| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
writes: (Len Anderson wrote): Poor Dave, still smarting over his alleged expertise in State Dept. communications from the Cashew Nut Capital of Africa. :-) Was Len Anderson ever there? He loves to put down others using "standards" of his own invention. That saves him time and embare-assment of talking ON a subject. It's so much easier for him to insult a communicator personally when he doesn't have any valid argument on subjects. That seems endemic to the members of the Gang of Four, PCTAs all, drunk on sour whine after the rewrite of S25.5. You are upset, Len. Who is Len? Ellen Degeneres does that character much better than you, Brian Burke. |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Brian wrote: (AveryFine) wrote in message ... Do you know if Len Anderson is a cannibal? Claims have been made that he eats others for breakfast. Who? When? Dave thinks he's a pugilist. Typo. Pigilist. It's "pugilist." No. Pigilist. ifferent year. Ignorant DICK. |
|
|
|
Dick Carroll; wrote:
leaky fawecettes wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Just practicing one of the the new Q signals.... - Mike KB3EIA - Another guy in here thinks the end of CW spells the complete end of ham radio.....how utterly pathetic... Yeah, "leaker" you sure are. You can't getit straight, either. Nothing will "end" han radio, at least not in any short time, just make it realtively useless. And how exactly can he read that from my little joke anyhow, Dick? It had nothing to do with CW at all. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Floyd Davidson
writes: (Len Over 21) wrote: Floyd Davidson writes: It does? Is that why he's been using you for entertainment (and I might add, providing others with great laughs) for how many years? It's really Wry Amusement, Floyd. :-) How true! The funniest part is how close you can fly these zingers past the pointed heads and they *still* miss it. They don't understand. Yet another syndrome of Beeperitis. 1. They don't dare admit they "got it" because that would dimish them in their own eyes (they don't care how others see them). 2. They are so wrapped up in their fantasy and constant ARRL brainwashing that they cannot perceive reality. 3. Both of the preceding. Seven??? And _you_ think it bugs him! Heh heh heh. Doesn't bother me a bit. My interest has always been on removing the code test for a radio license. That's begun happening internationally. Quite satisfactory to me. More work to do on that for the US regulations but this newsgroup is NOT the venue for any serious debate. :-) Ain't that the truth! The only thing serious here is the degree of mental aberation on display. It ain't easy walking into a Looney Bin and trying to communicate with those living in a world totally devoted to amateurism as it usta be. See you next week. Maybe. Keep shooting Len, and trust that there are a number of folks who tune in for the entertainment. On an average you do pretty good, but now and then you have a *really* fine day, and those are priceless! Send money then. I AM a professional. :-) [I never said anything about weekends... :-) ] Beep, beep LHA |
|
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Dick Carroll; wrote: leaky fawecettes wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Just practicing one of the the new Q signals.... - Mike KB3EIA - Another guy in here thinks the end of CW spells the complete end of ham radio.....how utterly pathetic... Yeah, "leaker" you sure are. You can't getit straight, either. Nothing will "end" han radio, at least not in any short time, just make it realtively useless. And how exactly can he read that from my little joke anyhow, Dick? It had nothing to do with CW at all. - Mike KB3EIA - DICK's mind is always in the gutter. ;^) |
|
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
At least I have one that works! Only in a rudimentary fashion. |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes: QR10-4, QGB! I'm QPM, so QBD me! (Translation: "Ten-Fawhar, Good Buddie! I'll be putting the pedal to the metal now, so watch my back door!) 73 de Larry, K3LT You seem to toss that CB jargon around pretty well, Larry. Don't tell me...no, it couldn't be...could it? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ John: Yep, it is true! I was once a CB'er, for a whole six months! I was the Asst. Mgr. of the Radio Shack store in Depew, NY at the time, We should have known ... "Radio Shack, you've got questions, we're clueless," I'm sure Larry fit in quite well. So where is Kim? Shouldn't she be jumping on Carl over irrelevant comments directed at Larry? Dave ... it's not irrelevant ... Larry has always spoken quite freely of his disdain for CBers and other "lower forms of life" (knuckle-draggers, etc.) Sure it is irrelevant. My own experience is that most CBers I've met don't have much technical knowledge, know little about propagation and have poor operating skills and habits. If you see someone driving a primer gray and blue pickup truck sporting a CB whip, hauling a second hand mattress and the truck is driven by an unshaven guy with a ball cap and a T-shirt featuring the Confederate battle flag, do you say to yourself, "Now there's a fellow I'd like to hang out with"? The fact that Larry was a CBer, yet talks down to folks with such a superior attitude, shows what a hypocrite he is ... The operative phrase here is "Larry was a CBer..." That's probably how he came to realize the limitations of CB radio with its low range and population of those doing bad "Smokey and the Bandit" imitations. Larry chose ham radio. I don't choose to spend my time with NASCAR fans or those who think an evening of fun is going to a karaoke bar. That's freedom of association. Dave K8MN |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: It serves to point out Len's total lack of experience in the amateur service. Yet he knows more about radio then you. It hasn't been demonstrated that he knows more about radio "then" me. There is every possibility that Len knows more about electronics theory than me. There is a similar possibility that I have much more operational experience in "radio" or that I have much more knowledge of wave propagation than Len. There is a certainty that I have forty years more experience in amateur radio than Len. How can that be if he has no experience? What I wrote addressed Len's experience in amateur radio. He has none. The vast majority of the policy makers at the FCC aren't licensed in the amateur radio service and have no experience in amateur radio. The vast majority of policy makers at the FCC have nothing whatever to do with amateur radio. Those that are involved in the regulation of the ARS, are quite knowledgeable about the service. They fooled me with the last restructuring NOI/NPRM. They are paid to know. Wasted money. Well, after all, you're the expert. Additionally, there are radio amateurs on the FCC staff. So every amateur on "staff" makes policy and rules? Is that what you read? That has nothing to do with the issue of Len Anderson. He isn't a participant in amateur nor is he a regulator of amateur radio. Len is totally irrelevant to amateur radio. You are in the minority in thinking that. And your statement is based on what strong indications? But I don't hear you complaining about that, yet they have the ability to change what you do and how you do it. No, you won't hear me complaining often though there are times when the Commission makes a decision which I don't like or which is just plain wrong. Len makes no such decisions and is not involved in amateur radio. So why so do you give him so much attention? A smart fellow would have figured out that laughing at Len isn't exactly an endorsement of his views. But when confronted with mere Technician participation in the ARS that rivals his Extraness, he digs in and destroys. That claim is a non-starter as it is in conflict with what I've written here very recently. Bully for you. ...and shame on you for making yet another false accusation. That's two so far in this exchange. Nothing false there. Just the ones beginning "But when confronted with mere Technician..." and "One David Heil demands..." Are you going for three? Sure. Why not? Why not? Didn't you tell us that there was nothing false in your comments? Then there is Extra DICK. Probably Extra in every way except the dick department. Then there's Jim "DeSoda" who keeps rewriting "200 Meters and Up." No need to mention INSANE Clown Posse in a Nurse's dress or the civilian with "real" military experience. What's your claim to credibility? I yam what I yam. Maybe you'll find a way to do something about it. I'm satisfied with my accomplishments in the ARS. That has been evident for some time. And you are unsatisfied with yours? Yes indeed, much as I am with my guitar playing. I've been in amateur radio and have played the guitar for forty years. I learn something new about both and sharpen my skills in both with every passing year. I am never satisfied with what I know and what I can do. I do not advocate striving for mediocrity. Must you try to tear down Len at every opportunity to boost your stature? Poking fun at Leonard Anderson has never been done for purposes of boosting my own stature, nor is it a "must" on my list of things to do. If I had to list reasons for doing so, I'd likely come up with a list like: 1) Because Len Anderson does it to others on a continuing basis 2) Because my views are in opposition to those held by Anderson, a non-radio amateur. 3) Because Len comes across as a pontificating windbag who sees himself as an expert in all things relating to radio communication. 4) Because it is soooooo easy. Dave K8MN |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Just practicing one of the the new Q signals.... There's also "QFU", which I don't think I need to define.... ;) |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: It serves to point out Len's total lack of experience in the amateur service. Yet he knows more about radio then you. It hasn't been demonstrated that he knows more about radio "then" me. YOU won't accept any evidence that any court would accept as valid. You wish to posture as judge, jury, and executioner. You are none of those. That matters not. You don't have any such "evidence". What I wrote is quite correct. Neither Brian nor you knows whether you know more about radio than me. I've presented just a tiny bit of the "evidence" I have on what I've done, complete with all references for independent investigation in this newsgroup. You have disregarded all of that, preferring to act the judge, jury, and executioner in order to "win" some kind of "debate" that only exists in your mind. You have presented nothing but generalities without any corroborating evidence. You've presented nothing as "evidence". You've just made claims. You insist on making this some kind of personal "battle" over some imagined "superiority" in amateurism and the "elitism" as well as "superiority" of your status, rank, title, etc. in nothing but amateur radio. That keeps happening regardless of the subject title or thread. That wouldn't be correct, Len. Superiority in amateurism doesn't enter into it. You aren't a radio amateur. You have nothing to do with amateur radio. You are to amateur radio what a bowling pin is to archery. You keep forgetting you aren't any official and aren't any judge (you keep falling off the bench). You may think you speak for some "majority" of ham radio but all you do is speak for yourself. You aren't any official but you are officious. You aren't a judge but you are judgmental toward radio amateurs. You believe you know best how amateur radio should be regulated but you are not a radio amateur. You are a self-anointed committee of one and you are a non-participant. All you can do is attempt to put down others not agreeing with you. Naw, Len. That's not all I do. I do pay special attention to your posts though. There is every possibility that Len knows more about electronics theory than me. Not only theory, but design, practical hardware prototyping to finished product, field application and liason, and writing about it in national magazines. I've done all that as a professional AND as a hobbyist in radio-electronics. Okay. There's every possibility that Len knows more about electronics theory (to include design, practical hardware prototyping in finished product, field application and liason, and writing about it in national magazines). There is a similar possibility that I have much more operational experience in "radio" or that I have much more knowledge of wave propagation than Len. "Wave propagation?" Would you know Biot from Savart? Old Jean Bapiste and Felix? Certainly. E and H fields? But of course. Knife-edge diffraction? Most assuredly. Were you intimately involved with HF communications across the Pacific in the early 1950s for "24/7" primary communications service? I knew there'd be a trick question. Why no, Len. I was busy being ages two through five in the early 1950's. No responsible entity would be likely to put a preschooler in such a position. I was "intimately" involved with HF communications across the Pacific in the 1960's at hours of my own choosing. My station also worked across the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean. It did so with less power than yours and I was still a teenager. I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic, inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I generally pulled eight hour shifts. I was "intimately" involved with in-country HF military operations for a year in Vietnam. I spent fifteen "intimate" years overseas with the U.S. Department of State where I was responsible for all HF and VHF communications whether by voice, asynchronous data or morse. I've spent forty years as an active radio amateur, operating various modes on bands from 1.8 through 432 MHz. I can go on and on without ever touching the recorded and evidencible facts of having spent three years being actively involved with the latter. That grates on you. Three years? Three measly years? It grates on me that you'd dare compare your three years to my experience and pretend to have a lock on knowledge. Put that in your Icepack and stroke it. Is this the part where you eat me for breakfast? There is a certainty that I have forty years more experience in amateur radio than Len. I've been a radio-electronics hobbyist for 56 years and never bothered to get any amateur radio license with its official certificate plus the rank/title/status accorded it by some other amateurs. I'm certain that no one here wants to "bother" you. You ARE granted that one item but it would seem you've never ventured out of "the bands" (HF) for all your tenure as an amateur. 1.8 through 432 MHz *just* as an amateur. Don't you feel foolish? How can that be if he has no experience? What I wrote addressed Len's experience in amateur radio. He has none. Since when is that SUCH an important factor in "radio?" This group deals with amateur radio and my comments were addressed to you lack of amateur radio experience. The FCC doesn't require any commissioners or staff to hold amateur licenses. The Congress of the United States has never chartered the FCC to "only" regulate US amateur radio by licensed radio amateurs. You aren't paid to regulate radio. You're just some guy with no amateur radio license. You keep acting like some kind of land squatter, claiming territorial imperative and divine right for holding a grant a long time. No, I'm not a squatter. I have a license which says I am permitted to operate anywhere in the amateur bands. What's your story? That alone is NO evidence of ANY expertise, only the ability to not be caught for violations and being able to renew your vaunted license every decade or so. If you had obtained such a license, you'd be in the same boat. So why so do you give him so much attention? A smart fellow would have figured out that laughing at Len isn't exactly an endorsement of his views. You wish to squelch all opponents to your royal viewpoints by trying to make fun of them, trying to put them down. I don't have any royal viewpoints but I do enjoy a laugh at your expense. If I can share it with others, so much the better. You can't bear the thought that your viewpoints aren't of the nobility, divine statements of some higher radio god. Since you can't talk on the subjects, you try to hit the person of the communicator. Shall I repost some more of your old archived material to refresh your memory of reality, Len? I wouldn't have to go back very far in the archives. That's been evident for years in here. It is sure to be "evident" to a guy who sees only what others do but who is blind to his own past and present actions. Must you try to tear down Len at every opportunity to boost your stature? Poking fun at Leonard Anderson has never been done for purposes of boosting my own stature, nor is it a "must" on my list of things to do. Tsk, tsk, tsk...false claim. How would you know that, Leonard? It is fairly clear what you do to anyone not embracing your godlike views of amateurism...try to put them down any way you can. That doesn't matter. You are in no way involved. After all these years you keep failing. The technique doesn't work. Really? The indications are otherwise. If I had to list reasons for doing so, I'd likely come up with a list like: 1) Because Len Anderson does it to others on a continuing basis Poor baby. It's "okay" to attempt humiliation of others because you are a radio god and you've been an amateur for four decades. I note you didn't address your own shortcomings. Sigh...another over-inflated EGO... There, there, Leonard. Your ego isn't THAT big. 2) Because my views are in opposition to those held by Anderson, a non-radio amateur. Hardly. :-) Hardly in opposition or hardly a radio amateur? Google is full of Heil's put-downs and humiliations of NON-licensed radio amateurs...because Heil feels they are "inferior" to his godlike status. :-) Individuals? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? 3) Because Len comes across as a pontificating windbag who sees himself as an expert in all things relating to radio communication. Poor baby. More damage evident to the super ego of Heil's. Really? I checked my ego and it seems intact. Better check yours for leaks. I've never claimed "expertise" in any field of endeavor, just a few where I've had lots of experience, hands-on experience for a long time. That's anathema to Heil and his "superior" four decades as an AMATEUR. The experience you listed above doesn't seem like very much at all. To quote another quoting a late ballplayer, "It ain't braggin if ya done it." I've done a lot. :-) ....but you never quite got around to nailing that elusive amateur radio license. 4) Because it is soooooo easy. No...because you are unable to argue on the subjects. All you can do is attempt put-downs, attempt humiliating others who won't worship you as the "foremost authority." Would you really like to see those Anderson quotes from Google? Living a fantasy is VERY easy. No work required, very little thought. Fantasylands allow anyone to destroy their "opponents" with impunity. Is this anything like your fantasy that you're a real radio amateur? Do you ever wake up and realize that this is only a newsgroup and that you aren't a part of the real thing? Feel free to indulge your super ego and demand all do as you say. I've never demanded you do anything, Len. I don't give a rat's patoot if you ever obtain a ham ticket. Few will. A few might if any demands had ever been made...but they've never been made. You aren't the "authority" and are no "official." Back at ya, Len and you're no radio amateur. Your credence went to hell along with your robust oberst uniform a long time ago. No, my Creedence went to Helsinki. I don't know what to make of your peculiar comment about a uniform. Dave K8MN |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: Subject: QR10-4 From: Robert Casey Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:11:13 GMT Mike Coslo wrote: Just practicing one of the the new Q signals.... There's also "QFU", which I don't think I need to define.... ;) Here's the definition anyway: QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used? QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ... I've never heard that on the ham bands, though. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Robert Casey writes: Subject: QR10-4 From: Robert Casey Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:11:13 GMT Mike Coslo wrote: Just practicing one of the the new Q signals.... There's also "QFU", which I don't think I need to define.... ;) Here's the definition anyway: QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used? QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ... I've never heard that on the ham bands, though. 73 de Jim, N2EY Hmmmmmm, wonder what Mike's definition is.... :o Kim W5TIT |
|
Three to look at URL:
http://www.wemsi.org/qsigs.html Another: http://www.kloth.net/radio/qcodes.php Today's Q-signals (More or Less) http://home.earthlink.net/~k7bfl/intqsig.html From The Keyboard In The Wilderness. And QFU is legitimate as below. ------------------------------------------- "Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... On 12 Aug 2003 23:40:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Here's the definition anyway: QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used? QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ... I've never heard that on the ham bands, though. I've never heard it on the aeronautical bands, either, even though that's obviously the intended application of that particular Q-signal. That's a relic from days long forgotten. Today they get that info from ATIS before they even contact approach control. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ "Advise on initial contact you have information Lima." |
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:52:51 -0700, "Keyboard In The Wilderness"
wrote: And QFU is legitimate as below. ------------------------------------------- If I gave the impression that I meant to imply otherwise, I apologize to N2EY. There are numerous Q-signals that were originally for aeronautical use, back when CW was used for communications with airplanes. I was just pointing out that they aren't used anymore. Comms between aircraft and from air-to-ground are in AM mode. No need for q-signals there, and as I say, the ATIS tells the flight crew which runway is in use anyway. 7e DE John, KC2HMZ |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On 12 Aug 2003 23:40:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Here's the definition anyway: QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used? QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ... I've never heard that on the ham bands, though. I've never heard it on the aeronautical bands, either, even though that's obviously the intended application of that particular Q-signal. Of course. Morse code was used in aviation from the earliest days until at least the 1950s. Of course that's all gone now except for some range markers. That's a relic from days long forgotten. Gone, but not forgotten. Some years back I read an article in "Air and Space" by someone who had been a commercial aviation radio operator in the '50s and who had used Morse in that job. Today they get that info from ATIS before they even contact approach control. Of course. Didja know that there used to be questions on the common Q signals on the written tests? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Please tell us all about when you flew those old "A-N" ranges. :-) Did they let you fly your model aircraft on some old airfields, Len? :-) VORs have been in use on civil airways since before 1960. A lot more accurate, easier to use, much less pilot error than the "range markers." Oh, my, you love the past. :-) An interesting comment coming from one who frequently brings up THE past as well as his own past. :-) Didja know you can address all your written test content complaints to the VEC QPC? They are radio amateurs themselves. I'm sure they would include a question on "QFU" if any ham is expected to line up his ham aircraft on a runway bearing. Beep, beep. Why are you concerned? You're no more a radio amateur than you are a pilot. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
I was "intimately" involved with HF communications across the Pacific in the 1960's at hours of my own choosing. My station also worked across the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean. It did so with less power than yours and I was still a teenager. Was this an amateur station? Was it capable of only working over oceans, or could it work over land masses as well? I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic, inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I generally pulled eight hour shifts... Of your own choosing, right? Were you an "Air Force of One?" I was "intimately" involved with in-country HF military operations for a year in Vietnam. I spent fifteen "intimate" years overseas with the U.S. Department of State where I was responsible for all HF and VHF communications whether by voice, asynchronous data or morse. So this wasn't amateur radio either? I've spent forty years as an active radio amateur, operating various modes on bands from 1.8 through 432 MHz. Why did you stop at 432 MHz? Even most store bought amateur UHF rigs are capable of going up to 450 Mhz. Oh, uhhh. Forgot. Superior Heil "doan do FM (tm Kelly)" I can go on and on without ever touching the recorded and evidencible facts of having spent three years being actively involved with the latter. That grates on you. Three years? Three measly years? It grates on me that you'd dare compare your three years to my experience and pretend to have a lock on knowledge. Grates on you, huh? Some people learn faster than others. Look at everyone's vastly different learning experiences with Morse Cose to see what I mean. Some are never able to learn it at all. But with respect to radio theory and ops, perhaps Len is a quicker learner than you. Perhaps not. You tell me everyone if learns the same, and if so, I'll have to give you this one. Unless Len actually has more than just the three years RF experience that you reference. And what of education? Can education play a role in knowledge? |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... I was "intimately" involved with HF communications across the Pacific in the 1960's at hours of my own choosing. My station also worked across the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean. It did so with less power than yours and I was still a teenager. Was this an amateur station? It most certainly was. Cool. What amateur call sign did you use? Was it capable of only working over oceans, or could it work over land masses as well? I wasn't simultaneously living on both coasts, Brian. Try to figure it out. Try not being so smug, David. You never did say where you were; where your station could work across the Pacific ocean, and across the Indian and Atlantic oceans. I'm trying to think of a geographic location with "both coasts" and those three oceans. So kindly tell us what country that you operated from that had "both coasts" and three oceans. I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic, inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I generally pulled eight hour shifts... Of your own choosing, right? What's the difference for purposes of discussion? Do you know anyone who ever worked 24 hour days for a solid week? Your comment, "of my own choosing" sounds very odd for a military radio station. You said that you had an amateur station, and you pulled military shifts of your own choosing. In your original statements above, did you really mean to string together an amateur station from a country with two coasts and three oceans, with your military station in Vietnam? I was "intimately" involved with in-country HF military operations for a year in Vietnam. I spent fifteen "intimate" years overseas with the U.S. Department of State where I was responsible for all HF and VHF communications whether by voice, asynchronous data or morse. So this wasn't amateur radio either? Read it again and perhaps you'll figure it out. But I thought this group was to discuss amateur radio. And you do get after Len for bringing up other services communications, however long ago it may have been. I've spent forty years as an active radio amateur, operating various modes on bands from 1.8 through 432 MHz. Aren't you going to ask me if this was military communications or State Department communications? No. I recognize this as an amateur radio discussion group, and I recognize that you are finally addressing amateur radio operations. Congratulations. Why did you stop at 432 MHz? Even most store bought amateur UHF rigs are capable of going up to 450 Mhz. Weak signal work on SSB and CW takes place in that area of the band. It may. Or it may not. That's where I happen to spend much of my time. Is that all right with you? Peachy. Oh, uhhh. Forgot. Superior Heil "doan do FM (tm Kelly)" I have a 440 rig at home. I use it occasionally. I use 2m FM So your statement of frequency ranges above is inaccurate. It would more accurately read, "1.8 to 450 MHz." regularly. Looks like you've struck out on your attempt to hit a nerve, little electrolyte. No attempt made. I just figured that such a great ham as yourself was short changing himself with such a limited portfolio of RF activity. I can go on and on without ever touching the recorded and evidencible facts of having spent three years being actively involved with the latter. That grates on you. Three years? Three measly years? It grates on me that you'd dare compare your three years to my experience and pretend to have a lock on knowledge. Grates on you, huh? Figure it out. No problem. Some people learn faster than others. Look at everyone's vastly different learning experiences with Morse Cose to see what I mean. Some are never able to learn it at all. Learning rate isn't under discussion. Experience is. Ah, No. You specifically said, "knowledge." Think about it. Can one attain knowledge only through experience? But with respect to radio theory and ops, perhaps Len is a quicker learner than you. Perhaps not. Ask him. I wonder what he would say? You tell me everyone if learns the same, and if so, I'll have to give you this one. Figure it out. Ah, sorry. You don't get this one. Unless Len actually has more than just the three years RF experience that you reference. Ask him. I'm sure he'll be happy to go on about it at great length. Much like your military and dept. of state resume? And what of education? Can education play a role in knowledge? Figure it out. Ah, you don't get this one either. Dave, you deserve a much needed vacation from rrap. At least consider it. |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... I was "intimately" involved with HF communications across the Pacific in the 1960's at hours of my own choosing. My station also worked across the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean. It did so with less power than yours and I was still a teenager. Was this an amateur station? It most certainly was. Cool. What amateur call sign did you use? Mine. Was it capable of only working over oceans, or could it work over land masses as well? I wasn't simultaneously living on both coasts, Brian. Try to figure it out. Try not being so smug, David. I wasn't being smug. I suggested that you ponder the question and try to come up with a plausible answer. You never did say where you were; where your station could work across the Pacific ocean, and across the Indian and Atlantic oceans. No, I didn't say. There are numerous places within the continent in which we live where such is possible. Ponder the matter. I'm trying to think of a geographic location with "both coasts" and those three oceans. Keep pondering. So kindly tell us what country that you operated from that had "both coasts" and three oceans. I never wrote that it "had" them. I wrote that I operated a station capable to working across them. I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic, inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I generally pulled eight hour shifts... Of your own choosing, right? What's the difference for purposes of discussion? Do you know anyone who ever worked 24 hour days for a solid week? Your comment, "of my own choosing" sounds very odd for a military radio station. Those words don't appear in the paragraph concerning military communications. You might want to read it again. You said that you had an amateur station, and you pulled military shifts of your own choosing. I said nothing of the kind. If you have problems, maybe you can have someone read it for you. In your original statements above, did you really mean to string together an amateur station from a country with two coasts and three oceans, with your military station in Vietnam? Those things were not strung together. Perhaps you can find someone with writing skills explain the idea behind paragraphing. I was "intimately" involved with in-country HF military operations for a year in Vietnam. I spent fifteen "intimate" years overseas with the U.S. Department of State where I was responsible for all HF and VHF communications whether by voice, asynchronous data or morse. So this wasn't amateur radio either? Read it again and perhaps you'll figure it out. But I thought this group was to discuss amateur radio. And you do get after Len for bringing up other services communications, however long ago it may have been. Where've you been? Did you read Len's material to which I replied? I've spent forty years as an active radio amateur, operating various modes on bands from 1.8 through 432 MHz. Aren't you going to ask me if this was military communications or State Department communications? No. I recognize this as an amateur radio discussion group, and I recognize that you are finally addressing amateur radio operations. Congratulations. Maybe you can congratulate Len as well, if he ever gets back from the Korean War. Why did you stop at 432 MHz? Even most store bought amateur UHF rigs are capable of going up to 450 Mhz. Weak signal work on SSB and CW takes place in that area of the band. It may. Or it may not. My logs say that it does. That's where I happen to spend much of my time. Is that all right with you? Peachy. Oh, uhhh. Forgot. Superior Heil "doan do FM (tm Kelly)" I have a 440 rig at home. I use it occasionally. I use 2m FM So your statement of frequency ranges above is inaccurate. It would more accurately read, "1.8 to 450 MHz." It is much more accurate than your statements in which you could not properly attribute the words "of my own choosing". regularly. Looks like you've struck out on your attempt to hit a nerve, little electrolyte. No attempt made. I just figured that such a great ham as yourself was short changing himself with such a limited portfolio of RF activity. You may consider my words as a mere summary. I can go on and on without ever touching the recorded and evidencible facts of having spent three years being actively involved with the latter. That grates on you. Three years? Three measly years? It grates on me that you'd dare compare your three years to my experience and pretend to have a lock on knowledge. Grates on you, huh? Figure it out. No problem. Then why'd you ask a question? Some people learn faster than others. Look at everyone's vastly different learning experiences with Morse Cose to see what I mean. Some are never able to learn it at all. Learning rate isn't under discussion. Experience is. Ah, No. You specifically said, "knowledge." Think about it. Can one attain knowledge only through experience? Most certainly. But with respect to radio theory and ops, perhaps Len is a quicker learner than you. Perhaps not. Ask him. I wonder what he would say? Let me repeat: Ask him. You tell me everyone if learns the same, and if so, I'll have to give you this one. Figure it out. Ah, sorry. You don't get this one. You can't give what isn't yours. Unless Len actually has more than just the three years RF experience that you reference. Ask him. I'm sure he'll be happy to go on about it at great length. Much like your military and dept. of state resume? Resume? You mean the summary to counter Len's absurdity? And what of education? Can education play a role in knowledge? Figure it out. Ah, you don't get this one either. Ah, you haven't figured it out. Dave, you deserve a much needed vacation from rrap. At least consider it. I've considered it. My response is: No. Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: about a post to James Miccolis Len Over 21 wrote: Please tell us all about when you flew those old "A-N" ranges. :-) Did they let you fly your model aircraft on some old airfields, Len? :-) Not "old" ones. Try Apollo Field at the Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley. Real runway and ramp. Popular with the Large Scale R/C groups here. Lots of model helo flying too. Model aircraft hobbyists lobbied for and got a whole bunch of 72 MHz channels for R/C some while back. They still have them. Look in Part 95, Title 47 CFR. VORs have been in use on civil airways since before 1960. A lot more accurate, easier to use, much less pilot error than the "range markers." Oh, my, you love the past. :-) An interesting comment coming from one who frequently brings up THE past as well as his own past. :-) The OLD "range markers" (actually "range beacon system") went out with civil aviation way back in 1955 with new ICAO rules on radio and radionavigation. VOR or Very high frequency Omnidirectional radio Range, offers at least a quantum leap over the old morse keyed "A-N" beacons. Anyone claiming they do air navigation by those old "A-N" beacons is at least 48 years out of touch with reality. Morsemen tend to be out of touch with reality. Didja know you can address all your written test content complaints to the VEC QPC? They are radio amateurs themselves. I'm sure they would include a question on "QFU" if any ham is expected to line up his ham aircraft on a runway bearing. Beep, beep. Why are you concerned? You're no more a radio amateur than you are a pilot. I've designed and proved civil aviation radionavigation avionics. Those worked very well. Of course that was as a professional, something you detest. I passed my US private pilot written exam in 1962. Gave up piloting due to cost...$17.50/hour dual, $12.00/hour solo back then. A typical four-place, single-engine, retractable-gear light aircraft back then cost $30K (Mooney, only bare essentials of instrumentation). Hull insurance premiums were 10% annual for beginning pilot-owners. Back in 1963 my house purchase price was $30,500. It is now worth about $375 to $390 thousand if I were to put it on the market. I made a wise move to invest in real estate instead of a cute lil airplane...those haven't appreciated very much in 40 years. What the hell is your problem, Herr Robust? AVIATION isn't the subject of this thread...someone else brought up aviation. You don't have anything to do with aviation except to rack up frequent cryer miles in here. You don't know a VORTAC from hardtack. If you heard ATCRBS pronounced you would think it an insect infestation. Pfffft. LHA. |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... I was "intimately" involved with HF communications across the Pacific in the 1960's at hours of my own choosing. My station also worked across the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean. It did so with less power than yours and I was still a teenager. Was this an amateur station? It most certainly was. Cool. What amateur call sign did you use? Mine. Was it capable of only working over oceans, or could it work over land masses as well? I wasn't simultaneously living on both coasts, Brian. Try to figure it out. Try not being so smug, David. I wasn't being smug. I suggested that you ponder the question and try to come up with a plausible answer. Dave, this basically shows that you are smug without even trying, or even being cognizant of it. You never did say where you were; where your station could work across the Pacific ocean, and across the Indian and Atlantic oceans. No, I didn't say. There are numerous places within the continent in which we live where such is possible. Ponder the matter. OK. I'm trying to think of a geographic location with "both coasts" and those three oceans. Keep pondering. I am. I'm still trying to think of a location that has a coast on the Indian Ocean, a coast on the Atlantic Ocean, and able to work across the Pacific Ocean with intimate involvement. So kindly tell us what country that you operated from that had "both coasts" and three oceans. I never wrote that it "had" them. I wrote that I operated a station capable to working across them. Now you want me to believe that a landmass has no coasts nor adjoining oceans? I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic, inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I generally pulled eight hour shifts... Of your own choosing, right? What's the difference for purposes of discussion? Do you know anyone who ever worked 24 hour days for a solid week? Your comment, "of my own choosing" sounds very odd for a military radio station. Those words don't appear in the paragraph concerning military communications. You might want to read it again. The occur in the paragraph where you didn't define the communication service that you used. You might want to be a little more clear in your web communications. You said that you had an amateur station, and you pulled military shifts of your own choosing. I said nothing of the kind. If you have problems, maybe you can have someone read it for you. Maybe, but I wouldn't want them to suffer through your usual muddy communications. In your original statements above, did you really mean to string together an amateur station from a country with two coasts and three oceans, with your military station in Vietnam? Those things were not strung together. Perhaps you can find someone with writing skills explain the idea behind paragraphing. It wouldn't be you. I was "intimately" involved with in-country HF military operations for a year in Vietnam. I spent fifteen "intimate" years overseas with the U.S. Department of State where I was responsible for all HF and VHF communications whether by voice, asynchronous data or morse. So this wasn't amateur radio either? Read it again and perhaps you'll figure it out. But I thought this group was to discuss amateur radio. And you do get after Len for bringing up other services communications, however long ago it may have been. Where've you been? Did you read Len's material to which I replied? I read what you tell Len when he tries to bring up his radio communication experiences. I've spent forty years as an active radio amateur, operating various modes on bands from 1.8 through 432 MHz. Aren't you going to ask me if this was military communications or State Department communications? No. I recognize this as an amateur radio discussion group, and I recognize that you are finally addressing amateur radio operations. Congratulations. Maybe you can congratulate Len as well, if he ever gets back from the Korean War. How can this be possible? You continually remind the world that Len has no amateur experience. Why did you stop at 432 MHz? Even most store bought amateur UHF rigs are capable of going up to 450 Mhz. Weak signal work on SSB and CW takes place in that area of the band. It may. Or it may not. My logs say that it does. Both. That's where I happen to spend much of my time. Is that all right with you? Peachy. Oh, uhhh. Forgot. Superior Heil "doan do FM (tm Kelly)" I have a 440 rig at home. I use it occasionally. I use 2m FM So your statement of frequency ranges above is inaccurate. It would more accurately read, "1.8 to 450 MHz." It is much more accurate than your statements in which you could not properly attribute the words "of my own choosing". If you would only be more clear. regularly. Looks like you've struck out on your attempt to hit a nerve, little electrolyte. No attempt made. I just figured that such a great ham as yourself was short changing himself with such a limited portfolio of RF activity. You may consider my words as a mere summary. I consider them as mere words. I can go on and on without ever touching the recorded and evidencible facts of having spent three years being actively involved with the latter. That grates on you. Three years? Three measly years? It grates on me that you'd dare compare your three years to my experience and pretend to have a lock on knowledge. Grates on you, huh? Figure it out. No problem. Then why'd you ask a question? I just wanted to verify that you experience what the rest of us would call, "emotion." Some people learn faster than others. Look at everyone's vastly different learning experiences with Morse Cose to see what I mean. Some are never able to learn it at all. Learning rate isn't under discussion. Experience is. Ah, No. You specifically said, "knowledge." Think about it. Can one attain knowledge only through experience? Most certainly. Then put the things that you are willing to say, but unwilling to discuss, in brackets [xxx]. But with respect to radio theory and ops, perhaps Len is a quicker learner than you. Perhaps not. Ask him. I wonder what he would say? Let me repeat: Ask him. I think with respect to radio theory and ops, he would say that he were the quicker learner. You tell me everyone if learns the same, and if so, I'll have to give you this one. Figure it out. Ah, sorry. You don't get this one. You can't give what isn't yours. It's done every day. Have you never heard of government? Unless Len actually has more than just the three years RF experience that you reference. Ask him. I'm sure he'll be happy to go on about it at great length. Much like your military and dept. of state resume? Resume? You mean the summary to counter Len's absurdity? Absurdity is a land location with two coasts and three oceans. And what of education? Can education play a role in knowledge? Figure it out. Ah, you don't get this one either. Ah, you haven't figured it out. I've figured out that you've run out of anything that matters. Dave, you deserve a much needed vacation from rrap. At least consider it. I've considered it. My response is: No. Dave K8MN Then continue to be "grated." |
Dave Heil wrote :
I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic, inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I generally pulled eight hour shifts... Don't forget my favorites, the Sterba Curtains (SAC "Short Order") on the six towers in a hexagon..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: about a post to James Miccolis Len Over 21 wrote: Please tell us all about when you flew those old "A-N" ranges. :-) Did they let you fly your model aircraft on some old airfields, Len? :-) Not "old" ones. Try Apollo Field at the Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley. Real runway and ramp. Popular with the Large Scale R/C groups here. Lots of model helo flying too. That's great, Len--almost like the real thing. Model aircraft hobbyists lobbied for and got a whole bunch of 72 MHz channels for R/C some while back. They still have them. Look in Part 95, Title 47 CFR. That's perfectly marvelous. VORs have been in use on civil airways since before 1960. A lot more accurate, easier to use, much less pilot error than the "range markers." Oh, my, you love the past. :-) An interesting comment coming from one who frequently brings up THE past as well as his own past. :-) The OLD "range markers" (actually "range beacon system") went out with civil aviation way back in 1955 with new ICAO rules on radio and radionavigation. VOR or Very high frequency Omnidirectional radio Range, offers at least a quantum leap over the old morse keyed "A-N" beacons. Anyone claiming they do air navigation by those old "A-N" beacons is at least 48 years out of touch with reality. So who claimed the be doing such navigation? I knew a guy who, back in the early 1980's, regularly navigated to Louisville from Cincinnati by homing on WHAS's signal. Morsemen tend to be out of touch with reality. How would you know? Didja know you can address all your written test content complaints to the VEC QPC? They are radio amateurs themselves. I'm sure they would include a question on "QFU" if any ham is expected to line up his ham aircraft on a runway bearing. Beep, beep. Why are you concerned? You're no more a radio amateur than you are a pilot. I've designed and proved civil aviation radionavigation avionics. Those worked very well. Is that the same as being a pilot? Of course that was as a professional, something you detest. I don't detest professionals. I worked as a professional. I passed my US private pilot written exam in 1962. Gave up piloting due to cost...$17.50/hour dual, $12.00/hour solo back then. A typical four-place, single-engine, retractable-gear light aircraft back then cost $30K (Mooney, only bare essentials of instrumentation). Hull insurance premiums were 10% annual for beginning pilot-owners. All of that to state that you are not currently a pilot? Back in 1963 my house purchase price was $30,500. It is now worth about $375 to $390 thousand if I were to put it on the market. I made a wise move to invest in real estate instead of a cute lil airplane...those haven't appreciated very much in 40 years. Don't get overly-prideful on us, Len. That's the second time you've mentioned the worth of your home in as many days. What the hell is your problem, Herr Robust? AVIATION isn't the subject of this thread...someone else brought up aviation. Oh, my mistake. I could have sworn that you were commenting about aviation. In fact, I believe you wrote about it in the post to which I'm currently responding. You don't have anything to do with aviation except to rack up frequent cryer miles in here. How would you know? You don't know a VORTAC from hardtack. If you heard ATCRBS pronounced you would think it an insect infestation. Pfffft. ATCRBS doesn't have any vowels. Dave K8MN |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 15 Aug 2003 15:27:46 -0700, (Brian) wrote: Now you want me to believe that a landmass has no coasts nor adjoining oceans? I can think of one place that fits that description. You get there after departing Christchurch, New Zealand, aboard an LC-130. Nowadays, at least - back then maybe not. The 109th AMW in Schenectady, NY flies the LC-130s. Dave, am I warm? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ John, if you were getting close, you would be cold, not warm. I used to "flight follow" those routes with respect to the upper level winds and the computer flight plan database. And that location has coasts and adjoining oceans. More importantly, Heil was never there. Brian |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... I was "intimately" involved with HF communications across the Pacific in the 1960's at hours of my own choosing. My station also worked across the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean. It did so with less power than yours and I was still a teenager. Was this an amateur station? It most certainly was. Cool. What amateur call sign did you use? Mine. Was it capable of only working over oceans, or could it work over land masses as well? I wasn't simultaneously living on both coasts, Brian. Try to figure it out. Try not being so smug, David. I wasn't being smug. I suggested that you ponder the question and try to come up with a plausible answer. Dave, this basically shows that you are smug without even trying, or even being cognizant of it. No, it "basically" does nothing of the kind. At that, there is nothing necessarily negative about being smug. You never did say where you were; where your station could work across the Pacific ocean, and across the Indian and Atlantic oceans. No, I didn't say. There are numerous places within the continent in which we live where such is possible. Ponder the matter. OK. I'm trying to think of a geographic location with "both coasts" and those three oceans. Keep pondering. I am. I'm still trying to think of a location that has a coast on the Indian Ocean, a coast on the Atlantic Ocean, and able to work across the Pacific Ocean with intimate involvement. You seem to have misread. I've never written that the location has a coast on the Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean. So kindly tell us what country that you operated from that had "both coasts" and three oceans. I never wrote that it "had" them. I wrote that I operated a station capable to working across them. Now you want me to believe that a landmass has no coasts nor adjoining oceans? No, I don't want you to believe that. I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic, inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I generally pulled eight hour shifts... Of your own choosing, right? What's the difference for purposes of discussion? Do you know anyone who ever worked 24 hour days for a solid week? Your comment, "of my own choosing" sounds very odd for a military radio station. Those words don't appear in the paragraph concerning military communications. You might want to read it again. The occur in the paragraph where you didn't define the communication service that you used. You might want to be a little more clear in your web communications. How is it that only you are confused? You said that you had an amateur station, and you pulled military shifts of your own choosing. I said nothing of the kind. If you have problems, maybe you can have someone read it for you. Maybe, but I wouldn't want them to suffer through your usual muddy communications. The only thing muddy is your thought process. In your original statements above, did you really mean to string together an amateur station from a country with two coasts and three oceans, with your military station in Vietnam? Those things were not strung together. Perhaps you can find someone with writing skills explain the idea behind paragraphing. It wouldn't be you. You're right. I'm not going to help you with remedials. I was "intimately" involved with in-country HF military operations for a year in Vietnam. I spent fifteen "intimate" years overseas with the U.S. Department of State where I was responsible for all HF and VHF communications whether by voice, asynchronous data or morse. So this wasn't amateur radio either? Read it again and perhaps you'll figure it out. But I thought this group was to discuss amateur radio. And you do get after Len for bringing up other services communications, however long ago it may have been. Where've you been? Did you read Len's material to which I replied? I read what you tell Len when he tries to bring up his radio communication experiences. That isn't what I asked. I've spent forty years as an active radio amateur, operating various modes on bands from 1.8 through 432 MHz. Aren't you going to ask me if this was military communications or State Department communications? No. I recognize this as an amateur radio discussion group, and I recognize that you are finally addressing amateur radio operations. Congratulations. Maybe you can congratulate Len as well, if he ever gets back from the Korean War. How can this be possible? You continually remind the world that Len has no amateur experience. That hasn't stopped Len from attempting to speak with authority about what is best for amateur radio. Why did you stop at 432 MHz? Even most store bought amateur UHF rigs are capable of going up to 450 Mhz. Weak signal work on SSB and CW takes place in that area of the band. It may. Or it may not. My logs say that it does. Both. FM is not a good weak signal mode. That's where I happen to spend much of my time. Is that all right with you? Peachy. Oh, uhhh. Forgot. Superior Heil "doan do FM (tm Kelly)" I have a 440 rig at home. I use it occasionally. I use 2m FM So your statement of frequency ranges above is inaccurate. It would more accurately read, "1.8 to 450 MHz." It is much more accurate than your statements in which you could not properly attribute the words "of my own choosing". If you would only be more clear. If only your waters ran a bit deeper... regularly. Looks like you've struck out on your attempt to hit a nerve, little electrolyte. No attempt made. I just figured that such a great ham as yourself was short changing himself with such a limited portfolio of RF activity. You may consider my words as a mere summary. I consider them as mere words. Once you have the vocabulary built up, you can begin sentence comprehension. I can go on and on without ever touching the recorded and evidencible facts of having spent three years being actively involved with the latter. That grates on you. Three years? Three measly years? It grates on me that you'd dare compare your three years to my experience and pretend to have a lock on knowledge. Grates on you, huh? Figure it out. No problem. Then why'd you ask a question? I just wanted to verify that you experience what the rest of us would call, "emotion." It might have been easier to ask that, if it's all you were after. Some people learn faster than others. Look at everyone's vastly different learning experiences with Morse Cose to see what I mean. Some are never able to learn it at all. Learning rate isn't under discussion. Experience is. Ah, No. You specifically said, "knowledge." Think about it. Can one attain knowledge only through experience? Most certainly. Then put the things that you are willing to say, but unwilling to discuss, in brackets [xxx]. Does everything need to be diagrammed in order for you to put the picture together? But with respect to radio theory and ops, perhaps Len is a quicker learner than you. Perhaps not. Ask him. I wonder what he would say? Let me repeat: Ask him. I think with respect to radio theory and ops, he would say that he were the quicker learner. You're guessing. Ask him. You tell me everyone if learns the same, and if so, I'll have to give you this one. Figure it out. Ah, sorry. You don't get this one. You can't give what isn't yours. It's done every day. Have you never heard of government? I pay the government. Unless Len actually has more than just the three years RF experience that you reference. Ask him. I'm sure he'll be happy to go on about it at great length. Much like your military and dept. of state resume? Resume? You mean the summary to counter Len's absurdity? Absurdity is a land location with two coasts and three oceans. It surely is. It's a good thing I didn't make any claims about such a place. And what of education? Can education play a role in knowledge? Figure it out. Ah, you don't get this one either. Ah, you haven't figured it out. I've figured out that you've run out of anything that matters. You are the one with the unanswered questions and you expect me to do all your work for you? Dave K8MN |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:
On 15 Aug 2003 15:27:46 -0700, (Brian) wrote: Now you want me to believe that a landmass has no coasts nor adjoining oceans? I can think of one place that fits that description. You get there after departing Christchurch, New Zealand, aboard an LC-130. Nowadays, at least - back then maybe not. The 109th AMW in Schenectady, NY flies the LC-130s. Dave, am I warm? You fell into Brian's trap of concocting such a place. I operated right here in the United States but I know the place you're thinking of though. My old pal Bob Harler K8MWO, a retired Naval Commander was in charge of Christchurch support operations for the one you came up with. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: I've figured out that you've run out of anything that matters. You are the one with the unanswered questions and you expect me to do all your work for you? I'm good either way. You just seemed to be in a question answering mood, but as usual, they were nonsense answers. Perhaps there should be a no content indicator in the preamble of your messages. |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: I've figured out that you've run out of anything that matters. You are the one with the unanswered questions and you expect me to do all your work for you? I'm good either way. It doesn't appear that way. You even want me to tell you what Len might say about something. You just seemed to be in a question answering mood, but as usual, they were nonsense answers. ....to nonsense questions. Perhaps there should be a no content indicator in the preamble of your messages. I usually find your name a giveaway. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: Perhaps there should be a no content indicator in the preamble of your messages. I usually find your name a giveaway. Dave K8MN In addition to putting AveryFine in front of your messages, you're going to start putting my name on them? |
Brian wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Perhaps there should be a no content indicator in the preamble of your messages. I usually find your name a giveaway. Dave K8MN In addition to putting AveryFine in front of your messages, you're going to start putting my name on them? I am not now, nor have I ever posted as Avery Fine or any other name than my own. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com