Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/20/03 2:21 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

Of this minority, the ARRL polled their little group in the mid-late
nineties, and came away with "no clear mandate." An even spilt within
the ranks of the true believers? So even at the time, something was
wearing away at the propaganda machine. I wonder what's happened
since then?

As I see it the schism is from the general attitude of long-timers
evolving into two main groupings: Those that mightily resist change
and those who can accept change.

You WOULD see a "schism", Lennie, but then since you are NOT a
part of Amateur Radio and do NOT have any experience in matters
pertaining TO Amateur Radio, yours is an uninformed opinion.

I have experience in matters pertaining to amateur radio.

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !

OH YES, Brain! We have SEEN your "experience" in Amateur Radio! No
logs...Unsubstantiated claims...Inability to name even ONE person who may have
"worked" you from Somalia and have a T5/N0IMD card that could "validate" your
claims...?!?!

Yes Sir, I am soooooooooooooooo (un)impressed!

And I see the same thing.

No doubt you see a LOT of things, Brain!

Both of our opinions are validated by your daily postings.

Both of your opinions have the "support" of your years of failed rantings
in this forum, unsubstantiated claims, and YOUR acknowledged support and
admiration of a "man" who is a documented pathological liar!

So please....Tell me about your valued opinion again, Brain...?!?!

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

Brian wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

The ONLY way to have incentive is to get a ham license.

The radio god has spoken.

Halleluja and Amen.

LHA

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

Dave K8MN

Of course I'm right! ;^)

Len, like any Americans who've shown an interest in the ARS, have a
disincentive. It is the Morse requirement for HF access.

Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/20/03 9:05 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

Dave K8MN

Of course I'm right! ;^)

Len, like any Americans who've shown an interest in the ARS, have a
disincentive. It is the Morse requirement for HF access.

Lennie's "disincentive" had/has NOTHING to do with Morse Code, Brain...It
has to do with having absolutely NO understanding of what Amateur Radio is all
about, what it's purpose and capabilities are, and what it means to be a "part"
of something.

He's ALL about being an antagonist.

The "disincentive" was not an "ARS" or "ARRL" issue...it was a matter of
the United States complying with treaties it was signatory to.

Lennie is a loser. He will never be more than a sideline observer to
Amateur Radio, and he was hardly more than that in his "professional" career.
This I have from people who knew him personally. His "contributions" to
certain Naval projects were more significant when he stayed out of other
people's way and let the REAL engineers do their job unimpeded.

Lennie alledges a "professional" career spanning four decades...Well, An
Amateur Radio license granting access to over 97% of all allocations WITHOUT
Morse Code was available for a fourth of that. So where was Lennie?

Lennie makes issue about how Amateurs allegedly don't "move on" in
technology. Current technology places almost all advances far above the HF
spectrum. The Technician Class license has granted those privileges since
1991. So where was Lennie?

One can only surmise that this "argument" about Morse for HF access is
simply yet another LennieRant for "I don't wanna do it", and nothing else. If
he were a TRUE leader in electrical engineering and technology, he'd be out in
front showing "us" how it's done...But WHERE is he...?!?!

On the sidelines...No plan...No experience...No interest in contibuting to
the program.

Just an observer...never a player.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/20/03 9:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

OH YES, Brain! We have SEEN your "experience" in Amateur Radio!

No you haven't - we've never had a QSO. I've had several QSO's with
Dave Heil.

It's not about having a QSO, BRAIN! It's about what you have claimed and
what you have done to substantiate those claims!.

No
logs...Unsubstantiated claims...Inability to name even ONE person who may
have
"worked" you from Somalia and have a T5/N0IMD card that could "validate"
your
claims...?!?!

I've operated from various loactions under various callsigns.

So have I, Brain. And I can substantiate them. I even have some of my
/JR6 logs left from 22 YEARS ago!

You haven't worked me under my Novice call, and you haven't worked me
with my Korean call. You never worked me from /KH2, you've never even
worked me from Nebraska, Illinois, Florida, nor Ohio. Why is it no
suprise that you didn't work me from Somalia?

It's no surprise that YOU have yet to provide even ONE record of that
activity, yet here you are AGAIN trying to defend it with the same "tactics"
taht have made you look so idiotic.

It's NOT about what I have done or NOT done, Brain...I am NOT the one
making the assertions!

And, NO, I won't forge a card for you.

Please don't. Lying is your mentor's bag.

And you may ask KC8MK how I handle QSL cards that aren't issued to me...
I got a bunch of his 160 meter QSL cards from the Buro by mistake (I used to be
KC8M...some DX mistook his second letter as "go ahead") Shipped some of his
cards to him. Destroyed those that he didn't want.

I don't need to bogus up anything...But thanks for expressing the idea
that you were thinking about it...I think THAT says more than anything!

Yes Sir, I am soooooooooooooooo (un)impressed!

You are singularly indistinctive.

Doesn't matter what I am, Brain...it's what YOU are NOT. "Factual"
and "truthful" come to mind at first...

And I see the same thing.

No doubt you see a LOT of things, Brain!

And I hear things, too. I hear the voices in your head. They have
that maniacal laugh, too.

They should...YOU make it soooooooo easy to laugh! You are quickly
becoming the Milton Berle of the NG! Thanks!

Both of our opinions are validated by your daily postings.

Both of your opinions have the "support" of your years of failed
rantings
in this forum, unsubstantiated claims, and YOUR acknowledged support and
admiration of a "man" who is a documented pathological liar!

So please....Tell me about your valued opinion again, Brain...?!?!

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! !

You're the ranter and it's not working. You might want to try a new
approach, this one came up a bit short.

No, Brain, it didn't...I imagine it hit yuo right between the
eyes...Again.

Why don't you wise up and realise that you've made stupid assertions you
can't/won't validate, never WILL be able to validate, and just stop making a
fool of yourself...?!?!

Or is THAT the objective?

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...


Ah, there's where your logic fails, Dave. You're working on a false
premise.

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

What is "inventive licensing"?

Suppose someone really hated amateur radio and wanted to damage it as
much as possible without being obvious about what they were doing.

Wouldn't one way to do that be to try to maximize internal bickering
and arguing among hams, thereby diverting them from useful discussion?

One could propose to the FCC a licensing structure with multiple
levels, multiple exams, and multiple privelege slices and power
levels.

That was FCC's own idea. Goes back to at least 1936. Complain to FCC.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
e.com...

Ah, there's where your logic fails, Dave. You're working on a false
premise.

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

:-)

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Suppose someone really hated amateur radio and wanted to damage it as
much as possible without being obvious about what they were doing.

Wouldn't one way to do that be to try to maximize internal bickering
and arguing among hams, thereby diverting them from useful discussion?

One could propose to the FCC a licensing structure with multiple
levels, multiple exams, and multiple privelege slices and power
levels.

Another way is to have everyone believe in the same thing...as is
published every month in a certain membership magazine.

What magazine is that, Ellsworth...err, Leonard?

As a single "authoritative voice," a New England membership
group DEFINES everything in amateurism for all amateurs. No
bickering, no dissension, no arguing. All do as They say.
No problems. Everyone happy in Nirvana.

Which group and which magazine? ham radio and 73 magazines were New England
based, but they're both defunct.

Your description of a membership organization that does not tolerate dissent
sounds exactly like NoCode International. Right in their bylaws it says that
any member who publicly disagrees with their stated position on code testing is
subject to expulsion. They also require that all members agree to their prime
directive goal as a condition of membership. No one who disagrees with their
core policy can be a member of NoCode International.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just stating facts.

All who oppose the above shall be villified, burned at the stake,
and denounced as not Believing in the True Way.

Now, Ells err, Len, why are you bashing NCI? All they'll do to someone who
disagrees is rescind their membership. Since they state all that in their
bylaws (which even I, a nonmember, have seen) what's your problem?

To my knowledge, such membership withdrawal has never been necessary. A very
few members have asked to be removed from the membership list because they no
longer agreed. Otherwise, the loyalty oath membership conditions have served
NCI quite well, eliminating up front anyone who disagrees.