Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #701   Report Post  
Old January 10th 04, 09:35 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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


Nope.

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


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

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


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


You have 40 KW RF output capability? :-)

How about 600 KW RF output?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

we might have known.

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

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

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

It's a gray area...


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


No "foisting," pink one.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Pinkies do that. Don't think pink.

LHA
  #702   Report Post  
Old January 10th 04, 09:35 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote:

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

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


Okay, Dee, show me where I said Amateurs "must" do public service. Part

97
offers that as one purpose of the ARS and gives us the mandate

(authority)
to do so (ARES and so on), but it certainly isn't required.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


your words we

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

found
in part 97."

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

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

what
you meant to say.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Here you go, Dee.

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

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

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


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

Old news.

LHA
  #703   Report Post  
Old January 10th 04, 09:35 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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


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

LHA
  #704   Report Post  
Old January 10th 04, 09:35 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"Bert Craig" wrote

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sounds eminently reasonable to me...


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


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

The regulars in here already have done that...

LHA
  #705   Report Post  
Old January 10th 04, 09:45 PM
KØHB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"N2EY" wrote


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


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

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

Happy Y3K,

de Hans, K0HB






  #706   Report Post  
Old January 10th 04, 10:24 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"N2EY" wrote


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


A lot.

Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB


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


De nada...

:-)

WMD
  #707   Report Post  
Old January 11th 04, 01:04 AM
WA3MOJ
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t, Dwight Stewart
says...


"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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



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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

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

  #708   Report Post  
Old January 11th 04, 02:48 AM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


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


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

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


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

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


Happy Y3K,


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

Just a thought.

WMD
  #709   Report Post  
Old January 11th 04, 11:23 AM
Arf! Arf!
 
Posts: n/a
Default

K0HB, the perfect argument against code.

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote



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



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

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

Happy Y3K,

de Hans, K0HB





  #710   Report Post  
Old January 11th 04, 11:24 AM
JEP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

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

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:


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

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


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


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

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

YOU are the outsider here.


This newsgroup isn't "amateur radio."

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

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

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




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

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


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


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

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

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

Go for it, EX purchasing agent...

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


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

In other words, in your MIND, sweetums.

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

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



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

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


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


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

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

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

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

(Squirm a bit harder, Scummy...)


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

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

Call it "transistorized 1930s," Stebe.


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


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

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

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

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


No, they don't.

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


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

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

Go get some therapy.

LHA

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access Lloyd Mitchell Antenna 43 October 26th 04 01:37 AM
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions Louis C. LeVine Dx 36 September 9th 04 09:30 AM
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC John Walton Homebrew 0 July 2nd 04 12:26 PM
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota Chuck Gysi N2DUP General 0 May 9th 04 09:18 PM
ARRL FUD about BPL Bill General 27 August 22nd 03 12:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017