Subject: Proposal to rename RRAP
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/6/2004 8:03 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Proposal to rename RRAP

So how do you see your own posts, Hans?


Yah. I kind of miss how he used to call me stupid! ;^)

Some folks have a very unique way of calling you or accusing you of
something, all-the-while being up to thier necks in it themsleves, albeit in a
more, uh..."subtle" way.

And they can call me anything they want as long as they don't call me
later to dinner!

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| I will simply start to "kill-file" the
| offending parties' posts.
|
| 73,
| Carl - wk3c

It works wonders, Carl. Since implementing a disciplined screening
protocol the noise level has dropped about 30dB here. Most of the
messages I see actually pertain to amateur radio policy.

Question of the Day, oh noble sage of the brush: If "disciplined
screening protocol" has been implemented, how do you know
what is "noise" and what is not?

Are you reading by means of morse code?

Ahhhh, the world awaits enlightenment from your words...!

Oink.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Proposal to rename RRAP ... (was - New Candidate for
'Youngest Extra')
From: (William)
Date: 4/4/2004 5:05 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

The many threads that you sponsor are usually titled, "Lend Steps in
own Feces" or some such other lunacy.

There is no selectivity. You bring criticism upon yourself for being
such a jerk.


(1) Who's "Lend"...?!?!

obvious typo

(2) If "Lend", or whoever, wasn't making so many stupid, easily
refuted
misrepresentations about Amateur Radio in general or certain persons in
particular, threads like those you mention wouldn't show up.

You don't know who "Lend" is, but you're certain he's "...making so
many stupid, easily refuted misrepresentations...blah blah
horesecrap."

That makes you a liar. Again.

Suck it up, Steve. No dodges. Admit you were wrong.

(3) As for "selectivity", I believe I've been VERY selective. Unless
you
can prove differently?

Yeh. Now you're going after a guy named, "Lend."

Freudian slip? From mortgage problems? Negative cash flow?

He needs to call "9-1-1" complete with all those dash numbers.

:-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I only need one finger to tap on the key with!

Dee and all the FISTS club members will come on here and tell you that
you don't tap on the key with one finger.

I can see a QST cover award winning layout featuring that
tippy-tapping dancing entertainer Bojangles Robeson! :-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Proposal to rename RRAP ... (was - New Candidate for
'Youngest Extra')
From: (William)
Date: 4/4/2004 5:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Take a little personal responsibility for yourself.

I do, Brian.

I accept responsibility for what I post. That's why when I post
something
that is later proven to be other than what I suggested it was I say "I
stand
corrected" or otherwise acknowledge my error.

There is no evidence of that.

You have yet to do that despite having been proven "wrong" over and
over.

You say "proof," yet you have none.

He "has it in his wallet..."

He "has it right there..."

He "has it in his records..."

All safe and snug right there...except nobody can see any of it.

Must be the post-traumatic thing from his "seven hostile actions?"

:-)

LHA / WMD

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Proposal to rename RRAP
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/5/2004 10:42 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: .net


It works wonders, Carl. Since implementing a disciplined screening
protocol the noise level has dropped about 30dB here. Most of the
messages I see actually pertain to amateur radio policy.


So how do you see your own posts, Hans?


Yah. I kind of miss how he used to call me stupid! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

I miss being his favorite "dump huck."

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| I will simply start to "kill-file" the
| offending parties' posts.
|
| 73,
| Carl - wk3c

It works wonders, Carl. Since implementing a disciplined screening
protocol the noise level has dropped about 30dB here.

Same here, Hans

Most of the
messages I see actually pertain to amateur radio policy.

Speaking of which, it now becomes apparent why your are waiting for
the right time to send your proposal to FCC. The others proposals are
functioning as "warm up acts" to your "main event".

Cool.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"William" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I only need one finger to tap on the key with!

Dee and all the FISTS club members will come on here and tell you that
you don't tap on the key with one finger.

Actually I would have said you don't even need one. In an emergency, just
about any part of the anatomy could be used. This is independent of what
the normal operating practice might be.

Besides that one could easily build a key designed around the principle of
being tapped if desired.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:08:33 -0400, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"William" wrote in message
. com...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I only need one finger to tap on the key with!

Dee and all the FISTS club members will come on here and tell you that
you don't tap on the key with one finger.

Actually I would have said you don't even need one. In an emergency, just
about any part of the anatomy could be used. This is independent of what
the normal operating practice might be.

This was first proposed in a book that I saw at a hamfest a while back
- it was titled "Handsfree Telegraphy - The Dick Bash Method" :)


Besides that one could easily build a key designed around the principle of
being tapped if desired.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

73, Leo

I only need one finger to tap on the key with!

Dee and all the FISTS club members will come on here and tell you that
you don't tap on the key with one finger.

Actually I would have said you don't even need one. In an emergency,
just
about any part of the anatomy could be used. This is independent of what
the normal operating practice might be.

This was first proposed in a book that I saw at a hamfest a while back
- it was titled "Handsfree Telegraphy - The Dick Bash Method" :)

Leo ......

Sort of a new twist on the old "Bananna Boat Swing"

73 Tom KI3R

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:47:20 GMT, "garigue"
wrote:



I only need one finger to tap on the key with!

Dee and all the FISTS club members will come on here and tell you that
you don't tap on the key with one finger.

Actually I would have said you don't even need one. In an emergency,
just
about any part of the anatomy could be used. This is independent of what
the normal operating practice might be.

This was first proposed in a book that I saw at a hamfest a while back
- it was titled "Handsfree Telegraphy - The Dick Bash Method" :)

Leo ......

Sort of a new twist on the old "Bananna Boat Swing"

It sure is!

I suspect that most of the folks that I have subjected to my
5-or-so-WPM code firmly believe that I learned from this book..... :)


73 Tom KI3R

73, Leo

Jim:
I haven't been watching the newsgroups as much myself....... When there is
less than 5% of actual good debate/discussion on a topic (no matter how
risque it is) it is not worth my time to wade through the arguments. I have
had a schedule change which doesn't allow me the flexibility to respond like
I used to. Than and pursuing Fire Officer 1,2,3 and yet another Associates
and Bachelor degrees, my time is severely limited.

I do miss some of the debates/discussions of the past. Let's see what
topics of policy or procedure we can actually discuss, without fighting
about it.....


Ryan
KC8PMX


I believe that a lot of good folks, like Ed Hare, for one ... aren't
around
any more because they got sick of wading through all of the extraneous
crap
...
our "community" here is worse off for the loss of such folks'
contributions
to the *real* discussions, and it's a shame ...

I agree 100%, Carl.

So what should folks like you and I do about it?

In particular, when someone posts information that is flat out wrong,
should we
simply ignore it or challenge it?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Jim:
I haven't been watching the newsgroups as much myself....... When there is
less than 5% of actual good debate/discussion on a topic (no matter how
risque it is) it is not worth my time to wade through the arguments.

Agreed, Ryan. I have found it very effective to either killfile the worst
offenders, or simply skim until the general tone of the post becomes apparent.
Often it's clear from the first line that a post isn;t worth my time.

I have
had a schedule change which doesn't allow me the flexibility to respond like
I used to.

I use AutoAol, which downloads email and newsgroup posts so I can respond at
leisure and save or delete as desired. Doesn't tie up the phone line and
deletions are almost instantaneous.

Than and pursuing Fire Officer 1,2,3 and yet another Associates
and Bachelor degrees, my time is severely limited.

Good luck on your continuing education.

I do miss some of the debates/discussions of the past. Let's see what
topics of policy or procedure we can actually discuss, without fighting
about it.....

How about this one:

"Is it a good idea to have an class of license that does not allow
homebrewing-from-scratch? Canada and the UK have such a class".

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:




Agreed, Ryan. I have found it very effective to either killfile the worst
offenders, or simply skim until the general tone of the post becomes apparent.
Often it's clear from the first line that a post isn;t worth my time.

I find the group much more pleasent and interesting since I started
ignoring posts by lenny the lame, steveie the stupid, and wee willie winkie.

JJ wrote:
N2EY wrote:



Agreed, Ryan. I have found it very effective to either killfile the
worst offenders, or simply skim until the general tone of the post
becomes apparent. Often it's clear from the first line that a post
isn;t worth my time.

I find the group much more pleasent and interesting since I started
ignoring posts by lenny the lame, steveie the stupid, and wee willie
winkie.

You read every one of my posts, kid dyno-mite.

In article , JJ
writes:

N2EY wrote:

Agreed, Ryan. I have found it very effective to either killfile the worst
offenders, or simply skim until the general tone of the post becomes
apparent.
Often it's clear from the first line that a post isn;t worth my time.

I find the group much more pleasent and interesting since I started
ignoring posts by lenny the lame, steveie the stupid, and wee willie winkie.

No call = No ham.

No JJ = No problem.

LHA / WMD

JJ wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:


Agreed, Ryan. I have found it very effective to either killfile the worst
offenders, or simply skim until the general tone of the post becomes apparent.
Often it's clear from the first line that a post isn;t worth my time.

I find the group much more pleasent and interesting since I started
ignoring posts by lenny the lame, steveie the stupid, and wee willie winkie.

JJ, I'm sure it is much more pleasant from your perspective.

You see no evil, hear no evil, but spew as much of it as your mean
little heart desires. It is fairly cowardous of you to malign a ham
by callsign who isn't even posting here, yet you remain anonymous.
Time for you to authenticate.

In article . net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:


I also agree with Carl's concerns and would "HOPE" that enough
of us can just ignore the obvious dumb, stupid bickering about
individuals and personalities and just try to stay on topic.

Cheers to all who use common sense, logic and a few
ounces of forthought before posting :-)

Bill K2UNK

Thanks, Bill!

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

I hereby propose that we rename RRAP to "rec.Steve, Len, and a few others
rag on each other endlessly.alt"
and create a new newsgroup for those of us who really would like to discuss
amateur radio regulatory and policy
issues ...

I'm getting REALLY tired of all of this endless, childish bickering that is
OT and doesn't belong here ...
most days, it's hard to find the stuff that this newsgroup is supposed to
be for because of the volume
of petty, personal bickering that you guys load the newsgroup up with ...

Carl:

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't waste much time reading the
Steve/Lennie sandbox fight! That's strictly between them! I search the
newsgroup using certain keywords, and usually find the postings I'm
interested in reading. I occasionally amuse myself by tossing a few
word grenades toward Lennie and a few select others, but I don't maintain
a long, drawn-out pitched battle with them.

I guess you could say that this newsgroup is what you make of it, and
lately, I don't make very much of it at all.

73 de Larry, K3LT





Or, alternatively, you guys can go rag on each other in
rec.radio.amateur.misc like it used to be (and why
this group was created in the first place if memory serves me correctly - to
provide a place for the serious
regulatory/policy discussion after rec.radio.amateur.misc turned into the
sort of argue_about_off_topic_things
fest that you guys have going on here ...

OK, there ... I've said my peace and now you can tell me to [expletive
deleted for Jim's benefit] off ...

Carl - wk3c

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

Jim:
I haven't been watching the newsgroups as much myself....... When there
is
less than 5% of actual good debate/discussion on a topic (no matter how
risque it is) it is not worth my time to wade through the arguments.

Agreed, Ryan. I have found it very effective to either killfile the worst
offenders, or simply skim until the general tone of the post becomes
apparent.
Often it's clear from the first line that a post isn;t worth my time.

I have
had a schedule change which doesn't allow me the flexibility to respond
like
I used to.

I use AutoAol, which downloads email and newsgroup posts so I can respond
at
leisure and save or delete as desired. Doesn't tie up the phone line and
deletions are almost instantaneous.


I currently use Outlook Express, which seems to work fine for me..... it's
merely scheduling the time to respond I guess.



Than and pursuing Fire Officer 1,2,3 and yet another Associates
and Bachelor degrees, my time is severely limited.

Good luck on your continuing education.

Thank you! I am a big believer in education and training, and hope to see
that rub off onto others.



I do miss some of the debates/discussions of the past. Let's see what
topics of policy or procedure we can actually discuss, without fighting
about it.....

How about this one:

"Is it a good idea to have an class of license that does not allow
homebrewing-from-scratch? Canada and the UK have such a class".

73 de Jim, N2EY

That would be a good one or there are many other topics I think may be
good.....

Ryan KC8PMX

"N2EY" wrote

| How about this one:
|
| "Is it a good idea to have an class of license that does not allow
| homebrewing-from-scratch?"

Here comes Jim with another of his "Appliance Operator Class License"
strawmen. Excuse me while I **** some flaming napalm on it. (ooopppsss,
uh, I musta meant to say "void my bladder for the nursie")

While I can't remember the last "fully homebrew" shack I saw (probably
KG6AIG back in the 60's, and even Luis had *some* commercial test
equipment items lying about), it is extremely uncommon to find a shack
where every item is commercial (or in it's original commercial state.)
Homebrewing and modification to commercial designs is especially alive
and well in the QRP, contesting, satelite, and microwave communities.

The QCAO (Quarter Century Appliance Operators club) and ASSOOBA
(Amalgamated Simple Shacks On Our Belt Association) would love it, but
this idea would put our service on an immediate slide into nothing more
than another consumer orientated Family Radio Service, and the
consequent abolishment of Amateur
Radio.

The *single* unique element which differentiates our service from all
the other radio services is our authority to experiment, build, modify,
and generally tinker around and operate equipment which is not type
accepted. The "technical" aspect of our hobby comprises 3 of the 5
reasons (paragraph 97.1) for the existence of the ARS, and removal of
this requirement for licensing would tear the heart and soul out of the
hobby.

If even a single class of amateurs were to be licensed without any
requirement for electronics knowledge, then it follows that type
acceptance of amateur equipment would be a requirement for sale to those
induhviduals. Used equipment, if sold to "no-Tech" amateurs would need
to be recertified and "mod-free", and repairs could only be accomplished
by FCC-approved service facilities. The cost of new equipment would
rise to commercial-service price levels, because of type-acceptance
issues, and most vendors would probably leave the market.

Code-Free, then Tech-Free .... what next, license free?

73,
de Hans, K0HB ô¿ô
--
SOC # 291 http://www.qsl.net/soc/
FISTS # 7419 http://www.fists.org
NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Subject: Proposal for a no-Tech license class
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/18/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: t


"N2EY" wrote

| How about this one:
|
| "Is it a good idea to have an class of license that does not allow
| homebrewing-from-scratch?"

Here comes Jim with another of his "Appliance Operator Class License"
strawmen. Excuse me while I **** some flaming napalm on it. (ooopppsss,
uh, I musta meant to say "void my bladder for the nursie")

No problem, Hans.

You're the one with the two-face complex, not me. Cuss all you want. It
only sets the stage for "What Can We Believe From Hans"...You express your
angst about MY posting habits, yet you make liberal use of insults, profanity
and snide insults to "express" yourself.

Code-Free, then Tech-Free .... what next, license free?

Hey...YOU joined "NCI"...You helped to get us here. Now you're
complaining...?!?!

NCI # 4304 http://www.nocode.org/

Uh huh...that's what I thought.

Steve, K4YZ

KØHB wrote:

"N2EY" wrote

| How about this one:
|
| "Is it a good idea to have an class of license that does not allow
| homebrewing-from-scratch?"

Here comes Jim with another of his "Appliance Operator Class License"
strawmen. Excuse me while I **** some flaming napalm on it.

Aww man, that makes me cringe just thinking about it! But penicillin
will take care of it in a week or so...


(ooopppsss,
uh, I musta meant to say "void my bladder for the nursie")

While I can't remember the last "fully homebrew" shack I saw (probably
KG6AIG back in the 60's, and even Luis had *some* commercial test
equipment items lying about), it is extremely uncommon to find a shack
where every item is commercial (or in it's original commercial state.)
Homebrewing and modification to commercial designs is especially alive
and well in the QRP, contesting, satelite, and microwave communities.

The QCAO (Quarter Century Appliance Operators club) and ASSOOBA
(Amalgamated Simple Shacks On Our Belt Association) would love it, but
this idea would put our service on an immediate slide into nothing more
than another consumer orientated Family Radio Service, and the
consequent abolishment of Amateur
Radio.

The *single* unique element which differentiates our service from all
the other radio services is our authority to experiment, build, modify,
and generally tinker around and operate equipment which is not type
accepted. The "technical" aspect of our hobby comprises 3 of the 5
reasons (paragraph 97.1) for the existence of the ARS, and removal of
this requirement for licensing would tear the heart and soul out of the
hobby.

If even a single class of amateurs were to be licensed without any
requirement for electronics knowledge, then it follows that type
acceptance of amateur equipment would be a requirement for sale to those
induhviduals. Used equipment, if sold to "no-Tech" amateurs would need
to be recertified and "mod-free", and repairs could only be accomplished
by FCC-approved service facilities. The cost of new equipment would
rise to commercial-service price levels, because of type-acceptance
issues, and most vendors would probably leave the market.

Code-Free, then Tech-Free .... what next, license free?

Aren't you *agreeing* with Jim here? I mean I agree with what you wrote
here, and I agree with Jim that it isn't a good idea to have a "no
homebrew class".

Help a dumb guy out here!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Subject: Proposal for a no-Tech license class
From: "KØHB"
Date: 4/18/2004 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: t


"N2EY" wrote

| How about this one:
|
| "Is it a good idea to have an class of license that does not allow
| homebrewing-from-scratch?"

Here comes Jim with another of his "Appliance Operator Class License"
strawmen. Excuse me while I **** some flaming napalm on it. (ooopppsss,
uh, I musta meant to say "void my bladder for the nursie")


No problem, Hans.

You're the one with the two-face complex, not me. Cuss all you want. It
only sets the stage for "What Can We Believe From Hans"...You express your
angst about MY posting habits, yet you make liberal use of insults, profanity
and snide insults to "express" yourself.


Code-Free, then Tech-Free .... what next, license free?


Hey...YOU joined "NCI"...You helped to get us here. Now you're
complaining...?!?!

Its a continuum. All things are related, and all actions have more
consequences than expected. More's the pity, since something good could
be salvaged from the present situation without the Element 1 test. Now
it is mutating into something that can really damage the Amateur Radio
Service.


- Mike, KB3EIA -

sometimes the worst thing to do to people is to give them what they ask
for.

"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| Help a dumb guy out here!
|

About once every 2 or 3 fortnights, Jim drags out this old bedraggled
strawman.

It is always a question which in one form or another asks "I don't want
to be involved in this techie crap... I just wanna talk on ra-did-eo, so
why don't they have an amateur license for me?"

And just as regularly as Jim drags out this nontribution (no, I didn't
misspell 'contribution') to the future of amateur radio, I am compelled
to try to convince him the idea is a non-starter. But if Jim is nothing
else, he is a persistent cuss, so lurk along with me and before long
you'll see his strawman skulking again here on rrap asking......

"If I don't wanna be an amateur radio techie, why do I
gotta take these stupid tests. It just ain't fair! I'm gonna
go join the QCAO!"

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote

|
| Help a dumb guy out here!
|

About once every 2 or 3 fortnights, Jim drags out this old bedraggled
strawman.

It is always a question which in one form or another asks "I don't want
to be involved in this techie crap... I just wanna talk on ra-did-eo, so
why don't they have an amateur license for me?"

And just as regularly as Jim drags out this nontribution (no, I didn't
misspell 'contribution') to the future of amateur radio, I am compelled
to try to convince him the idea is a non-starter. But if Jim is nothing
else, he is a persistent cuss, so lurk along with me and before long
you'll see his strawman skulking again here on rrap asking......

"If I don't wanna be an amateur radio techie, why do I
gotta take these stupid tests. It just ain't fair! I'm gonna
go join the QCAO!"


Okay, I see what you are talking about.

- Mike KB3EIA -