"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
OK Bert, show me where it says that Part 97 mandates public service.
There
is nothing in this quote to that effect.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Sorry about that, Dee.

While the following is not an actual part of Part 97, I feel it means
something...especially since we were all issued a reminder by a very high
profile FCC employee directly responsible for an aspect of the ARS.

THE AMATEUR'S CREED


The Radio Amateur is:

CONSIDERATE---never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others.

LOYAL---offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateur, local
clubs, and the American Radio Relay League, through which Amateur Radio in
the United States is represented nationally and internationally.

PROGRESSIVE---with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient
station and operation above reproach.

FRIENDLY---slow and patient operating when requested, friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner, kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration
for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the amateur spirit.

BALANCED---radio is an avocation, never interfering with duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

PATRIOTIC---station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

(Paul M. Segal, W9EEA wrote the original Amateurs Code, in 1928


The PATRIOTIC description pretty much sums it up.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote
Okay, Dee, show me where I said
Amateurs "must" do public service.

your words we

"...There is nothing in part 95 that
mandates public service like that
found in part 97."

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to
a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law;
decree or requi mandated
desegregation of public schools.

The way you have used the word
conforms to usage number 2. Therefore,
you have stated that public service is
required even though that may not be
what you meant to say.


I don't have time to waste on this, Dee. You know what Part 97 says, and
what it means (and therefore what I meant). A more complete definition of
"mandate" is...

Noun: mandate ('man'deyt)
1. A document giving an official instruction or command
2. A territory surrendered by Turkey or Germany after World War I and
inhabited by people not yet able to stand by themselves and so put under
the
tutelage of some other European power
3. (politics) the commission that is given to a government and its
policies through an electoral victory

Verb: mandate (man'deyt)
1. Assign under a mandate; of nations
2. Assign authority to

I used mandate in the context that Part 97 assigns authority to Ham
radio
operators to perform public service through ARES, community organizations,
and so on. There is nothing like that in Part 95. Obviously, there is
nothing in "assigns authority to" that is required.



Your usage is still incorrect. There is nothing in Part 97 that assigns
authority to hams to do public service either. I've read part 97 from
beginning to end. Also there was no reason to include noun definitions when
working with the verb.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...
OK Bert, show me where it says that Part 97 mandates public service.
There
is nothing in this quote to that effect.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Sorry about that, Dee.

While the following is not an actual part of Part 97, I feel it means
something...especially since we were all issued a reminder by a very high
profile FCC employee directly responsible for an aspect of the ARS.

THE AMATEUR'S CREED


The Radio Amateur is:

CONSIDERATE---never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others.

LOYAL---offers loyalty, encouragement and support to other amateur, local
clubs, and the American Radio Relay League, through which Amateur Radio in
the United States is represented nationally and internationally.

PROGRESSIVE---with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and
efficient
station and operation above reproach.

FRIENDLY---slow and patient operating when requested, friendly advice and
counsel to the beginner, kindly assistance, cooperation and consideration
for the interests of others. These are the hallmarks of the amateur
spirit.

BALANCED---radio is an avocation, never interfering with duties owed to
family, job, school, or community.

PATRIOTIC---station and skill always ready for service to country and
community.

(Paul M. Segal, W9EEA wrote the original Amateurs Code, in 1928


The PATRIOTIC description pretty much sums it up.

73 de Bert
WA2SI


Oh I definitely agree that part of being a ham is doing public service. It
is just that there is a big difference between should and must.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

btw, we *don't* test all hams for Morse skill now.

Rephrased then... we DO test all hams that have or want a license
to operate HF for morse skill... but hey, maybe we should
reinstitute waivers again since the treaty is no longer
mandating the 5 wpm which the FCC never waivered before.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote


How much Spanish do you hear on the ham bands being used by US hams?


A lot.

Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Also please let me know which
dictionary you are using. (snip)


Princeton University's WordNet...

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

Click on "Use WordNet Online," enter "mandate," and scroll down to the
verbs.


(snip) I've checked several and
for the verb meaning your number
2 does not appear.


Then you should perhaps find a better dictionary. WordNet is an online
lexical (dictionary) reference system developed by the Cognitive Science
Laboratory at Princeton University. The project was funded in part by a
grant from the National Science Foundation and has been reviewed positively
by linguistics researchers at MIT, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, and numerous
other universities.


Language is a tool that must be used
correctly to convey the intended
meaning. One should never operate
on the basis that "you know what I
mean" as sooner or later that gets a
person in trouble.


Thanks for the lecture, Dee. However, I used the correct word for the
intended meaning.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Your usage is still incorrect. There
is nothing in Part 97 that assigns
authority to hams to do public
service either. I've read part 97
from beginning to end. (snip)


Then you either cannot read or cannot understand what you've read.
Regardless, if you truly feel Part 97 does not authorize us to do public
service, then I simply don't have the time to convince you otherwise.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article t, "KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote


So when you gonna send that proposal to the FCC?

I already did (as you knew perfectly well).


But only as a comment to another's proposal, not as a stand-alone petition.



Hopefully Hans has a ready supply of replies for the FCC to use when
people comment on his petition.

So far, Hans has sent in his ideas only as a comment to others' petitions and
proposals, Mike. He hasn't sent FCC a petition or proposal to FCC.

It just won't seem right to comment on
it there without being called stupid...oops, I mean novel! ;^)

I think that if Hans was really serious about his proposal, he'd send it off to
FCC just like the other 14 petitioners recently did. I say this because it is
highly doubtful that the major and unique features of his proposal would be
adopted by any other group such as ARRL, NCVEC, or NCI. It is also highly
doubtful that his proposal, when submitted as a comment, would have nearly so
much effect nor gather nearly so much attention as if submitted as a proposal.

If and when Hans did submit it as a petition, FCC would then most probably
assign it an RM number and take comments and reply comments on it. Which I
sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments. It would be fascinating to see the
reactions....

But it's Hans ideas and therefore his call as to whetehr to submit it or not.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"N2EY" wrote


How much Spanish do you hear on the ham bands being used by US hams?


A lot.

Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB

Most of the Spanish I hear are Mexican, Central American, and South American
hams not US hams.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

Also please let me know which
dictionary you are using. (snip)


Princeton University's WordNet...

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

Click on "Use WordNet Online," enter "mandate," and scroll down to the
verbs.


(snip) I've checked several and
for the verb meaning your number
2 does not appear.


Then you should perhaps find a better dictionary. WordNet is an online
lexical (dictionary) reference system developed by the Cognitive Science
Laboratory at Princeton University. The project was funded in part by a
grant from the National Science Foundation and has been reviewed
positively
by linguistics researchers at MIT, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, and numerous
other universities.


Merriam Webster is a well respected source as are the others that I checked.

However, here you go and Part 97 does NONE of these. Your usage is still
incorrect.

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-...mandate&posnum
ber=2&searchtypenumber=2&senses=&showglosses=1

Results for "Synonyms, ordered by estimated frequency" search of verb
"mandate"


3 senses of mandate

Sense 1
mandate -- (assign under a mandate; "mandate a colony")
= delegate, designate, depute, assign -- (give an assignment to (a
person) to a post, or assign a task to (a person))

Sense 2
mandate -- (make mandatory; "the new director of the schoolbaord mandated
regular tests")
= order, prescribe, dictate -- (issue commands or orders for)

Sense 3
mandate -- (assign authority to)
= delegate, designate, depute, assign -- (give an assignment to (a
person) to a post, or assign a task to (a person))


Even sense 3 would be a requirement as when one is given an assignment, you
are supposed to carry that assigment. It is not just a suggestion or
desireable activity. If a person or group does not carry through on an
assignment, then that assignment is given to a group who will.

I repeat, Part 97 does NOT mandate in any way shape or form that amateurs
participate in public service.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Your usage is still incorrect. There
is nothing in Part 97 that assigns
authority to hams to do public
service either. I've read part 97
from beginning to end. (snip)


Then you either cannot read or cannot understand what you've read.
Regardless, if you truly feel Part 97 does not authorize us to do public
service, then I simply don't have the time to convince you otherwise.

Since no one is prohibited from doing public service, no authorization is
needed. However, if one wishes to use ham frequencies, they have to have
license but that is an authorization to operate specified frequencies not an
authorization to do public service.

If you will read 97.1, Basis and Purpose, it only lists recognition of and
encouragement of public service as one part of the basis and purpose. That
does not confer any type of mandate or authorization to the amateur to do
public service. It is a recognition of what we do and the value of what we
do. It is a good and solid justification to use for the continued existence
of amateur radio. Nothing more.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

That gives him absolute permission to behave as an

[expletive deleted]

off the radio.

Better than behaving that way *on* the ham bands. Which some of us are, and
lenover21 is not.

No problem.

That tells us what behavior lenover21 seeks to inspire in others...

Again with the profanities, Lennie?

Why are you surprised, Steve? Have you not read the same sort of thing over and
over from the same source? Why would you expect anything different from the
person whose idea of "civil debate" is displayed in his post
of October 28, 2003, when he wrote (these are lenover21's words, not mine!):

"Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English."

He told a lot about himself in that post..


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Why You Don't Like Ham's Who Can't Accept Change.
From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
Date: 8 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:


I don't live in newsgroups...(SNIP)

Sure you do.

No. I already TOLD you where.

Geez, check it out with MapQuest if you've forgetten how to read a map.

(UNSNIP)...nor do I look to the computer to give me
either acceptance or love or respect.

Good for you. The computer is an inanimate object.

Poor baby. It's your Entrance to Fantasyland, a dimension of sight
and sound. The signpost up ahead...The Twilight Zone!

However the people you hope to snowjob with your wisdom and wit
aren't, and unfortuantely for you, you've completely ruined your
credibility, regardless of how "smart" you may really be.

tsk, tsk, tsk, stebe, got a tummy ache from all your sour grapes
wine?

:-)

Check the ARRL pages. They might have some official Tums for sale.
[shipping charges extra].


Sorry Lennie. Repeat that over and over if you care to, but the
facts are that there are still thousands of pages of archived RRAP
fodder wherein you've been caught with your britches down over and
over.

"Fodder?" :-)

"Hello muddah, hello fodder?" :-)

Feel free to reprint every single one of them, over and over and over
again. Your freedom. Your fantasyland. No raddio kopps gonna
haul you away and give you a dishonorable discharge from ham radio.

Have fun "taking your revenge" on those who won't agree with you.

That's a popular pastime in here. :-)

So far you've not been able to "force" me to do anything, not even
with vague "threats" of some sort of veiled physical harm. Acting
the bully in here only demonstrates what bullies do. This isn't a
"personal battleground" that must be totally occupied by your
personal perceived slights/insults/whatever...yet you keep on with
that sort of thing. Ho hum. Boring to most readers. Doesn't work,
can never work...except in the fantasyland withing your head.

That you're responding to this lays waste to THAT argument,
Lennie.

tsk, tsk, tsk, stebe, no one is really sure what happens in your head.

Your therapist is totally inept.

That it's "boring" to "most" readers is irrelevent. These words
are directed to one person...that they can or may be read by others is
incidental to the medium in which they are offered.

Poor baby. Feeling picked-on?

I post in public.

No moderator in here. No newsgroupie cops here. No raddio kopps
here.

If you can't take the heat, quit wearing all that guilt-feeling body armor.

It has been penetrated so many times it is useless.

As for "keeping on" with insults, etc, you should read some of
your own postings. Why do you chastise me for doing that which you
ahve made a career?

"ahve?" :-) Sure sign of RAGE there. Anger, resentment all causing
typos.

And "force" you to do anything...?!?! If by humiliating your
over and over that you "resist" actually becomming a licensed Amateur
just to "spite" me, then yes, Your Putziness, I "forced" you to not be
a Ham.

Only in your disordered little mind, little man.

Try to remember that you are NOT some high-rank NCO and that
this is NOT some kind of military service. Playing the Dill Sergeant
won't get you out of any pickle you make by your own words.

I'm not the one with the lies to overcome, Lennie.

tsk, tsk, tsk...stebe, in reality, folks who have different opinions
than yours aren't "lying."

You do NOT define reality.

Get out of your fantasyland and visit reality. It's a tough job but
you have to do it someday...

You can start by telling us all the details of your many "hostile
actions."


As for being a bully, etc, that's your cowardly way of trying to
duck out of the "fight" YOU started. Most bullies ARE cowards,
Lennie, and I'd say you've done a fair job of "proving" that, too.

Poor little barbarian bully stebe. Everyone picking on you?

Are you going to "stop it" by exerting "a few ounces" (of trigger
pull), mighty warrior?

Putz.

Those aren't endearing words, little one.

But...they are the main words of this year's poster boy for US ham
radio.

Let's all hear it for all that "goodwill" that hams have...!

Goodwill industries?

Are you goodwill hunting?

WMD

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Why You Don't Like Ham's Who Can't Accept Change.
From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
Date: 8 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:


There's no "hatred" of the "pros", Lennie. Only PROlific liars
such as yourself. That you claim to have been a "radio" professional
is unfortuante.

Not a "claim," an actual fact...provable through several third-party
sources. You keep trying to say I never worked in the electronics
industry at all. I did. In aerospace since 1956. Got paid for it.

I never said you "never" worked in electronics, Your Lyingness.

Yes you have. Both as just plain worker and as an engineer.

Well, you KNOW EVERYTHING about the electronics industry,
don't you? Worked less than half a year as a Purchasing Agent.
Super collosal electronics smarts required there, right?

I said you never amounted to anything more than a very
determined bench technician. I have complimented your cut-and-paste
skills, however.

"Determined?" :-)

tsk, tsk, tsk stebe, you just can't get it right, can you? :-)

Or, reject all the facts, ignore reality, and say everything I've
written
is "lies." That doesn't make your statement "true." It never will.

Long list of "FACTS" snipped.

The FACT is that I have spoken with people who KNEW you and wee
not impressed.

Total utter bluffing BULL****, sweetums.

You've NEVER "spoken with people who knew me."

Bluff. Bull****. Very bad poker playing skills.

The FACT is that YOU refuse to accept that your "professional"
and military "experience" is NOT Amateur Radio.

That was never a subject except in your disordered little mind,
little man.

Radio is radio. It all works by the same principles of physics. It
doesn't "work differently" because some lawmakers create different
"services" for it.

This forum is about AMATEUR RADIO.

It is FOR that. This newsgroup is UNMODERATED, has no
"entrance" requirements, no raddio kopps to "arrest" those that
don't conform to some bigoted ideas of hamme raddio.

You have yet to demonstrate an even rudimentary understanding of
what it is, let alone have participated in it.

Oh, my, have you been reading a biography of "Judge" Roy Bean?
:-)

Or just Attila the Ham (or "Atilla" if you speak Hunnish with a dialect)?

I need only memorize the Holy Words of the League and "know" what
it is about.

I need only turn on my R-71 and listen to what Hams talk about.

I can walk into any HRO store in the country without showing any pass
or presenting "papers" to the guard at the door.

No security clearances are required, no background checks from the
FBI.

The FACT is that YOU have been caught in NUMEROUS fabrications or
misrepresentations of truth and "called" on them over and over.

tsk, tsk, tsk, stebe, your therapist isn't doing so well.

You've regressed again into your imaginary world.

YOU have no credibility herein as a result of that, Sir Putzy.

I might never be given credulity in Newington. :-)

Jim Fisk believed me. So did Alf Wilson. Even Rich Rosen.

You spoke to all of them about me, right?

And (I've said this before) it's just peachy with me that you
know more about electronics than I do or ever did, Lennie...Being able
to quote Shannon's Law in your sleep is irrelevent here.

My wife says I sometimes snore a bit. Never heard me utter any
words or mathematical equations, though.

Buy me a long-run tape recorder and I'll set it up and run it. Will
get back to you if anything worthwhile is recorded.

You can send me yours. But leave out the tapes of close order
drill commands and the off-key Marines Hymn.

It's a wonderful life.

Yes, it is. Too bad you'll die having not known exactly HOW
wonderful it is.

Perhaps. I'm not complaining. Why are you complaining?

I only complain about having to tolerate compulsive liars and
antagonists such as yourslef.

Well, "myslef" is totally guilty of saying nasty to neverland myths
or fantasyland fairy tales or the gross exaggerations printed by
the membership organization up somewhere in a suburb of Boston
(or Hartford or wherever)...

I'm sure your whole Hun club is as angry with me as "youslef."

I had to sit with the family gathering again to watch "It's A Wonderful
Life." :-) After seeing it so many times, it's still a good motion
picture even if very dated.

"Family gathering"...?!?! You, Mrs Lennie and the cat?

? Far more than that. Why does that concern you?

Are you trying to find someone with a happy home life to insult and
demean?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, Brian, all the best to you
and your family.

At least there was ONE person in this forum for you to exchange
greetings with. Good for you. No one should be alone for the
holidays. Even creeps like you, Lennie.

Hardly "alone" during the Holidays. Wasn't even here (physically).
An inconvenience to access another's computer to check e-mail,
even if a close relative.

I imagine the "inconvienience" was hoping they didn't see where
you "hang out" and then follow behind you to see how you act in
public.

tsk, tsk, tsk, stebe's therapist is really falling down on its work.

must be a green card mental hygienist with only a few months left.

Why do you insist on painting all those imaginary scenarios, trying
to denigrate others?

Because those are the "scenarios" that your conduct engenders.

tsk, tsk, tsk, you still think your fantasyland is "real?"

Poor baby. Still can't take any REAL debate, can you?

Must be the influence of the "gunnery sergeant" mentality. No one
can EVER talk back to a gunny. :-)

I don't live in newsgroups...(SNIP)

Sure you do.

Nope. In a suburb of Los Angeles, CA.

The address given in my Ham Radio article bylines is still valid.

Now, all together...Hup, too, tree, foah! :-)

Get some better therapy, stebe.

LHA

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Why You Don't Like Ham's Who Can't Accept Change.
From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
Date: 8 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

And unfortunately for you, your lies ARE archived in this very
forum.

No "lies."

"I am going to get my Extra Lite out of the box".

"The ARRL is dishonest".

Do you really want your nose rubbed in ALL of them, Lennie?

Sucks to be you, Leonard.

Only when I turn on the ShopVac.

I guess that's the ONLY suction in your house, Lennie...Which
means it REALLY sucks to be you...

The ONLY way one can be "interested in radio" is to get a ham
license and be proficient in morse code...(SNIP)

Oh geeze...Here we go again.

A 1x2 has stated the Word on that: The ONLY way one can be
"interested in radio" is to get a ham license and be a morseman.

That's the Official Word.

Quotes, Lennie...Cite the message thread, please (I have learned
to not trust ANYthing you say unless I can cross-reference it to a
third party source)

Lennie, we're STILL waiting on you to cite the quotes wherein
you've established this opinion.

Observation of the human condition for over a half century.

What's your excuse?

Once again you avoid the request to prove your assertions with
some sort of facts.

And so far, your "observations" are just bitter rants against
just about anything that you can't/weren't able to understand or
master yourself.

That's not "proof", unless just being a loser is your goal, in
which case I'd say you have excelled.

It's certainly not true in MY case, and just one more example of
how you feel free to take liberties with the truth.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...role-playing in a fantasy land is not "reality" nor
is it "truth."

There's only one "role-player" here, Lennie. Almost everyone
else here HAS an Amateur Radio license and PARTICIPATES in teh "Real
McCoy".

YOU are the outsider here.

I never claimed to be an engineer...But I did provide numerous
references from that job that proved you WRONG on numerous occassions.

Never once did you "prove" anything. Your imagination tells only
you that you were "right." Your imagination is WRONG.

Sure I did. Starting with simple assertions about the
"engineering community"...You said that there was "no such thing" and
I provided you with an immediate quote from one of the periodicals
that cited that very concept.

And you further went on to say "real engineers" didn't need/use
Amateur Radio...I gave you the callsigns of not only 13 engineers, but
three of them were PhD's.

I guess that had to hurt, knowing a "non-engineer" had access to
references that took a bite out of your rants...

"Hurt?" Only my sides from laughing. "References" from a weekly
newspaper from Podunk Hollow, TN, hardly counts for anything...

They were hardly from "Podunk Hollow", Lennie. They were
professional journals and periodicals.

(Squirm a bit harder, Scummy...)

Again with the "1930's" rant, Lennie?

Call it "transistorized 1930s," Stebe.

I call it your "1930's rant", Lennie...It's not truthful, nor
even representitive of anything associated with MODERN Amateur Radio.

Standards and Practices remain the same as 70 years ago.
Imagination of Public Service and self-serving glory are still the
same. If ARRL writes it, all MUST believe, for their words are
sacred.

No, they don't.

But if you NEED to believe that in order to sleep well at night,
please, be my guest...

And in any case your sleight's against Amateur Radio's PROVEN
track record of being able to provide the very emergency services you
claim as "ineffectual" or "irrelevent" are DISproven over and ovr,
even in the 21st Century.

Of course (he said, humoring the mentally ill)...when any disaster
strikes, all the communications infrastructure fails but amateurs can
jump in and save the day. Using morse code, of course.

[try "slight" and "over"...]

Try "sleight" and excuse me for dropping the "e".

There's no "hatred" of the "pros", Lennie. Only PROlific liars
such as yourself. That you claim to have been a "radio" professional
is unfortuante.

Not a "claim," an actual fact...provable through several third-party
sources. You keep trying to say I never worked in the electronics
industry at all. I did. In aerospace since 1956. Got paid for it.

I never said you "never" worked in electronics, Your Lyingness.

I said you never amounted to anything more than a very
determined bench technician. I have complimented your cut-and-paste
skills, however.

Or, reject all the facts, ignore reality, and say everything I've
written
is "lies." That doesn't make your statement "true." It never will.

Long list of "FACTS" snipped.

The FACT is that I have spoken with people who KNEW you and wee
not impressed.

The FACT is that YOU refuse to accept that your "professional"
and military "experience" is NOT Amateur Radio.

This forum is about AMATEUR RADIO.

You have yet to demonstrate an even rudimentary understanding of
what it is, let alone have participated in it.

The FACT is that YOU have been caught in NUMEROUS fabrications or
misrepresentations of truth and "called" on them over and over.

YOU have no credibility herein as a result of that, Sir Putzy.

And (I've said this before) it's just peachy with me that you
know more about electronics than I do or ever did, Lennie...Being able
to quote Shannon's Law in your sleep is irrelevent here.

It's a wonderful life.

Yes, it is. Too bad you'll die having not known exactly HOW
wonderful it is.

Perhaps. I'm not complaining. Why are you complaining?

I only complain about having to tolerate compulsive liars and
antagonists such as yourslef.

I had to sit with the family gathering again to watch "It's A Wonderful
Life." :-) After seeing it so many times, it's still a good motion
picture even if very dated.

"Family gathering"...?!?! You, Mrs Lennie and the cat?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, Brian, all the best to you
and your family.

At least there was ONE person in this forum for you to exchange
greetings with. Good for you. No one should be alone for the
holidays. Even creeps like you, Lennie.

Hardly "alone" during the Holidays. Wasn't even here (physically).
An inconvenience to access another's computer to check e-mail,
even if a close relative.

I imagine the "inconvienience" was hoping they didn't see where
you "hang out" and then follow behind you to see how you act in
public.

Why do you insist on painting all those imaginary scenarios, trying
to denigrate others?

Because those are the "scenarios" that your conduct engenders.

I don't live in newsgroups...(SNIP)

Sure you do.

(UNSNIP)...nor do I look to the computer to give me
either acceptance or love or respect.

Good for you. The computer is an inanimate object.

However the people you hope to snowjob with your wisdom and wit
aren't, and unfortuantely for you, you've completely ruined your
credibility, regardless of how "smart" you may really be.

Never thought that way since
getting on BBSs the first time 19 years ago. Computer-modem
communications are just another form of communications...just like
radio. You haven't reached that point in understanding this medium
yet...you can holler incessantly that I "lie" and vomit all sorts of bad
names but none of that is "true" anywhere but in your head.

Sorry Lennie. Repeat that over and over if you care to, but the
facts are that there are still thousands of pages of archived RRAP
fodder wherein you've been caught with your britches down over and
over.

So far you've not been able to "force" me to do anything, not even
with vague "threats" of some sort of veiled physical harm. Acting
the bully in here only demonstrates what bullies do. This isn't a
"personal battleground" that must be totally occupied by your
personal perceived slights/insults/whatever...yet you keep on with
that sort of thing. Ho hum. Boring to most readers. Doesn't work,
can never work...except in the fantasyland withing your head.

That you're responding to this lays waste to THAT argument,
Lennie.

That it's "boring" to "most" readers is irrelevent. These words
are directed to one person...that they can or may be read by others is
incidental to the medium in which they are offered.

As for "keeping on" with insults, etc, you should read some of
your own postings. Why do you chastise me for doing that which you
ahve made a career?

And "force" you to do anything...?!?! If by humiliating your
over and over that you "resist" actually becomming a licensed Amateur
just to "spite" me, then yes, Your Putziness, I "forced" you to not be
a Ham.

Try to remember that you are NOT some high-rank NCO and that
this is NOT some kind of military service. Playing the Dill Sergeant
won't get you out of any pickle you make by your own words.

I'm not the one with the lies to overcome, Lennie.

As for being a bully, etc, that's your cowardly way of trying to
duck out of the "fight" YOU started. Most bullies ARE cowards,
Lennie, and I'd say you've done a fair job of "proving" that, too.

Putz.

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Why You Don't Like Ham's Who Can't Accept Change.
From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
Date: 8 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

It's certainly not true in MY case, and just one more example of
how you feel free to take liberties with the truth.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...role-playing in a fantasy land is not "reality" nor
is it "truth."

There's only one "role-player" here, Lennie. Almost everyone
else here HAS an Amateur Radio license and PARTICIPATES in teh "Real
McCoy".

"teh ?" :-) Getting ANGRY again, are you?

There are several "McCoys" in electronics. Which one are you
referring to? Walter Brennan?

YOU are the outsider here.

This newsgroup isn't "amateur radio."

This newsgroup is all about lets-pretend fish-story-tellers trying
to put down lots of other amateurs. All amateurishly.

I'm all for eliminating the morse code test from any radio license
examination. That's all.

You are the one on an extended field trip into fantasyland.




I never claimed to be an engineer...But I did provide numerous
references from that job that proved you WRONG on numerous occassions.

Never once did you "prove" anything. Your imagination tells only
you that you were "right." Your imagination is WRONG.

Sure I did. Starting with simple assertions about the
"engineering community"...You said that there was "no such thing" and
I provided you with an immediate quote from one of the periodicals
that cited that very concept.

Where is this "engineering community" located? Have you been
there? :-)

Is it part of a Kibbutz? A collective farm? Does it have fancy
alphabets like ASME?

Where did you read this? Or, rather, who read it to you from some
printed reference? Your therapist?

Go for it, EX purchasing agent...

And you further went on to say "real engineers" didn't need/use
Amateur Radio...I gave you the callsigns of not only 13 engineers, but
three of them were PhD's.

Of course you did...right after you accepted the Presidential Medal
of Freedom for keeping Homeland Security safe through ham radio.

In other words, in your MIND, sweetums.

I'm still a Life Member of the IEEE and a former member of the ACM,
both professional organizations. None of their many, many
publications have had "news" about Ham Radio Saving The Day!

But, in your mind, you know "lots" of PhDs, and other smart folks
who all LOVE ham radio and cherish, honor, obey morse code....



I guess that had to hurt, knowing a "non-engineer" had access to
references that took a bite out of your rants...

"Hurt?" Only my sides from laughing. "References" from a weekly
newspaper from Podunk Hollow, TN, hardly counts for anything...

They were hardly from "Podunk Hollow", Lennie. They were
professional journals and periodicals.

Yeah, like a little few-page weekly is on par with the New York TIMES.

Paris Review on a bad day maybe. St. Louis Post-Dispatch or the
Washington Post would hardly have such, would they?
George didn't have such, neither did Time, Life, Newsweek. Maybe
it was in People (which I only read in dentist offices). TV Guide?

Not in IEEE Proceedings or the monthlies from ComSoc (Communication
Society, a group within IEEE). ComSoc wants me back as a member.

It wasn't in EDN, or Electronic Design, or RF Design, or Microwaves &
RF. I don't bother with EE Times anymore. Maybe PET (Power
Engineering Technology)?

(Squirm a bit harder, Scummy...)

Only if the mosquitos are biting. You WANT to but haven't gotten
any penetration yet...

Again with the "1930's" rant, Lennie?

Call it "transistorized 1930s," Stebe.

I call it your "1930's rant", Lennie...It's not truthful, nor
even representitive of anything associated with MODERN Amateur Radio.

Of course, Mr. PhD...MODERN amateur radio...extolling morse code
modes on HF as "always getting through when nothing else will..."

MODERN HF amateur radio: "What was good in the 1930s is still
good in 2000s!"

"Real ham radio is working DX on HF with CW."

Standards and Practices remain the same as 70 years ago.
Imagination of Public Service and self-serving glory are still the
same. If ARRL writes it, all MUST believe, for their words are
sacred.

No, they don't.

But if you NEED to believe that in order to sleep well at night,
please, be my guest...

:-) Not even close, Mr. Hotellier or Mr. Innkeeper. :-)

Quit trying to be a Host, sweetums. The only "host" you can be is
of a communicable disease.

Go get some therapy.

LHA

In article ,
(Stebe Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Why You Don't Like Ham's Who Can't Accept Change.
From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
Date: 8 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

And unfortunately for you, your lies ARE archived in this very
forum.

No "lies."

"I am going to get my Extra Lite out of the box".

"The ARRL is dishonest".

Do you really want your nose rubbed in ALL of them, Lennie?

Sucks to be you, Leonard.

Only when I turn on the ShopVac.

I guess that's the ONLY suction in your house, Lennie...Which
means it REALLY sucks to be you...

Your boyfriend lives in your house now?

The ONLY way one can be "interested in radio" is to get a ham
license and be proficient in morse code...(SNIP)

Oh geeze...Here we go again.

A 1x2 has stated the Word on that: The ONLY way one can be
"interested in radio" is to get a ham license and be a morseman.

That's the Official Word.

Quotes, Lennie...Cite the message thread, please (I have learned
to not trust ANYthing you say unless I can cross-reference it to a
third party source)

"Cite message thread?"

Why? Can't you read the English words in here?

Do you have attention deficit disorder that requires you to see
repeats of everything already written?

I'm sure you can "cross-reference." You are cross all of the time.


What's your excuse?

Once again you avoid the request to prove your assertions with
some sort of facts.

I asked a question.

You are trying to worm out of it.

tsk, tsk, tsk, stebe.

You read "Witches of Karres" and are all stuck on "worm weather,"
right?

And so far, your "observations" are just bitter rants against
just about anything that you can't/weren't able to understand or
master yourself.

Wow, do you ever need pre-med!

Sweetums, you've got diagnoses all mixed up.

Must be the Religion Thing about morsemanship that is clouding
your few mental synapses.

That's not "proof", unless just being a loser is your goal, in
which case I'd say you have excelled.

"Excelled in losing?"

I once won $55 in the California Lottery. Don't gamble normally.

Let's see...what "losses?"

I have a comfortable retirement, don't have to go to work and suck
up to bosses. No mortgage on either house.

My regular-hours jobs were in a field I like and deliberately chose
long ago. Even spent lots and lots of nights in classes to make
the "engineer" job "official."

Never got fired, never got arrested. Got a parking ticket in New
Jersey once (not a felony then).

I'm happily married to my high school sweetheart, reunited after
many years; even attended a 50th high school reunion and didn't
fight with anyone.

I got into the big leagues of HF radio communication a half century
ago, then got an Honorable Discharge from the US Army...no
"other" kind of discharge. No excuses for anything there. Good
Conduct ribbon, too! :-)

I've been both author-contributor and a staffer at Ham Radio
magazine when it was still existing as an independent periodical.
Real ink on real paper, many times a month. Was a national
magazine available on newsstands.

Never once did I have to suck up to any ex-gyrene foulmouth
who has a hate complex because he can't handle hisself in here.

No real losses. :-)

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would
be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.

That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes

sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

I can't imagine "one who was interested" would fail to qualify in 10 years,
but if they didn't, well I guess there are other hobbies like finger
painting which might be less challenging and not require a federal license
to pursue.

Exactly.

I can't imagein "one who was interested" not taking the time to learn
Morse code either, but if they didn't want to I gues there are other
things like wait around until it goes away, which might be less challenging!

You must be absolutely right, Mike, therefore all who don't learn
morse code "must not be interested in radio!"

In my case, exposure to the big leagues of HF radio communications
while in the US Army piqued an interest in radio that eventually led
to changing majors (drastic change) and entering the electronics
industry to become an engineer.

The US Army didn't use any morse code to send over 200,000
messages a month from a command Hq in Japan. There's no need
to know morse code for electronics engineering or for most of the
radio transmitters of the 1950s on through the 2000s.

A quarter million IEEE members worldwide (me included) must not
have any "interest in radio" because we don't or didn't learn morse
code.

I've never heard of any morse code classes as part of electrical
engineering curricula anywhere in the world. Maybe all those
students for EEs aren't "really" interested in radio?

Consider that there's NO communications carriers in the USA
even using morse code for any communications purposes today.
I guess they must "not be interested" because morse isn't used.

How about that?

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

That way, no one who was
interested would be forced off the air, but at the same time there would
be
incentive to get a full-privs renewable license.

If, after 10 years as a learner and exposed to mainstream ham radio they
can't qualify for a standard license, then another 10 years isn't likely to
be sufficient to become qualified.

That may well be the case, Hans. And since some Morse Code skill is
obviously part of being a qualified full-privileges radio amateur, it makes
sense that the standard license would include a Morse Code test.

Sorry but that makes NO sense.

FCC does NOT require any licensed radio amateur to use morse
code modes over and above any other allocated mode. Ergo, there
is no allocation requirement to satisfy.

Further, it makes NO sense that morse code skill "qualifies" any
radio amateur for "full privileges" on HF/MF bands. That is an
artificiality lobbied (successfully) for by olde-tyme morsemen.

If US amateur radio service were named "Artificial Radiotelegraph
Service," then it would make sense.

beep, beep

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Of course, any former E-5 or higher that thinks "asshole" is a
terribly profane word must be of the sissy pink coloring.

It's a gray area...

LHA

Hope he never sees a copy of Cinderella Liberty. I think Hans starred in it.

:-)

LHA

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

It's "noblesse oblige" oriented, Brian. The "upper classes" and
royalty get to swear, vomit profanities, demean and denigrate the
lower classes because they all passed 20 WPM code tests.

Nope.

It's the standard YOU have tried to set, Scummy. YOU are the one
stating "we" (the Amateur community) don't respect
"professionals"...yet here you are spewing antgonisms, profanities and
boldface lies.

tsk, tsk, tsk, stebe...YOU don't respect professionals. :-)

I've never stated any "boldface lies." This web browser doesn't allow
selection of boldface type.


On contraire again, Lennie...I get to radiate more than adequate
"great power". I hardly ever use more than 200 watts on ANY band,
however, since it's not necessary to use it.

You have 40 KW RF output capability? :-)

How about 600 KW RF output?

tsk, tsk, tsk, stebe, look again at amateur radio band allocations
and allowed RF output power. you can't use it on "ANY" band.

Of course, unlike YOU, I have a station license that allows me to
establish a radio station wherein I can use it.

wow, stebe, impressville all the way! your vewwy own wadio
station!

So...if I go into K-Mart or Wal-Mart and plunk down $99 for a shrink-
wrapped CB transceiver "it's not my own radio?"

Okay, if I own a Cessna 182 and buy a Civil Airways VHF Comm
transceiver and install it, "I wouldn't own my own transceiver?"
Who would own it? FAA? USAF? An airlines corporation?

If I have an ocean-going sailboat and buy the "civilian" version of an
SBC-2020 and install it, "I wouldn't own my own radio?" Who would
own it? SBC? USN? USCG? A cruise line corporation?

If, as a private businessman, I buy several transceivers to put in my
delivery vehicles, "I wouldn't OWN them?" Who would own them?
A city department of communications? FCC? NTIA? DMV?

Suppose I buy a pair of FRS HTs. "I won't OWN them?" Who "owns"
them? The store I bought it from using a valid credit card?

Oh, yeah, the only "real radios" are ham radios where everyone
works DX on HF with CW.

Of course, any former E-5 or higher that thinks "asshole" is a
terribly profane word must be of the sissy pink coloring.

Blatant evidence that you are not in touch with the "new"
professional Armed Forces, Lennie. That kind of language, although
rampant in your day, can get a prefessional soldier busted or fined.

aha, stebe, so that's how you got your non-honorable discharge!

we might have known.

I haven't been to a military base since 2001. Must mean I am
"out of touch!"

Heard a couple cuss words from military personnel then. No MPs
or APs showed up to arrest the miscreants. Must be slackers in
the military JAGs, right?

Of course WE knew that, since all of your references to the Armed
Forces start off "Back in 1953 at ADA..."...

It's a gray area...

Nothing "gray" about it, Lennie. YOU keep trying to foist
yourself off as a professional, both as an author and as an engineer,
but YOUR conduct and YOUR language lend a different example.

No "foisting," pink one.

Got paid. That's the major distinction of the professional versus the
amateur.

IRS and Franchise Tax Board (of CA) both have my occupation down
as "electronics engineer" since the late 1960s. Several major
corporations' personnel departments have the same information.
The FBI has a dossier on me and has done a background check on
my work, family, and neighbors...no problems. Also DCAS (Defense
Contracts Administrative Service), CIA (!), NSA, DIA, IEEE, and AMA.

I am a published author in national monthly magazines...which can be
checked by examination of those issues. Real ink on real paper isn't
ephemeral like Internet newsgroup lying, pinkie.

If you want a real treat, hang around "Geek Boy Times" on the web.

That's in line with your claims, sweetums. [bet you don't even know
what it's about and are going to bluff like heck about it...:-) ]

Sucks to be you, I'd say...

In addition to the Shop-Vac we have two Hoovers for the rugs here
although one is really a floor cleaner and rug shampooer (but has a
vacuum capability).

I can also pull a slight vacuum in the workshop with one of two
Soldapults. Know what those are? :-)

Sold the little airbrush compressor hooked up in reverse to pull
bubbles out of castings. No "sucking" there.

I'll bet you never sucked up to any boss, right? :-)

Pinkies do that. Don't think pink.

LHA

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
digy.com...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

And the efforts of REACT and its
members are commendable. However,
any public service performed is informal
in nature, not the result of any regulatory
stipulation imposed by the FCC or
federal government. There is nothing in
part 95 that mandates public service like
that found in part 97.

OK, Dwight quote paragraph and section
that states that amateurs MUST do public
service.


Okay, Dee, show me where I said Amateurs "must" do public service. Part
97
offers that as one purpose of the ARS and gives us the mandate
(authority)
to do so (ARES and so on), but it certainly isn't required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


your words we

"...There is nothing in part 95 that mandates public service like that
found
in part 97."

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or requi mandated desegregation
of public schools.

The way you have used the word conforms to usage number 2. Therefore, you
have stated that public service is required even though that may not be
what
you meant to say.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Here you go, Dee.

----------------------------
From: "ARRL Letter"
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:02:59 -0500
Subject: The ARRL Letter, Vol 22, No 47

============================================
==FCC REORGANIZES WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU

The FCC has announced a reorganization of its Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) "to more effectively support the

Ahem...the FCC's own announcement of what it was going to do
was on public display before the ARRL made any mention of it.

Old news.

LHA

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

The way you have used the word conforms to usage number 2. Therefore, you
have stated that public service is required even though that may not be what
you meant to say.

The way you've kept on and on and on with this sub-thread
makes it sound like you MUST have the Last Word. :-)

LHA

In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote

I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in
favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to
demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by
cramming a published Q&A pool.

I looked and looked and looked and looked and nowhere in 97.501, 97.503 nor
anywhere in S25 did I find any regulatory requirement to "demonstrate a
certain level of self-discipline" as part of the qualification procedures.
Is this another of those "test of worthiness" things that occasionally
floats to the surface around rrap?

Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write
something like:

" A really tough written test would surely separate those
who really have an interest in the hobby.", or..

" Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's
dedication to the service.", or..

" I think it is effective at minimizing the undesirables.",
or..

" ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming is
making it something to work for.", or..
.
"My opinion is that any obstacle you put in the way to any
achievement guarantees that only those with dedication and
strong interest will get there."

All of the above quotations, gathered from rrap threads, were
made by serious and well-intentioned licensees who want the best
for the Amateur Radio Service.

All of the above quotations also completely miss the mark, in
that they suggest that the examination process is the key to
ensuring that "the right kind of people" (those who are
"worthy") become licensed and, by extension, that "the wrong
kind of people" get filtered out.

First, the testing procedure is an "entrance" exam, not a
"graduation" exam.

Second, while "interest", "dedication", and "hard work" might
be hallmarks of good amateurs, the FCC and ITU regulations
do not specify levels of interest, dedication, hard work or other
measures of "worthiness" as requisites for a license. Therefore it
is not the function of the examination process to determine (even
if it could) if an applicant is "worthy" but rather to determine
if he/she is QUALIFIED to use the spectrum assigned. There should
be no "dumbing down", but neither can there be a requirement that
the examination process screens out applicants who lack
"commitment".

Don't get me wrong here, folks. I believe that the examination
process ought to be rigorous enough to determine proper knowledge
and skills so that a new licensee does not inadvertently trash
the bands, hurt themselves, or harm other users/uses of the
spectrum. I am not even suggesting that Morse testing is a
"good thing" or a "poor idea". But I have no expectation that
ANY examination can filter out "unworthy" applicants who lack
the proper dedication or motivation.

Sounds eminently reasonable to me...


Even if it could, who then would become the arbiter of "worthy"?

Heh heh heh heh...EVERY self-righteous person who insists
that all MUST do as they did...:-) :-) :-) :-)

The regulars in here already have done that...

LHA

"N2EY" wrote


Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid,
because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments.

Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to
be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about
stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them?

The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will
likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that
noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition
at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from
the rulemakers.

Happy Y3K,

de Hans, K0HB

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"N2EY" wrote


How much Spanish do you hear on the ham bands being used by US hams?


A lot.

Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB

Most of the Spanish I hear are Mexican, Central American, and South American
hams not US hams.

De nada...

:-)

WMD

In article t, Dwight Stewart
says...


"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Your usage is still incorrect. There
is nothing in Part 97 that assigns
authority to hams to do public
service either. I've read part 97
from beginning to end. (snip)


Then you either cannot read or cannot understand what you've read.
Regardless, if you truly feel Part 97 does not authorize us to do public
service, then I simply don't have the time to convince you otherwise.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Isn't that special, a vanity call for a no code dummy.

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid,
because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments.

Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to
be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about
stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them?

The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will
likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that
noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition
at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from
the rulemakers.

Excellent point. There are a total of 4,661 documents on the ECFS
for those 14 petitions mainly concerned with code testing.

That's more than was gathered on NPRM 98-143 by close to 2K.


Happy Y3K,

I think that should be "Y1K" considering the Reverend's love of the
past...

Just a thought.

WMD

K0HB, the perfect argument against code.

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote



Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid,
because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments.


Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to
be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about
stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them?

The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will
likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that
noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition
at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from
the rulemakers.

Happy Y3K,

de Hans, K0HB

LHA
You are a bitter little person and do not play well with others.
Perhaps you need something of a higher level in you life. Try Jesus
instead of all of this negative stuff. So much energy needs to be
focused on getting you to Heaven instead of bothering these nice
people.
JEP


(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Why You Don't Like Ham's Who Can't Accept Change.
From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
Date: 8 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

It's certainly not true in MY case, and just one more example of
how you feel free to take liberties with the truth.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...role-playing in a fantasy land is not "reality" nor
is it "truth."

There's only one "role-player" here, Lennie. Almost everyone
else here HAS an Amateur Radio license and PARTICIPATES in teh "Real
McCoy".

"teh ?" :-) Getting ANGRY again, are you?

There are several "McCoys" in electronics. Which one are you
referring to? Walter Brennan?

YOU are the outsider here.

This newsgroup isn't "amateur radio."

This newsgroup is all about lets-pretend fish-story-tellers trying
to put down lots of other amateurs. All amateurishly.

I'm all for eliminating the morse code test from any radio license
examination. That's all.

You are the one on an extended field trip into fantasyland.




I never claimed to be an engineer...But I did provide numerous
references from that job that proved you WRONG on numerous occassions.

Never once did you "prove" anything. Your imagination tells only
you that you were "right." Your imagination is WRONG.

Sure I did. Starting with simple assertions about the
"engineering community"...You said that there was "no such thing" and
I provided you with an immediate quote from one of the periodicals
that cited that very concept.

Where is this "engineering community" located? Have you been
there? :-)

Is it part of a Kibbutz? A collective farm? Does it have fancy
alphabets like ASME?

Where did you read this? Or, rather, who read it to you from some
printed reference? Your therapist?

Go for it, EX purchasing agent...

And you further went on to say "real engineers" didn't need/use
Amateur Radio...I gave you the callsigns of not only 13 engineers, but
three of them were PhD's.

Of course you did...right after you accepted the Presidential Medal
of Freedom for keeping Homeland Security safe through ham radio.

In other words, in your MIND, sweetums.

I'm still a Life Member of the IEEE and a former member of the ACM,
both professional organizations. None of their many, many
publications have had "news" about Ham Radio Saving The Day!

But, in your mind, you know "lots" of PhDs, and other smart folks
who all LOVE ham radio and cherish, honor, obey morse code....



I guess that had to hurt, knowing a "non-engineer" had access to
references that took a bite out of your rants...

"Hurt?" Only my sides from laughing. "References" from a weekly
newspaper from Podunk Hollow, TN, hardly counts for anything...

They were hardly from "Podunk Hollow", Lennie. They were
professional journals and periodicals.

Yeah, like a little few-page weekly is on par with the New York TIMES.

Paris Review on a bad day maybe. St. Louis Post-Dispatch or the
Washington Post would hardly have such, would they?
George didn't have such, neither did Time, Life, Newsweek. Maybe
it was in People (which I only read in dentist offices). TV Guide?

Not in IEEE Proceedings or the monthlies from ComSoc (Communication
Society, a group within IEEE). ComSoc wants me back as a member.

It wasn't in EDN, or Electronic Design, or RF Design, or Microwaves &
RF. I don't bother with EE Times anymore. Maybe PET (Power
Engineering Technology)?

(Squirm a bit harder, Scummy...)

Only if the mosquitos are biting. You WANT to but haven't gotten
any penetration yet...

Again with the "1930's" rant, Lennie?

Call it "transistorized 1930s," Stebe.

I call it your "1930's rant", Lennie...It's not truthful, nor
even representitive of anything associated with MODERN Amateur Radio.

Of course, Mr. PhD...MODERN amateur radio...extolling morse code
modes on HF as "always getting through when nothing else will..."

MODERN HF amateur radio: "What was good in the 1930s is still
good in 2000s!"

"Real ham radio is working DX on HF with CW."

Standards and Practices remain the same as 70 years ago.
Imagination of Public Service and self-serving glory are still the
same. If ARRL writes it, all MUST believe, for their words are
sacred.

No, they don't.

But if you NEED to believe that in order to sleep well at night,
please, be my guest...

:-) Not even close, Mr. Hotellier or Mr. Innkeeper. :-)

Quit trying to be a Host, sweetums. The only "host" you can be is
of a communicable disease.

Go get some therapy.

LHA

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid,
because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments.

Avoid?????

Why, yes.

What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to
be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about
stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them?

Not here. But I don't know about in the much wider arena of petitions to the
FCC.

The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will
likely make it 15.

The comment and reply comment periods to all of those 14 petitions are long
past. ARRL hasn't started yet.

Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that
noise level?

What noise level? Right now there are no petitions/RMs/NPRMs on amateur license
requirement changes out there. Yours would have the comment stage to itself
right now.

Soon ARRL will have its board meeting, and then there will probably be a
proposal that will gather all kinds of comments. Obviously you don't want to
compete with that!

Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition
at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from
the rulemakers.

Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. Considering
the way FCC tossed out 14 RM numbers in two batches of seven, if you wait you
may find your proposal batched with ARRL's. If you wait too long, FCC could
move on to the NPRM process before you ever get the petition sent in.

Happy Y3K,

And looking forward to Y4K

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) Even sense 3 would be a
requirement as when one is given an
assignment, you are supposed to
carry that assigment. It is not just a
suggestion or desireable activity. If
a person or group does not carry
through on an assignment, then that
assignment is given to a group who
will.


Dee, I've repeatedly explained to you what was meant by the word mandate.
Nothing is required or mandatory in the context used. Likewise, without a
stated obligation, there is nothing required or mandatory in giving an
assignment or task to someone (or in giving authorization to someone). If
you still cannot understand this, I suggest you look carefully at the words
"mandate," "assigns," "authorization," and so on, including the synonyms. I
have nothing more to say on the matter.


I repeat, Part 97 does NOT mandate
in any way shape or form that amateurs
participate in public service.


Sorry, but public service is at the very heart of the basic and purpose of
the Amateur Radio Service (as described in 97.1). And, while there is
nothing mandatory about it, the mandate (authorization) to do so still
remains. Likewise, I have nothing more to say on this matter.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint wrote:

Since no one is prohibited from doing
public service, no authorization is
needed. (snip)


To do the types of public service we're authorized to do (MARS, RACES, and
so on), authorization is required.

Sec. 97.407
(a) No station may transmit in RACES
unless it is an FCC-licensed primary,
club, or military recreation station and
it is certified by a civil defense organization
as registered with that organization, or it
is an FCC-licensed RACES station. (snip)

Care to show me where Part 95 authorizes CB'ers to operate a station at
all similar to a RACES station? What about a MARS station? What about
operations serving government agencies and others? In fact, show me where
Part 95 authorizes any activity beyond the recreational use of those
frequencies.


(snip) It is a recognition of what we
do and the value of what we do. It is
a good and solid justification to use
for the continued existence of amateur
radio. Nothing more.


Sadly, far too many in Amateur Radio today have that attitude towards
public service.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

(snip) Even sense 3 would be a
requirement as when one is given an
assignment, you are supposed to
carry that assigment. It is not just a
suggestion or desireable activity. If
a person or group does not carry
through on an assignment, then that
assignment is given to a group who
will.


Dee, I've repeatedly explained to you what was meant by the word
mandate.
Nothing is required or mandatory in the context used. Likewise, without a
stated obligation, there is nothing required or mandatory in giving an
assignment or task to someone (or in giving authorization to someone). If
you still cannot understand this, I suggest you look carefully at the
words
"mandate," "assigns," "authorization," and so on, including the synonyms.
I
have nothing more to say on the matter.


I repeat, Part 97 does NOT mandate
in any way shape or form that amateurs
participate in public service.


Sorry, but public service is at the very heart of the basic and purpose
of
the Amateur Radio Service (as described in 97.1). And, while there is
nothing mandatory about it, the mandate (authorization) to do so still
remains. Likewise, I have nothing more to say on this matter.


Again nothing in Part 97 gives amateurs a mandate in any sense of the
meaning of the word. It does NOT in any section of Part 97 authorize us to
do or assign us to do public service. So you remain wrong. I've just
finished reviewing Part 97 and it's not there. In 97.1 it is "recognition
and enhancement of the value..". That is not a mandate, that is not
authorization, that is not an assignment. It is a way of justifying
allowing us to continue to have the frequencies and privileges that we enjoy
but that is not a mandate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"N2EY" wrote
Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid,
because there are bound to be both
supporting and opposing comments.

Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems
to
be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about
stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them?

The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will
likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in
that
noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition
at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from
the rulemakers.

So what is your likly timetable for submission?
After an ARRL submission?
If yes, how soon after?

There is a risk of submitting beyond a point where the FCC has
already digested the 14 or probably will be 15 submissions and
then posts a NPRM. By that time any new proposals aren't
likly to get any attention...IMHO.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote

Of course! But if you wait too long, the opportunity may be lost. ......
If you wait too long, FCC could move on to the NPRM process
before you ever get the petition sent in.

Did I miss something? Is this the last NPRM that FCC will issue in Amateur
Radio matters?

The current salad bowl of 14 (15?) petitions is primarily concerned with
Morse testing for HF access. I've already commented on that matter.

The changes I'd like to see in the Amateur Radio service are only mildly
concerned with Morse Code, but primarily concerned with the fundamental
licensing structure of our service. I don't want that issue lost in the
cacaphony of noise surrounding the Morse Code testing issue, so if I do
submit a petition it will be timed to avoid being confused as a "Morse Code"
petition.

73, Hans, K0HB

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

Since no one is prohibited from doing
public service, no authorization is
needed. (snip)


To do the types of public service we're authorized to do (MARS, RACES,
and
so on), authorization is required.

Sec. 97.407
(a) No station may transmit in RACES
unless it is an FCC-licensed primary,
club, or military recreation station and
it is certified by a civil defense organization
as registered with that organization, or it
is an FCC-licensed RACES station. (snip)

Care to show me where Part 95 authorizes CB'ers to operate a station at
all similar to a RACES station? What about a MARS station? What about
operations serving government agencies and others? In fact, show me where
Part 95 authorizes any activity beyond the recreational use of those
frequencies.



That is an authorization to operate on those frequencies and an
authorization to operate the station not an authorization to do public
service. There is a difference. And to do MARS or CAP, it is not the FCC
that authorizes you but other agencies and services. But I repeat that is
authorization to use the frequencies not authorization to do public service.
RACES is the same way. You have to be authorized for RACES operation but
that is not the same as authorizing one to do public service. RACES is a
very specific organization with very specific goals and tasks.

You do not and never have needed an authorization to do public service.
Where in the rules does it say that I need the FCC's authorization to do
communications at a walk-a-thon? Where in the rules does it state that I
need FCC's authorization to be part of the team that deployed here in the
Michigan area during the August power blackout? Where in the rules does it
say that I need the FCC's authorization to join ARES. Nowhere. The list
could go on and on.


(snip) It is a recognition of what we
do and the value of what we do. It is
a good and solid justification to use
for the continued existence of amateur
radio. Nothing more.


Sadly, far too many in Amateur Radio today have that attitude towards
public service.

Most of do follow the personal commitment to participate in public service
since it is not only a long and time honored tradition but the right thing
to do. That does not change the fact that there is no mandate to do so.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE