N2EY wrote:

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


Len is working hard to pull your strings


It isn't a string that Len is pulling. And it's not on Dave.

;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0
;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0

Spunky today, eh Jim!

8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

I don't think it's "inescapable" --- in fact, I think it's incredibly
far-fetched to expect that...

1) ...1% of all of us would be on the air transmitting at any given moment,
and....

That works out to 1 hour and 22 minutes of transmitting per week per ham.

Most hams listen far more than they transmit - but you might be an
exception.

One hour and 22 minutes of transmitting could easily be more than 8
hours of hamming.

Retirees might have that kind of time...

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

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Problem is that Believers are in the minority...but they cannot ever
see that or they are so set that what they think is the absolute
"they know what is best."

But, Len, you think you know what is best for amateur radio and you
aren't even involved. You're pretty much of a minority.

I've not claimed to "know what is best for amateur radio."

That's YOUR claim.

That isn't correct, Leonard.

Dave,

A bit of clarification.

Mr. Anderson has repeatedly expounded his views on a wide range of
topics both here and in voluminous, repetitive comments to the FCC.
But I don't recall him ever claiming that they were "what is best for
amateur radio" or that he even knows "what is best for amateur radio."

You made quite a lengthy plea to the FCC
for the elimination of morse testing and for institution of a minimum
age requirement for amateur licensing.

That is correct.

Are you now telling us that you
didn't mean those things?

I'm pretty sure Mr. Anderson means them. But even if he doesn't, he
has not disavowed them to FCC or to us.

If not, it looks as if you, a
non-participant, knows far more about what is good for amateur radio
than any active, licensed ham.

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.

His hobby isn't radio. His hobby is wasting time. Your time.

"What is best" is what YOU like. Everyone understands that.

No, that's what you're comments to the FCC and your comments here
indicate that you believe: that what is best for amateur radio should be
decided by someone who isn't remotely involved.

Not what is best.....

That's why the staunch Believers insist on morsemanship as the
Ulimate in amateur akill...even after the entirety of the rest of the
radio world gave up on morse codes for communication. "They
KNOW what is best" therefore their way MUST triumph.

You claim to know what is best for amateur radio.

Nope.

Your weak denial rings hollow.

Not at all. Mr. Anderson wants what he wants, not what is best for
amateur radio. See how logically consistent that is?

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?

Wouldn't another way be to constantly bash and deny the
accomplishments, practices and traditions of amateurs and the national
organization for amateur radio?

Wouldn't yet another way be to spread false information and to push
for rules changes that have no purpose except to reduce the number of
newcomers (like age restrictions)?

Think about it, Dave. Remember the behavior profile. One of your
premises is faulty.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(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.

The first group wants a relatively inflexible hobby activity, generally
frozen...(SNIPPED)

You have yet to have this incessantly repeated assertion
validated by any substantial evidence, except for your own mindless
rantings, Your Scumminess.

The second group is accepting of change and they are not afraid of
it (although the constant advancement of all electronics does cause
some irritation). They are more interested in communicating and the
communication arts, are willing to try out new things. They have a
more realistic view of amateur radio as an avocational activity and
don't have it become their lifestyle. They don't mind the "fraternal
order" aspect (some enjoy that) but, at the same time, they are
into trying out new things of many kinds. Their emphasis is on
communicating, not the mode of communication.

You really do hate the "lifestyle" thing, don't you, Lennie?

It just irks the be-jeebers out of you that people do for
free-and-fun that which you only saw as a pecuniary pursuit.

Sucks to be you, Putz.

The first group...(SNIP)

"The first group" of "what", Lennie? From what poll or
demographics survey did you come up with ANY different "groups"...?!?!

A casual purusing of todays QST or CQ magazine compared with,
say, September 1955 will immediately shatter any more of your
assertions of "stuck" in past practices or technologies rants.

It should be clear that there will never be any "consensus" on
code testing as long as such beligerance remains rooted among
the self-styled elite morsemen of U.S. amateur radio.

So what you're saying is that until everyone sees it YOUR way,
there'll be no concensus, huh???

Arrogant Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Len Over 21 wrote:

...written by many of the beligerant...

"belligerent"

...as long as such beligerance remains rooted

"belligerence"

Dave K8MN

N2EY wrote:

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

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Problem is that Believers are in the minority...but they cannot ever
see that or they are so set that what they think is the absolute
"they know what is best."

But, Len, you think you know what is best for amateur radio and you
aren't even involved. You're pretty much of a minority.

I've not claimed to "know what is best for amateur radio."

That's YOUR claim.

That isn't correct, Leonard.

Dave,

A bit of clarification.

Mr. Anderson has repeatedly expounded his views on a wide range of
topics both here and in voluminous, repetitive comments to the FCC.
But I don't recall him ever claiming that they were "what is best for
amateur radio" or that he even knows "what is best for amateur radio."

Jim, I have to disagree. The very fact that Len submitted his ideas on
morse testing and a minimum age for amateur radio licensing to the
Commission demonstrates that he believes that he knows what is best for
amateur radio, in which he has never been a participant.

Leonard has, on occasion, tried to have it both ways. He has told us
that he was going for an "Extra right out of the box" and, in a
turnabout, that he really isn't interested in obtaining an amateur radio
license. He has written of his decades-long interest but he has never
even attempted to obtain even a code free ticket.

Truth is, when I'm chasing S92SS on 160, when I'm checking into the WV
Fone Net or when I'm reading the latest QST, I don't give Leonard a
thought. He wasn't a part of amateur radio's past, isn't part of its
present and, I'm guessing, won't be part of its future.

Dave K8MN

(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.

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.

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

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

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Problem is that Believers are in the minority...but they cannot
ever
see that or they are so set that what they think is the absolute
"they know what is best."

But, Len, you think you know what is best for amateur radio and you
aren't even involved. You're pretty much of a minority.

I've not claimed to "know what is best for amateur radio."

That's YOUR claim.

That isn't correct, Leonard.

Dave,

A bit of clarification.

Mr. Anderson has repeatedly expounded his views on a wide range of
topics both here and in voluminous, repetitive comments to the FCC.
But I don't recall him ever claiming that they were "what is best for
amateur radio" or that he even knows "what is best for amateur radio."

Jim, I have to disagree. The very fact that Len submitted his ideas on
morse testing and a minimum age for amateur radio licensing to the
Commission demonstrates that he believes that he knows what is best for
amateur radio, in which he has never been a participant.

Let me state it another way.

Suppose someone thought that "what was best for amateur radio" was for the
service as we know it to die out. Do you think they'd actually come right out
and say that?

Leonard has, on occasion, tried to have it both ways.

Not "on occasion". Frequently.

He has told us
that he was going for an "Extra right out of the box" and, in a
turnabout, that he really isn't interested in obtaining an amateur radio
license.

Of course! Those darn new question pools.....!

Do you really think anything he writes here is to be taken seriously? Or, for
that matter, anything he writes?

He has written of his decades-long interest but he has never
even attempted to obtain even a code free ticket.

Because radio isn't his interest or his hobby. His hobby is wasting time - your
time.

Truth is, when I'm chasing S92SS on 160, when I'm checking into the WV
Fone Net or when I'm reading the latest QST, I don't give Leonard a
thought.

Nor do I.

Ever read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand? There's a great little scene where
the hero (Howard Roark, a talented architect) meets his nemesis (Ellsworth
Toohey, an architectural critic whose only talent is clever wordsmithing that
denigrates others' accomplishments . Toohey is the kind of fellow who would
refer to others as "Nursie", "Kolonel Klunk" and "Rev. Jim"..). Toohey wants to
destroy Roark, and tries all sorts of tricks to ruin him. Toohey has never been
an architect - he's not involved - but through various tricks he's manuevered
himself into being a commentator on architecture.

They meet when Roark goes to see a building which he (Roark) had designed, but
which Toohey had caused to be modified horribly - at Roark's expense. Toohey
talks a lot and finally asks Roark what he thinks of him.

Roark replies "But I don't think of you"

Sound familiar?

He wasn't a part of amateur radio's past, isn't part of its
present and, I'm guessing, won't be part of its future.

Of course not! That isn't his goal.

Remember the profile? Have you seen any behavior that doesn't match that
profile?

73 de Jim, N2EY

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.

:-)


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.

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.

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

Halleluya. Amen.

LHA

(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.

And I see the same thing.

Both of our opinions are validated by your daily postings.