|
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Dwight Stewart wrote: 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 Dwight, Dave loves being smug from inside his book of life... Kim W5TIT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is there a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought to be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's ridiculous. Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and in their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would take to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be increased? Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much taxation as there is. And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay taxes and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes should be increased during the years of some hereto-undertemined-age-limit based timeframe. YMMV Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit from the public education of the community as a whole. If they did not pay school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school taxes so people can be productive than to support them on welfare. Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't going to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by having kids, then they get the break, too. After all...it'd probably come up a wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income for not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids. I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal income tax deductions). Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the gist). They keep changing the rules on that you know. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yeah, but this is a democracy--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right, eh?). Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net... "Dave Heil" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: (snip) 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. (snip) Really? So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or no background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare, social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely, Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age" thing. But, Dwight....Dave's principles (if they could be called that) only apply to others!! Not himself. Hang in there, though...this one could get good! I am getting popcorn before I download messages next time! Kim W5TIT |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: 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. Has anyone told Len to go away? Not that I can recall. Len, on the other hand, has told people things like this (direct quote from a post of his on Oct 28, 2003:) "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English." (direct quote from Len Anderson - is that the sort of thing that constitutes civil debate? Should we look to Len Anderson as a role model? ) Pot...kettle... 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. Everyone's opinion has value, Dave. But everyone's opinion does not have the *same* value. 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. Particularly when the inexperienced person deals with opposition to his views with name calling, insults, factual errors, ethnic slurs, unsolicited emails containing nudity and other childish behavior. 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). So? It's like a person who has never tasted ice cream saying that vanilla bean is 'better' than rocky road. There are plenty of people who will agree with that statement - and plenty who will disagree. 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. Done that. Or to think through the issue. Done that too. Or to form an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion. Ditto. And in my opinion, a Morse code test for an amateur radio license is a good idea. For expressing that opinion, Len has unleashed more name calling, insults, slurs and other childish behavior on me than I can remember. 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. And nobody has stopped him or even tried to. He has flooded FCC with hundreds of pages of commentary even though he has no interest in becoming a radio amateur. (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. I cannot recall any, Dave, even after being told, by Len Anderson: "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English." Dave did not respond in kind to Len's remarks, btw. (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. In fact, Len becomes less and less credible over time. His behavior here reduces his credibility. (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. Be sure to use the various screen names he's used here, ("nocwtest", "lenof21", "averyfine", "averyfineman", "lenover21" (all AOL) because most of his posts don't contain his name. And he doesn't have a callsign. BTW, he denied the use of at least one screen name ("averyfine") here. Then he was angry, insulting and abusive when his mistake was pointed out. (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? Game, set, match. 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. What his posts prove is that what Len really wants is for amateur radio to either go away or become a high power, multiband version of cb. Every post of his bears that out. His interest is not in becoming a radio amateur or helping ham radio. His interest is just the opposite. Just my opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article , Dave Bushong
writes: If you don't understand it, then allow me to help. The term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence. That's right. It's an interpretation that has developed over the years. The closest thing to it is in the First Amendment, which starts with my favorite five words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Exactly! "Respecting an establishment of religion" means that the state shall neither support nor hinder any particular religion above any other. The most logical way to do that is to separate them. It must be remembered that in colonial times many of the colonies had "establishment of religion" meaning that tax dollars were spent on specific churches, (almost always the Anglican Church, whether you believed in it or not). There was also a *legal requirement* that an authorized clergyman of that *established church* preside at weddings, christenings, funerals and other religious functions. The Founders did not want that sort of thing in their new country. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote 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. I'll take that bet. I happen to agree 100% with LHA that Morse testing is no longer necessary in the amateur radio service. Lots of people agree with that view, a point completely lost on Dee. Even so, I still think he is an over-pompous posturing twit who could benefit from wider bonding straps attached to several additional grounding rods. Hans, remove those jack-boots immediately. Death by electric chair for mere freedom of speech is unAmerican, even if you do agree with him. With all kind wishes for a joyous holiday season, Glen Beck would say, have a happy "Rama-Hanna-QuansMas." |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Kim" wrote in message ... Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is there a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought to be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's ridiculous. Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and in their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would take to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be increased? Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much taxation as there is. Nobody is - that's the easy part. What services are you willing to give up in order to have less taxation? Less road maintenance and construction? Less police and fire protection? How about cutting the military budget? Education? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Your post reminds me of the scene in "Simple Life" where Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are at the checkout counter in the supermarket. The total is almost $65 and they only have $50. They bat their eyelashes and ask "Can't we just have it?" (I am not making this up). And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay taxes Why not? Many senior citizens have significant incomes, from both employment and investment. Why should they be exempt? They already get an extra persoanl exemption just for being over 65. Tell ya what, Kim - find a senior citizen of "average income" in your area and pay his/her taxes out of your own pocket. and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes should be increased during the years of some hereto-undertemined-age-limit based timeframe. YMMV So the people who are struggling to raise and educate their kids, pay for their mortgages and their careers need even more of a tax burden? Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit from the public education of the community as a whole. Unless they grew up outside the USA, they also benefited from the school system that was in existence when *they* were growing up. Even if they went to private school, a public school system existed for them. If they did not pay school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school taxes so people can be productive than to support them on welfare. Exactly! Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't going to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by having kids, then they get the break, too. If you think kids are a burden to society, why did you have so many? And remember that educating children is an investment in their productive power in the future. Senior citizens can be "a burden to society" (your term, not mine) in the form of Medicare, Social Security, etc. Yet you would give them tax breaks. After all...it'd probably come up a wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income for not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids. More like not having to pay back for what they got as kids. I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal income tax deductions). You forget that the people who don't have kids had public education avaialble to them when they were growing up. Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the gist). They keep changing the rules on that you know. Yeah, but this is a democracy No, it's a constitutional republic. --we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right, eh?). Sure we do. Unless you don't vote. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: (snip) 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. (snip) Really? Really. So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or no background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare, social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely, Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age" thing. Offering an opinion and offering a sound opinion based upon experience can be two quite different things. An opinion offered by someone who has little or no knowledge of that being discussed isn't likely to be worth much. 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. Nice dodge, Dave. Thanks. How did you know that I drive a Dodge? But we're not talking about a woman with several children or NASA engineers - this is a discussion about government policy. Why, Dwight! It was you who brought up those very items. How can it be a dodge when I respond to them? Let's now discuss them as government policy. What value would your suggestions on child bearing policy or NASA policy have to those making decisions? And, when it come to that (even abortion and NASA financing), I do expect my views to matter. We all have unfulfilled expectations. After all, my tax dollars are paying for it. Code testing is also a government policy and the radio frequencies involved belong to all Americans. Your tax dollars couldn't provide fuel for a rocket engine test-firing. Have your view. Speak your mind. Don't expect others to greet your views with reverence if you have no background in the matter under discussion. 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. What mistaken view - that the rest of the radio world must be considered when discussing code testing? If so, you're the one mistaken here. The mistake is in the view that morse use is declining in amateur radio. It matters not that the morse isn't used much by other radio services. The FCC itself has even taken that view in the Report & Order following the last round of restructuring when they said; "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. snip we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." Morse testing is no longer emphasized as evidenced by the reduction in speed to five wpm in testing for HF access. Now go out and prepare yourself in areas where the U.S. needs technical expertise. The FCC went on to later say; "We also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency communication do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of communication, in part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other modes of communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude, therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to provide emergency communications." Note the references throughout to other radio services and to other, non-Amateur, radio technologies. If we're going to remain a valuable radio service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio services (CB), then our ability to fit with and contribute to those outside Amateur Radio must be a factor in this discussion. Nothing in a five word per minute morse test prevents you from performing public service work to your heart's content via digital or voice modes. This public service work, according to FCC, is something you may or may not choose to do. It is not mandatory. 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? I also haven't noticed an ongoing effort to criticize and ridicule Bruce's posts as you've done with Len's. To be very honest, Dwight, Bruce is rather a dim bulb and I seldom read his posts, much less respond to them. Is an ongoing effort necessary or am I permitted to choose to which posts I'll respond? Dave K8MN |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Dwight Stewart wrote: 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. Dwight, Dave loves being smug from inside his book of life... Speak of the devil... Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com