In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but why do you think it's
necessary for Len to *always* pepper his replies with personal insults. A
character flaw of some kind, maybe?

Some people can't do any better than that. Nothing like strong words
for weak arguments.

Let's see..."strong words" like "PUTZ!" for example (a nice little Yiddish
epithet for "dickhead").

"Strong words" like "you are ignorant, don't know anything!"

"Strong words" like implying all those opposed to the writer's opinion
is a child.

Then there's the "strong IMPLICATION" that someone "always" says
something to ruffle another's feathers. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Michael, as a moderator, you DO have a serious problem at times with
hypocrisy.

Good luck on this one now...

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but why do you think it's
necessary for Len to *always* pepper his replies with personal insults. A
character flaw of some kind, maybe?

Just following your own style, Ah-nold... :-)

That's what we all like about DICK...his calm, rational, civilized
approach
to discussion and debate...

:-)

or lack thereof.

If you want to retreat into some magic fantasyland, by all means shut
out
all discourse on subjects which go against your opinions.

Wearing blinders and doing the ostrich thing is denial, and rather
egotistically arrogant in such subjectivity.

My point exactly; you described my thoughts to a word.
I just wonder what those hams out there that haven't made up thier
mind on the matter yet think when they read how the people on
THAT side of the issue behave? Denial & hypocrisy interspersed
with social outlooks that are as static as an oil painting. Yea, that's a
REAL good way to attract support for a controversial issue, isn't it?

Generally those on sinking ships look for lifeboats and lifevests
instead of trying to see what the quickest route to the bottom of
the ocean is.

Clint

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Regardless of one's stance on the code, reviewing
the history of the FCC shows that they are NOT
necessarily concerned with what's best for the ARS.
If they were, BPL would never have gotten as far
as it has.


Let me put it another way. I think the FCC is concerned about the best
interests of the ARS, within the confines of reality. We have to remember
the ARS is not the only pot on the stove - the FCC deals with many other
services and has to balance the needs of each service against the others
(and that includes the ARS). That means we're not always going to exactly
what we want, exactly when and how we want it. But that certainly doesn't
mean the FCC is not concerned with the best interests of the ARS or, as
some
have suggested, has an agenda against it. We have a massive amount of
frequencies to play with. We have more modes to play with than most radio
services. We have more freedoms (to build or modify out own equipment and
so
on) than most radio services. When you look at the whole picture, it's
fairly hard to complain too much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Yeah but if we are not in there doing the "squeaky wheel" bit, they might
decide we are adequately served with less and less.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

There are no FCC-mandated
subbands on 160, and that band hasn't exactly turned into a mess
without such regulations.


160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

There are no FCC-mandated
subbands on 160, and that band hasn't exactly turned into a mess
without such regulations.



160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the
room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.




Actually you can. One that I found worked quite well on 160 was the
Alpha-Delta DX-A Sloper, actually a double sloper, which also works well
on 80 and 40.

A full size 1/2 wave dipole is of course another matter at ~250 feet.

Dick

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Ah but how "well" is well. And keep in mind that there are a fair number
who can't manage anything decent on 80 or even 40. I had a nice long,
random wire (about 250') but could only get it about 10 feet off the ground.
While I was able to work stations in Kansas during the 160 meter contest, I
could get California. Yet I heard East Coast stations who were working
those West Coasters that I couldn't hear.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

There are no FCC-mandated
subbands on 160, and that band hasn't exactly turned into a mess
without such regulations.



160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the
room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.




Actually you can. One that I found worked quite well on 160 was the
Alpha-Delta DX-A Sloper, actually a double sloper, which also works well
on 80 and 40.

A full size 1/2 wave dipole is of course another matter at ~250 feet.

Dick

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Ah but how "well" is well. And keep in mind that there are a fair number
who can't manage anything decent on 80 or even 40. I had a nice long,
random wire (about 250') but could only get it about 10 feet off the
ground.
While I was able to work stations in Kansas during the 160 meter contest,
I
could get California. Yet I heard East Coast stations who were working
those West Coasters that I couldn't hear.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Hate it when I skip a word typing. It should read "...I could not get
California..."

Good point, actually - I suppose you have room for a 262.47 foot long
dipole in your back 40, pardner?

Of course, it would be shorter if you built it 1/4 wave....

Leo

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:30:18 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:



160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Good dodge.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Clint" wrote in part ...

Add to the list of names and phrases you gave the following... "jerk",
"moron" and "dumb ****".
__________________________________________________ ______________

Look up my posts for the last four years and see how many times I have used
a personal insult toward *anyone* on this NG. IOW, I reserve that for
people who truly deserve it. Like you.

Arnie-
KT4ST