|
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: You are confusing good manners with weakness. You are also confusing good manners with backbone. So who's got which? |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: N2EY wrote: Hams are licensed by the feds and the vast majority of them follow the rules - all the rules. Which means that even though they could run superpower, they don't, and even though their rigs go outside the ham bands, they won't use 'em there. Etc. Part of the reason is that the FCC knows where hams live, etc., but a bigger part is that "it's just not done" by hams. Most licensed car drivers follow the rules of the road even if there are no cops around. Most understand that the system works only because the rules are followed, and thus most do follow the rules. Sort of. Speed limits are routinely disregarded, even when gas prices are well over $2. In some places things like signaling and allowing adequate following space are the exception rather than the rule. Ask any on-the-street LEO, EMT, or ER person about DWI. The big difference in driving vs. amateur radio compliance is that if someone violates the rules enough, they're very likely to wind up with a smashed-up car. Or dead. And the same for most hams on the ham bands. There's little point calling CQ out of band as you won't find other hams out of band. True. But when things get busy, like during a contest, you won't find many hams slipping out-of-band to find a clear spot. And there is plenty of interesting things to do in band. As for super power, our legal limit is on the order of a kilowatt (varies a bit depending on mode and subband) which is plenty enough if you really gotta snag that rare DX. Throw in a beam if you want (though beams for 160m are kinda hard to come by...). Yep - but OTOH there are times when full legal power isn't enough. Other rules like "no business traffic" are there to protect our bands from being taken over by business users. Agreed! No broadcasting is also there to keep the bands useable for normal 2 way comms (think about how often you actually push the PTT button or activate the VOX, maybe 15 minutes a day at most unless you're calling CQ in a contest). That's a duty cycle of 1% or less for most of us on days we turn the rig on. And if you only do that once every 2 weeks it drops to 0.07% duty cycle. Broadcasters are on about 100% of the time, and the bands would fill up pretty quickly with trash. Thus that rule. Not really. A ham broadcaster could fire up a few hours a day, or a few hours a week, and still have a low duty cycle. The reason is to prevent competition to the "professional" broadcasters. We don't have that many stupid rules nowadays. Used to be you had to mail a letter to the FCC telling if you were going to be mobile for more than 2 weeks. But Phil (IIRC) mentioned that the FCC never acted on any of that stuff, so why bother making hams do it? So it was dropped. it used to be 2 *days* (48 hours)! If you were going to operate away from home more than 48 hours, it was postcard time. And you sent the cards to the district office for your portable/mobile location. Yet as silly as the rule seems now, hams did it, because it was the rule. Then there was Conelrad... IOW, most of hamdom is pretty straight-arrow law-abiding. I've committed a few infractions by accident (phone in the CW band for example) but soon caught it and corrected it myself. You just proved my point! Your violations were 100% unintentional and immediately corrected once you were aware. And not repeated. No need for the FCC to kick down the door.... The FCC knows that people occasionally make mistakes and only acts if you keep on doing it for long periods of time. Then it's on purpose and you know it. And in most cases FCC waits until there are credible complaints. Freeband is exactly the opposite. Almost everyhting hams consider important, they ignore, and vice versa. So why would one be attracted to the other? There's an outside chance that some of them don't know that ham radio exists. Nahhhh.... not likely at all.... HAW!! Yes, there is that chance. But the freeband folks I've met know ham radio exists, but are not interested in being tied down by all those rules. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: And no, I'm still Mike Coslo - mild mannered, cute as a button, and makin' friends wherever I go... 8^) Absolutely! Back to your penalty box... Trrying to tell me to shut up? Extra penalty time in the box for trying to sass the audience. Sassing the ref can get you extra penalty time. Altercations with the Audience can get you a game misconduct! 8^) What about fighting with the Zamboni? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
|
This is the guy that Jimmy thought might be brilliant.
Hi, Hi! I take it you must be one of the Knuckle Draggers |
All the FREE Loading No-CODE KNUCKLE DRAGGIN CBplussers
I don't know any of them. Never met one. Then I guess you havent meet any of the so called NEW HAMS |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: You are confusing good manners with weakness. You are also confusing good manners with backbone. So who's got which? Lenover21 is on record saying that good manners are a sign of weakness. Oddly enough, the opposite is true. Bluff, bluster, insults and invective are a pretty good sign of a weak argument and often of insecurity. Always has been and always will be. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: And no, I'm still Mike Coslo - mild mannered, cute as a button, and makin' friends wherever I go... 8^) Absolutely! Back to your penalty box... Trrying to tell me to shut up? Extra penalty time in the box for trying to sass the audience. Sassing the ref can get you extra penalty time. Altercations with the Audience can get you a game misconduct! 8^) What about fighting with the Zamboni? Remember that guy they found under the ice and snow in the Alps?...... 8^) I don't think anyone's beaten the Zamboni yet! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: And no, I'm still Mike Coslo - mild mannered, cute as a button, and makin' friends wherever I go... 8^) Absolutely! Back to your penalty box... Trrying to tell me to shut up? Len occasionally tells people to shut up - either directly (as in the classic "Feldwebel post" of last October to K8MN) or indirectly (as above). Extra penalty time in the box for trying to sass the audience. Sassing the ref can get you extra penalty time. Altercations with the Audience can get you a game misconduct! 8^) What about fighting with the Zamboni? Remember that guy they found under the ice and snow in the Alps?...... Yep - over 6000 years there. They named him "Ozeit" or some such.... They just found three more, of less ancient vintage: http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10539174^401,00.html 8^) I don't think anyone's beaten the Zamboni yet! Dave "The Hammer" Schultz might have (I was here in Philly for the 1973-74 and 1974-75 seasons....Flyers win Stanley cup....this town went nuts..) Still miss the voice of Gene Hart ("IT HIT THE POST! IT HIT THE %$&!ING POST! THE FLYERS WIN!") And wasn't it Fred Shero who coached the Olympic hockey team circa 1980? One more item: Recent industry convention giveaway was a hockey puck with company name on it. Many uses in an engineering office: Paperweight, plan holder-downer, coffee mug coaster, etc. Very popular. Cute as a button, too. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: You are confusing good manners with weakness. You are also confusing good manners with backbone. So who's got which? Lenover21 is on record saying that good manners are a sign of weakness. Oddly enough, the opposite is true. Incorrect. I've never cut any records to that effect. I'm on tape. Bluff, bluster, insults and invective are a pretty good sign of a weak argument and often of insecurity. Always has been and always will be. So spake the PCTA extra... Another PCTA extra used a totally anonymous AOL screen name, no identity given, no signature, just a bunch of Jimmy phrases. Tsk, tsk. Now you accuse another PCTA extra of "insecurity" and "weakness!" How droll. beep beep and a hi hi. |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: And no, I'm still Mike Coslo - mild mannered, cute as a button, and makin' friends wherever I go... 8^) Absolutely! Back to your penalty box... Trrying to tell me to shut up? Extra penalty time in the box for trying to sass the audience. Sassing the ref can get you extra penalty time. Altercations with the Audience can get you a game misconduct! 8^) What about fighting with the Zamboni? Remember that guy they found under the ice and snow in the Alps?...... 8^) I don't think anyone's beaten the Zamboni yet! That "iceman" was probably a PCTA extra clutching a code key in his dead fist. Check with a bio-historian...or the ARRL website. Nobody in the rest of the world has invented a better ice surfacing machine than the Zamboni. Invented and made right here in southern California. "A Zamboni gets through when nothing else will...." Hi hi. |
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Until you're well, you're not worth responding to. I guess you're happy enough not being responsible for your actions. Best of Luck on your road to recovery. That about sums it up. :-) Yep, he can go back to barking at the moon. He a Was-wolf... :-) |
|
|
|
|
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... And a good guess it is. Kind of flies in the face of those that say one cannot engage in disagreement with you. - Mike KB3EIA - Of course, Steve went on his rampages while I was still being polite to him. My mistake. Many readers have made "that mistake." LHA / WMD Pretty much what happens when you assume that the other party is sane when they are not. He's broken. Not quite. He hasn't been newsgroup house-broken yet. :-) Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! |
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Quitefine) writes: In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. You have not had a problem with others' anonymity, as long as they agreed with you. Jimmie, why do you LIE? Because he is special. Extra-Special. And because Yell DMC won't call him on it. |
I've met plenty of new hams. None of them are "knuckledraggers".
Well then I guess you like Knuckle Draggers |
|
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: And no, I'm still Mike Coslo - mild mannered, cute as a button, and makin' friends wherever I go... 8^) Absolutely! ? Oh, oh...this is leading into another area... Back to your penalty box... Trrying to tell me to shut up? Extra penalty time in the box for trying to sass the audience. Sassing the ref can get you extra penalty time. Altercations with the Audience can get you a game misconduct! 8^) What about fighting with the Zamboni? The Zamboni machine was invented in Orange County, California. For an ice rink there! Very true. I got to see Unit # 21, which was built in 1954, and used in the all star game and FANtasy week during 1996 at the Hockey hall of fame. Sunnuvagun! Huzzanga? - Mike KB3EIA - |
How could I? I've never met any.
Well I guess you just cant tell the difference |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! Not so nowned. He not haff old rule book show CW-Only subbands. |
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! Not so nowned. He not haff old rule book show CW-Only subbands. Never fear...he will GET them and rationalize whatever they say to "prove" what He said is "correct" and anything else "wrong!" Just wait. Poor guy needs time to do such spinning. LHA / WMD |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (Quitefine) writes: In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. You have not had a problem with others' anonymity, as long as they agreed with you. Jimmie, why do you LIE? Whom do you address, Len? I've never tried to "hide in an anyonymity" in here. Yes, you have. "not that there's anything wrong with that" ;-) My postings are clearly MINE. Many if not most of them, until recently, did not contain your name, callsign or other identification. And you have used at least six different screen names in this newsgroup. The conclusion is obvious. But, you have the audacity to assume an UNSIGNED anonymity and then chide others about it. Tsk, tsk, tsk. We have not "chided" anyone for wishing to be anonymous. You have no problem with the anonymity of "Leo" or "Vipul". But in our case, you are far more interested in who we are than in what we have to say. That is very interesting. What? Is your real identity Spock from the Star Trek original series/ Spock always said "interesting." :-) Why does our anonymity bother you so much, but not the anonymity of "Shah101" and "Leo"? Could it be you have a ....double standard? Can you explain why you respect only the anonymity of those who agree with you? Can you explain why you seek to aggravate someone you have described as "nuts"? Nuts is how nursie acts. If you think that, why do you aggravate him? Nobody needs shrink school diplomas to observe irrationality. Let us hold this mirror for you, Len...;-) |
In article ,
(William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? |
(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Why not? You have no future on RRAP. Just go back to being Jimmy Who. That's anonymous enough. Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. I didn't intend to fool anyone. I rarely sign off with my name or call anyway. Haven't for a long time. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Steve thinks so, and that's what's important here. Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. So? Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? Simple. He won't back off. He doesn't know how to. His handlers cannot control him. He's a menace. Tell Jimmy Who that he has to be more firm with his attack dog. Sheesh! All these dual-personalities on rrap. |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! Not so nowned. He not haff old rule book show CW-Only subbands. Never fear...he will GET them and rationalize whatever they say to "prove" what He said is "correct" and anything else "wrong!" Just wait. Poor guy needs time to do such spinning. Meanwhile we get Quitefine diversion. Hi, hi! He so silly. |
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: Jimmy Who fraid to pick up rolled newspaper. Yell DMC might talk Jimmy's wife. Jimmy Who cowed by immortal Diminutive Man? Perish the thought! All look out for another 5000-word Essay by the renowned Ham Historian! Not so nowned. He not haff old rule book show CW-Only subbands. Never fear...he will GET them and rationalize whatever they say to "prove" what He said is "correct" and anything else "wrong!" Just wait. Poor guy needs time to do such spinning. Meanwhile we get Quitefine diversion. Hi, hi! He so silly. Shhhh. We can't tell Jimmie that. He get all flustery, make lots and lots of indents as hypocritical anonymous anomaly in here. That's what happens to olde-tyme hammes doing too much morse? |
In article ,
(William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Why not? You have no future on RRAP. Just go back to being Jimmy Who. That's anonymous enough. Miccolis must think he has a "job" on here, trying to establish a perfect attendence by being here every single day, writing thousands of words in order to establish a "rep" as a "guru." Jimmie thinks he "has a future." That be enough rationalization. Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. I didn't intend to fool anyone. I rarely sign off with my name or call anyway. Haven't for a long time. Jimmie big on HYPOCRISY, doing it with anonymous UNSIGNED messages. Tsk, tsk. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Steve thinks so, and that's what's important here. Yell-yell BMOC here, leader of troop, example of modern ham extra, custodian of good manners and civil discourse. Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. So? Tsk. Jimmy ask anonymous questions, get anonymous replies. Jimmy not like anyonmous replies but like anonymity. Strange. Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? Simple. He won't back off. He doesn't know how to. His handlers cannot control him. He's a menace. Yell-yell obsessed with hate of newsgroup enemies. Yell-yell never retreats...he "advances to the rear." :-) Tell Jimmy Who that he has to be more firm with his attack dog. Everyone send Jimmie newspapers...so he can roll them up and whack whacko attack dog. Sheesh! All these dual-personalities on rrap. REAL psychologists would have fun with all that! :-) "Examples" of what happens to code-tested olde-tyme hammes. |
In article ,
(Quitefine) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (Quitefine) writes: In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. You have not had a problem with others' anonymity, as long as they agreed with you. Jimmie, why do you LIE? Whom do you address, Len? James P. Miccolis, one of the few here on AOL. :-) Jimmie, quit the charade. You were OUTED after the first message. Not a problem (except to Yell-yell) on ID-ing you by phrases, syntax and opinions. The spacing thing doesn't fool anyone. Quit the charade. |
In article ,
(Notfine Miccolis in PA) writes: In article , (William) writes: (Quitefine) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: And for what it's worth, have you noticed that we used to have an ANON poster on here going by the "handle" of Quitefine? Why do you write of us in the past tense? Jimmy like to live in PAST. He now tense. I wrote of you in the past tense, not us. You did not answer the question, which was 'why' you used the past tense. Why Jimmy live in PAST so much? Steve has an unnatural attraction for every ANON poster on here EXCEPT for Quitefine. It seems that 'Steve' is not the only one :-) :-) You and Lenover21 have both tried to be anonymous here. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. I merely wished to reduce spam at my original e-mail account, and it has worked. You did not clearly identify yourself. "Quitefine" big HYPOCRITE. "Quitefine' no ID. No guts. Cowardice as gunnery sergeant Yell-yell shout. Tsk tsk. You can and will read nefarious intent into any of my actions. Is there something "nefarious" about wishing to be anonymous? We do not think so. Jimmy do anonymity and hypocrisy bit. Tsk, tsk. NEFARIOUS! Regardless, my posting style has not changed and anyone who asks will be told who I am. Perhaps. But you avoid many direct questions. What questions? Anonymouse Quitefine ask questions...get anonymous replies. :-) Can you explain this? No. Perhaps 'Steve' respects our anonymity. Perhaps he has changed. It's that time of the month for gunnery nurses to change uniforms. Steve only changes when he goes on his meds, and when he goes off his meds. You claim that he is "nuts" and "on meds". If you believe that to be true, why do you antagonize him? Why anonymous Jimmy antagonize everyone else? :-) Tsk, tsk. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com