|
|
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: sending and receiving CW isn't a building block to anything else..... Yes, it is. First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Although other services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it extensivley, and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a station in another service. Roger that, Reverend Jim... Who is "Reverend Jim", Len? You and Brian Burke keep using that name to address someone. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you've never seen "Taxi" then... :-) I've seen most episodes of Taxi. My name's not Ignatowksi. We've all seen your prodigious output here in the Newsgroup. And we've all seen your even-more-prodigious output here in this newsgroup, Len. Under a wide variety of AOL screen names - nocwtest, lenof21, averyfine, averyfineman, lenover21, and probably more. Perhaps you aspire to emulate Louie DePalma...;-) Your surname is Miccolis but you are a dead-ringer for the Rev. Jim character, totally stoked on morsemanship...spaced out as to any other radio communications mode. Not me. I use a variety of communications modes. It can't be me, because I graduated from electrical engineering school, not divinity school. And my name isn't Ignatowski ;-) What engineering school did you graduate from, Len? One right here in Southern California... One without a name...:- It's easy enough for a BSEE to find out. Not that many out here. But you won't tell us the name. On the other hand, it is difficult to figure out WHERE YOU WORK, in terms of an actual company name. That's right. Because it's not relevant to an amateur radio policy discussion. You rationalize on "not revealing it" for some kind of "fear" of getting "bad mail" from others. Nope. It's not relevant. And, it's just common sense that no matter what job I hold/held, and no matter who my employer(s) are/were, they would not make any difference in your behavior towards me. I think your REAL fear is just in everyone discovering you don't do a damn thing in radio for a living. Nope. The only REAL fear is yours, because you desperately want to know, but I won't tell you. No problem for me. I've revealed most of my employers in here, plus a number of personal references who are long-time licensed radio amateurs. None of the employers had anything to do with amateur radio. They're irrelevant to the discussion. You want to knwo them for reasons that have nothing to do with amateur radio. You won't do that. I've given a number of personal references who are long-time licensed radio amateurs, too, Len. But what's really relevant is what a person has done in amateur radio. I've been an active, licensed radio amateur for almost 36 years - operating, building stations, writing articles, elmering, etc. You wrote a few basic articles for a now-defunct amateur radio periodical and have never held any class of amateur radio license. All you seem to want is some kind of "rep" in the newsgroup for being here almost all of your free time, writing terribly long, boring peans to yourself and morsemanship...when not using the newsgroup as some kind of "chat room" in talking about absolutely non-radio-amateur subjects. That's not me, Len. It's you - except the ""peans to morsemanship" are "diatribes against Morse code" in your case. IN the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service... No such thing exists. Yes it do, de facto, just not de jure. :-) DeJur made projectors. You're projecting ;-) I'm telling it like it is. HAW! That's almost funny. You're projecting your own reactions and motivations onto others. Classical transference behavior, really. I've been "in" the Amateur Radio Service for almost 36 years. You have not done so for even one day. That's nice, Len. On what amateur band did you bootleg with it? Hmm? Or was it a broadcast band device so you could pretend you were on "Ted Mack's Amateur Hour"? ;-) I've never bootlegged on anything after 1948. Ah - but that means you may have bootlegged in 1948 and before! YOU don't really KNOW if I "bootlegged" at all, do you? Nope. But you raised the subject, not me. I wrote (emphasis added): "you *MAY* have bootlegged in 1948 and before!" Maybe you did - and maybe you didn't. I will say categorically that I have *never* bootlegged - that is, operated illegally. Can you say the same thing, Len? All you want to do is to selectively use my messages as an ignition point for a Flame War. Nope. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? YOU didn't exist in 1948. That was 55 years ago. Irrelevant. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? You have NO KNOWLEDGE of what I did back then or even 56 years ago, but you are trolling, trolling, looking for a Flame Fest to start. Nope. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? So, great big expert radio ham, tell US your "personal experiences" with small output personal wireless AM broadcast band links of the pre-1950 period. Irrelevant. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? Come clean and tell the group all about it. It will be good for your soul to admit your checkered past. Go stick a whouff-hong someplace, pervert. It will satisfy your sex life. Sounds like you're getting angry, Len. If you don't have a checkered past, there's nothing to admit. Your anger *may* indicate a guilty conscience....;-) ;-) Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? It's more than you had done in RADIO at that age. And mine was legal. No bootlegging. YOU didn't exist in 1947...or 1948. Doesn't matter. What I did at 13 is much more than you had done at age 14. By February 1953 I was already (at 20 years of age) a soldier serving overseas, assigned to an Army radio station with the callsign ADA. I was with ADA for three years. Fascinating - you were 14 in 1948 but 20 in early 1953. You've never served in the armed forces of the United States, much less "assigned overseas." I never claimed to be. How is that relevant to amateur radio or bootlegging by 14 year olds? You've made fun of my military service in the past. [that's in Google, by the way, you seem to live part of your time there...] Where? Produce the post. I dare ya! ;-) Shall we google up your frequent insults and denigrations of others' military and government service? For example - how about the way you made fun of Jeffrey Herman's Coast Gurad shore station radio operating? You want to be honored a respected for being safely within in the USA borders, never serving. You want to make fun of those veterans who who don't love your blessed sacrament, morsemanship. Not me. But you sure do demonstrate the principle of "can dish it out but can't take it". By 1967 I'd already DESIGNED and mostly built (technician help was not always available) several UHF to microwave RF emitters of more that 10 Watts. Well, give Len a Nobel Prize for accomplishment in physics! In 1967 you were almost three times 14 years old. Wow, for an ALLEGED MSEE, you've got BAD arithmetic skills. Nope. Three times fourteen is forty-two. The answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. 1967 - 42 = 1925. And I wrote "almost three times 14". *almost* I was born in 1932. And you were 14 in 1948, huh? Talk about bad math skills! In early 1967 I was 34 years old, my Honorable Discharge was 7 years in the past. And it was your JOB, wasn't it? You are damn right is was MY JOB. So it is irrelevant to what *amateurs* do. That was the essence of your diatribe against Jeffrey Herman's job. I was good at enough to be given design responsibility. Me, too... All quite legal. Not for you to operate unless you held the station license. Go Whouff-Hong yourself, sweetums. And you call *me* a "pervert"... I DID have a station license in the PLMRS (as its called now) in a partnership in a business. Angrier and angrier you get. Strong is the dark side with you. Consume you it does.... Don't give us this CRAP about "holding a station license" when you've stated in the past in here that ham radio is "all about OPERATING." Where did I say that, Len? Produce the post. I double dare ya! ;-) ;-) Is it your guilt over your own bootlegging that causes you to attack those who followed the law, even as teenagers? You are really REACHING for some Flame War, aren't you, Rev. Jim? Not me. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? Who is this "Rev. Jim" you keep addressing? Yourself, Stokey. Get off the hard stuff before it does you in... What ARE you talking about, Len? "Stokey"? The age thing is yours, Len, not mine. You recommended that FCC not license anyone under age 14. Let us know when you've passed the mental age of 14 and we can discuss things rationally. So far, you aren't close to that. ah, the old ad hominem by Len when all else fails. So predictable. Why are you avoiding that simple question? WHAT "question?" "Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person wants to do is operate manufactured radios? "If someone doesn't want to design, build or repair radios, why should they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?" Those aren't "questions" except to the loaded, "do you still beat your wife" sort of "questions." Not at all. The "do you still beat your wife" question is only "loaded" if the answers are confined to "yes" and "no". There's no such restriction on those questions. They don't have to be "answered" because YOU don't have one single bit of "authority" to demand answers. Not demanding. Asking. You don't like those questions because they demonstrate a *MAJOR* flaw in your jeremiads against Morse code testing. Take pride in your work for a living. Reveal at least the area of "electrical work" you do. I already have. Electrical engineering. Design work, to be precise. That's all you need to know. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) If that makes you angry, it's your problem, not mine. Even that is irrelevant to an amateur radio policy discussion. Either way, ALL you are is an AMATEUR who tries to pass hisself off as a great big guru in AMATEURISM. Is being an amateur somehow bad? Amateurs do things for the love of the thing alone. You are not a radio amateur. Nor have you ever been. And that's a fact. As for "guru", that's all in your imagination. I don't claim to be an "expert" or "guru" in anything. Not even Morse Code. |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: sending and receiving CW isn't a building block to anything else..... Yes, it is. First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Although other services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it extensivley, and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a station in another service. Roger that, Reverend Jim... Who is "Reverend Jim", Len? You and Brian Burke keep using that name to address someone. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you've never seen "Taxi" then... :-) I've seen most episodes of Taxi. My name's not Ignatowksi. We've all seen your prodigious output here in the Newsgroup. And we've all seen your even-more-prodigious output here in this newsgroup, Len. Under a wide variety of AOL screen names - nocwtest, lenof21, averyfine, averyfineman, lenover21, and probably more. Perhaps you aspire to emulate Louie DePalma...;-) Your surname is Miccolis but you are a dead-ringer for the Rev. Jim character, totally stoked on morsemanship...spaced out as to any other radio communications mode. Not me. I use a variety of communications modes. It can't be me, because I graduated from electrical engineering school, not divinity school. And my name isn't Ignatowski ;-) What engineering school did you graduate from, Len? One right here in Southern California... One without a name...:- It's easy enough for a BSEE to find out. Not that many out here. But you won't tell us the name. On the other hand, it is difficult to figure out WHERE YOU WORK, in terms of an actual company name. That's right. Because it's not relevant to an amateur radio policy discussion. You rationalize on "not revealing it" for some kind of "fear" of getting "bad mail" from others. Nope. It's not relevant. And, it's just common sense that no matter what job I hold/held, and no matter who my employer(s) are/were, they would not make any difference in your behavior towards me. I think your REAL fear is just in everyone discovering you don't do a damn thing in radio for a living. Nope. The only REAL fear is yours, because you desperately want to know, but I won't tell you. No problem for me. I've revealed most of my employers in here, plus a number of personal references who are long-time licensed radio amateurs. None of the employers had anything to do with amateur radio. They're irrelevant to the discussion. You want to knwo them for reasons that have nothing to do with amateur radio. You won't do that. I've given a number of personal references who are long-time licensed radio amateurs, too, Len. But what's really relevant is what a person has done in amateur radio. I've been an active, licensed radio amateur for almost 36 years - operating, building stations, writing articles, elmering, etc. You wrote a few basic articles for a now-defunct amateur radio periodical and have never held any class of amateur radio license. All you seem to want is some kind of "rep" in the newsgroup for being here almost all of your free time, writing terribly long, boring peans to yourself and morsemanship...when not using the newsgroup as some kind of "chat room" in talking about absolutely non-radio-amateur subjects. That's not me, Len. It's you - except the ""peans to morsemanship" are "diatribes against Morse code" in your case. IN the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service... No such thing exists. Yes it do, de facto, just not de jure. :-) DeJur made projectors. You're projecting ;-) I'm telling it like it is. HAW! That's almost funny. You're projecting your own reactions and motivations onto others. Classical transference behavior, really. I've been "in" the Amateur Radio Service for almost 36 years. You have not done so for even one day. That's nice, Len. On what amateur band did you bootleg with it? Hmm? Or was it a broadcast band device so you could pretend you were on "Ted Mack's Amateur Hour"? ;-) I've never bootlegged on anything after 1948. Ah - but that means you may have bootlegged in 1948 and before! YOU don't really KNOW if I "bootlegged" at all, do you? Nope. But you raised the subject, not me. I wrote (emphasis added): "you *MAY* have bootlegged in 1948 and before!" Maybe you did - and maybe you didn't. I will say categorically that I have *never* bootlegged - that is, operated illegally. Can you say the same thing, Len? All you want to do is to selectively use my messages as an ignition point for a Flame War. Nope. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? YOU didn't exist in 1948. That was 55 years ago. Irrelevant. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? You have NO KNOWLEDGE of what I did back then or even 56 years ago, but you are trolling, trolling, looking for a Flame Fest to start. Nope. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? So, great big expert radio ham, tell US your "personal experiences" with small output personal wireless AM broadcast band links of the pre-1950 period. Irrelevant. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? Come clean and tell the group all about it. It will be good for your soul to admit your checkered past. Go stick a whouff-hong someplace, pervert. It will satisfy your sex life. Sounds like you're getting angry, Len. If you don't have a checkered past, there's nothing to admit. Your anger *may* indicate a guilty conscience....;-) ;-) Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? It's more than you had done in RADIO at that age. And mine was legal. No bootlegging. YOU didn't exist in 1947...or 1948. Doesn't matter. What I did at 13 is much more than you had done at age 14. By February 1953 I was already (at 20 years of age) a soldier serving overseas, assigned to an Army radio station with the callsign ADA. I was with ADA for three years. Fascinating - you were 14 in 1948 but 20 in early 1953. You've never served in the armed forces of the United States, much less "assigned overseas." I never claimed to be. How is that relevant to amateur radio or bootlegging by 14 year olds? You've made fun of my military service in the past. [that's in Google, by the way, you seem to live part of your time there...] Where? Produce the post. I dare ya! ;-) Shall we google up your frequent insults and denigrations of others' military and government service? For example - how about the way you made fun of Jeffrey Herman's Coast Gurad shore station radio operating? You want to be honored a respected for being safely within in the USA borders, never serving. You want to make fun of those veterans who who don't love your blessed sacrament, morsemanship. Not me. But you sure do demonstrate the principle of "can dish it out but can't take it". By 1967 I'd already DESIGNED and mostly built (technician help was not always available) several UHF to microwave RF emitters of more that 10 Watts. Well, give Len a Nobel Prize for accomplishment in physics! In 1967 you were almost three times 14 years old. Wow, for an ALLEGED MSEE, you've got BAD arithmetic skills. Nope. Three times fourteen is forty-two. The answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. 1967 - 42 = 1925. And I wrote "almost three times 14". *almost* I was born in 1932. And you were 14 in 1948, huh? Talk about bad math skills! In early 1967 I was 34 years old, my Honorable Discharge was 7 years in the past. And it was your JOB, wasn't it? You are damn right is was MY JOB. So it is irrelevant to what *amateurs* do. That was the essence of your diatribe against Jeffrey Herman's job. I was good at enough to be given design responsibility. Me, too... All quite legal. Not for you to operate unless you held the station license. Go Whouff-Hong yourself, sweetums. And you call *me* a "pervert"... I DID have a station license in the PLMRS (as its called now) in a partnership in a business. Angrier and angrier you get. Strong is the dark side with you. Consume you it does.... Don't give us this CRAP about "holding a station license" when you've stated in the past in here that ham radio is "all about OPERATING." Where did I say that, Len? Produce the post. I double dare ya! ;-) ;-) Is it your guilt over your own bootlegging that causes you to attack those who followed the law, even as teenagers? You are really REACHING for some Flame War, aren't you, Rev. Jim? Not me. Either you bootlegged before 1949 or you didn't. Which is it? Who is this "Rev. Jim" you keep addressing? Yourself, Stokey. Get off the hard stuff before it does you in... What ARE you talking about, Len? "Stokey"? The age thing is yours, Len, not mine. You recommended that FCC not license anyone under age 14. Let us know when you've passed the mental age of 14 and we can discuss things rationally. So far, you aren't close to that. ah, the old ad hominem by Len when all else fails. So predictable. Why are you avoiding that simple question? WHAT "question?" "Why should there be *any* written test on theory if all a person wants to do is operate manufactured radios? "If someone doesn't want to design, build or repair radios, why should they have to memorize all those symbols, diagrams and formulas?" Those aren't "questions" except to the loaded, "do you still beat your wife" sort of "questions." Not at all. The "do you still beat your wife" question is only "loaded" if the answers are confined to "yes" and "no". There's no such restriction on those questions. They don't have to be "answered" because YOU don't have one single bit of "authority" to demand answers. Not demanding. Asking. You don't like those questions because they demonstrate a *MAJOR* flaw in your jeremiads against Morse code testing. Take pride in your work for a living. Reveal at least the area of "electrical work" you do. I already have. Electrical engineering. Design work, to be precise. That's all you need to know. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) If that makes you angry, it's your problem, not mine. Even that is irrelevant to an amateur radio policy discussion. Either way, ALL you are is an AMATEUR who tries to pass hisself off as a great big guru in AMATEURISM. Is being an amateur somehow bad? Amateurs do things for the love of the thing alone. You are not a radio amateur. Nor have you ever been. And that's a fact. As for "guru", that's all in your imagination. I don't claim to be an "expert" or "guru" in anything. Not even Morse Code. |
In article , (N2EY)
writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , "Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet writes: sending and receiving CW isn't a building block to anything else..... Yes, it is. First, it's a building block to the use of the mode on the air. Although other services have pretty much stopped using Morse Code, hams use it extensivley, and an amateur license is permission to operate an amateur station, not a station in another service. Roger that, Reverend Jim... Who is "Reverend Jim", Len? You and Brian Burke keep using that name to address someone. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you've never seen "Taxi" then... :-) I've seen most episodes of Taxi. My name's not Ignatowksi. We've all seen your prodigious output here in the Newsgroup. And we've all seen your even-more-prodigious output here in this newsgroup, Len. Under a wide variety of AOL screen names - nocwtest, lenof21, averyfine, averyfineman, lenover21, and probably more. I have never used "Avery Fine" as a screen name. "Len Of 21" is my primary AOL screen name. Someone else has "No CW Test." I have used NO other screen names in here. My real name and current mailing address is the same as it appeared many times as bylines in Ham Radio Magazine. Not me. I use a variety of communications modes. Of course you do. You are a true-blue amateur who believes in all the guidance of the ARRL and the purity and sanctity of morse code following all directives from Newington to the letter.. The only REAL fear is yours, because you desperately want to know, but I won't tell you. What "REAL fear?" It is NOT anything about the tuff tawk in here. :-) Since you won't say, we just put you closer to the BOGUS boys. But what's really relevant is what a person has done in amateur radio. I've been an active, licensed radio amateur for almost 36 years - operating, building stations, writing articles, elmering, etc. You wrote a few basic articles for a now-defunct amateur radio periodical and have never held any class of amateur radio license. Oooooo...! Was that supposed to "hurt" big fella? :-) I got a COMMERCIAL Radiotelephone license in 1956 (only one test needed) and had a career in radio-electronics design since then. You will no doubt have to say such is "irrelevant" for lots of reasons. You don't want to admit your occupation's firm name or what it does, so you try to denigrate all those who aren't afraid of naming where they worked or where they worked or what they did at work in detail. You want to diminish the efforts of Ham Radio Magazine founders Skip Tenney and Jim Fisk and their TWENTY TWO YEARS of successful, INDEPENDENT newsstand publications. Why? Tenney is a radio amateur. Fisk is deceased and his old call (W1HR) is now used by a club in Jim Fisk's honor. You keep wanting to say HR is "defunct" as if that is somehow unclean. You weren't published in HR, Jimmie. You got as far as "Electric Radio," a non-newsstand periodical for a special interest group in old radio. Did you ever write for Electronics magazine (McGraw-Hill's old biweekly)? I did. Did you ever write for BYTE? I did. I've written for Microcomputing and Call-A.P.P.L.E. about more avoactional and recreational activities concerning electronics. That's not me, Len. It's you - except the ""peans to morsemanship" are "diatribes against Morse code" in your case. Someone has to counter your religious evangelism about morse code and its "necessary" testing. :-) You're projecting your own reactions and motivations onto others. Classical transference behavior, really. Nooo. The most I've been "projecting" lately are some Power Point presentations. :-) "you *MAY* have bootlegged in 1948 and before!" Maybe you did - and maybe you didn't. When did you last engage in a homosexual act? Same sort of "question." I will say categorically that I have *never* bootlegged - that is, operated illegally. ...as far as we know...but then you will not reveal ALL that you do... Can you say the same thing, Len? I can say anything I want. Whatever that is, if I don't religiously praise morse code, you will find some fault with it and write yards and yards of copy manufacturing all sorts of nonsensical "arguments." All you want to do is to selectively use my messages as an ignition point for a Flame War. Nope. Incorrect. YOU didn't exist in 1948. That was 55 years ago. Irrelevant. Anything before your birthdate is "irrelevant?" A very elitist, arrogant attidude. Tsk, tsk... Sounds like you're getting angry, Len. If you don't have a checkered past, there's nothing to admit. Your anger *may* indicate a guilty conscience....;-) I once took a Checker cab. I've played checkers. I've watched many a checkered flag wave at the end of NASCAR and CART races. What I did at 13 is much more than you had done at age 14. You MUST say that anything you've done at anyone else's same age is "better." :-) Did you win any International contest awards at 14? :-) By February 1953 I was already (at 20 years of age) a soldier serving overseas, assigned to an Army radio station with the callsign ADA. I was with ADA for three years. Fascinating - you were 14 in 1948 but 20 in early 1953. 15 in early 1948. Between 20 and 21 in 1953 depending on month. Why are you so concerned about minutae in years? Looking for another TROLL opening for more FLAMING? Of course... You've never served in the armed forces of the United States, much less "assigned overseas." I never claimed to be. How is that relevant to amateur radio or bootlegging by 14 year olds? You are the one featuring BOOTLEGGING, Jimmie. That's a main subject with you? Why? You've made fun of my military service in the past. [that's in Google, by the way, you seem to live part of your time there...] Where? Produce the post. I was posted to 8235th AU in 1953 and stayed there for 3 years as one of the many who worked ADA, the primary communicaations station for the Far East Command. 24/7 service via HF. You've not done anything close to that. For example - how about the way you made fun of Jeffrey Herman's Coast Gurad shore station radio operating? You civilians will never understand that former military persons can joke about their military branches because we all KNOW what military life was like. You CANNOT. The USCG has NEVER done HF communications in any magnitude approaching either the US Army, US Air Force, or US Navy. That's a fact. You want to be honored a respected for being safely within in the USA borders, never serving. You want to make fun of those veterans who who don't love your blessed sacrament, morsemanship. Not me. But you sure do demonstrate the principle of "can dish it out but can't take it". No problem. You want to throw food in a food fight here, go ahead. If I care to do so, I can toss it right back at you with increased tonnage and far better delivery. Go to someone else to attempt a flame war. The answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. 1967 - 42 = 1925. IRRELEVANT. Only a few are interested in a dead, DEFUNCT, British fantasy novelist who was a darling of a few eastern anglophiles. Sorry, but it was all a flash in the pan, then goodbye. Don't try to pass that off as "science-fiction," it will never play at the SFWA. Is being an amateur somehow bad? Amateurs do things for the love of the thing alone. And a few of you insist your amateurism is "better" than anything the professionals could ever do. You are not a radio amateur. Nor have you ever been. And that's a fact. I've been a PROFESSIONAL in the electronics industry. That's a fact. I've been a hobbyist in electronics. That's a fact. I've done military communicaations for three years a half century ago. That's a fact. I've done commercial communications as a civilian. That's a fact. You have NOT done any of the above and that's a fact. I don't venerate or worship or glorify morse code. That's a fact. I don't fantasize or pretend that any amateur "needs" an out-dated skill in any radio just to get a license to operate. That's a fact. I'm willing to state anything I've done, barring NDAs or national security subjects and that's a fact. You are unwilling to state anything in any detail of what you have done in radio or electronics for a living and that's a fact. You try to amplify minutae into gigantic "arguments" over nothing and that's a fact. When you act civil and rational, then I might discuss things with you. That's not a fact because it hasn't happened yet. Now fire up your Time Machine and go back to the Past in radio that you love so much. Bye.... |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: I have never used "Avery Fine" as a screen name. Yes, you have. Here's just one example - there are more. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...000514%40nso-c v.aol.com&output=gplain BEGIN QUOTE: From: (Avery Fine) Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Subject: PSK31 Sked Lines: 65 NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder07.news.aol.com X-Admin: Date: 16 Sep 2000 23:17:20 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Message-ID: In article , Sig Heil writes: You remain a bitter and ancient child. Now, now, you are looking into the mirror again when you write. :-) It is now quite obvious that you have no intention of ever obtaining an amateur radio license exam. That is YOUR suppository, er, supposition, Herr Standartenfuhrer. Why do you continue to post these lengthy diatribes having nothing to do with amateur radio? On the contrary, YOUR lengthy diatribes address nothing but an attempt to suppress dissent and to "get even" with being taken to task two years ago on your braggadoccio of radio expertise. You've never forgotten and want vindication. You get none. This makes you whiney and petulant. Poor baby. The restructuring in amateur radio is not yet complete. More needs to be done to bring US amateur radio regulations closer to 1980s standards (it had been at 1950s standards, more or less). You and a few others who achieved their "qualifications" (!) from high-rate code and 1-by-2 or 2-by-1 callsigns cannot take the new rules and insist that all be "qualified" under the old ones or you will not "recognize them." Those who do not accept YOUR definition are objects of your highly-negative, follow-the-law-as-it-is-NOW criticsm. Just the same, in other threads on other subjects, Herr Heil hasn't spoken out on any technical subjects that can affect policy of now or even later...except to go on at length on a non-relationship of surname Heil in regards to microphones. [ for shame! 'real' hams don't bark into microphones! :-) ] Have you nothing else in your life? Considerably more, four-neuroned-brain Heil. The attitudes of national socialist partei one-by-twos who think they are wielding two-by-fours of arrogant superiority make the prospect of "proper" and "right" licensing unattractive to be placed at the top of any agenda. YOU are in such a category by public observation of anyone accessing this newsgroup. Perhaps your many years of public service at the State Department have made you oblivious to the fact that the FCC (that's another government agency that regulates civil radio in the USA) sets licensing standards for US radio amateurs. It also grants licenses. It granted yours (apparently). The US amateur radio community does not grant licenses...nor does it "rule" on the "motivations" it thinks citizens have in regards to radio licenses. You seem to think that you "know" everything about those who post contrary opinions to yours. Have fun in your self-important ignorance, go ahead and post more of your "hate" allegations as if you represent the entire US ARS community. I don't care to message with you further (as if I ever did to your libelous postings), Herr Standartenfuhrer. I'm going to a college reunion. QRT. didit END QUOTE |
In article , (N2EY)
writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: I have never used "Avery Fine" as a screen name. Yes, you have. Here's just one example - there are more. I stand corrected. Three and a half years ago AOL still had a limit on the number of characters in a screen name. Once that limit was changed to a longer string, I cancelled the "Avery Fine" screen name and changed it to my old Sysop handle of "Avery Fineman" used many years ago before the Internet went public. LATER, someone picked up on that particular screen name of "Avery Fine" and used it as soon as the six-month time was up. The same is true of "No CW Test" screenname...which I cancelled and someone else used after it was available. At NO time have I ever tried to disguise my legal name or address or location by adopting some false personna. Yet you GRASP AT STRAWS in trying to light up a Flame War to satisfy your childish pique in here. Tsk, tsk, don't play with matches... there are others here who have flamethrowers and you could get severely burned. (apparently). The US amateur radio community does not grant licenses...nor does it "rule" on the "motivations" it thinks citizens have in regards to radio licenses. You seem to think that you "know" everything about those who post contrary opinions to yours. Have fun in your self-important ignorance, go ahead and post more of your "hate" allegations as if you represent the entire US ARS community. I don't care to message with you further (as if I ever did to your libelous postings), Herr Standartenfuhrer. I'm going to a college reunion. QRT. didit END QUOTE The college reunion was in the midwest in 2000, my wife's college class. Rainy, dreary, but a fun event formally and socially. I'm sorry you have to pollute the contents in here with bringing up THREE YEAR OLD (PLUS) arguments to satisfy your apparent "need" to get back at your perceived pique. Try living in the here and now instead of constantly going back to the past. You are not salving old word wounds by going back to the past, only re-opening your own wounds for more hurt. Tsk, tsk. LHA |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: I have never used "Avery Fine" as a screen name. Yes, you have. Here's just one example - there are more. I stand corrected. Well, there you have it ;-) Three and a half years ago AOL still had a limit on the number of characters in a screen name. Irrelevant. Once that limit was changed to a longer string, I cancelled the "Avery Fine" screen name and changed it to my old Sysop handle of "Avery Fineman" used many years ago before the Internet went public. Irrelevant. LATER, someone picked up on that particular screen name of "Avery Fine" and used it as soon as the six-month time was up. The same is true of "No CW Test" screenname...which I cancelled and someone else used after it was available. Irrelevant. At NO time have I ever tried to disguise my legal name or address or location by adopting some false personna. It's spelled "persona", Len. In the quoted post, you do not mention your name, address, or other identifiers. Just "Avery Fine" and nothing else. Some people would say that you were trying to conceal your identity. But your hostile persona comes through.... Yet you GRASP AT STRAWS in trying to light up a Flame War to satisfy your childish pique in here. "Childish pique"? You're the one shouting, calling names, making fun of other people's jobs, military and government service, education, technical achievements, geographic location, gender and sexual orientation. Pretty childish stuff you post here. Like rewriting the reference line of that quoted post so that Dave Heil's name becomes 'Sig Heil'. Really mature stuff, Len old boy. Me, I'm simply correcting your mistakes. You said you never used a certain screen name, and I proved you to be mistaken. In error. Wrong. Incorrect. Live with it. Tsk, tsk, don't play with matches... there are others here who have flamethrowers and you could get severely burned. Sounds like a threat. That's at least two so far. It is clear you wish to kill the messenger, for the unspeakable crime of telling the truth and proving you to be in error. (apparently). The US amateur radio community does not grant licenses...nor does it "rule" on the "motivations" it thinks citizens have in regards to radio licenses. You seem to think that you "know" everything about those who post contrary opinions to yours. Have fun in your self-important ignorance, go ahead and post more of your "hate" allegations as if you represent the entire US ARS community. I don't care to message with you further (as if I ever did to your libelous postings), Herr Standartenfuhrer. I'm going to a college reunion. QRT. didit END QUOTE The college reunion was in the midwest in 2000, my wife's college class. Rainy, dreary, but a fun event formally and socially. Irrelevant. I'm sorry you have to pollute the contents in here with bringing up THREE YEAR OLD (PLUS) arguments to satisfy your apparent "need" to get back at your perceived pique. "Pollute the contents"? How? Here are some of your own words, from that post: "Sig Heil" "Herr Standartenfuhrer" "Poor baby." "Herr Heil" "four-neuroned-brain Heil" "national socialist partei one-by-twos" "libelous postings" "Herr Standartenfuhrer." And you say I "pollute the contents"? You made a statement and I proved you to be wrong. Grow up a little. Try living in the here and now instead of constantly going back to the past. You are not salving old word wounds by going back to the past, only re-opening your own wounds for more hurt. Tsk, tsk. You can always just hide your head in the sand and killfile my posts, Len. No problem. |
|
|
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY) writes: " wasn't you? Why do you ask? Because you told us that you hadn't used any other screen names "in here" besides that long list of AOL ones. I haven't been able to use Mog-Ur's EMS BBS in years... 7, to be exact. Tom closed it down after being one of the first 10 BBSs in the USA. He had Internet access for about a year until it got too expensive and subscribers left to go directly on the Internet. Tom Tcimpdis (easy Greek surname, just pronounce it like it is written), KC6MLR, television video director, twice won Emmys for outstanding technical direction ("Night Court" series, "Sinatra, the Man and His Music" special). Built his own BBS to start with years and years ago from a Heath H8 microcomputer, had to write his own software to get it going as a Bulletin Board System. Had a fairly good side business of custom personal computer systems, may still do that. Private pilot, multi-engine rated, a road rally sportsman from way back. You can see his picture on QRZ.com...:-) Quaffed a few with Tom at the 94th Aerosquadron Restaurant at Van Nuys Airport, a regular hang-out for several San Fernando Valley BBS members of the 80s and 90s. Is there a point to all this besides your trying to avoid the fact that you forgot yet another screen name you used in rrap? "Mog-Ur" is a character name taken from the novel "Clan of the Cave Bear." Actually, it's a title. The character's name is Creb. "The Mog-Ur" is a title/function he performed in the Clan. "EMS" is an acronym for Electronic Message System, in use in computer-modem communications before EMS for Emergency Medical Service became standards.. "Mog-Ur's" survives on the Internet today after more than 20 years of existance. Is there *any* relevance to all your verbiage? Someone asks you the time, and you give them directions to Boulder and a long diatribe on the development of the various atomic standards there. My real name and current mailing address is the same as it appeared many times as bylines in Ham Radio Magazine. How is anyone to know that when reading your newsgroup posts? Do you need ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES, authenticated by some federal agency?!?!? Go look in the FCC ECFS...under all the RMs from 10781 through 10787 and FCC 03-104. The listings have my postal address and my AOL address. Doesn't answer the question. How is anyone who reads a post by " " " " " or " supposed to know that all of them are one and the same person - if, indeed, they are? Particularly when your name does not appear anywhere in many of them? Why should they believe you when you say you have not posted by other names, when it has been shown that your list of screen names left out at least two that you have used? Those articles are well over a decade old, and "ham radio" (no caps in their logo) magazine hasn't published a new issue for years. Tsk, tsk, tsk. HAM RADIO Magazine, There are no capital letters in the logo printed on the magazine covers. They did the e.e.cummings thing. "ham radio" is the name of the mag, not "HAM RADIO". Just look at the cover. an independent amateur radio interest periodical (50,000 issues a month) lasted for TWENTY TWO YEARS solely on the basis of advertising space sales. That's not correct. The magazine subscriptions cost money, so they did not exist "solely on the basis of advertising space sales" If the subscription/newstand price was $20 per year and there were 50,000 subscribers/newstand buyers per month, that's a *million dollars* of revenue from subscriptions. Back when $1,000,000 was a lot of money. Existed ""solely on the basis of advertising space sales"? I think not! Were that true, the subscriptions would have been free. Like most industry magazines. Also, I seriously doubt that the mag was 50,000 copies/month for the entire 22 years. Publisher Skip Tenney finally sold it to CQ Communications and probably retired. Founding Editor in Chief Jim Fisk (SK, ex-W1HR) wasn't around to help keep up the interest of the readers of a technically-oriented magazine. IOW, it ultimately failed in the marketplace. Too bad - it was a good mag in its time. Why do you live in the past so much? Both CQ and ARRL sell a three-CD set of all 22 years of HR for $150 (shipping extra, always an extra with ARRL). Lots of good technical information in there. The newest of which is well over a decade old. Many of the parts used in the projects are now made of unobtanium. A complete set of QST is also available on CD. Every issue, all the way back to December 1915. Almost four times as long as "ham radio" QST is still being published - the oldest still-published radio magazine in the world. I've written for QST. You haven't. Why should anyone believe your calims when you can't even remember your screen names? Someone who posts as much as you do would ordinarily remember such things. Ah, being the NEWSGROUP KOP! Just asking a question. And pointing out your mistakes. btw, it's spelled "cop". Well, then Mister Kop, why don't you just make yourself Emperor of the newsgroup and RESTRICT ACCESS only to those whom YOU APPROVE. Until that happens, THIS newsgroup is still open to the public. Is there a rule against asking questions? Or pointing out when someone's statements are demonstrably mistaken? I've been doing computer-modem communications since 1984, 19 years in all...as a subscriber, as a Sysop, as a co-Sysop, and as a public forum moderator. But you're not the moderator here. I'm NOT going to remember everything anymore than you can over nearly a two decade span of time... Nobody expects you to remember everyhting. That's what Google is for. We do expect, however, that you behave in a civil manner and not be so nasty when something you write is proven to be a mistake. AND THERE IS NO DAMN REASON TO REMEMBER EVERY PICKY LITTLE DETAIL TO SOOTHE YOUR IMAGINED PERSONAL HURT. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Poor angry baby! ;-) No "hurt" on my part at all, Len. You're the one who is shouting and carrying on. I'm just asking simple, direct questions. And pointing out a few mistakes. I have this nice card punch at the ready. Just hand me your "TS card" and I will punch it for you...:-) Sounds like another threat. Can you not resolve differences peaceably? You may imagine yourself as a modern Jondalar or Creb, but you come off like Broud and Attaroa. Would Doni approve? I think not. Gotta go! 'Ayla' just gave me "the signal"!!! |
In article ,
(N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: " wasn't you? Why do you ask? Because you told us that you hadn't used any other screen names "in here" besides that long list of AOL ones. I haven't been able to use Mog-Ur's EMS BBS in years... 7, to be exact. Tom closed it down after being one of the first 10 BBSs in the USA. He had Internet access for about a year until it got too expensive and subscribers left to go directly on the Internet. Tom Tcimpdis (easy Greek surname, just pronounce it like it is written), KC6MLR, television video director, twice won Emmys for outstanding technical direction ("Night Court" series, "Sinatra, the Man and His Music" special). Built his own BBS to start with years and years ago from a Heath H8 microcomputer, had to write his own software to get it going as a Bulletin Board System. Had a fairly good side business of custom personal computer systems, may still do that. Private pilot, multi-engine rated, a road rally sportsman from way back. You can see his picture on QRZ.com...:-) Quaffed a few with Tom at the 94th Aerosquadron Restaurant at Van Nuys Airport, a regular hang-out for several San Fernando Valley BBS members of the 80s and 90s. Is there a point to all this besides your trying to avoid the fact that you forgot yet another screen name you used in rrap? You are manufacturing a non-issue which has nothing to do with any sort of radio subject. "Mog-Ur" is a character name taken from the novel "Clan of the Cave Bear." Actually, it's a title. The character's name is Creb. "The Mog-Ur" is a title/function he performed in the Clan. Irrelevant. Petty literary details. "EMS" is an acronym for Electronic Message System, in use in computer-modem communications before EMS for Emergency Medical Service became standards.. "Mog-Ur's" survives on the Internet today after more than 20 years of existance. Is there *any* relevance to all your verbiage? Someone asks you the time, and you give them directions to Boulder and a long diatribe on the development of the various atomic standards there. Tom Tcimpidis has an amateur radio license and is listed in QRZ with his famous/infamous "at the controls of a 727" picture. Details of NIST time-frequency activities are available from their own web site. If you need directions to Boulder, CO, there are several map and direction services available on the Internet. supposed to know that all of them are one and the same person - if, indeed, they are? Particularly when your name does not appear anywhere in many of them? Tsk, tsk, tsk, still trying to manufacture a "dispute" based on your personal irritation. You are perfectly free to question AOL Member Services directly if you are so disturbed over "identities." YOU are a subscriber there. YOUR screen name does not identify you by legal name.. Why should they believe you when you say you have not posted by other names, when it has been shown that your list of screen names left out at least two that you have used? Why should anyone believe that you are real? :-) Your manufactured "dispute" is becoming absurd. an independent amateur radio interest periodical (50,000 issues a month) lasted for TWENTY TWO YEARS solely on the basis of advertising space sales. That's not correct. No? :-) The magazine subscriptions cost money, so they did not exist "solely on the basis of advertising space sales" If the subscription/newstand price was $20 per year and there were 50,000 subscribers/newstand buyers per month, that's a *million dollars* of revenue from subscriptions. Back when $1,000,000 was a lot of money. Existed ""solely on the basis of advertising space sales"? I think not! Were that true, the subscriptions would have been free. Like most industry magazines. Also, I seriously doubt that the mag was 50,000 copies/month for the entire 22 years. If you wish to demand an accounting or an investigation of Publishers' Sworn Statements, then you've gone slightly bonkers in pique. :-) Subscription fees (periodicals usually call them "fulfillment" fees) only cover the mailing costs and distribution services' various charges. That is a "break-even" situation where the periodical has no real income. Profit for a periodical comes from advertising space sales in all of the "independents" (those not affiliated with membership organizations). That is true for 73, CQ, Popular Communications, et al. The more ad space sold, the more the profit for the periodical's business. There's no other profit for periodicals, not even when they run a sideline business such as HR did with their Ham Radio Bookstore. The ad space for the Bookstore could have been used by other advertisers. QST is a membership magazine of the ARRL. As such, the amount of profit or loss from QST advertising space sales can be handled by the parent organization. QST gains slightly by having the easily-identifiable demographics of the number of members (see their page for the latest numbers). Publisher Skip Tenney finally sold it to CQ Communications and probably retired. Founding Editor in Chief Jim Fisk (SK, ex-W1HR) wasn't around to help keep up the interest of the readers of a technically-oriented magazine. IOW, it ultimately failed in the marketplace. Too bad - it was a good mag in its time. Why do you say "good?" All you've done so far in this manufactured dispute is to charge a technologically-oriented amateur publication with fraud or misrepresentation. You know little about basic organizations and budgets of periodicals yet claim some "expertise" sufficient to engage in manufactured "disputes." :-) A complete set of QST is also available on CD. Every issue, all the way back to December 1915. Almost four times as long as "ham radio" I'm sure. ARRL was founded in 1914. Why do YOU live in that past so much? :-) QST is still being published - the oldest still-published radio magazine in the world. Are you absolutely CERTAIN of that? :-) Can QST survive as an independent periodical, solely on the profit of ad space sales? We will never know because QST was never an independent. I've written for QST. BFD. You haven't. Absolutely true. What was your staff title at QST? That would be listed on their masthead every issue... :-) But you're not the moderator here. Neither are you, Mistah Kopp. I have this nice card punch at the ready. Just hand me your "TS card" and I will punch it for you...:-) Sounds like another threat. Can you not resolve differences peaceably? Tsk, tsk, tsk, Rev. Jimmie doesn't know about chaplains' "TS" cards? :-) Ah yes, Rev. Jimmie wasn't in any military service of the United States. I shall ask forgiveness of using familiar military service humor terms. Would 50 Hail Hirams be enough penance for that? Would a side of theses nailed to a church door be too much? :-) [Marty, you should have seen these guys...:-) ] LHA |
Really?? Which month/year were they published?? Would be interested in
reading them. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... I've written for QST. You haven't. |
Got your email Jim, and thanks! I will check those out.
Ryan "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Really?? Which month/year were they published?? Would be interested in reading them. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. .. --. .... - . .-. ... I've written for QST. You haven't. |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Got your email Jim, and thanks! I will check those out. Also see the top of page 62 in QST for June, 1989. Although I did not write it, there is a mention of me that is a bit out of the ordinary.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: But what's really relevant is what a person has done in amateur radio. I've been an active, licensed radio amateur for almost 36 years - operating, building stations, writing articles, elmering, etc. You wrote a few basic articles for a now-defunct amateur radio periodical and have never held any class of amateur radio license. Oooooo...! Was that supposed to "hurt" big fella? :-) Does the truth hurt you, Len? I got a COMMERCIAL Radiotelephone license in 1956 (only one test needed) and had a career in radio-electronics design since then. You will no doubt have to say such is "irrelevant" for lots of reasons. Not at all. Please explain how that license and career have any relevance to amateur radio policy. Particularly since you have never held any class of amateur radio license. You don't want to admit your occupation's firm name or what it does, Because it's not relevant. And because I know you'll simply make fun of it. so you try to denigrate all those who aren't afraid of naming where they worked or where they worked or what they did at work in detail. Who do I "denigrate", Len? It's a plain and simple fact that no matter who my employers are/were, you'd make fun of my job if you knew what it was. Your behavior towards others here who disagree with you is clear proof of that. You want to diminish the efforts of Ham Radio Magazine founders Skip Tenney and Jim Fisk and their TWENTY TWO YEARS of successful, INDEPENDENT newsstand publications. Where do I diminish their efforts, Len? They had a good mag but it ceased publication more than a decade ago. It's defunct. Why? Why do you get so upset over the word "defunct"? Tenney is a radio amateur. Fisk is deceased and his old call (W1HR) is now used by a club in Jim Fisk's honor. You keep wanting to say HR is "defunct" as if that is somehow unclean. How is "defunct" unclean? You weren't published in HR, So? You weren't published in QST. You got as far as "Electric Radio," a non-newsstand periodical for a special interest group in old radio. Also QST. Did you ever write for Electronics magazine (McGraw-Hill's old biweekly)? I did. Did you ever write for BYTE? I did. I've written for Microcomputing and Call-A.P.P.L.E. about more avoactional and recreational activities concerning electronics. Aren't all those magazines also defunct? I haven't seen a copy of any of them in years. You live in the past too much, Len. |
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (N2EY) writes: " wasn't you? Why do you ask? Because you told us that you hadn't used any other screen names "in here" besides that long list of AOL ones. I haven't been able to use Mog-Ur's EMS BBS in years... 7, to be exact. Tom closed it down after being one of the first 10 BBSs in the USA. He had Internet access for about a year until it got too expensive and subscribers left to go directly on the Internet. Tom Tcimpdis (easy Greek surname, just pronounce it like it is written), KC6MLR, television video director, twice won Emmys for outstanding technical direction ("Night Court" series, "Sinatra, the Man and His Music" special). Built his own BBS to start with years and years ago from a Heath H8 microcomputer, had to write his own software to get it going as a Bulletin Board System. Had a fairly good side business of custom personal computer systems, may still do that. Private pilot, multi-engine rated, a road rally sportsman from way back. You can see his picture on QRZ.com...:-) Quaffed a few with Tom at the 94th Aerosquadron Restaurant at Van Nuys Airport, a regular hang-out for several San Fernando Valley BBS members of the 80s and 90s. Is there a point to all this besides your trying to avoid the fact that you forgot yet another screen name you used in rrap? You are manufacturing a non-issue which has nothing to do with any sort of radio subject. So? You go far afield from any radio subject whenever you feel like it. "Mog-Ur" is a character name taken from the novel "Clan of the Cave Bear." Actually, it's a title. The character's name is Creb. "The Mog-Ur" is a title/function he performed in the Clan. Irrelevant. Petty literary details. It's as relevant as the "94th Aero Squadron" "EMS" is an acronym for Electronic Message System, in use in computer-modem communications before EMS for Emergency Medical Service became standards.. "Mog-Ur's" survives on the Internet today after more than 20 years of existance. Is there *any* relevance to all your verbiage? Someone asks you the time, and you give them directions to Boulder and a long diatribe on the development of the various atomic standards there. Tom Tcimpidis has an amateur radio license and is listed in QRZ with his famous/infamous "at the controls of a 727" picture. Yeah, he's a Novice. Which makes him far more experienced as a radio amateur than you, Len. Details of NIST time-frequency activities are available from their own web site. If you need directions to Boulder, CO, there are several map and direction services available on the Internet. Don't need 'em. I was there - at both the NIST site in Boulder and the WWV/WWVB transmitter site in Fort Collins. Found 'em both without website help. Got some good pictures of the then-current "atomic clock" and the trnasmitter site antennas. And a picture of myself standing next to the sign at the transmitter site. They're in the album with the pictures of my visit to ARRL Hq where I met a few of the staff and operated W1AW. supposed to know that all of them are one and the same person - if, indeed, they are? Particularly when your name does not appear anywhere in many of them? Tsk, tsk, tsk, still trying to manufacture a "dispute" based on your personal irritation. No irritation on my part at all, Len. I'm just pointing out some facts. You are perfectly free to question AOL Member Services directly if you are so disturbed over "identities." YOU are a subscriber there. YOUR screen name does not identify you by legal name.. So? Anyone who knows anyhting about amateur radio recognizes "N2EY" as an amateur radio callsign, which is actually more unique than a legal name. There are lots of people with your name, and there may be others with my name. But there is only one person assigned the amateur radio callsign N2EY. And that's me. Oh wait, you don't have an amateur radio callsign... Why should they believe you when you say you have not posted by other names, when it has been shown that your list of screen names left out at least two that you have used? Why should anyone believe that you are real? :-) Because I am. If you operated on the amateur bands you might know that. Oh wait, you've never been an amateur radio operator.... Your manufactured "dispute" is becoming absurd. It's about your credibility in here, Len. Or lack thereof. an independent amateur radio interest periodical (50,000 issues a month) lasted for TWENTY TWO YEARS solely on the basis of advertising space sales. That's not correct. No? :-) No. ;-) ;-) ;-) The magazine subscriptions cost money, so they did not exist "solely on the basis of advertising space sales" If the subscription/newstand price was $20 per year and there were 50,000 subscribers/newstand buyers per month, that's a *million dollars* of revenue from subscriptions. Back when $1,000,000 was a lot of money. Existed ""solely on the basis of advertising space sales"? I think not! Were that true, the subscriptions would have been free. Like most industry magazines. Also, I seriously doubt that the mag was 50,000 copies/month for the entire 22 years. If you wish to demand an accounting or an investigation of Publishers' Sworn Statements, then you've gone slightly bonkers in pique. :-) Subscription fees (periodicals usually call them "fulfillment" fees) only cover the mailing costs and distribution services' various charges. That is a "break-even" situation where the periodical has no real income. Nonsense. It all benefits the bottom line. You said the mag existed "solely on the basis of advertising space sales". Not profited - existed. Profit for a periodical comes from advertising space sales in all of the "independents" (those not affiliated with membership organizations). That is true for 73, CQ, Popular Communications, et al. The more ad space sold, the more the profit for the periodical's business. Then why aren't those magazines free? All income benefits the bottom line, whatever it's called or wherever it comes from. You said the mag existed "solely on the basis of advertising space sales". Not profited - existed. That's simply not true. There's no other profit for periodicals, not even when they run a sideline business such as HR did with their Ham Radio Bookstore. The ad space for the Bookstore could have been used by other advertisers. Doesn't matter. QST is a membership magazine of the ARRL. As such, the amount of profit or loss from QST advertising space sales can be handled by the parent organization. So? QST gains slightly by having the easily-identifiable demographics of the number of members (see their page for the latest numbers). They also lose by having to run the organization, which does things far beyond putting out a magazine. Publisher Skip Tenney finally sold it to CQ Communications and probably retired. Founding Editor in Chief Jim Fisk (SK, ex-W1HR) wasn't around to help keep up the interest of the readers of a technically-oriented magazine. IOW, it ultimately failed in the marketplace. Too bad - it was a good mag in its time. Why do you say "good?" It had some good articles in its time. All you've done so far in this manufactured dispute is to charge a technologically-oriented amateur publication with fraud or misrepresentation. Where? What charges? You're the only one who has charged a publisher of "fraud". You are not the publisher of "ham radio" magazine, and never were. You know little about basic organizations and budgets of periodicals yet claim some "expertise" sufficient to engage in manufactured "disputes." :-) You're trying to avoid a basic acciunting issue. A complete set of QST is also available on CD. Every issue, all the way back to December 1915. Almost four times as long as "ham radio" I'm sure. ARRL was founded in 1914. And the first issue of QST was December 1915. Why do YOU live in that past so much? :-) I don't - you do, recalling a magazine defunct for over a decade, lilitary radio experiences of a half century ago, employers you have not worked for in decades, etc. Oh wait, you don't have an amateur radio callsign, have never been a radio amateur.... QST is still being published - the oldest still-published radio magazine in the world. Are you absolutely CERTAIN of that? :-) Yep. I've written for QST. BFD. What do you mean by "BFD", Len? Spell it out for us. You haven't. Absolutely true. Finally, something factual from you. But you're not the moderator here. Neither are you, Mistah Kopp. Never claimed to be. You try to be one, though. I have this nice card punch at the ready. Just hand me your "TS card" and I will punch it for you...:-) Sounds like another threat. Can you not resolve differences peaceably? Tsk, tsk, tsk, Rev. Jimmie doesn't know about chaplains' "TS" cards? :-) More than you think. Ah yes, Rev. Jimmie wasn't in any military service of the United States. And you are not, and have never been, a radio amateur. Yet you lecture us endlessly on the subject. |
Got it. I have noticed a few others that are posters here in QST as well.
Ryan KC8PMX "N2EY" wrote in message om... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Got your email Jim, and thanks! I will check those out. Also see the top of page 62 in QST for June, 1989. Although I did not write it, there is a mention of me that is a bit out of the ordinary.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote:
(Len Over 21) writes: (snip) I got a COMMERCIAL Radiotelephone license in 1956 (only one test needed) and had a career in radio- electronics design since then. You will no doubt have to say such is "irrelevant" for lots of reasons. Not at all. Please explain how that license and career have any relevance to amateur radio policy. Particularly since you have never held any class of amateur radio license. Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's part in that discussion. Why would you think otherwise, Jim? Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio, which is good. The only thing I don't understand is why he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of Amateur Radio license over the years. Since VHF and above is one focus of commercial communications today, one would think the Technician license would have at least some appeal to him. This glaring, long term, lack of committment to Amateur Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in this discussion under suspicion. You don't want to admit your occupation's firm name or what it does, Because it's not relevant. (snip) This position is equally valid. While a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is somewhat relevant (if that person chooses to make it so), communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is obviously not manditory for participation in this discussion, especially for the person holding an Amateur Radio license which will be directly impacted by the outcome of this discussion. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote: (Len Over 21) writes: (snip) I got a COMMERCIAL Radiotelephone license in 1956 (only one test needed) and had a career in radio- electronics design since then. You will no doubt have to say such is "irrelevant" for lots of reasons. Not at all. Please explain how that license and career have any relevance to amateur radio policy. Particularly since you have never held any class of amateur radio license. Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's part in that discussion. In certain technical matters, perhaps. But in the formation of policy for the amateur service, why would such experience outside amateur radio be more significant than another's experience as a radio amateur? Should we ask Howard Stern about amateur radio policy? He has extensive experience in radio *outside* of amateur radio. He has made millions from his radio career, and has branched out into TV, movies and books, all of which have been financially successful ventures. Millions of people listen to him daily, and find him informative and entertaining. Why not see what Howard Stern thinks about amateur radio policy issues. Why would you think otherwise, Jim? I'm not saying that anyone should not be heard. Just the opposite. I'm simply saying that holding up non-amateur-radio experience as some sort of credential that disproves the opposing viewpoint of those with amateur radio experience is faulty logic. Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio, which is good. Whoa, hold on a sec! The only "interest" Len has shown in the past decade or so is numerous lengthy postings to a few newsgroups. Do you consider his attitude and behavior towards those who disagree with him to be "good"? Would you want a lot of new hams who behave the way he does? The only thing I don't understand is why he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of Amateur Radio license over the years. Perhaps the newsgroups are all the interest he has. Since VHF and above is one focus of commercial communications today, one would think the Technician license would have at least some appeal to him. This glaring, long term, lack of committment to Amateur Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in this discussion under suspicion. Which is why I point it out. The Tech license has not had a code test for more than 12 years. Its written test is not very difficult. It conveys all amateur VHF/UHF privileges. Yet Len has no interest in it. You don't want to admit your occupation's firm name or what it does, Because it's not relevant. (snip) This position is equally valid. Thanks! While a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is somewhat relevant (if that person chooses to make it so), communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is obviously not manditory for participation in this discussion, especially for the person holding an Amateur Radio license which will be directly impacted by the outcome of this discussion. There is also the plain, simple fact of Len's behavior when he knows the employment of someone who disagrees with him. Is there *any* employment situation that *anyone* who supports code testing could have that would cause Len to change his position on code testing? I don't think so! Is there *any* employment situation that *anyone* who supports code testing could have that would cause Len to treat that person with respect? I don't think so! And so there's no point in *anyone* mentioning their employment here. So I don't. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: (Len Over 21) writes: (snip) I got a COMMERCIAL Radiotelephone license in 1956 (only one test needed) and had a career in radio- electronics design since then. You will no doubt have to say such is "irrelevant" for lots of reasons. Not at all. Please explain how that license and career have any relevance to amateur radio policy. Particularly since you have never held any class of amateur radio license. Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's part in that discussion. Why would you think otherwise, Jim? Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio, which is good. The only thing I don't understand is why he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of Amateur Radio license over the years. Why do you insist that getting-a-license is culmination of "interest?" Explain how obtaining an AMATEUR license suddenly embues one with spirit and verve and "permission" to experiment with RF? Especially when a person is already a professional in electronic design engineering who has ALREADY been working on "experiments" in RF? A half century ago I began HF communications at a large station operating 24/7 to keep long-distance paths across the Pacific. No need to hold "contests" or have "certificates" of working far-away places...or of being required to use "CW" because it supposedly "got through when no other mode would." Station ADA used RTTY, commercial SSB (12 KHz, 4 circuits), and voice, no "CW." A couple months ago I used an SGC-2020 on HF while on a friend's sailboat moored in a marina. No license required by me, just with the owner's permission (wasn't a licensed amateur either). I never needed any special license when taking private pilot lessons and using civil aircraft frequencies (my First Phone obtained 4 years prior was fine for that). I've used "radios" and emitted RF from VLF to microwaves without needing ANY radio operator license (done on government contracts). I won't mention CB earlier because that is supposed to be a heathen sin on HF radio according to all the amateur gurus in here. :-) Since VHF and above is one focus of commercial communications today, one would think the Technician license would have at least some appeal to him. Dwight, VHF and above was ALREADY a focus of commercial communications a half century ago. I was a military supervisory NCO using General Electric microwave radio relay equipment operating at 1.8 GHz back then. State of the art then. All tubes, 24 voice channels per terminal. In the commercial world of radio, mobile 2-way radio was already out and designer-manufacturers were ramping up to sell them by the tens of thousands at VHF and UHF for both business and government use. Civil aviation radios on VHF were standardized as AM on 108 to 137 MHz by the ICAO in 1955. Television transmitters were already in operation from 54 MHz and up before that. Remote link transmitters for TV mobile use was in the microwaves. ICAO approved UHF glideslope and low-microwave DME radionav standards in the late 1950s. About 1960 solid-state active devices were appearing on the market for use in all sorts of "radio" equipment in the commercial-government radio market and design and manufacturing really took off there. By 1970 there were all sorts of neat miniaturization going on and I was working on a few of them...too many under development for any one person to work on all of them. The 1960-1970 decade marked the great influx of off-shore designed and built radios for all markets, including amateur radio. Off-shore-made electronics (and radios) would eventually dominate the consumer market (amateur gear put into that consumer market). Dwight, ALL OF ELECTRONICS (including radio) has been constantly under CHANGE in the last half century. I know it well because I was (and still am under contract conditions) a professional in electronics design...AS WELL AS an electronic hobbyist. I lost interest in "working DX" or "contesting" back in 1955 when I spent a month at station ADA's Control. When you can pick up a handset and talk to a counterpart in Hawaii or San Francisco stations on any shift just by signalling them to come on line, the "personal exploration-pioneering of DXing" as an amateur pales. Prior to entering the Army I could do maybe 8 WPM of morse. Never had to use that in the Army or since. After working on and with much higher technology radios, there was little impetus to work up any skill of an on-off keying code to meet some 1930s standards in OLD radio. This glaring, long term, lack of committment to Amateur Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in this discussion under suspicion. "Glaring?!?" :-) I'm just against a morse code test for any radio operator license, Dwight. Said that a long time ago and I keep saying so. I don't expect you to believe me. I made a true committment over four decades ago to GET INVOLVED in professional radio-electronics engineering design. I did that. Retired from it on regular hours but still do some of it on contract. Morse code skill-proficiency is required to be demonstrated by an UNLICENSED IN AMATEUR RADIO person for legal permission to transmit on HF ham bands. I've already transmitted on non-ham HF bands long ago also just recently, legal and proper. Morse code testing is required for GETTING INTO ham HF bands. Such doesn't affect an already-licensed General or Extra and only if they lapse their ham license renewals. Those AREN'T AFFECTED except in some personal pride or personal ego way where they need all the license and trappings to "prove themselves." I've already proved myself and don't need a federal merit badge or more pretty papers hanging on a wall. Morse code testing AFFECTS THE UNLICENSED. Morse code testing is PART OF POLICY about amateur radio...POLICY about GETTING INTO it. Sorry, but I'm not going to buy into HF ham radio licensing being all about this magical "CW" testing thing, like it is the epitome of ham qualities. All the exhortations of old stuff about "CW" is the bestest passed out for years in QST isn't a ruling from any god, radio or otherwise. Newington doesn't dictate what I care to do for a hobby. Only the FCC regulates civil US radio. This position is equally valid. While a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is somewhat relevant (if that person chooses to make it so), communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is obviously not manditory for participation in this discussion, especially for the person holding an Amateur Radio license which will be directly impacted by the outcome of this discussion. Let all explain how they will be so terribly affected by the elimination of an amateur radio license morse code test...especially when they already have passed such tests and will never have to take one again. Let all explain how the already-licensed are the "authority" to which all others unlicensed in amateur radio must answer. Let them explain how they became an integral part of the FCC and may thus abrogate the First Amendment for everyone else. Let all explain why everyone in the future MUST do as they did and always follow the standards and practices of long ago. Hey, you don't like some of my comments on the code test. So, what else is new? Do you need instant adulation for the accomplishments of passing a morse test? Special honors? Awards? Sorry, all out. Try considering that lots and lots of folks sure as hell don't like what the pro-coders are saying, have been saying, or the mythology about certain ways of radio they keep spreading. Already licensed amateurs don't have any special dispensation to act superior just because they exist...and they don't have any authority on any radio matters to stop any other citizen from speaking out in a public-access forum. This newsgroup is public-access, unmoderated. Some of what you see may not to be to your liking. Hand me your TS card and I'll punch it for this week. Glad to oblige anytime I have free time. :-) If some hissy-fit superiors are waiting for replies, good luck. Going to be a long wait and a long winter of PCTA discontent ahead. Not my problem. beep, beep LHA. |
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote: Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's part in that discussion. In certain technical matters, perhaps. But in the formation of policy for the amateur service, why would such experience outside amateur radio be more significant than another's experience as a radio amateur? I read back over what I said, and didn't see anything about it being "more significant." Should we ask Howard Stern about amateur radio policy? And I don't remember saying we should "ask" anybody for anything. Instead, I said anybody in this country has a say in government policy, including policy concerning Amateur Radio. Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio, which is good. (snip) Do you consider his attitude and behavior towards those who disagree with him to be "good"? Something else I don't remember saying. However, since you seem to want to discuss Len's attitude and behavior, what exactly are you referring to? After reading some of the garbage posted by some in this newsgroup, I don't see anything from him that stands out as particularily extraordinary. Of course, perhaps you're more sensitive to what he says because it is often targeted towards those who share your opinions. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Len Over 21" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think a person's communications knowledge and experience elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's part in that discussion. Why would you think otherwise, Jim? Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio, which is good. The only thing I don't understand is why he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of Amateur Radio license over the years. Why do you insist that getting-a-license is culmination of "interest?" Explain how obtaining an AMATEUR license suddenly embues one with spirit and verve and "permission" to experiment with RF? Especially when a person is already a professional in electronic design engineering who has ALREADY been working on "experiments" in RF? Well, it must be the week to put words into other people's mouths. First Jim and now you, Len. Anyway, I didn't "insist" any such thing. Instead, I simply said I don't understand why you haven't gotten some kind of Amateur Radio license over the years. Since VHF and above is one focus of commercial communications today, one would think the Technician license would have at least some appeal to him. Dwight, VHF and above was ALREADY a focus of commercial communications a half century ago. (snip) I didn't say it wasn't, Len. Instead, I simply said that this (commercial communications today) might be one reason the Technician license would have at least some appeal to you. This glaring, long term, lack of committment to Amateur Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in this discussion under suspicion. "Glaring?!?" :-) I'm just against a morse code test for any radio operator license, Dwight. Your opposition to code is no barrier whatsoever to getting a Technician license, Len. (snip) Hey, you don't like some of my comments on the code test. So, what else is new? Do you need instant adulation for the accomplishments of passing a morse test? Special honors? Awards? Sorry, all out. Well, in this case, the "what else is new" is that you obviously haven't noticed which license I hold. Since I haven't passed a Morse code test, no adulation, honors, or awards, relating to that would be applicable. Further, I don't particularily like or dislike anything you've said about the code test. I've taken no position whatsoever on your comments. I'm opposed to the code test, but that doesn't mean I specifically endorse anything you've said on the subject. This newsgroup is public-access, unmoderated. Some of what you see may not to be to your liking. (snip) My, you are reading a lot into what I've said, and getting it all wrong in the process. Absolutely nothing I said had anything whatsoever to do with whether I liked or disliked anything you've said. Take the chip off your shoulder, and re-read what I said, and I think you'll agree with that. By the way, if you reply, do try to keep it short - I don't have time to respond to a long-winded rant (my only real comment about what you've said). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ... Those articles are well over a decade old, and "ham radio" (no caps in their logo) magazine hasn't published a new issue for years. Tsk, tsk, tsk. HAM RADIO Magazine, There are no capital letters in the logo printed on the magazine covers. They did the e.e.cummings thing. "ham radio" is the name of the mag, not "HAM RADIO". Just look at the cover. Jim, I seriously doubt that Lennie was ever interested in the cover... Ignored and laughed at by the "real" electronics industry, Lennie found a convienient little nest where he could roost, claiming to be an "associate editor", using his "professional" status to bully his way around the other contributors. Occassionally getting a by-line wherein he could lay some "honest" claim to being "published" in an industry where BEING published is THE achievement, he could rest assured his name would lay in some dingy basement as an "archived" volume for eternity... I dare say Lennie probably got several comp'ed copies of HR...(excuse me...."hr"...!)and put them at every coffee pot around his "day" job office. I am sure the office secretary appreciated the use of them as "coasters". Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com