"Dave Heil" wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:

What is that to you?

It effects me because I am an active radio
amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no
way involved. (snip)

(snip) I think you must have me mixed up
with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a
bystander.


I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing a
radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all Americans,
no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all (Amateur
and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion. Likewise, I
saw nothing in rules of this newsgroup which would restrict the
participation of non-Amateurs. You may not like what Len has to say, but the
lack of a Ham license alone should not diminish it or dismiss it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...


I think Dee's demands are extreme.

You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are
putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, yes. Let them eat cake says Dee Marie.

You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a
groundswell of support. It doesn't need to be filtered through state
and regional directors, brought up in a board meeting, with lots of
hand-wringing that there is no clear mandate...

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

And what efforts did you make to convert the majority of members to your
point of view?? While the items you list are worthy activities, they don't
do much to change policy.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, what ARRL office(s) do you hold in your effort to stem the tide
of changes within the ARS? If your answer is "none," I suggest you
start campaigning yesterday.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote


I think this is one of those cases where some people think that their
membership is a subscription to QST. Its a lot more than that. ARRL does
a lot for Amateurs, even those who hate the organization.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Fair enough.

I dislike some of the policies that the ARRL has promoted in the past,
and felt as if the ARRL did not represent me even though I have been a
member since 1986.

Well, there you go! As a member, I'll pay a lot more attnetion to what
you have to say.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike, don't let Dee hear you say that. ;^)

I must hold an official ARRL elected office to have any influence.

I wonder what elected office she holds in an effort to stem the tide of change?

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:

What is that to you?

It effects me because I am an active radio
amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no
way involved. (snip)

(snip) I think you must have me mixed up
with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a
bystander.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing a
radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all Americans,
no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all (Amateur
and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight. Len has had his say on
countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he
knows some hams. He has no background in amateur radio from which to
make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing. He wants
morse testing ended. Based on what special knowledge and background?
He wants a minimum age for amateur radio licensing. Based on what
special knowledge and background? His right to direct his opinion to
his government is intact. Government is not forced to agree with his
assessment of how amateur radio should be changed. I'm certainly not
forced to agree with his views, to respect his views or to refrain from
sarcasm with regard to his views. Wanting to be involved does not make
Len other than a bystander in the world of amateur radio. He is not a
part of amateur radio simply because he comments to government or
because he posts here.

Likewise, I
saw nothing in rules of this newsgroup which would restrict the
participation of non-Amateurs.

Len has participated and participated and participated. He wants to
participate and to prevent others from laughing at him or his ideas.
Others are free to participate and may form their own opinions of LHA's
ideas. They are free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas.

You may not like what Len has to say, but the
lack of a Ham license alone should not diminish it or dismiss it.

There's no "may" involved. I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending posts. If you've
read Len's stuff, you'll have no difficulty in understanding that his
lack of an amateur license is not the only reason for making light of
his opinions regarding amateur radio licensing.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it,
Dwight. Len has had his say on countless
occasions. He isn't involved with amateur
radio though he knows some hams. He
has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision
regarding amateur radio testing. (snip)


Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth,
international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a
few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something to
say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational, if someone told me
to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you
would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant.

And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has
nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about
code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the
Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek).


He wants morse testing ended. Based
on what special knowledge and
background? (snip)


I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't
take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a
declining skill throughout the radio world. Or to read what the FCC and
others have said about Morse code. Or to think through the issue. Or to form
an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion.


(snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with
his views, to respect his views or to refrain
from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip)


Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because
you think he should.


(snip) Len has participated and participated
and participated. (snip)


More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else.


(snip) He wants to participate and to prevent
others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip)


Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing
anything?


(snip) Others are free to participate and may
form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are
free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas. (snip)

(snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending
posts. (snip)


Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or
comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you
that much if those comments agreed more with your own views. In the end, the
only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his
ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing
wrong with that, but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of
the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it,
Dwight. Len has had his say on countless
occasions. He isn't involved with amateur
radio though he knows some hams. He
has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision
regarding amateur radio testing. (snip)

Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth,
international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a
few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something to
say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational, if someone told me
to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you
would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age "everyone's opinion has
value" when the topic is something in which someone has no background.
I take it that you believe that your opinions on child birth would be
meaningful or relevant to a woman who has had several children and that
your views on space flights would be found useful to NASA engineers. I
don't happen to think they would be. If you find that you have an
interest in a topic, I'd expect that you'd want to study it, learn a
great deal about it, participate to some degree--in other words, to gain
experience in the field under discussion. I'd expect, for example, that
someone who wants to participate to any meaningful degree in regulating
mining be schooled in mining and that someone who is to particpate in
the regulation of amateur radio be more than casually familiar with
amateur radio. If an individual has no background in a field and
attempted to preach to those actively engaged in that field, I'd not be
at all upset if that individual became "darned offended" or
confrontational. In fact, I'd find it fairly easy to go on with my
life.

And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has
nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about
code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the
Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek).

Well, he'd have to land somewhere on the issue, wouldn't he? He has
also arrived at a conclusion about code testing and about a minimum age
for radio amateurs which is at odds with the decisions reached by many
within the Amateur Radio Service (other people who have a background in
the subject).

He wants morse testing ended. Based
on what special knowledge and
background? (snip)

I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't
take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a
declining skill throughout the radio world.

Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that you and Len share a
common mistaken view. Each of you might have a desire to see it as a
truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out.


Or to read what the FCC and
others have said about Morse code. Or to think through the issue. Or to form
an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion.

Which brings us back to an earlier point made by you: that Len's opinion
should carry the same weight as the opinions of radio amateurs. The FCC
has said, on a number of occasions, that they'd wait for a concensus
among radio amateurs. They did not see fit to include SWL's or those
who worked at a military radio station in Japan fifty years ago. That
aside, Len has formed an opinion and has, on countless occasions, voiced
his opinion.

(snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with
his views, to respect his views or to refrain
from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip)

Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because
you think he should.

Please point to one occasion in which I've suggested, requested or
demanded that the kindly old gent do so.

(snip) Len has participated and participated
and participated. (snip)

More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else.

Having the right to speak isn't the same as forcing others to listen, to
accept or to give the same weight to an opinion.

(snip) He wants to participate and to prevent
others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip)

Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing
anything?

Go to Google. Select this newsgroup. Enter "Len Anderson". Be prepared
to devote one or more evenings.

(snip) Others are free to participate and may
form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are
free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas. (snip)

(snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending
posts. (snip)

Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or
comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you
that much if those comments agreed more with your own views.

Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where I've supported the
posts of Bruce?

In the end, the
only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his
ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing
wrong with that,

You still don't completely understand so again, I urge that Google
search. Len isn't just wrong, he's rude and abrasive. Len claims to
just want civil debate on the issue of code testing. His posts do not
bear that out.

but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of
the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid).

The stupid are those who'd take their ideas about amateur radio or
amateur radio licensing from one who is not involved in any way with
amateur radio.

Never underestimate the stupid. They are legion.

Dave K8MN

N2EY wrote:


snippage


But I do give, and you want to take away *my* deduction for doing so.

A good example of deductive reasoning! ;^)

more snippage

Besides, it's a fantasy to think that there'd ever be widespread
support for flat taxes. Too many average people would lose too much.
Including you.


One of the biggest reasons that a flat tax will *never* happen is that
it will provice an easily quantifiable dollar figure as to what is
collected. And that dog won't hunt for any number of reasons.

There are certain ummmm..., advantages of the murky system we have now.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:

What is that to you?

It effects me because I am an active radio
amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no
way involved. (snip)

(snip) I think you must have me mixed up
with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a
bystander.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing
a
radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all
Americans,
no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all
(Amateur
and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion.

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight.

Yes you are. Your beligerance keeps on.

Len has had his say on
countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he
knows some hams.

Yup, beligerance with flags and banners waving... :-)

He has no background in amateur radio from which to
make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing.

Klunk, you are indeed weird as well as beligerant to
say that amateur radio is somehow so "unique" that it
is totally different from all other radio!

The physics of amateur radio is the SAME as the physics
of all other radio.

The jargon, patois, colloquialisms of amateur radio
communicating MIGHT be considered "different" than all
other radio services, but that is as easily picked up by
anyone going from one lodge hall to another. 10-4? :-)

He wants morse testing ended.

Yes.

Based on what special knowledge and background?

Based on 50 1/2 years of radio communications without
ever needing it or having to know it to "work HF."

Based on four decades of direct design engineering for
communications which considers ALL available modes.

Based on knowing the literature and history of ALL
radio communications, not the limited spoon-feeding
of knowledge from amateur fraternal organizations.
["Shannon's Law" was based on teleprinter signals,
not morse code and that Law became public in 1948
and accepted by the entire world of radio]

Based on the same bull**** heard for six decades
from elitist morsemen who still think that standards
and practices are the "same" as in the 1930s.

Based on what the FCC said publicly in 1990 and
again in 1999 that a morse code test is not necessary
for them to grant any amateur radio license.

He wants a minimum age for amateur radio licensing.

Yes, but I don't make near the BIG THING you try
to make of it in here, Klunk. I said that on the public
record on NPRM 98-143 in January 1999 and
haven't pursued it since.

Based on what special knowledge and background?

Show us your certificates and pretty paper saying you
are the EXPERT in everything you pontificate on.

His right to direct his opinion to his government is intact.

Damn right it is, Herr Robust.

Government is not forced to agree with his
assessment of how amateur radio should be changed.

Who, besides your gloriousness and nobility, said
it should?

[let us know the date of your coronation so that we
may genuflect and worship your presence...]

I'm certainly not
forced to agree with his views, to respect his views or to refrain from
sarcasm with regard to his views.

You are beligerant and ****ed off that anyone DARES
challenge your arrogance about What Should Be!

In most anything...

Wanting to be involved does not make
Len other than a bystander in the world of amateur radio.

Herr Robust forgets that amateur radio licensing is NOT
dictated by a members-only club. Not in the USA...

He is not a
part of amateur radio simply because he comments to government or
because he posts here.

Neither is this newsgroup some kind of "ARRL South."

Likewise, I
saw nothing in rules of this newsgroup which would restrict the
participation of non-Amateurs.

Len has participated and participated and participated.

Herr Robust has arrogantly proclaimed and issued orders
and done the whole nine yards of the KH2D bit...on and
on and on and on and on...

He wants to
participate and to prevent others from laughing at him or his ideas.

Poor baby, reflections of your own golden eye scowling at
remarks you receive?

Herr Robust, I was on Usenet before the Internet went
public and am very, very familiar with what goes on,
and the inhabitants' attitudes in the cyberspace of
computer-modem communications...for more than
two decades.

The arrogant - such as yourself - HATE the comebacks
you get poking holes in your mighty balloons. Ergo,
you try the "reversal" bit and say that the hole-poker is
"afraid of being laughed at." Tsk, tsk, tsk.

EVERYONE takes a chance on posting something in
public. EVERYONE has to "take" what comes back
to them...or leave. That includes arrogant Waffle-SS
colonels.

Others are free to participate and may form their own opinions of LHA's
ideas. They are free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas.

AND AGREE WITH LHA's postings.

Now doesn't that just completely fry your psyche? :-)

However, your ego needs to have you completely in
control so you've gone into a fantasyland where you
are Supreme Commander who Knows Truth! :-)

You may not like what Len has to say, but the
lack of a Ham license alone should not diminish it or dismiss it.

There's no "may" involved. I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending posts.

All the readers have "noticed" your opinion...:-)

If you've
read Len's stuff, you'll have no difficulty in understanding that his
lack of an amateur license is not the only reason for making light of
his opinions regarding amateur radio licensing.

The Supreme Commander has spoken!

There is NO First Amendment in regards to ham radio
regulations!

All amateur licensing regulations are handled STRICTLY
by the existing amateur licensees!

Supreme Commanders don't give a damn about
anyone who doesn't agree with his arrogant
pontificating orders of the day!

Sick transit, gloria mundi...

In article , JJ
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , JJ

writes:

I'm just campaigning for the elimination of morse code testing.

Why? Can't or to lazy to learn the code?

I can, I did learn morse. I don't see the need of it after being in
radio communications for 50 1/2 years.

Is that the only way you will
ever be able to get a ham license?

An AMATEUR license is not one of my life priorities. I've had a
COMMERCIAL license for 47 1/2 years.

Then what's you problem? If you have no interest in an amateur license
then why spout off hear? Go somewhere where someone cares.

[in cyberspace you cannot be "hear"...] :-)

Gosh, for an anonymous person you are very touchy. Did you hurt
yourself with the dagger under your cloak?

I guess if they remove the code
requirement you will campaign to get the written eleminated also so you
won't have to do anything for a license.

No. You are starting to show evidence of high irritation, anonymous
one.

Doesn't irratate me, I have my license, code test and all.

Of COURSE you do, anonymous one.

How could anyone possibly doubt such a thing?

Why is it imperative to have a license, especially an AMATEUR
license?

If one wishes to operate on the amateur bands one needs an amateur
license - DUH!

Is "DUH" your real name's initials?

You had best check on which amateur bands are EXCLUSIVELY
allocated only to amateur radio.

Any other radio service allocated as primary or co-resident on ham
bands doesn't need any amateur license to operate there.

Worse yet, the government (including military) can and sometimes
does operate on bands which many amateurs think are exclusively
"theirs." No amateur license required by government/military operators
to operate there.

I took my FCC office test way back in March, 1956. I'd
already been communicating in the HF Big Leagues for three years.
Later on, I've communicated on LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF, and
microwaves without needing any amateur radio certificate. Never
ever needed to use or understand morse code for any of that.
Nobody involved in all that communicating complained about
lack of morsemanship.

Great, then go back to your LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF and microwaves with
your commercial license. You obviously have no interest in amateur radio
so it is obvious to the most casual of observers that your only reason
to be hear is to see how big a jackass you can make of yourself.
And you're doing a bang-up job of it.

How come for why you say "I have no interest in amateur radio?"

Is everyone within your touch required to profess love, honor, and
obeyance to the amateur lifestyle in order for you to be civil to
them?

I haven't belonged to the ARRL
in many years, but you have convinced me I need to join, thanks to you
the ARRL will get a new member.

Go for it. They need warm bodies rather desperately. The League
has yet to get membership from a majority of licensed U.S. radio
amateurs.

Hurry on getting your membership...wonder upon wonders, they are
defraying shipping charges on items puchased from Newington right
now! [of course, you pay the same price in a ham store for ARRL
merchandise and there's no shipping charges to pay...]

It will give me a say in campainging to keep the code test, looks like
that is what keeps you out of ham radio and that's a good thing for ham
radio.

You can have your "say" DIRECTLY to the FCC. Of course, on the
14 petitions the official comment period is over but you are still
allowed to late-file.

The only problem with comments to the FCC is that they expect all
commenters to give their real name, address, etc., in order to be on
the public record.

That makes everyone commenting vulnerable, doesn't it? By using
ARRL as a middleman, you can keep your anonymity and arrogance
and alleged superiority, spouting off from time to time. No problem.

If that is the sort of attitude of modern U.S. amateur radio, then it is
no wonder that folks aren't rushing in to get acquainted with it or
don't admire all the "expertise" of such amateur radio gurus.

LHA