In article , Dave Heil
writes:

What's it to you? You have nothing to do with amateur radio.

Still trying the old misdirection & personal insult type thing. :-)

Have you
made up your mind yet. Some time back you stated that I wasn't a radio
god then I was a radio god then I wasn't a radio god. Have you made up
your mind yet?

You PRETEND to have great expertise (on the order of godlike
judgement and capability).

It would seem that your PRETENSE has made you very tense
(and angry) when someone shows your pretense for what it is. :-)

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham
radio would have been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of
"Reconstruction."

Prove it.

Show proof that 200,000 people would not have gotten US amateur radio
licenses between February 14, 1991 and April 15, 2000 if the Technician
class license had never lost its code test.

I don't think you have any proof. Or even any evidence. Just bluster.

that was an OLD argument in here and you LOST it.

How did I "lose" it, Len? Show us some proof of your assertion.

Getting all puffed up and antagonistic won't prove any case for
you on the morse code test. It won't prove any case for your
false interpretation of statistics that was on the AH0A website.

The only person I see getting puffed up and antagonistic is you, Len.

You would not accept statistics of a noted PCTA taken from the
FCC public database then and you refuse to accept it now.

What are you talking about?

In 1991, all Technicians were code tested.

In 2000, most Technicians were not code tested.

200,000 Technicians who were not code tested in 2000 is somewhere in the ball
park. Nobody denies that in 2000 there were a lot of Technicians who had not
passed code tests.

However, you claimed:

"Had the no-code-test Technician never been created, US ham radio would have
been short by 200K ham licenses by the time of "Reconstruction.""

Reconstruction?

The only way we'd be "short" 200,000 is if none of the 200,000 got licenses.
Did your crystal ball tell you that none of them would have learned the code?

There's no point in rehashing an old argument where you LOST.

Ah, I see. You're using the Big Lie technique, where you simply claim to have
"won" without presenting any proof or even any evidence.

You won't make any valid "points" in here by repeating "you're
mistaken" and continual refusal to accept FCC database
information.

I'm not after "points". Just the facts. But you don't have any facts to back up
your claims.

You can repeat the same mistakes over and over but they'll still be mistakes,
Len.



N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

What's it to you? You have nothing to do with amateur radio.

Still trying the old misdirection & personal insult type thing. :-)

Are you insulted by a truthful statement? Do you find the fact that you
have no amateur radio license to be insulting? What does morse code
testing or an age limit in amateur radio licensing have to do with you?

Have you
made up your mind yet. Some time back you stated that I wasn't a radio
god then I was a radio god then I wasn't a radio god. Have you made up
your mind yet?

You PRETEND to have great expertise (on the order of godlike
judgement and capability).

I do have some expertise in amateur radio and I have decades of
experience. That something grates on you doesn't make it a pretense.

It would seem that your PRETENSE has made you very tense
(and angry) when someone shows your pretense for what it is. :-)

I'm not angry, Leonard. I'm actually smiling as I write these words:
You haven't shown anything to anyone when it comes to amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Please quote that "may share space" FCC document.

Please quote the "Farnsworth Exam at 13-15wpm is the same as the Morse
Exam at 5wpm" FCC document.

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why?

...because the Farnsworth method was not under discussion. It is
irrelevant to the request made of you.

I thought the existence of FCC documents were now part of the
discussion. At least you broght it up.

Tell you what David, in the future put your comments that are not open
for discussion in brackets [xxx].

OK?

It'd be easier if you just stuck to the matter being discussed.

Farnsworth exists as the de facto "code" exam, even though the
FCC documents specify Morse Code. Yet the FCC documents DO assign the
exact same priveleges to Carl that they do you, yet you insist on
arguing it.

What doest it have to do with the FCC's "may share space" document?

Part 97 addresses your and Carls priveleges.

It certainly does. So? We weren't discussing installing towers within
a certain distance from an airport but that's in Part 97.

That would make you a fool.

I'd guess the fool to be one who is asked about a regulation about
"sharing space" and responds with some nonsense about the Farnsworth
method of learning morse.

You don't believe in sharing space which the FCC says you must share
in a document called Part 97.

I've never stated that I don't believe in sharing space.
That's something you've tried to establish.

You remain the fool, Farnsworth not withstanding.

I'm sure that's the way you see it, little electrolyte.

He's allocated the same frequencies. He may or may not share the same
space.

Which is it?

May or May Not?

That's correct.

So you don't know.

Incorrect, Farnsworth. I do know and I provided the answer.

Wrong.

Something does not become "wrong" due to your failure to comprehend it.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

I do have some expertise in amateur radio and I have decades of
experience.

Whoopee. Now go off and USE all that "experience."

Try "elmering" some nincompoops. Gain some worship from idiots.

All you do in here is a lot of bullying nonsense and trying to toss your
weight around.

Go ahead, punk, advance the state of the amateur art.

You've had DECADES of "experience" and should be able to...

You haven't done it.

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

I do have some expertise in amateur radio and I have decades of
experience.

Whoopee. Now go off and USE all that "experience."

I'm sure that it will come as no surprise if I tell you that I use my
experience almost daily.

Try "elmering" some nincompoops. Gain some worship from idiots.

Are you looking for some help?

All you do in here is a lot of bullying nonsense and trying to toss your
weight around.

That seems to be your function here, Leonard.

Go ahead, punk, advance the state of the amateur art.

You've had DECADES of "experience" and should be able to...

You haven't done it.

You've had a self-declared "interest" in amateur radio for decades.
You told us a number of years ago that you were going for an "Extra
right out of the box".

You haven't done anything to gain entry into amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:


Yeah, all folks like you like to do is "imply" and then get all uppity
and
persnickity when you're asked about your implication.

Folks "like you" snipe at my comments directed toward Carl and not at
Carl for his comments to Larry. Don't get all uppity with me, Kim.


Why not, Dave? I'm bored and going through old stuff of yours to stir you
up. You've probably already responded to some old, old, stuff...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:


Yeah, all folks like you like to do is "imply" and then get all uppity
and
persnickity when you're asked about your implication.

Folks "like you" snipe at my comments directed toward Carl and not at
Carl for his comments to Larry. Don't get all uppity with me, Kim.


Why not, Dave? I'm bored and going through old stuff of yours to stir you
up. You've probably already responded to some old, old, stuff...

Len's older than you, right?

Dave K8MN