(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

What "facts" Ripley? You made a CLAIM. An UNSUPPORTED
CLAIM.

Like your CLAIM to obtain an "Extra Lite out of the box"...?!?!

Like your CLAIM about aeronautical qualifications...?!?!?

Like your...oh, forget it...I could go on and on like this all
day...

No wonder you are so bitter.

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

Nope.

Yep. You are NOT a licensed Radio Amateur. This is a fact.

I've been IN RADIO longer than you have, done more in radio
and electronics than you have. I'm a PROFESSIONAL.

No, you are not.

"Professionals" do not conduct themselves the way you do. You
are a documented pathological liar and antagonist. You are not a
trustworthy person.

Now, did you have some comment on morse code test retention and
"how that so terribly affects your ability to perform as an amateur?"

Do YOU have a comment on how Morse Code testing (or lack of)
affects YOUR ability to perform as an amateur, Lennie?

Ooops...forgot...You are not a licensed Amateur...Just a
bystander. A boistrous bystander at that.

I'm sure that anyone daring to express the thought that the morse test
should be eliminated gives you the terrible shivers as an amateur.

We can't have Kolonel Klunk getting emotionally upset, can we?

More of your "I'm only here to civilly debate the Morse Code
test" technique, Lennie...?!?!

Or yet another example of what a lying sack of excrement you are?

(That was a rhetorical question, Lennie...Don't sweat coming up
with an answer...You can't.)

Steve, K4YZ

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

Yes you are. Your beligerance keeps on.

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

Yup, beligerance with flags and banners waving...

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

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!

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

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

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

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?

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

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 absolutely ZERO experience in Amateur Radio.

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

Based on absolutely ZERO experience in Amateur Radio.

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 absolutely ZERO experience in Amateur 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.

So far, Leonard H. Anderson, a person not licensed in ANY radio
service, is the only person suggesting that we "think that standards
and practices are the "same" as the 1930's.

(And more profanity from the ALLEGED professional.)

This is because he's extremely ignorant of the facts and arrogant
IN his ignorance.

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.

Based on absolutely ZERO experience in Amateur Radio.

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 absolutely ZERO experience in Amateur Radio. And I
might add absolutely ZERO experience in child rearing or participation
in ANY organization or activity that might justify his opinion.

Based on what special knowledge and background?

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

He's licensed. He's EXPERIENCED in the Amateur Radio Service.

Lennie the Liar is not.

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

Damn right it is, Herr Robust.

More profanity from the "professional".

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?

You have, Lennie. You have repeatedly placed yourself above just
about anyone who might express an opinion on radio matters, including
what the FCC should "think".

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

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test
issue"...LHA

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!

Kinda like you, Lennie? Except HE has the credentials to back up
his play.

You don't.

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...

And it STILL does not change the fact that his assertion is
absolutely true.

Sorry for you.

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."

Why should it be? Dave lives NORTH of the Mason-Dixon line.

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...

Yet another lie from the desk of leonard H. Anderson.

Sir Scummy is asked to cite the post in which Dave issued any
"orders".

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.

Obviously yet another lie, or Sir Putzalot would not make so many
"mistakes", including "missent" e mails, misrepresentations of his
identity via multiple screen names, etc etc etc.

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.

So far all you have done is call Dave Heil names, Lennie. You've
not "poked holes" in anything, least of all anything he's had to say.

On the otherhand YOU have been caught lying so many times that
you make Jon Lovitz's "SNL" character look like a paragon of
virtue...Morgan Fairchild included...

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.

Including you...or should I say ESPEICALLY you, Lennie?

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.

Like Brian Burke, the guy who can't provide us with the identity
of a single QSO allegedly made from Somalia...?!?!

Or Vipul Shah...The guy who (like Lennie) CLAIMS to be an
electrical engineer, then changes jobs because his family disaproves
of his job...Yeah...I can see how being a "professional" in an
honorable profession could be a black mark on the old family tree...

And of course we have "MegHz" and a litany of other "anonymous"
posters who leap to Lennie's defense, only to leap right back in to
obscurity.

Now doesn't that just completely fry your psyche?

If it were true, it might. But even the folks who express the
same sentiments as you (save for the above mentioned fools) don't want
to be even remotely associated with you.

Do you know why?

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!

Dig into Mama Lennie's correspondence books, Lennie...Look up
"paranoia" and what symptoms and behaviour manifest with it...

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...

As we have yours...along with your LACK of practical experience
in the Amateur Radio Service to back it up.

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!

And it's the truth...Whether you care to accept it or not.

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

The First Amendment bars the GOVERNMENT from infringing on Free
Speech...I thought you would ahve learned that somewhere in the 14
eyars of night school you alleged to ahve completed.

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...

Didn't ahve the "nads" to sign your post again, I see, Lennie.

PUTZ!

Steve, K4YZ

"Dave Heil" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

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? (snip)


As you know, they (child birth and NASA) were brought up in a discussion
about government policy. Your reply was a dodge because you tried to apply
those comments to something other than government policy rather than
addressing them in the context they were made.


(snip) What value would your suggestions on
child bearing policy or NASA policy have to
those making decisions? (snip)


We were talking about opinions, not suggestions. My opinions affect how I
vote, which effects who is elected, which effects where tax dollars are
spent, and so on. My opinions, voiced to others, may affect their opinions,
which effects who is elected, and so on. Is this process all that unfamiliar
to you?


(snip) Don't expect others to greet your views
with reverence if you have no background in the
matter under discussion. (snip)


Don't be so vain, Dave. You don't speak for "others" and I don't expect
anything from you.


(snip) The mistake is in the view that morse use
is declining in amateur radio. (snip)


I haven't said Morse use is declining in Amateur Radio. My exact words
were "...Morse code is a declining skill throughout the radio world."
Considering far fewer people in radio today are using code compared to just
few decades ago, that isn't exactly an astonishing revelation, is it?


(snip) It matters not that the morse isn't used much
by other radio services. (snip)


Oh, it most certainly does matter. As I've already stated, if we're going
to remain a valuable radio service, worthy of the massive frequencies we
hold and unlike personal radio services (CB), we must consider the needs of
the other radio services when discussing any licensing issue - including
code testing.

The FCC did exactly that in the Report & Order following the last round of
restructuring when they looked at personal communication services, satellite
communications, fiber optic communications, high definition television
systems, and police, fire, and rescue communications. In that Report &
Order, the FCC stated that "...no communication system has been designed in
many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive
messages in Morse code by ear" and that "...the emphasis on Morse code
proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and
purpose of the service." Finally, the FCC said, "...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." In
my opinion, the exact same argument could be made for eliminating telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) Hang in there, though...this one could
get good! I am getting popcorn before I
download messages next time!


Pop me up some popcorn while you're at it. :-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

Philosophically you are right Dwight.
However, Len has a long history of
diatribes and disjointed rambles that
do not hang together. He is simply
trying to agitate. I've kill filed his
various aliases because of it. (snip)


I can think of several others here who could easily fit into that
description, Dee. Len is indeed confrontational, but I've noticed the
biggest complainers seem to be those who disagree more with his opinions
then his demeaner - these same people seem to object far less when someone
with a similar demeanor posts opinions similar to their own.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


You haven't seen the worst of his diatribes. There is no one else in this
news group that I have kill filed. For example, you and I do not agree on a
number of issues but I would not consider putting you in the kill file.
Your writings are well constructed and generally stick to the point of the
particular discussion. Thus one can have a give and take discussion
presenting opinions and data to back those opinions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.



And let's keep in mind that NCI does have a structure with officers and a
board. The detailed policies and procedures were developed by those
officers and that board based on the organization's stated goal. Thus it
was "filtered" through a limited group.

One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK
is what is required to achieve a goal. Although I don't agree with their
goal, I must commend them for getting in there and doing the work required.
They did not sit on their hands and whine. They organized on a world wide
basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to
support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. It is
all the more convincing when one considers the low percentage of hams
belonging to NCI. It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the
commitment.

Personally I support code testing but NCI certainly did their homework to
achieve their goal.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying change doesn't happen without
work. Since Brian chooses only to complain and not dig in and do the work,
then he can't expect change. Brian's approach of changing because Brian
wants the change is the dictatorial approach.

Dictator Dee doth protestith too much.

I think I've been persuasive in my arguments with respect to changes
within the ARS. We've even got Hans discussing one full license class
w/o a Morse Code exam requirement, and a learners permit. Gee, where
have we heard that before?

No Brian is welcome to his opinion. But if he isn't willing to do the work
to effect a change then he is being unrealistic in expecting that change to
come to pass. That is all. He wants things to change just by saying he
wants them to change. I am challenging that self-centered, simplistic, and
unrealistic expectation.

No, Dee. Your self-centered, complex, and unrealistic expectation
that I lead a coup at the ARRL so that I can then have the ARRL effect
changes at the FCC is just not going to happen.

Ever heard of working smarter, not harder?

Brian is willing to do the work, but not the work that you have
demanded of me. Trying to change the ARRL is not my goal. They can
bumble along for another century if they so choose. And changing FCC
rules is not within the ability of the ARRL anyway. So where do you
think I've put my efforts?

You can try to maintain the ARRL status quo by spam-botting RRAP at
every opportunity, and I think you've got your work cut out for you.

I'll keep changing the ARS one amateur radio operator at a time.

FWIW, it seems to be working.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"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.

No that point is not lost on me. I'm well aware of it. Lots of people
support continued testing, which is a point that is completely lost on you.


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.


Well freedom of speech, while allowing verbal abuse, does not make such
verbal abuse as LHA likes to heap on those in this newsgroup acceptable.
Just because one can do something doesn't mean that it is reasonable to do
it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"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

Chardonnay goes nicely with popcorn.

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

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying change doesn't happen without
work. Since Brian chooses only to complain and not dig in and do the
work,
then he can't expect change. Brian's approach of changing because Brian
wants the change is the dictatorial approach.

Dictator Dee doth protestith too much.

I think I've been persuasive in my arguments with respect to changes
within the ARS. We've even got Hans discussing one full license class
w/o a Morse Code exam requirement, and a learners permit. Gee, where
have we heard that before?

No Brian is welcome to his opinion. But if he isn't willing to do the
work
to effect a change then he is being unrealistic in expecting that change
to
come to pass. That is all. He wants things to change just by saying he
wants them to change. I am challenging that self-centered, simplistic,
and
unrealistic expectation.

No, Dee. Your self-centered, complex, and unrealistic expectation
that I lead a coup at the ARRL so that I can then have the ARRL effect
changes at the FCC is just not going to happen.

Ever heard of working smarter, not harder?

Brian is willing to do the work, but not the work that you have
demanded of me. Trying to change the ARRL is not my goal. They can
bumble along for another century if they so choose. And changing FCC
rules is not within the ability of the ARRL anyway. So where do you
think I've put my efforts?

You can try to maintain the ARRL status quo by spam-botting RRAP at
every opportunity, and I think you've got your work cut out for you.

I'll keep changing the ARS one amateur radio operator at a time.

FWIW, it seems to be working.

Sorry but haven't seen you change anyone here. From what I've seen, each
and every person here has there own opinion and continues to promote that
idea.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE