|
"Dave Heil" wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote: What is that to you? It effects me because I am an active radio amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no way involved. (snip) (snip) I think you must have me mixed up with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a bystander. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing a radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all Americans, no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all (Amateur and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion. Likewise, I saw nothing in rules of this newsgroup which would restrict the participation of non-Amateurs. You may not like what Len has to say, but the lack of a Ham license alone should not diminish it or dismiss it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message om... I think Dee's demands are extreme. You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme?? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yes, yes. Let them eat cake says Dee Marie. You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a groundswell of support. 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... |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
And what efforts did you make to convert the majority of members to your point of view?? While the items you list are worthy activities, they don't do much to change policy. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, what ARRL office(s) do you hold in your effort to stem the tide of changes within the ARS? If your answer is "none," I suggest you start campaigning yesterday. |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: Mike Coslo wrote I think this is one of those cases where some people think that their membership is a subscription to QST. Its a lot more than that. ARRL does a lot for Amateurs, even those who hate the organization. - Mike KB3EIA - Fair enough. I dislike some of the policies that the ARRL has promoted in the past, and felt as if the ARRL did not represent me even though I have been a member since 1986. Well, there you go! As a member, I'll pay a lot more attnetion to what you have to say. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, don't let Dee hear you say that. ;^) I must hold an official ARRL elected office to have any influence. I wonder what elected office she holds in an effort to stem the tide of change? |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: What is that to you? It effects me because I am an active radio amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no way involved. (snip) (snip) I think you must have me mixed up with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a bystander. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing a radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all Americans, no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all (Amateur and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion. I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight. Len has had his say on countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he knows some hams. He has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing. He wants morse testing ended. Based on what special knowledge and background? He wants a minimum age for amateur radio licensing. Based on what special knowledge and background? His right to direct his opinion to his government is intact. Government is not forced to agree with his assessment of how amateur radio should be changed. I'm certainly not forced to agree with his views, to respect his views or to refrain from sarcasm with regard to his views. Wanting to be involved does not make Len other than a bystander in the world of amateur radio. He is not a part of amateur radio simply because he comments to government or because he posts here. Likewise, I saw nothing in rules of this newsgroup which would restrict the participation of non-Amateurs. Len has participated and participated and participated. He wants to participate and to prevent others from laughing at him or his ideas. 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. 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. 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. Dave K8MN |
"Dave Heil" wrote:
I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight. Len has had his say on countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he knows some hams. He has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing. (snip) Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth, international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something to say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational, if someone told me to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant. And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek). He wants morse testing ended. Based on what special knowledge and background? (snip) I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a declining skill throughout the radio world. Or to read what the FCC and others have said about Morse code. Or to think through the issue. Or to form an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion. (snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with his views, to respect his views or to refrain from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip) Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because you think he should. (snip) Len has participated and participated and participated. (snip) More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else. (snip) He wants to participate and to prevent others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip) Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing anything? (snip) Others are free to participate and may form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas and to counter his ideas. (snip) (snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't care for his windy, pontificating and condescending posts. (snip) Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you that much if those comments agreed more with your own views. In the end, the only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing wrong with that, but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight. Len has had his say on countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he knows some hams. He has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing. (snip) Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth, international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something to say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational, if someone told me to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant. 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. I take it that you believe that your opinions on child birth would be meaningful or relevant to a woman who has had several children and that your views on space flights would be found useful to NASA engineers. I don't happen to think they would be. If you find that you have an interest in a topic, I'd expect that you'd want to study it, learn a great deal about it, participate to some degree--in other words, to gain experience in the field under discussion. I'd expect, for example, that someone who wants to participate to any meaningful degree in regulating mining be schooled in mining and that someone who is to particpate in the regulation of amateur radio be more than casually familiar with amateur radio. If an individual has no background in a field and attempted to preach to those actively engaged in that field, I'd not be at all upset if that individual became "darned offended" or confrontational. In fact, I'd find it fairly easy to go on with my life. And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek). Well, he'd have to land somewhere on the issue, wouldn't he? He has also arrived at a conclusion about code testing and about a minimum age for radio amateurs which is at odds with the decisions reached by many within the Amateur Radio Service (other people who have a background in the subject). He wants morse testing ended. Based on what special knowledge and background? (snip) I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a declining skill throughout the radio world. Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that you and Len share a common mistaken view. Each of you might have a desire to see it as a truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out. Or to read what the FCC and others have said about Morse code. Or to think through the issue. Or to form an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion. Which brings us back to an earlier point made by you: that Len's opinion should carry the same weight as the opinions of radio amateurs. The FCC has said, on a number of occasions, that they'd wait for a concensus among radio amateurs. They did not see fit to include SWL's or those who worked at a military radio station in Japan fifty years ago. That aside, Len has formed an opinion and has, on countless occasions, voiced his opinion. (snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with his views, to respect his views or to refrain from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip) Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because you think he should. Please point to one occasion in which I've suggested, requested or demanded that the kindly old gent do so. (snip) Len has participated and participated and participated. (snip) More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else. Having the right to speak isn't the same as forcing others to listen, to accept or to give the same weight to an opinion. (snip) He wants to participate and to prevent others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip) Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing anything? Go to Google. Select this newsgroup. Enter "Len Anderson". Be prepared to devote one or more evenings. (snip) Others are free to participate and may form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas and to counter his ideas. (snip) (snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't care for his windy, pontificating and condescending posts. (snip) Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you that much if those comments agreed more with your own views. Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where I've supported the posts of Bruce? In the end, the only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing wrong with that, You still don't completely understand so again, I urge that Google search. Len isn't just wrong, he's rude and abrasive. Len claims to just want civil debate on the issue of code testing. His posts do not bear that out. but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid). The stupid are those who'd take their ideas about amateur radio or amateur radio licensing from one who is not involved in any way with amateur radio. Never underestimate the stupid. They are legion. Dave K8MN |
N2EY wrote:
snippage But I do give, and you want to take away *my* deduction for doing so. A good example of deductive reasoning! ;^) more snippage Besides, it's a fantasy to think that there'd ever be widespread support for flat taxes. Too many average people would lose too much. Including you. One of the biggest reasons that a flat tax will *never* happen is that it will provice an easily quantifiable dollar figure as to what is collected. And that dog won't hunt for any number of reasons. There are certain ummmm..., advantages of the murky system we have now. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: What is that to you? It effects me because I am an active radio amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no way involved. (snip) (snip) I think you must have me mixed up with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a bystander. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing a radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all Americans, no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all (Amateur and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion. I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight. Yes you are. Your beligerance keeps on. Len has had his say on countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he knows some hams. Yup, beligerance with flags and banners waving... :-) He has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing. 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! The physics of amateur radio is the SAME as the physics of all other radio. 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? :-) 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 four decades of direct design engineering for communications which considers ALL available modes. 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 the same bull**** heard for six decades from elitist morsemen who still think that standards and practices are the "same" as in the 1930s. 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. 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 what special knowledge and background? Show us your certificates and pretty paper saying you are the EXPERT in everything you pontificate on. His right to direct his opinion to his government is intact. Damn right it is, Herr Robust. 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? [let us know the date of your coronation so that we may genuflect and worship your presence...] 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! In most anything... 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... 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." 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... 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. 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. 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. 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. Now doesn't that just completely fry your psyche? :-) 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! :-) 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...:-) 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! There is NO First Amendment in regards to ham radio regulations! 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... |
In article , JJ
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , JJ writes: I'm just campaigning for the elimination of morse code testing. Why? Can't or to lazy to learn the code? I can, I did learn morse. I don't see the need of it after being in radio communications for 50 1/2 years. Is that the only way you will ever be able to get a ham license? An AMATEUR license is not one of my life priorities. I've had a COMMERCIAL license for 47 1/2 years. Then what's you problem? If you have no interest in an amateur license then why spout off hear? Go somewhere where someone cares. [in cyberspace you cannot be "hear"...] :-) Gosh, for an anonymous person you are very touchy. Did you hurt yourself with the dagger under your cloak? I guess if they remove the code requirement you will campaign to get the written eleminated also so you won't have to do anything for a license. No. You are starting to show evidence of high irritation, anonymous one. Doesn't irratate me, I have my license, code test and all. Of COURSE you do, anonymous one. How could anyone possibly doubt such a thing? Why is it imperative to have a license, especially an AMATEUR license? If one wishes to operate on the amateur bands one needs an amateur license - DUH! Is "DUH" your real name's initials? You had best check on which amateur bands are EXCLUSIVELY allocated only to amateur radio. Any other radio service allocated as primary or co-resident on ham bands doesn't need any amateur license to operate there. Worse yet, the government (including military) can and sometimes does operate on bands which many amateurs think are exclusively "theirs." No amateur license required by government/military operators to operate there. I took my FCC office test way back in March, 1956. I'd already been communicating in the HF Big Leagues for three years. Later on, I've communicated on LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF, and microwaves without needing any amateur radio certificate. Never ever needed to use or understand morse code for any of that. Nobody involved in all that communicating complained about lack of morsemanship. Great, then go back to your LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF and microwaves with your commercial license. You obviously have no interest in amateur radio so it is obvious to the most casual of observers that your only reason to be hear is to see how big a jackass you can make of yourself. And you're doing a bang-up job of it. How come for why you say "I have no interest in amateur radio?" Is everyone within your touch required to profess love, honor, and obeyance to the amateur lifestyle in order for you to be civil to them? I haven't belonged to the ARRL in many years, but you have convinced me I need to join, thanks to you the ARRL will get a new member. Go for it. They need warm bodies rather desperately. The League has yet to get membership from a majority of licensed U.S. radio amateurs. Hurry on getting your membership...wonder upon wonders, they are defraying shipping charges on items puchased from Newington right now! [of course, you pay the same price in a ham store for ARRL merchandise and there's no shipping charges to pay...] It will give me a say in campainging to keep the code test, looks like that is what keeps you out of ham radio and that's a good thing for ham radio. You can have your "say" DIRECTLY to the FCC. Of course, on the 14 petitions the official comment period is over but you are still allowed to late-file. The only problem with comments to the FCC is that they expect all commenters to give their real name, address, etc., in order to be on the public record. That makes everyone commenting vulnerable, doesn't it? By using ARRL as a middleman, you can keep your anonymity and arrogance and alleged superiority, spouting off from time to time. No problem. If that is the sort of attitude of modern U.S. amateur radio, then it is no wonder that folks aren't rushing in to get acquainted with it or don't admire all the "expertise" of such amateur radio gurus. LHA |
"sideband" wrote in message gy.com... I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life. It makes the peas taste funny, But it keeps them on my knife. There once was a hermit named Dave ...... 73 KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa |
Besides, it's a fantasy to think that there'd ever be widespread support for flat taxes. Too many average people would lose too much. Including you. One of the biggest reasons that a flat tax will *never* happen is that it will provice an easily quantifiable dollar figure as to what is collected. And that dog won't hunt for any number of reasons. There are certain ummmm..., advantages of the murky system we have now. - Mike KB3EIA - Right Mike ....I seem to remember reading a few years ago that our tax laws at the Federal level when upright is a stack about 6 feet high. Wanna know what comprises this volume .... specific and I do mean specific tax breaks to individuals or businesses. The reason the flat tax will never be seen is that the gravy thats puts these "laws" into the books will be cut off from our duly elected reps. Also a fellow in here mentioned that the tax rate isn't really that 50% plus level doesn't count for the fact that not only are our payrolls taxed but also the good and services we all purchase. The big lie is found herein. My Buddy phoned me with glee when Bill Clinton got into office. He is really going to put it to those rich *******s with a tax hike ...I was told. I said who is rich ...a 100K salary? My buddy said yes sir 100 K is a lot of money. I then told him that the fellow down the street who has a dry cleaning business probably takes that home after paying his staff, taxes and other expenses. and guess what ...your pants will probably cost 25 cents more for a clean when your buddy Bill's signature hits the paper. 73 God Bless KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa |
"Brian" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... And what efforts did you make to convert the majority of members to your point of view?? While the items you list are worthy activities, they don't do much to change policy. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee, what ARRL office(s) do you hold in your effort to stem the tide of changes within the ARS? If your answer is "none," I suggest you start campaigning yesterday. When and if I wish to change ARRL policy, I'll dive into the political arena. I'm not the one complaining about ARRL policies. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is there a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought to be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's ridiculous. Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and in their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would take to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be increased? Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit from the public education of the community as a whole. If they did not pay school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school taxes so people can be productive than to support them on welfare. Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the gist). They keep changing the rules on that you know. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Dee D. Flint wrote: You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme?? I'm not so sure he is, Dee. I see a person that disagrees with some of what the ARRL is doing, yet still supports the basic objective. I mean if he's been a member since 86, that counts for something. Kind of like how I am with politics. The Dems are in shambles, and the Repubs are waaaaaayyyyy too liberal any more with their way out of line deficit spending. But I still vote, and try to pick the least awful candidate. Which is fine. But if you want something better than what the least awful candidate will provide, what do you do? If the majority of your party disagrees with you on some points, what do you do? Do you expect them to change just because you want them to or because you have been a member for nearly 20 years? It isn't going to happen. If you want change, then you roll up your sleeves and go to work on it; not sit and complain, not "take your marbles and go home." The latter two approaches never work. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message k.net... "Dave Heil" wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: What is that to you? It effects me because I am an active radio amateur. You, on the other hand, are in no way involved. (snip) (snip) I think you must have me mixed up with you. I'm a radio amateur. You are a bystander. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that, Dave. As I see it, when discussing a radio service which uses the radio frequencies that belong to all Americans, no American Citizen who wants to be involved is a bystander and all (Amateur and non-Amateur) have a right to be involved in the discussion. Likewise, I saw nothing in rules of this newsgroup which would restrict the participation of non-Amateurs. You may not like what Len has to say, but the lack of a Ham license alone should not diminish it or dismiss it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ 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. In contrast, the other denizens of this newsgroup, whether or not I agree with them, at least can put together a coherent statement of their point of view and the logic that they used to arrive at it. Naturally we all pick apart each other's logic when we don't agree or consider the logic faulty but the discussions make sense. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Brian" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Brian" wrote in message om... I think Dee's demands are extreme. You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme?? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yes, yes. Let them eat cake says Dee Marie. You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a groundswell of support. 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... So how do you propose that change occur? What is your plan? Show me changes that are needed and an effective plan to get there. So far all you have done is bash the ARRL without presenting any alternative. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Brian" wrote in message om... Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Mike Coslo wrote I think this is one of those cases where some people think that their membership is a subscription to QST. Its a lot more than that. ARRL does a lot for Amateurs, even those who hate the organization. - Mike KB3EIA - Fair enough. I dislike some of the policies that the ARRL has promoted in the past, and felt as if the ARRL did not represent me even though I have been a member since 1986. Well, there you go! As a member, I'll pay a lot more attnetion to what you have to say. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, don't let Dee hear you say that. ;^) I must hold an official ARRL elected office to have any influence. Not necessarily. You merely need to convince the majority that your view is correct so that people who have the same agenda as you will be elected. I wonder what elected office she holds in an effort to stem the tide of change? I choose to vote for officials who have the goals that I believe in. While I disagree with the probable changes that are coming, they are not so heinous that I see a need to rearrange my priorities to personally fight them. They are changes I can live with should they come to pass. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: snippage But I do give, and you want to take away *my* deduction for doing so. A good example of deductive reasoning! ;^) more snippage Besides, it's a fantasy to think that there'd ever be widespread support for flat taxes. Too many average people would lose too much. Including you. One of the biggest reasons that a flat tax will *never* happen is that it will provice an easily quantifiable dollar figure as to what is collected. And that dog won't hunt for any number of reasons. There are certain ummmm..., advantages of the murky system we have now. - Mike KB3EIA - Yeah the average Joe would then know what he is really paying through all the hidden taxes and boy would he scream then. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:34:19 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:
Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the gist). They keep changing the rules on that you know. Shhhh...you'll wake Dieter up..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Dee D. Flint wrote: You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme?? I'm not so sure he is, Dee. I see a person that disagrees with some of what the ARRL is doing, yet still supports the basic objective. I mean if he's been a member since 86, that counts for something. Kind of like how I am with politics. The Dems are in shambles, and the Repubs are waaaaaayyyyy too liberal any more with their way out of line deficit spending. But I still vote, and try to pick the least awful candidate. Which is fine. But if you want something better than what the least awful candidate will provide, what do you do? If the majority of your party disagrees with you on some points, what do you do? Do you expect them to change just because you want them to or because you have been a member for nearly 20 years? It isn't going to happen. If you want change, then you roll up your sleeves and go to work on it; not sit and complain, not "take your marbles and go home." The latter two approaches never work. I vote! That's really about all I can do. And when enough people believe what I do, then things may change. Lets say I think that the deficit is too high. Who do I vote for? Who speaks for me? Right now, I don't think anyone does, but I'll vote for anyone who will. But you seem to be saying that in order to have an opinion and express it, I have to run for office. I wonder what office is high enough to have an opinion? local tax collector or commisioner? Maybe they would be allowed to have an opinion and express it on local issues. In order to have an opinion and express it, I would have to be a Senator or a member of the House. I suppose that the State versions of thes would have their opinions dissappear when an issue goes to the Federal level. Seriously your approach sounds like: "Don't you worry your little head about anything, we have everything taken care of thankyouverymuch. And when we want your opinion, we'll tell you what it is. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message om... Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Mike Coslo wrote I think this is one of those cases where some people think that their membership is a subscription to QST. Its a lot more than that. ARRL does a lot for Amateurs, even those who hate the organization. - Mike KB3EIA - Fair enough. I dislike some of the policies that the ARRL has promoted in the past, and felt as if the ARRL did not represent me even though I have been a member since 1986. Well, there you go! As a member, I'll pay a lot more attnetion to what you have to say. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, don't let Dee hear you say that. ;^) I must hold an official ARRL elected office to have any influence. Not necessarily. You merely need to convince the majority that your view is correct so that people who have the same agenda as you will be elected. Good heavens. I appreciate that you believe that people should work for what they believe in. But I can paraphrase what you are saying is that if a person isn't willing to get heavily involved, then they are welcome to shut up. That isn't democracy, representative or otherwise, it's a virtual dictatorship. In my club, I listen to everyone. You would just listen to the other board members. I can imagine the response when someone wants to know where the money is gone, and has some ideas on how it should be spent. I guess you would tell them it isn't any of their business since they don't care to be a member of the board? I wonder what elected office she holds in an effort to stem the tide of change? I choose to vote for officials who have the goals that I believe in. While I disagree with the probable changes that are coming, they are not so heinous that I see a need to rearrange my priorities to personally fight them. They are changes I can live with should they come to pass. Sure. And that's fine. But you seem to be telling Brian that he can't have his opinion. It may be stronger than your's but that's how some people are. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dee D. Flint wrote:
snippage Yeah the average Joe would then know what he is really paying through all the hidden taxes and boy would he scream then. Yup! |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message et... Dee D. Flint wrote: "Brian" wrote in message om... Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Brian wrote: Mike Coslo wrote I think this is one of those cases where some people think that their membership is a subscription to QST. Its a lot more than that. ARRL does a lot for Amateurs, even those who hate the organization. - Mike KB3EIA - Fair enough. I dislike some of the policies that the ARRL has promoted in the past, and felt as if the ARRL did not represent me even though I have been a member since 1986. Well, there you go! As a member, I'll pay a lot more attnetion to what you have to say. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, don't let Dee hear you say that. ;^) I must hold an official ARRL elected office to have any influence. Not necessarily. You merely need to convince the majority that your view is correct so that people who have the same agenda as you will be elected. Good heavens. I appreciate that you believe that people should work for what they believe in. But I can paraphrase what you are saying is that if a person isn't willing to get heavily involved, then they are welcome to shut up. That isn't democracy, representative or otherwise, it's a virtual dictatorship. 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. In my club, I listen to everyone. You would just listen to the other board members. No, any dues paying member has a right to be heard. They just can't expect change unless they do more. At the very least they need to convince other club members and then bring it to a vote of the general membership. But again this requires WORK. I can imagine the response when someone wants to know where the money is gone, and has some ideas on how it should be spent. I guess you would tell them it isn't any of their business since they don't care to be a member of the board? All who pay dues have a right to examine the books. All who do not agree with where the money is going have a right to bring it up in a general club meeting and ask for a vote. But guess what. The latter two activities once again require WORK. I wonder what elected office she holds in an effort to stem the tide of change? I choose to vote for officials who have the goals that I believe in. While I disagree with the probable changes that are coming, they are not so heinous that I see a need to rearrange my priorities to personally fight them. They are changes I can live with should they come to pass. Sure. And that's fine. But you seem to be telling Brian that he can't have his opinion. It may be stronger than your's but that's how some people are. - Mike KB3EIA - 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. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"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. 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. With all kind wishes for a joyous holiday season, de Hans, K0HB |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil Quit trying to sound like a Ba'athist amateur, Klunk. There certainly weren't many of them, kindly old gent. Still, YI1BGD contacts weren't that hard to come by. Rarer still would be a QSL confirming a contact with you on the ham bands. Rarer still would be the Great Amateur Heil getting above 70 cm. How would you know? So, your only "interest" in radio is contacting "rare ones?" Excuse me? Where did you see that statement from me? Home Depot and Lowes have fine selections of tasteful wallpaper if you need some. ....and Toy 'R' Us carries "Clue". Maybe someone will get you a "Clue" for Christmas! Better than QSL cards for the esthetic senses of non-radio guests. [you DO have guests, don't you? or are all your social contacts of the ham variety?] Whaddya writing a book? If so, leave out the chapter on my socializing and make it a mystery. The League (of Notions) MAKES MONEY on the publication side of their conglomerate of control. Ads in QST pay for everything in the QST staff and the cost of job printing and fulfillment (publication talk for mailing/distributing). The "non-profit" stuff and nonsense is for lowering their taxes. No kidding? Thanks for clearing this up for those of us who've only been members for three or four decades, Len. You're pretty up to date for a non-member, non-radio amateur. SOMEONE had to clue you in, ignorant one. Why not regale us with another account of ARRL dishonesty, Foghorn? You've been so busy worshipping at the Church of St. Hiram you never knew about the BUSINESS side of the League? Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm sure that you're as much an expert on the inner workings of the ARRL as you are on amateur radio. You need copies of their IRS forms from 2002 and previous years? Those are on the Internet. I interviewed for a League position years back. The salary offered wasn't enough to cover a move and life in the greater Hartford area. Translation: You were rejected. (boo hoo for you) You've mistranslated. What part of "the salary offered" wasn't clear to you? Are you playing loose with the facts again? What was the AMOUNT of the salary offering? You never gave any "facts," only some CLAIM that "you interviewed." I have to ask, Len. What business would that be of yours? YOUR facts are simply salesmanship doubletalk on "facts." You've not given any supportable facts. None. What part of "salary offered" wasn't clear to you? What is the point of your attempting make an issue of the matter. While I'm sure that salaries are now better, I don't think any League staffers are putting up gold-plated Rohn tower and 80m yagis at their palatial estates. Rohn filed for bankruptcy on account of that? No, I think they waited for decades for your business and it dawned on someone at the plant that it just wasn't going to come about. I've never gone to Rohn for any towers are antennas. Three other commercial firms, Andrew being the oldest (and still solvent). Why the sudden misdirection into FALSE CLAIMS about some company "waiting for my business?" Sudden misdirection? What was your comment about Rohn's bankruptcy? You can see the top five staffers' salaries given on their 2002 IRS forms. And? It would give you a baseline for MORE creative lying in here about "interviewing with the ARRL." :-) What on earth are you babbling about? If you are foolish enough to believe that W1AW's station, the "museum" and all the other paraphenalia came out of dues, you've got a database gap large enough to sail the USS Enterprise through. I've made no such statement. I know how a non-profit organization operates. I know how the ARRL operates. Sadly, I know how you operate. I'm not a licensed MD. :-) ....and you're not a license radio amateur either :-) :-) With all the dissatisfaction you've expressed, why not start your own organization for like-minded hams? I'm sure you'd amass a following in no time. Three-fourths of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs are NOT members. One fourth, a sizeable number, ARE members. That's still a *MINORITY*. It is 25% of all radio amateurs in the U.S. It beats your one of a kind. Hello? Are you rational yet? There are also Associate Members who are not licensees. NON-VOTING. They can't "decide" a damn thing in League things. Why would they expect to? You aren't a Full Member nor are you an Associate Member. So, everyone is not allowed to comment on anything if they are not a "member?" Comment all you like. You have no say in ARRL matters. The League is a POLITICAL ENTITY. They lobby. That is certainly a part of what the ARRL does, and it does it very, very well. The League is OPEN FOR COMMENTARY BY EVERYONE, senior. You can stand outside and comment your buns off. They don't amount to a hill of beans. Non-members have no vote. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution allows EVERY CITIZEN to comment. ....not from inside an organization it doesn't. The ARRL isn't required to listen to or act on your comments. Except in your amateur universe... That should be evidenciary. To all but the minority who are members. So, to see if we have your latest yarn straight, ARRL members aren't aware that there are others who are not members? Bad attempt at editing and word cut-and-pasting, senior. TAKE THINGS IN CONTEXT. I took them in context. Go back and read your own words. Don't forget to look at the those you snipped. You'll need them for clarity. Members "KNOW what is good for all the others" and therefore they are the elite. Other than you, who issues such statements? What is any of this to you as an outsider to amateur radio and the ARRL? Does such statements upset you? Who has issued such statements? What is any of this to you? See a real MD...or psychiatric specialist. You need one. Oh, are you an expert on medicine as well as amateur radio? The League (of Notions) still holds on vainly to the idea that morse code is still the ultimate of amateur skills...long after the rest of the radio world has given it up, discarded it for communications. Maybe you can point us to some place on the ARRL web site where such a statement is made. Maybe you can go to another Scientology office and get "clear" so that you can see years and years and years of propagandizing of and for morsemanship. So you can't provide us with anything to back your latest wild claim. Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: If you've been paying attention, I was offered a job with the ARRL. I turned it down. Are you playing loose with facts again? What "facts" Ripley? You made a CLAIM. An UNSUPPORTED CLAIM. Get someone to vouch for your "job interview," someone in the League who was there at the time. Do your own leg work, Windy. If it bothers you, why not contact Dave Sumner and confirm it with him. The year was 1975. I'll be generous and accept State Department notification (if on official letterhead stationery). :-) Or, knowing State, on their official stationary... Remember the N2EY profile of your likely actions? I think it is about time we dust it off. 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. I've been IN RADIO longer than you have, done more in radio and electronics than you have. I'm a PROFESSIONAL. Then you are simply in the wrong newsgroup. This one has to do with amateur radio, Windy. Statistics will even things out in the long run. Been a professional in radio longer than you have, too. :-) Now, did you have some comment on morse code test retention and "how that so terribly affects your ability to perform as an amateur?" 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? Look, Foggy--Any change in amateur regulations or in the licensing of radio amateurs effects me directly because I am a user of those segments of the radio spectrum designated for use by radio amateurs. Those changes would have no impact on someone who is not a licensed amateur--someone like you. Dave K8MN |
"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. I take it that you believe that your opinions on child birth would be meaningful or relevant to a woman who has had several children and that your views on space flights would be found useful to NASA engineers. Nice dodge, Dave. But we're not talking about a woman with several children or NASA engineers - this is a discussion about government policy. And, when it come to that (even abortion and NASA financing), I do expect my views to matter. After all, my tax dollars are paying for it. Code testing is also a government policy and the radio frequencies involved belong to all Americans. I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a declining skill throughout the radio world. Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that you and Len share a common mistaken view. Each of you might have a desire to see it as a truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out. What mistaken view - that the rest of the radio world must be considered when discussing code testing? If so, you're the one mistaken here. The FCC itself has even taken that view in the Report & Order following the last round of restructuring when they said; "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note 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. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." The FCC went on to later say; "We also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency communication do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of communication, in part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other modes of communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude, therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to provide emergency communications." Note the references throughout to other radio services and to other, non-Amateur, radio technologies. If we're going to remain a valuable radio service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio services (CB), then our ability to fit with and contribute to those outside Amateur Radio must be a factor in this discussion. Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you that much if those comments agreed more with your own views. Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where I've supported the posts of Bruce? I also haven't noticed an ongoing effort to criticize and ridicule Bruce's posts as you've done with Len's. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"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/ |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Dwight Stewart wrote: In the end, the only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing wrong with that, You still don't completely understand so again, I urge that Google search. Len isn't just wrong, he's rude and abrasive. Len claims to just want civil debate on the issue of code testing. His posts do not bear that out. but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid). The stupid are those who'd take their ideas about amateur radio or amateur radio licensing from one who is not involved in any way with amateur radio. Never underestimate the stupid. They are legion. Dave K8MN Dwight, Dave loves being smug from inside his book of life... Kim W5TIT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is there a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought to be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's ridiculous. Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and in their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would take to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be increased? Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much taxation as there is. And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay taxes and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes should be increased during the years of some hereto-undertemined-age-limit based timeframe. YMMV Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit from the public education of the community as a whole. If they did not pay school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school taxes so people can be productive than to support them on welfare. Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't going to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by having kids, then they get the break, too. After all...it'd probably come up a wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income for not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids. I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal income tax deductions). Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the gist). They keep changing the rules on that you know. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yeah, but this is a democracy--we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right, eh?). Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net... "Dave Heil" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: (snip) I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age "everyone's opinion has value" when the topic is something in which someone has no background. (snip) Really? So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or no background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare, social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely, Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age" thing. But, Dwight....Dave's principles (if they could be called that) only apply to others!! Not himself. Hang in there, though...this one could get good! I am getting popcorn before I download messages next time! Kim W5TIT |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Dwight Stewart wrote: "Dave Heil" wrote: I'm not at all uncomfortable with it, Dwight. Len has had his say on countless occasions. He isn't involved with amateur radio though he knows some hams. He has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing. (snip) Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth, international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something to say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational, if someone told me to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant. Has anyone told Len to go away? Not that I can recall. Len, on the other hand, has told people things like this (direct quote from a post of his on Oct 28, 2003:) "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English." (direct quote from Len Anderson - is that the sort of thing that constitutes civil debate? Should we look to Len Anderson as a role model? ) Pot...kettle... I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age "everyone's opinion has value" when the topic is something in which someone has no background. Everyone's opinion has value, Dave. But everyone's opinion does not have the *same* value. I take it that you believe that your opinions on child birth would be meaningful or relevant to a woman who has had several children and that your views on space flights would be found useful to NASA engineers. I don't happen to think they would be. If you find that you have an interest in a topic, I'd expect that you'd want to study it, learn a great deal about it, participate to some degree--in other words, to gain experience in the field under discussion. I'd expect, for example, that someone who wants to participate to any meaningful degree in regulating mining be schooled in mining and that someone who is to particpate in the regulation of amateur radio be more than casually familiar with amateur radio. If an individual has no background in a field and attempted to preach to those actively engaged in that field, I'd not be at all upset if that individual became "darned offended" or confrontational. In fact, I'd find it fairly easy to go on with my life. Particularly when the inexperienced person deals with opposition to his views with name calling, insults, factual errors, ethnic slurs, unsolicited emails containing nudity and other childish behavior. And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek). So? It's like a person who has never tasted ice cream saying that vanilla bean is 'better' than rocky road. There are plenty of people who will agree with that statement - and plenty who will disagree. Well, he'd have to land somewhere on the issue, wouldn't he? He has also arrived at a conclusion about code testing and about a minimum age for radio amateurs which is at odds with the decisions reached by many within the Amateur Radio Service (other people who have a background in the subject). He wants morse testing ended. Based on what special knowledge and background? (snip) I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a declining skill throughout the radio world. Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that you and Len share a common mistaken view. Each of you might have a desire to see it as a truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out. Or to read what the FCC and others have said about Morse code. Done that. Or to think through the issue. Done that too. Or to form an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion. Ditto. And in my opinion, a Morse code test for an amateur radio license is a good idea. For expressing that opinion, Len has unleashed more name calling, insults, slurs and other childish behavior on me than I can remember. Which brings us back to an earlier point made by you: that Len's opinion should carry the same weight as the opinions of radio amateurs. The FCC has said, on a number of occasions, that they'd wait for a concensus among radio amateurs. They did not see fit to include SWL's or those who worked at a military radio station in Japan fifty years ago. That aside, Len has formed an opinion and has, on countless occasions, voiced his opinion. And nobody has stopped him or even tried to. He has flooded FCC with hundreds of pages of commentary even though he has no interest in becoming a radio amateur. (snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with his views, to respect his views or to refrain from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip) Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because you think he should. Please point to one occasion in which I've suggested, requested or demanded that the kindly old gent do so. I cannot recall any, Dave, even after being told, by Len Anderson: "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English." Dave did not respond in kind to Len's remarks, btw. (snip) Len has participated and participated and participated. (snip) More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else. Having the right to speak isn't the same as forcing others to listen, to accept or to give the same weight to an opinion. In fact, Len becomes less and less credible over time. His behavior here reduces his credibility. (snip) He wants to participate and to prevent others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip) Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing anything? Go to Google. Select this newsgroup. Enter "Len Anderson". Be prepared to devote one or more evenings. Be sure to use the various screen names he's used here, ("nocwtest", "lenof21", "averyfine", "averyfineman", "lenover21" (all AOL) because most of his posts don't contain his name. And he doesn't have a callsign. BTW, he denied the use of at least one screen name ("averyfine") here. Then he was angry, insulting and abusive when his mistake was pointed out. (snip) Others are free to participate and may form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas and to counter his ideas. (snip) (snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't care for his windy, pontificating and condescending posts. (snip) Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you that much if those comments agreed more with your own views. Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where I've supported the posts of Bruce? Game, set, match. In the end, the only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing wrong with that, You still don't completely understand so again, I urge that Google search. Len isn't just wrong, he's rude and abrasive. Len claims to just want civil debate on the issue of code testing. His posts do not bear that out. What his posts prove is that what Len really wants is for amateur radio to either go away or become a high power, multiband version of cb. Every post of his bears that out. His interest is not in becoming a radio amateur or helping ham radio. His interest is just the opposite. Just my opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article , Dave Bushong
writes: If you don't understand it, then allow me to help. The term "separation of church and state" does not appear in the US Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence. That's right. It's an interpretation that has developed over the years. The closest thing to it is in the First Amendment, which starts with my favorite five words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Exactly! "Respecting an establishment of religion" means that the state shall neither support nor hinder any particular religion above any other. The most logical way to do that is to separate them. It must be remembered that in colonial times many of the colonies had "establishment of religion" meaning that tax dollars were spent on specific churches, (almost always the Anglican Church, whether you believed in it or not). There was also a *legal requirement* that an authorized clergyman of that *established church* preside at weddings, christenings, funerals and other religious functions. The Founders did not want that sort of thing in their new country. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you that much if those comments agreed more with your own views. I'll take that bet. I happen to agree 100% with LHA that Morse testing is no longer necessary in the amateur radio service. Lots of people agree with that view, a point completely lost on Dee. Even so, I still think he is an over-pompous posturing twit who could benefit from wider bonding straps attached to several additional grounding rods. Hans, remove those jack-boots immediately. Death by electric chair for mere freedom of speech is unAmerican, even if you do agree with him. With all kind wishes for a joyous holiday season, Glen Beck would say, have a happy "Rama-Hanna-QuansMas." |
In article , "Kim"
writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "Kim" wrote in message ... Yep. Why should a person's abilities determine what tax they pay? Is there a deduction right now for a lack of abilities? One thing I think ought to be done away with is elderly folks paying school taxes. It's ridiculous. Not at all. The elderly benefited in their youth from public schools and in their productive years from schools for their children. Do you honestly think that in that limited time span that the percentage of the tax that went to the schools was enough to cover their own education and that of their children? My total annual property taxes are less than it would take to send one child to private school for one year. The public schools make it up by spreading it over a taxpayer's lifetime. Or are you saying that during their working years, a person's property taxes ought to be increased? Welp, whatever it takes, I suppose...I'm just not a supporter of as much taxation as there is. Nobody is - that's the easy part. What services are you willing to give up in order to have less taxation? Less road maintenance and construction? Less police and fire protection? How about cutting the military budget? Education? Social Security? Medicare/Medicaid? Your post reminds me of the scene in "Simple Life" where Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie are at the checkout counter in the supermarket. The total is almost $65 and they only have $50. They bat their eyelashes and ask "Can't we just have it?" (I am not making this up). And, I think Sr. Ctitizens shouldn't have to pay taxes Why not? Many senior citizens have significant incomes, from both employment and investment. Why should they be exempt? They already get an extra persoanl exemption just for being over 65. Tell ya what, Kim - find a senior citizen of "average income" in your area and pay his/her taxes out of your own pocket. and that if that needs to be accommodated, then the school taxes should be increased during the years of some hereto-undertemined-age-limit based timeframe. YMMV So the people who are struggling to raise and educate their kids, pay for their mortgages and their careers need even more of a tax burden? Keep in mind that even if a person never has children, they still benefit from the public education of the community as a whole. Unless they grew up outside the USA, they also benefited from the school system that was in existence when *they* were growing up. Even if they went to private school, a public school system existed for them. If they did not pay school taxes, they would end up paying increased taxes to support an increased number of people on welfare. It's far cheaper to pay school taxes so people can be productive than to support them on welfare. Exactly! Hmmm, hadn't thought about the people not having kids. If they aren't going to add to the burden of society (terrible way to put that...but) by having kids, then they get the break, too. If you think kids are a burden to society, why did you have so many? And remember that educating children is an investment in their productive power in the future. Senior citizens can be "a burden to society" (your term, not mine) in the form of Medicare, Social Security, etc. Yet you would give them tax breaks. After all...it'd probably come up a wash anyway; a trade for the tax-break they'd get on their annual income for not having to pay school tax if they don't have kids. More like not having to pay back for what they got as kids. I like the idea of giving people who choose *NOT* to have kids breaks (on local school taxes), as well as those who choose to have kids (on federal income tax deductions). You forget that the people who don't have kids had public education avaialble to them when they were growing up. Whatever the IRS considers as income...the total taxable income that is reported on a W-2--and that's determined by IRS rules, which ultimately, I suppose are determined by we the People (yeah, right, but you get the gist). They keep changing the rules on that you know. Yeah, but this is a democracy No, it's a constitutional republic. --we have a voice in that (pfffffft, right, eh?). Sure we do. Unless you don't vote. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote: (snip) I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age "everyone's opinion has value" when the topic is something in which someone has no background. (snip) Really? Really. So, if you have no background in senior levels of government or no background in the issues at hand, you don't offer opinions when the government decides to makes policy decisions (taxes, immigration, welfare, social security, foreign affairs, and so on)? I find that highly unlikely, Dave. Code testing is a government decision/policy. And the right of the people to have a say in government decisions and policies is not "new age" thing. Offering an opinion and offering a sound opinion based upon experience can be two quite different things. An opinion offered by someone who has little or no knowledge of that being discussed isn't likely to be worth much. I take it that you believe that your opinions on child birth would be meaningful or relevant to a woman who has had several children and that your views on space flights would be found useful to NASA engineers. Nice dodge, Dave. Thanks. How did you know that I drive a Dodge? But we're not talking about a woman with several children or NASA engineers - this is a discussion about government policy. Why, Dwight! It was you who brought up those very items. How can it be a dodge when I respond to them? Let's now discuss them as government policy. What value would your suggestions on child bearing policy or NASA policy have to those making decisions? And, when it come to that (even abortion and NASA financing), I do expect my views to matter. We all have unfulfilled expectations. After all, my tax dollars are paying for it. Code testing is also a government policy and the radio frequencies involved belong to all Americans. Your tax dollars couldn't provide fuel for a rocket engine test-firing. Have your view. Speak your mind. Don't expect others to greet your views with reverence if you have no background in the matter under discussion. I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a declining skill throughout the radio world. Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that you and Len share a common mistaken view. Each of you might have a desire to see it as a truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out. What mistaken view - that the rest of the radio world must be considered when discussing code testing? If so, you're the one mistaken here. The mistake is in the view that morse use is declining in amateur radio. It matters not that the morse isn't used much by other radio services. The FCC itself has even taken that view in the Report & Order following the last round of restructuring when they said; "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. snip we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." Morse testing is no longer emphasized as evidenced by the reduction in speed to five wpm in testing for HF access. Now go out and prepare yourself in areas where the U.S. needs technical expertise. The FCC went on to later say; "We also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency communication do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of communication, in part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other modes of communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services, such as police, fire, and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold amateur radio licenses or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude, therefore, that telegraphy proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's ability to provide or be prepared to provide emergency communications." Note the references throughout to other radio services and to other, non-Amateur, radio technologies. If we're going to remain a valuable radio service, worthy of the massive frequencies we hold and unlike personal radio services (CB), then our ability to fit with and contribute to those outside Amateur Radio must be a factor in this discussion. Nothing in a five word per minute morse test prevents you from performing public service work to your heart's content via digital or voice modes. This public service work, according to FCC, is something you may or may not choose to do. It is not mandatory. Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you that much if those comments agreed more with your own views. Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where I've supported the posts of Bruce? I also haven't noticed an ongoing effort to criticize and ridicule Bruce's posts as you've done with Len's. To be very honest, Dwight, Bruce is rather a dim bulb and I seldom read his posts, much less respond to them. Is an ongoing effort necessary or am I permitted to choose to which posts I'll respond? Dave K8MN |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... Dwight Stewart wrote: In the end, the only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing wrong with that, You still don't completely understand so again, I urge that Google search. Len isn't just wrong, he's rude and abrasive. Len claims to just want civil debate on the issue of code testing. His posts do not bear that out. but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid). The stupid are those who'd take their ideas about amateur radio or amateur radio licensing from one who is not involved in any way with amateur radio. Never underestimate the stupid. They are legion. Dwight, Dave loves being smug from inside his book of life... Speak of the devil... Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com