"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 ,
(Brian) writes:

You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a
groundswell of support.

How do you know?

Have you made a scientific survey to determine this "groundswell"?

What constitutes "modernizing the ARS"? Shall we all go out and buy new radios?

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...

Then what needs to be done? What is the "mandate"?


Some folks make a big deal out of the fact that ARRL's membership is only about
25% of US hams. These same folks ignore the fact that No-Code International's
membership is less than 1% of US hams, despite the fact that such membership
has no dues and no expiration or renewal requirements.

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