Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

...Your beligerance keeps on.

Yup, beligerance with flags...

You are beligerant and ****ed off...

Once could be a typo. Three would be one of your "Atila" gaffes.
"Belligerent", Len. I thought you were a professional writer.

Dave K8MN

You must be a professional Righter.

No, I'm a mere amateur. I receive no payment for correcting Len's
spelling. Consider it a service to a professional.

Get to work on Bruice/WA8ULX.

That'd be a hopeless exercise. Bruce misspells more words than he
spells correctly. Besides, he never claimed to be a PROFESSIONAL
writer.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight, I'm with you on Kim's silliness
about driving but this one just keeps
getting skewed more and more. Now
you're writing about abortion instead
of child birth and NASA. You did not
write anything in your original comments
to indicate that you were discussing "child
birth policy" or "NASA policy".


I've explained that just about as much as I intend to. At this point,
you're simply using this to side-step the issues raised.


A different "use"? Sorry, I'm not buying
that.


Obviously. Like most of us, you have no intention of "buying" anything
that disagrees with your position.


(snip) Tell me more about the areas where
this country needs expertise.


Don't hold your breath, Dave. I have no desire whatsoever to get into a
long discussion about today's communications technology. If you truly want
to know more about that, a search of the internet may be worthwhile.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight, I'm with you on Kim's silliness
about driving but this one just keeps
getting skewed more and more. Now
you're writing about abortion instead
of child birth and NASA. You did not
write anything in your original comments
to indicate that you were discussing "child
birth policy" or "NASA policy".

I've explained that just about as much as I intend to. At this point,
you're simply using this to side-step the issues raised.

Not really, Dwight. You're now dancing around your earlier statements
in order to make them read like something different.

A different "use"? Sorry, I'm not buying
that.

Obviously. Like most of us, you have no intention of "buying" anything
that disagrees with your position.

....especially when we get into something which appears to be a sizeable
stretch of earlier statements.

(snip) Tell me more about the areas where
this country needs expertise.

Don't hold your breath, Dave. I have no desire whatsoever to get into a
long discussion about today's communications technology. If you truly want
to know more about that, a search of the internet may be worthwhile.

You may find this difficult to believe, but not all of us rely on the
internet as our primary source for information. You've mentioned
several times about areas where our country needs expertise but you've
offered not even a single example. I questioned whether a 5 wpm morse
test precluded someone from developing such expertise.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/20/03 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
ubject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/20/03 2:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


So, give us an EXACT number of ARRL members.

Check their annual postal statement. It's a violation for them to
purjure
that, and it delineates the number of "paid subscriptions" (ie: paid-up
members)

Steve, K4YZ


I was a member of the ARRL prior to earning my Novice ticket.

What was my call sign then?

I am sure there was a point ot your asking this question, Brain, even
though it was not part-and-parcel of the quoted item above.

Regardless of your licensure status when you joined the ARRL, the only
'relevence' would have been your voting staus. You were STILL a member.

Now...the point?

Steve, K4YZ

Let me think it through for you.

A non-member, me, receives QST. I am included in the annual postal
statement.

Every library is included in the postal statement.

Every club that subscribes is included in the postal statement.

Every foreign subscriber non-member is included in the postal
statement.

Now would you mind answereing the question: "So, give us an EXACT
number of ARRL members."

He cannot, so, as his "representative" in here, I will. :-)

According to the ARRL's own information, their last Publisher's
Sworn Circulation Statement was end of June, 2003.

At that time ARRL membership was 155,132.

Of those, 19,180 were Life Members.

All of the information is from ARRL's own website under QST
Circulation. There are some apparent discrepancies on that,
probably due to "creative rearrangement" of the data. For example,
the "average monthly paid circulaion" (six months, ending at end
of June) was only 142,992. Between that and the indicated
membership is 12,140 unaccounted for and not explained by any
sales to library/institution subscriptions (only 891) or net single
copy sales (only 1,784).

In the "average monthly paid circulation by type," the number of
issues to associations and members (including Life Members) was
140,317 and, with libraries and single copy sales, adds up to
142,311. That's off of Cathy's statement of 142,992 by 681. ?

If there were 682 thousand total U.S. amateur radio licensees at
the end of June, 2003, then ARRL membership is only 22.79%
and LESS than a quarter.

LHA

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Brian wrote:

Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code
testing. You might want to check with Len on this.

You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's
representative
for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I
wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him.

Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his.

You'll likely want to straighten the lad out then, Leonard. He has been
speaking for you of late.

We just happen to agree that the Morse Exam has to go and that the ARS
is divided between folks who can accept change, and those who cannot.

Perhaps Len's mistaken views can be excused.

"Mistaken views?!?" :-)

The Lord High Executioner mumbled something again before he
fell off the scaffold in a drunken stupor...


... You, on the other hand, should know better.

Why do you say that?

Saying that as you do implies that you are a god of amateur radio
who has ALL the answers. You don't.


It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

I'll mark that down as yet another of things we know are not your life's
ambition. It'll be listed right under "amateur radio license".

I think working Frenchmen out of band otta be #2.

Okay, Brian, I'll do as you've requested.

THINGS WHICH ARE NOT LEONARD ANDERSON'S LIFE'S AMBITION

1. It is not my life's ambition to obtain an amateur radio license.

Explain to me why this is so "necessary," high holy god of ham.

2. It is not my life's ambition to work Frenchmen out of band.

I'm not keen to work them IN band.

Why is that so necessary, high holy god of ham?

3. It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

But it IS YOURS, right, high holy god of ham?


I can deal with that.

You can't deal a deck of cards...much less deal with debate on
issues...you always switch to insulting each and every person
who disagrees with your opinions.



Now that all the Techs have been chased off of VHF, where do you
'spect them to go?

Really? The Techs have been chased from VHF? When and how did this
transpire? How would it keep Leonard from obtaining a code-free
license?

Why must I obtain a "code-free license?"

Why can't it be a "coded" license?

I've had a code-free license since 1956.

LHA

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:

Dwight, I'm with you on Kim's silliness
about driving but this one just keeps
getting skewed more and more. Now
you're writing about abortion instead
of child birth and NASA. You did not
write anything in your original comments
to indicate that you were discussing "child
birth policy" or "NASA policy".


I've explained that just about as much as I intend to. At this point,
you're simply using this to side-step the issues raised.


If one were to...well, waste time...reviewing many, if not all, of Dave's
posts; all Dave is about is posting replies that have no content other than
to pontificate and humor himself. There's nothing, *nothing* of any
substance whatsoever in a thing he writes...he's like a lawyer...


A different "use"? Sorry, I'm not buying
that.


Obviously. Like most of us, you have no intention of "buying" anything
that disagrees with your position.


Dave hasn't found his position yet...well, except for above others (he
thinks, anyway).


(snip) Tell me more about the areas where
this country needs expertise.


Don't hold your breath, Dave. I have no desire whatsoever to get into a
long discussion about today's communications technology. If you truly want
to know more about that, a search of the internet may be worthwhile.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I don't think Dave knows much more about the internet than downloading a
newsgroup...you know, he is so busy with "class" distinction and all...

Kim W5TIT

"Dave Heil" wrote:

Not really, Dwight. You're now dancing around
your earlier statements in order to make them
read like something different.


Nonsense, Dave. I mentioned three things in that message - "child birth,
international affairs with Belarus, and NASA space missions." You
intentionally took two of those out of context (a response to your message
about code testing), and ignored the third ("Belarus"), to suggest I was
talking about something other than government policy. On top of that, you
used this nonsense to side-step the real issue being discussed - your false
claim that personal experience was required to make informed decisions.


...especially when we get into something which
appears to be a sizeable stretch of earlier
statements.


There has been no stretch of earlier statements - just your attempts to
twist what was actually said.


(snip) You've mentioned several times about areas
where our country needs expertise but you've
offered not even a single example. (snip)


No, I quoted or paraphrased what the FCC said about that. Again, if you
don't understand it, don't hold your breath waiting for me to explain it to
you.


(snip) I questioned whether a 5 wpm morse test
precluded someone from developing such
expertise.


Since the main goal, as stated by the FCC, is to "...attract technically
inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country...," the question is
simply not relevant. The second goal to "...encourage them to learn and to
prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise"
comes after they enter this radio service. To be honest, I don't believe we
can achieve either goal with the continued emphasis on Morse code through
code testing. CW should join the other operating modes, allowing each person
to discover on their own what really interests them without being pushed
towards Morse code through a licensing requirement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) All of the information is from
ARRL's own website under QST
Circulation. There are some apparent
discrepancies on that, probably due to
"creative rearrangement" of the data.
For example, the "average monthly paid
circulaion" (six months, ending at end
of June) was only 142,992. Between
that and the indicated membership is
12,140 unaccounted for and not
explained by sales to library/institution
subscriptions (only 891) or net single
copy sales (only 1,784). (snip)


While I obviously cannot be certain, most of those 12,140 issues are
probably free handouts, Len - sent to current advertisers, potential
advertisers, staff, those who wrote articles or sent pictures for each
issue, executives of various companies, industry insiders, news
organizations, politicians, and so on. It's a fairly common practice in the
publishing industry.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip) There's nothing, *nothing* of
any substance whatsoever in a thing
he writes...he's like a lawyer...


Oh, come on, Kim. You know a lawyer would make more sense.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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