-sheet piece of paper that says
"We're a club, this is what we do, and the club license trustee is manager
ad infinitum"?

Guess what? That 97.5(b)(2) doesn't define what a 'document of organization'
is, so a 1-page or 1-paragraph description suffices.

There were no meetings, and there were no minutes recorded.

There is no definition in 97.5(b)(2) as to how often a club has to have
meetings, how long those meetings have to be, how the meetings have to be
publicized, or that the 'minutes' of any meetings held be maintained.

A group of 5 hams getting together informally several times a year, chatting
over coffee, and participating in a DF "foxhunt", fully meets the
requirements of 97.5(b)(2)

If you want to stomp your feet and jump up and down some more, be my guest.
Doesn't change the facts -- which anyone can google and see for themselves.

Now, go take a quinapril, we don't want you to burst a blood vessel.

Mike, it sure looks like you non-complied with everthing that wasn't
in Part 97. You could be the example child for the next Part 97
update. It could be called the "Mad Dog Mike Deignan Clause."

Congrats on being so smart an outwitting Riley.

You da RF Commando Man!

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 17, 1:11 am, "Paul W. Schlock" PWS@Flatulence wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...



On Feb 16, 7:50 pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:49?pm, wrote:

On Feb 16, 3:55?pm, "
wrote:

? ?fraudulently claimed a Hawaiian
? ?Post Office Box address as being his "residence," one
? ?that would allow him to obtain a Hawaiian amateur radio
? ?station call sign. ?

I suggest you read Part 97 again.

I suggest you stuff it up yer nose.

The regulations do not require that someone give the FCC
their "residence". All the FCC requires is a valid mailing
address. In the case of certain callsigns, the mailing address
must be in certain locations, such as Hawaii, but there is
no residence requirement.

FCC used to care about where a licensee lived, and the
actual station location. But all that changed many years
ago, and all they have required for may years is a valid
mailing address where the licensee may receive mail
from FCC.

So, you NOW work for the US government in the FCC?

Riiiiiiight..."may receive mail from FCC." Four, maybe six
days to get to Hawaii, several days before Herman would
pick it up and forward it to Deignan's real postal address,
then four to six days to get back to DC with a needed
reply. At least two weeks elapsed time. Real "quick"
and "fast-moving" communications, right?

After all, the FCC did accept and process the vanity call
applications, and did issue the callsigns. Perhaps it was
simply a misunderstanding of the intent of the rules,
rather than the letter of the law.

Sweetums, you are indeed NAIVE. "Misunderstanding
the intent of the rules" is total bull**** on your part.
Deignan saw what others were already doing and wanted
a piece of the action, plus getting a spiffy Hawaiian call
in the same process. He took advantage that few would
notice it in Gettysburg (they didn't) and bingo, there was
the spiffy "vanity call" denoting the state of Hawaii!

Jim will wail and cry about Haliburton giving a service in the most
dangerous part of the world and expecting to be paid a high price for
it. But if another Extra wants a bunch of "club" calls and gloms a
KH6 personal call, then he rightly deserves them and is ENTITLED
(RHIP).

You never saw all the "club call" listings atwww.ah0a.org?
Must not have (you turn a blind eye on many things).

Jim has never been to the AH0A site. Hi!

FCC has issued some vanity callsigns that some consider
inappropriate for the amateur radio service. Those callsigns
would not normally be issued in sequence, so the FCC is
aware of the controversy, yet they issued those callsigns
when requested through the vanity program.

Go and admonish some yokel who thinks you are some
kind of ancient guru-figure official. We regulars know
better.

Kim's callsign was just a diversion, unrelated to fraud.

Besides - all that stuff about the club calls is more than six
years old.

Tsk, tsk! That's one year NEWER than your many-times-
repeated "boast of mine" about getting "an extra out-of-the-
box."

Selective ham years.

Why are you living in the past?

...so asks the ancient guru of hamme raddio expounding on
"Bandplans of 1940" inwww.eham.netASIF they ever applied
to His life experience.

Jim is the reincarnation of Hiram.

Is it because the
person who held all those calls was and is an advocate of
complete Morse Code test elimination?

Total bull****, ancient guru. Deignan was always out for Deignan.

That's a fact, Jack!

Yeah, he passed an extra test at one time in the past. He got
an extra call. But...the ex-captain of the "Effluvia" WANTED
MORE. So, with the aid of a buddie in Hawaii, he conspires to
get a spiffy HAWAIIAN call (the "KH6" prefix) that would NOT
be issued to a (then) Rhode Island resident. Not only that, he
dreamed up a dozen FAKE "clubs" and got callsigns for them,
too.

But he's an Extra. RHIP.

Why don't you go back to your private little corner of OLDE TYMES
and memorize all the OLD rules so you can play the ancient guru
"authority" on times long gone? Or go get laid. [have you lost
your
virginity yet?]

Yikes! Jim's sexuality or lack thereof has no place in RRAP.

Better yet, why don't you arrange a 'sked' with K4YZ on "CW."
Then you can slap him directly over your very own raddio instead
of pretending to be a tuff guy in here?

LA

You must have seen the awesome "Who's Morky?" remark.

Jim stood toe to toe with the Robesinner and didn't blink (Tom Petty
playing "Won't Back Down" in the background).

Thanks for the memory jog. I always liked that song. Guess I'll have to fire
up Limewire and see if I can d-load it.
Yup, Markie, before you jump, I am willfully violating copyright laws by
downloading old songs such as this.

Old? It doesn't seem old to me. How many ham-years ago did Tom
release it?

Like you, who conveniently blames
everybody else, I'll blame HH&C for putting me in mind of this great old
song. He made me do it.

Flip Wilson, "The Devil Made Me Do It!"

Thanks, HH&C. Have you any more songs to suggest?-

Anything by David Hasselhoff.

Residence vs. Mailing Address
 

On Feb 17, 6:52 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:
wrote:
I suggest you go to your local Post Office and ask them about renting
a PO Box then using it for other people.

Perfectly 100% legal within postal regulations.

Sure it is.

What do the Postal Regulations say about it?

Since you're the "expert" Brain, why don't you tell us?

Free clue: Be sure to refer to the pre-9/11 / Patriot Act postal
regulations.

My PO Boxes were all pre-9/11 Patriot Act. Thanks for the distractor.

The government can be defrauded as well as anyone, and there was no
misunderstanding. It was poor amateur practice.

Says you. But then, you don't count.

Someone counted. Someone counted up your call signs and mailed you a
letter.

It's because the individual incessantly tells others how to live their
ham-lives, then defrauds his friend and the FCC.

Neither the FCC nor my friend were defrauded, despite your repeated
foot-stomping and tantrums to the contrary.

I don't think he's your friend anymore, or at least he's not defending
you. But now you have Jim.

The FCC? Riley takes care of that business like he took care of you.