Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 11, 3:52�pm, "
wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still believed it. * *Sweetums, NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143 * *on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. *It wasn't issued yet. *:-) You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad. Apologies all around. It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC. There have been other verified stories about young amateurs. Since 2000, a six-year-old has passed the General, and a seven-year-old has passed the Extra. Both stories in QST. FCC had no problem believing either. In fact that seven-year-old broke the previous record, held by an eight-year-old who passed the old pre-2000 Extra, complete with 20 wpm code and five written tests. All those young amateurs still have their licenses. They haven't gotten into any problems with FCC. * *Wonderful. * I agree - it *is* wonderful. I'll just think of all you worshippers * *of St. Hiram as pre-teeners, mentality and reasoning * *"maturity" to match... *:-) Why? * *Now, just WHY are you continuing your "age limit" * *diatribe past the 8 year and 2 months time of that * *particular Comment on an NPRM that got settled by * *a Report and Order? How was it "settled", Len? FCC did not refer to your Reply Comments at all. * *Is it the usual "nyah, nyah" to be followed by a * *call to mommy by all you mental pre-teeners? No, Len - that's you projecting your own motivations and mentality on others. Again. I brought up the "age limit" thing because it has a direct bearing on the VE system. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the VEs who administered your testing to your accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at the ARRL and some Indiana VEs. Jim, N2EY |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 11, 10:06 pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 10:30 pm, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message news On 11 Mar 2007 18:10:15 -0700, wrote: On Mar 11, 8:14 pm, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message I think some complaints to your ISP for TOS violations are in order. Yes, that's the ticket Posting on a newsgroup using other than your real e-mail address...guess you're screwed there Bluster Man And who's going to report me? I will and did. It's amazing what you can come up with. Oh,no. Oh, no. When will the AG knock on my door? I'm skeered. LOL and for what? Whos' asking dipschitt go back to picking your nose Poor thing is getting all touchy about being made fun of. just like Nursie Have you been stupid all your life or did you Momma drop you on your head as an adult? WOW what a put down. I dunno Bry. Was that your momma sucking dick for a dollar over at the TKE house last week. I heard she could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch You got all my hot-buttons with that one. Now I'm so mad that I could make a typo. and making a typo is well worthy of your hounding for at least the neext 10 years The best part of you Bry ran down your mamma ass and made a brown stain on the bedspread Does your wife know you play with potential HIV carriers Do you know that everyone is a potential HIV carrier? Especially emergency room nurses. and elitively few people are real HIV carrriers whanna keep playing BRY you son of DOS (yes I know what it means) You do? I didn't think you knew who your daddy was. I understand you were unit punk when you were in the military, got lost of experience mixing desel fuel with the laterine **** My lost of military experience is lost on no-servers such as yourself. whanna keep playiing?? We can start on your wife and kids..after all you openined this door Poor demented thing. Now he's gots to terrorize the wimmin and the kiddies. Next thing you know, he'll be slashing tires and throwing bricks through windows. and making shots and kills too no doubt now now there is better explanation that does get so personal raditation damage by OOK narrow band RF Marcus, go back to chasing DX That's Heil's job. Thanks for the comedy. It was a nice way to end the weekend. Great weather, took the kids fishing and played a little basketball. catch anything? probably a STD Poor demented thing. Thinks he can give folks STD's over the web. Nursie has the same delusion We gotta do this again more often. liek turn of the cnetiry Thanks for being such a good sport. http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ goitta run. Try waddling, you'll get farther. Off to the North for some skiing while the wx allows Right. More like a sleigh ride hauled by two draft horses. talk about me behijnd my back I'll wait for you get back. You give me so much material to work with it just wouldn't be the same without you. 2 losers Bry and Mark..perfect together But I like wimmin. does not matter people that would dare oppose him in the slightest can ONLY homosexauls Maybe they can hook up at the AES hamfest Never been to AES, but have done a fair amount of mail order with them in years gone by. it is fun to go there sometime given my father in law lives right outside town I get there fairly often Bry can be the giant prick and Marcus can bring the full body rubbers Doesn't sound like a fun time to me, but if that's what you need to fantasize about when you're with your soul-mate... does not sound like much to me either latex is just not my kink Ta dipschitts Sayonara, Mr. self-described Riff-Ralph.- Ralph indeed as in Puke |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 11, 3:52�pm, "
wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still believed it. * *NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143 * *on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. *It wasn't issued yet. *:-) You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad. Apologies all around. It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC. And even though Reply Comments aren't supposed to bring up new subjects, the age limit thing was presented to FCC. There have been other verified stories about young amateurs. Since 2000, a six-year-old has passed the General, and a seven-year-old has passed the Extra. Both stories in QST. FCC had no problem believing either. In fact that seven-year-old broke the previous record, held by an eight-year-old who passed the old pre-2000 Extra, complete with 20 wpm code and five written tests. All those young amateurs still have their licenses. They haven't gotten into any problems with FCC. * *Wonderful. * I agree - it *is* wonderful. I'll just think of all you worshippers * *of St. Hiram as pre-teeners, mentality and reasoning * *"maturity" to match... *:-) Why? * *Now, just WHY are you continuing your "age limit" * *diatribe past the 8 year and 2 months time of that * *particular Comment on an NPRM that got settled by * *a Report and Order? How was it "settled", Len? FCC did not refer to your Reply Comments at all. * *Is it the usual "nyah, nyah" to be followed by a * *call to mommy by all you mental pre-teeners? No, Len - that's you projecting your own motivations and mentality on others. Again. Here's why I brought up the "age limit" thing: "hot-ham-and-cheese" claimed that nobody but me believed the story about the young amateurs. He said the whole thing was preposterous. I pointed out that not only did I believe it, but so did the FCC. Not only did FCC accept and process those licenses, but they took no action after Leonard H. Anderson pointed out the story on the ARRL website. So "hot-ham-and-cheese" was simply mistaken about me being the only one who believed the story. The "age limit thing" also has a direct bearing on the VE system. You accused complete strangers of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" with no evidence at all. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the VEs who administered your testing to your accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at the ARRL and some Indiana VEs. Say - got that LP and tower up yet Len? How do you like the Icom IC-7800? Jim, N2EY |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
|
#205
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 12, 2:31�pm, "
wrote: From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still believed it. *NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143 *on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-) You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad. Apologies all around. * *Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with * *an APOLOGY! *The world may be coming to an end! Why? I've always acknowledged and corrected my mistakes here. When they were genuine, objective mistakes, that is. It was Leonard H. Anderson, a non-radio amateur at the time, who wrote those Reply Comments to FCC. * *Oh, my, Jimmie BLEW IT ALL AWAY...! * *In 1998 I was NOT licensed as any radio amateur but * *was ALREADY licensed as a COMMERCIAL radio operator * *for 42 years...and had actual experience in long- * *distance HF communications 45 years before. So what? In 1998 you were not a radio amateur. How did my saying that simple fact blow it all away? * *Further, I had been a hobbyist in radio and * *electronics since 1947 (hobbies are classified as * *'amateur' activities by almost everyone else except * *olde-tyme ham morsemen). * And the FCC, ITU, and most radio amateurs. Not only that, in 1998 * *I had already retired from a four-decade career as * *an electronics engineer in southern California * *aerospace industries...and was already in a new * *career that had involved a Private Land Mobile * *Radio Services station of which I was co-owner. But you were not a radio amateur then. Gee, for somebody who claims not to need "rank, title and status", you sure do put yours out there often enough. * *So, you are wanting to still label me as an "amateur" * *in radio? You're a radio amateur, Len. When you got the license, you got that title. Anyone who holds a valid Amateur Radio license (regardless of license class) is a radio amateur. Nobody else. * *Of course you do. *You can't help but attempt to * *denigrate anything I post in here. *:-( Do you think that being called a radio amateur is an insult, Len? Here's *why I brought up the "age limit" thing: * *That's just this latest go-around. *What about all * *those OTHER past harrangues you've tried to hang * *on my SUGGESTION on minimum age limits? "Harangues", Len. One 'n'. I brought it up this time because it proved "hot-ham-and-cheese" to be mistaken. As for being a "SUGGESTION" - everything proposed to FCC in Comments and Reply Comments is essentially a "SUGGESTION". You wrote what you wanted FCC to do: ban anyone under the age of 14 from Amateur Radio. I think you still want that. FCC looked at your idea/proposal/suggestion/reasoning/arguments about that and chose not to act on it. "hot-ham-and-cheese" claimed that nobody but me believed the story about the young amateurs. He said the whole thing was preposterous. I pointed out that not only did I believe it, but so did the FCC. * *WRONG. * No, right. I pointed it out. The FCC did NOT "believe" it.. Sure they did. If they did not, they would not have issued the licenses. .the FCC * *accepted the input of the ARRL VEC. *Pro forma * *stuff done electronically. In 1998? Can you be sure? * *The FCC had long before introduced the "no age * *restrictions" on license applicants. Not exactly. There has *never* been *any* age restriction for a US amateur radio license. The FCC and all its predecessors in amateur radio regulations never ever saw the need for any such restriction. Not since the beginning of mandatory licensing in 1912. So "hot-ham-and-cheese" was simply mistaken about me being the only one who believed the story. * *NO. *You are confusing an ARRL "story" (an * *article on their website) with what YOU * *"think the FCC believes." *You only IMAGINE * *what "the FCC believes." The ARRL story was presented to FCC in your Reply Comments, Len. You went into detail about it as a reason to impose a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Someone at FCC reads all the Comments and Reply Comments. So *people* at FCC knew all about the licensing of those 4 year olds, from your Reply Comments and the ARRL story. FCC also enforces their rules, and has investigated claims of rules violations at VE sessions. But they did not investigate that VE session, nor revoke any licenses or VE accreditation in connection with it. FCC clearly believed, and continues to believe, that there were no rules violations committed at the VE session which licensed those 4 year olds. FCC accepts the ARRL story as valid, not "preposterous". Otherwise they would have acted. The "age limit thing" also has a direct bearing on the VE system. * *Bull****. *Another fabrication of yours. Why? Because I proved "hot-ham-and-cheese" to be mistaken? You accused complete strangers of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" with no evidence at all. * *TS. *I will CONTINUE to do so, electronically * *or face-to-face in-person ANY time there is * *the OBVIOUS sign of such things. I don't think you would say these things in person. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the VEs who administered your testing to your accusations of "fraud" and "hypocrisy" aimed at the ARRL and some Indiana VEs. * *No problem to me. *Just pay for their transport * *and lodging out here, along with yourself, and * *you can "see" all you want. *Record it if you * *want. *I'll just gather a group of local licensed * *(and unlicensed) radio amateurs of like opinions * *and we can all have a big gang-bang. *Okay? I don't think you'd say it to the VEs by yourself. * *Otherwise, DROP this stupid harrangue of yours * *that is already SEVEN YEARS OLD. Who are you to tell me to shut up? *You aren't * *"winning' a damn thing and you are annoying * *the rest of the folks (with the exception of * *Heil, Deignan, and probably Kelly) with your * *"endless summer" of "no-age-limit" harrangues. Nobody is complaining except you, Len. Say - got that LP and tower up yet Len? How do you like the Icom IC-7800? * *I'm considering a Request for Quote from Harris on * *the station and for an octet of rhombics on a large * *ranch in Wyoming. * OK for DX but not optimum for USA contacts, except maybe to the coasts. Rhombics are so 1930s. too - the modern way is Yagis. Three elements on 40, for example. And why stop at 40? At this point in the sunspot sunspot cycle, an 80 meter quad is indicated... The octet is, naturally, for * *DX on 40m CW and up in frequency along with a remote * *switching selection to eliminate rotator needs. That's nice, Len. But who will operate it for you? * *[the cattle can graze peacefully underneath it all] * *I'm even considering abondoning that Wyoming * *territory in favor of Nevada or Arizona. *Takes time. Seven more years? * *No, I'm not buying stock in any of the Big3 in * *Japan. *The shares of General Electric and AT&T * *here are doing just fine. They don't make ham rigs. * *Thanks for asking. You're welcome! So I guess you won't be on the amateur bands any time soon. Particularly "40 CW and up". I could be mistaken about that, of course. 7037 kHz is the RRAP CW frequency, btw. I've worked quite a few there.... Jim, N2EY |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 12, 4:31 pm, "
wrote: From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still believed it. NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143 on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-) You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad. Apologies all around. Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with an APOLOGY! The world may be coming to an end! Indeed. I thought the end-times might be near... then I took a look on .Moderated. "PRB-1 and CCNR" finally caught up with the long-time leader "Tubes." Funny how the long-timers gravitate to the subject of tubes. Some things never change and the end-times are again delayed. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
On Mar 14, 2:59�am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:31 pm, " wrote: From: on Mon, Mar 12 2007 5:42 am On Mar 11, 3:52 pm, " wrote: From: on Sun, Mar 11 2007 8:34 am And even when AF6AY pointed out the story to FCC in his Reply Comments to 98-143, FCC still believed it. *NOBODY with the callsign AF6AY replied to FCC 98-143 *on, before, or after 13 Jan 99. It wasn't issued yet. :-) You're right, Len! I was mistaken about that. My bad. Apologies all around. * *Good grief, an expression of personal WRONGNESS with * *an APOLOGY! *The world may be coming to an end! Indeed. *I thought the end-times might be near... "It won't be long now...." Except (of course) with Jimmie Doing His Thing about 'how everyone else that challenged Him (in anything) is always wrong.' :-) then I took a look on .Moderated. *"PRB-1 and CCNR" finally caught up with the long-time leader "Tubes." *Funny how the long-timers gravitate to the subject of tubes. *Some things never change and the end-times are again delayed. Well, in this newsgroup as well as RRAM there's the usual self-praise of amateur radio for its "invaluable emergency work." :-) There must be a great deal of Conscience going on where hams aren't supposed to have FUN and ENJOYMENT out of their hobby. They have to endlessly rationalize among themselves that They are some kind of Minutemen of Emergency Communications, ready to spring into action at a moment's notice with superb, never-fail equipment to Save The Day! :-) Not likely. Some on RRAM aren't buying all that and are speaking truth. That's a very good thing, in my mind. [but Jimmie will spend hours at the keyboard teling me I'm all 'wrong' and 'mistaken' :-) ] I'm now INTO US amateur radio and intend to stay...as long as it remains a FUN HOBBY. If I wanted to DO emergency work, I'd go volunteer for such things with a recognized agency that actually DOES that sort of thing. Yesterday, the 13th of March, was the 55th personal anniversary of my being sworn into service with the United States Army. The reason for that volunteering was rather more SERIOUS at the time than playing around with radios in my spare time. Amateur radio just is NOT anywhere close to being that "serious" on a national or local scale. Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY, never anything more than that despite what all the chiefs and seniors of membership organizations say. At the start of this particular thread I put up some numbers about some amateur volunteers' efforts in exam testing and what other, numbers-oriented websites were showing was the result of all that. There was NO evidence then nor now on any "hordes of CB types" or "onslaught of no-coders" "suddenly filling the ranks (and, supposedly 'the bands'). What that really showed was only a slight bump in the status-quo of what all the self-proclaimed pro-coder gurus CLAIMED was going to happen. Yawn time. When I posted the first message on 7 Mar 07 I was not yet aware that the FCC had put me into the US amateur radio database. :-) Some others did later, which made me look again. Some of the "congratulators" (notably those pro-coders who think I'm a 'beginner' in radio) are now showing how hyprocritcal they really are... :-( No surprise to me since I had known of their traits long before. Most of this thread is filled with the usual filth and insults of the immature male kind who seem to have never out- grown their middle-school mentalities. That's a sad thing but we don't really know if those anony-mousies are at all INTO amateur radio. Nevertheless, I am INTO US amateur radio and intend to stay for a while...and also to speak my mind at MY discretion. :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
|
#209
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
|
#210
|
|||
|
|||
VE Testing Rules
Most of this thread is filled with the usual filth and insults of the immature male kind who seem to have never out- grown their middle-school mentalities. That's a sad thing but we don't really know if those anony-mousies are at all INTO amateur radio. Nevertheless, I am INTO US amateur radio and intend to stay for a while...and also to speak my mind at MY discretion. :-) 73, Len AF6AY Len, you'll find that the great majority of hams who get on the air in the ham bands are quite well behaved and friendly. This newsgroup is not a representative sample of hams. So get on the air (if you haven't already) and have fun with the various modes and aspects of ham radio! 73 de WA2ISE |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Radio Revolution, the DRM way | Shortwave | |||
Revolution in Ukraine? | Shortwave | |||
The Revolution Will Not be Televised | Shortwave | |||
The Revolution Isn't Being Radioized | Shortwave | |||
Revolution in Haiti? | Shortwave |