Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 5:22 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/23/2004 5:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Changing my words, putting them in quotation marks and saying they're
mine, and then asking me to validate them is a lose/lose proposition.

So is asking you a direct question, it appears.

I cannot validate what I didn't say.

No one expects you to, Brian,

You do.

but I DO expect you to answer the question
"what "major role" do the unlicensed radio services play in "emergency
comms"".

See what I mean?

Go get the proper, accurate quote.

Best of Luck, because at this point you really do believe I said that.
That's what I meant by you repeating a lie over and over again until
even you believe it.

No problem, Brain.

By now you've seen the other thread I opened wherein I SPECIFICALLY quoted
the post you made wherein you DID make the assertion.

It's not about what I believe...

It's about what YOU said.

Now you have to back it up...sorry you don't have the facts with which to
do it. Kinda left yourself hanging out there. I've tried to "throw you a
rope" a couple times, but you keep tying it around your neck...Sorry about
that!

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 5:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"William" wrote ...

And you've trained your volunteers to some standard?

Our "volunteers" are government employees who have this duty assigned to
them as part of their employment, and they are well trained in EM. All of
the angencies that support us have trained their volunteers via either
RACES
or ARES in EM. Of course, that training varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, but there is little we can do to enforce our standards on
them.

I could be wrong, but I think only school teachers and the ARRL's W1AW
Operator are allowed to be paid while using amateur radio.

And for once you'd be right. Congratulations.

I agree that the specialized function it provides could have assisted us --

and we too a long look at that when we were planning. But in reviewing all
COAs, the cost-benefit just wasn't there. Since we are primarily in
contact
with civilian agencies (both state and federal) during emergencies, it made
better sense to utilize the cilvilian HAM radio assets we had in place. We
have plenty of standard military comms available other than MARS HF. The
Amateur radio piece is for redundancy purposes -- not as a primary means of
communication. For example, all of our VHF is military and of course the
SAT and wireless is run on military net/satilites for security purposes.

Fair enough.

It only took you three days.

Steve, K4YZ

For those that might be interested, here is some info from the NCVEC
proposal:

From Part II (Proposal), section 19. (basic framework of the new entry
level license) Paragraph d.

Power limits. Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 mHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 mhz.
This allows enough power for adequate communication under most
circumstances, and matches the nominal power output of the largest
number of commercially available transmitters and transceivers available
as of this writing.

The use of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for
RF safety evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated
threshold values for the frequencies concerned.

(end paragraph d)


Okay, so the NCVEC petition *does* specifically ask for restricted
power on their "communicator" class license.


First, I like Carl's note on the name. Novice is so much better. It is
a time honored name, and although some may think this superfluous, it
looks good in print, and sounds good too. I like having just two easy to
say syllables, instead of 5!

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

- mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

You can troll here or you can submit Comments to the FCC on
RM-10870. Which will be the more effective on the "amateur
community?" :-)

Since the NCVEC petition rejects the morse code test for all
classes, that should be an excellent reason for you to reject it.
[you are PCTA]

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs. It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 2:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/23/2004 5:30 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


No mistruth in what I said. Much mistruth in what you """quoted."""

Once and I would call it an honest mistake.

Again and again?

I call that nuts.

I see......

You didn't lie, but what I quoted, which WAS what you said, IS a
lie...?!?!

You did not quote what I said.

Uh huh.

You've got some real brass cajones to make an assinine statement like
that, Brain!

Make up your mind(s). Either I have none or I have brass ones.

I've asked you the same question over and over in response to YOUR
assertion that "unlicensed services" play a "major role" (YOUR ADJECTIVES)
in
"emergency comms"...WHERE is the proof...?!?!

Yes, you have. Unfortunately one of your adjectives is incorrect.

You can call me "nuts" if you care to. YOUR words are archived in
this
forum and have been quoted verbatim on numerous occassions.

My posts are archived and my words have been quoted verbatim on numerous
occassions.

But unfortunately for you, this is not one of those time.

Best of luck.

Forunately (for me) I don't need luck. I have your own words in Google.

Idiot.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

For those that might be interested, here is some info from the NCVEC
proposal:

From Part II (Proposal), section 19. (basic framework of the new entry
level license) Paragraph d.

Power limits. Limit transmitter output power levels to 100 watts on all
frequencies below 24 mHz, and 50 watts on all frequencies above 24 mhz.
This allows enough power for adequate communication under most
circumstances, and matches the nominal power output of the largest
number of commercially available transmitters and transceivers available
as of this writing.

The use of these suggested power levels also removes the necessity for
RF safety evaluations, as the power levels are below the stated
threshold values for the frequencies concerned.

(end paragraph d)


Okay, so the NCVEC petition *does* specifically ask for restricted
power on their "communicator" class license.

Yep - just like I posted here back on March 18.

First, I like Carl's note on the name. Novice is so much better.

I prefer "Basic". Descriptive, new, fits in the class structure (Basic,
General, Extra) and avoids confusion with the existing Novice class.

It is
a time honored name, and although some may think this superfluous, it
looks good in print, and sounds good too.

Some folks might thing we're trying to recruit nuns.

I like having just two easy to say syllables, instead of 5!

Ba-sic

Second, there is enough bad about this proposal that I pretty much
reject it out of hand.

Yep:

- No homebrewing from scratch
- No rigs with more than 30 volts on the finals
- "Signed stament" instead of regs testing

73 de Jim, N2EY

"William" wrote ...

I could be wrong, but I think only school teachers and the ARRL's W1AW
Operator are allowed to be paid while using amateur radio.
__________________________________________________ _________

I understand your point, but the intent of this section in the FCC rules was
to stop Ham radio from being used for commercial purposes, not to prohibit
emergency communications. Nothing in the rules prohibits use of this
equipment during an emergency by any licensed person. Or for that matter,
any person whatever. As I said, our Ham equipment is being used for
redundancy, so for all practical purposes, it will never be used for routine
communication -- other than testing to ensure it is working properly.

Arnie -









ary communications has a specialized function
for such purposes.


I agree that the specialized function it provides could have assisted
us --
and we too a long look at that when we were planning. But in reviewing
all
COAs, the cost-benefit just wasn't there. Since we are primarily in
contact
with civilian agencies (both state and federal) during emergencies, it
made
better sense to utilize the cilvilian HAM radio assets we had in place.
We
have plenty of standard military comms available other than MARS HF.
The
Amateur radio piece is for redundancy purposes -- not as a primary means
of
communication. For example, all of our VHF is military and of course
the
SAT and wireless is run on military net/satilites for security purposes.

Arnie -

Fair enough.

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Save the vituperation and concentrate on your fabulous emergency
work for Homeland Security.

Tell us all about TCL and the Scotty. Show us where that is applied
so much in other radio communications.

Have you any experience in metrology? (not meteorology) I know
how to measure current, voltage, wattage, resistance, inductance,
capacitance very well and to small tolerances. Spent two years
working in a Calibration Laboratory. Do you wish to make fun of
that and denigrate that with more name-calling like "Great White
Current Chaser?"

Why do you apply labels that were never claimed? I happen to have
been in electronics and radio for a long time, beginning with primary
communications on HF. That's not "legendary." It is just was is.
If you wish to be petulant and abusive because you haven't had
that experience or accumulated as much knowledge, that is your
problem, not mine.

You might try for some mental health counseling, too. It would cure
you of what appears to be a radio inferiority complex.
__________________________________________________ ___________

If I wanted your resume, I would have asked for it, Leonard. It seems any
time that someone challenges your 1950s understanding of electricity, you
break out that tired old resume. (yawn)Who cares what you did in 1950? -- I
sure don't. For your information (since you apparently don't know) the
VTC/Scotty is applied across the military services in a wide variety of
applications. I don't suppose you know what a "Blackberry" is either. Oh,
wait --- I'm sure you do since you are so up to snuff on all the new
technology. Oh that's right, they didn't have that kind of technology in
1950. Well, I guess you'll just have to continue "astounding" us with
ancient electrical theory.

Arnie -

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Save the vituperation and concentrate on your fabulous emergency
work for Homeland Security.

Tell us all about TCL and the Scotty. Show us where that is applied
so much in other radio communications.

Have you any experience in metrology? (not meteorology) I know
how to measure current, voltage, wattage, resistance, inductance,
capacitance very well and to small tolerances. Spent two years
working in a Calibration Laboratory. Do you wish to make fun of
that and denigrate that with more name-calling like "Great White
Current Chaser?"

Why do you apply labels that were never claimed? I happen to have
been in electronics and radio for a long time, beginning with primary
communications on HF. That's not "legendary." It is just was is.
If you wish to be petulant and abusive because you haven't had
that experience or accumulated as much knowledge, that is your
problem, not mine.

You might try for some mental health counseling, too. It would cure
you of what appears to be a radio inferiority complex.
_________________________________________________ ____________

If I wanted your resume, I would have asked for it, Leonard. It seems any
time that someone challenges your 1950s understanding of electricity, you
break out that tired old resume. (yawn)Who cares what you did in 1950? -- I
sure don't.

1960s, Arnie. Actually I don't care what you did before since it
wasn't much to do with electronics (which includes radio).

Oh my, give you a Title and you really become difficult, don't you?

For your information (since you apparently don't know) the
VTC/Scotty is applied across the military services in a wide variety of
applications.

Video Tape Cassette?

Show us the references where we all might learn of these
"new revelations" for a "wide variety of applications" in
Communications. Give us TM numbers, FM numbers, etc.

I don't suppose you know what a "Blackberry" is either.

If you mean the little palmtop unit favored in Europe and the UK,
I do.

Do you know what a "raspberry" is? Here, have one from me
to you.

Oh,
wait --- I'm sure you do since you are so up to snuff on all the new
technology.

A lot more than you ever to admit...or concede.

Oh that's right, they didn't have that kind of technology in
1950.

True enough. The transistor was invented in 1947, took a half
decade or so before they became practical enough to use.

Faster than the vacuum tube invention to practical, useable
tubes, all without some fantastic improvements in metalurgy
and quality control required in solid-state electronics.

Well, I guess you'll just have to continue "astounding" us with
ancient electrical theory.

You would be "astounded" to learn Ohm's Law well enough to
apply a resistor in an electrical circuit. Ohm theorized his Law
of Resistance (often misused as "Ohm's Law") way back in time,
probably before radio was first demonstrated as a communications
medium.

James Clerk Maxwell and Oliver Heaviside formulated enough laws
to later explain radio propagation, also before 1896. How about
Ampere' and Volta? Or even James Watt? Heinrich Hertz?
All "ancient" in your terms of reference. All RELEVANT TODAY.

Prove those fundamental laws don't apply today because you
don't like "ancient" stuff.

Go ahead, call a ham in Iowa on CW. Maybe he can help you.

Then QRT.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 5:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message

It's about what YOU said.

It's about what you believe I said.

Best of Luck.

No luck needed.

I've quoted EXACTLY what you've said.

Denying it makes you a liar.

Well...I guess it just exacerbates an existing problem, when I think about
it...

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs.

Wrong *again*, Len!

The K4SX proposal does *not* propose "morse code testing for all
amateurs".

It proposes no code test for Tech, 5 wpm for General, 13 wpm for
Extra.

It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

And yet you mis-state what it proposes. Unless you don't consider
Techs to be amateurs....

Hah! As expected. All you want to do is argue minutae.

You are wasting my time trying to provoke a word fight.

Pizza off.

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

You might consider a Comment on Petition RM-10869 [by K4SX]
whose primary proposal is to have morse code testing for all
amateurs.

Wrong *again*, Len!

The K4SX proposal does *not* propose "morse code testing for all
amateurs".

It proposes no code test for Tech, 5 wpm for General, 13 wpm for
Extra.

It's only a page and half out of the ECFS.

And yet you mis-state what it proposes. Unless you don't consider
Techs to be amateurs....

Hah! As expected. All you want to do is argue minutae.

It's not minutiae, Len. Your statement indicated that *all* amateurs would have
to pass a code test ubder the K4SX proposal. The reality is far different.

You are wasting my time trying to provoke a word fight.

I'm simply correcting your mistakes. You made a real whopper there, on the K4SX
proposal. Very unprofessional.

Pizza off.

What does that mean? Sounds like you're telling me to shut up. Very unAmerican
of you, Len, telling someone to shut up when they correct your mistakes.

I make a pretty good homemade pizza - sauce *and* crust. No, you can't have
any.

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

1960s, Arnie. Actually I don't care what you did before since it
wasn't much to do with electronics (which includes radio).


My apologies, 1960s electrical theory

Oh my, give you a Title and you really become difficult, don't you?

For your information (since you apparently don't know) the
VTC/Scotty is applied across the military services in a wide variety of
applications.

Video Tape Cassette?

Show us the references where we all might learn of these
"new revelations" for a "wide variety of applications" in
Communications. Give us TM numbers, FM numbers, etc.


Sheesh, Leonard. We don't use much in the way of milspec electronics
anymore. The new theory adopted by the armed services in 1994 relies
heavily on commercially available gear. The day of everything having to be
milspec is long gone. The FAR "requires" that we use commercial gear when
available, or modify it where possible for that use. "A key goal of federal
aquisition reform is to maximize the use of commercial supplies and
services. the FAR requires activities to explore the use of commercial
items to meet their needs." I learned this when I was being certified as a
COR on a 6 million dollar contract. Nearly everything that we aquired for
use in EM was either strictly commercial gear, or adapted from commercial
gear. (as per the rewuirements of the FAR)

The VTC is video teleconferencing. And a very good place to start would be:

http://www.msua.org/docs/mss_in_sept.htm


I don't suppose you know what a "Blackberry" is either.

If you mean the little palmtop unit favored in Europe and the UK,
I do.


WOW, I'm impressed. Leonard has made it out of the 1960s. Very good. BTW,
it's also favored in the Pentagon.

Do you know what a "raspberry" is? Here, have one from me
to you.

For someone that eschews personal attack so often, you seem to be very good
at it.

Arnie -

"Arnie Macy" wrote ...

I understand your point, but the intent of this section in the FCC rules
was
to stop Ham radio from being used for commercial purposes, not to prohibit
emergency communications. Nothing in the rules prohibits use of this
equipment during an emergency by any licensed person. Or for that matter,
any person whatever. As I said, our Ham equipment is being used for
redundancy, so for all practical purposes, it will never be used for
routine
communication -- other than testing to ensure it is working properly.


I just wanted to add that there are always exceptions to the rule. Two that
I can think of, right off hand, would be the Space Shuttle Crew (obviously
government employees) and Federal, State, and local EM directors and staff
(many of whom are Hams). Do you really think either of the aforementioned
would not be allowed to use their privileges because of part 97?

Arnie -

Jim, with each others help, we can avoid feeding the trolls! 8^)


ahem!


- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

I make a pretty good homemade pizza - sauce *and* crust. No, you can't have
any.


Did you know they still make Chef Boyardee Pizza kits Jim?


- mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

I just wanted to add that there are always exceptions to the rule. Two that
I can think of, right off hand, would be the Space Shuttle Crew (obviously
government employees) and Federal, State, and local EM directors and staff
(many of whom are Hams). Do you really think either of the aforementioned
would not be allowed to use their privileges because of part 97?

Government employees engaged in government activities would be
under regulations from the NTIA, not the FCC.

Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. applies to civil (and rrap) U.S. radio
amateurs. Title 47 C.F.R. applies only to civil U.S. radio services.
Have you got the distinction clear yet?
Hello?

Plonk

LHA / WMD

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

1960s, Arnie. Actually I don't care what you did before since it
wasn't much to do with electronics (which includes radio).

My apologies, 1960s electrical theory

You are still WRONG. THEORY doesn't go out of date unless a
new theory is shown and agreed to replace it.

If you ever got into the guts of anything electronic, you would know
that. But, you apparently don't know that because you don't go
into electronics innards.

Labels and cute names and acronyms applied to something do
NOT change theory.


Oh my, give you a Title and you really become difficult, don't you?

For your information (since you apparently don't know) the
VTC/Scotty is applied across the military services in a wide variety of
applications.

Video Tape Cassette?

Show us the references where we all might learn of these
"new revelations" for a "wide variety of applications" in
Communications. Give us TM numbers, FM numbers, etc.

Sheesh, Leonard. We don't use much in the way of milspec electronics
anymore. The new theory adopted by the armed services in 1994 relies
heavily on commercially available gear.

Are you sleeping on your COTS?

The day of everything having to be milspec is long gone.

Bravo Sierra. Those are still here. So are Military Specifications,
abbreviated "Mil Spec" among those of us who still have to use
them.

Do you know what COTS is? Ask around. Don't sleep on the job.

The FAR "requires" that we use commercial gear when
available, or modify it where possible for that use. "A key goal of federal
aquisition reform is to maximize the use of commercial supplies and
services. the FAR requires activities to explore the use of commercial
items to meet their needs." I learned this when I was being certified as a
COR on a 6 million dollar contract.

Wow, the "Six Million Dollar Ham!" "...We have the technology, we
can rebuild Arnie..." Cut to promo, voice-over "Coming to your
favorite channel any day now...!", up exciting music bkgd, take
title...

When are you being awarded a medal for that? Will it be on CSPAN?

Got both CSPAN channels here.

Nearly everything that we aquired for
use in EM was either strictly commercial gear, or adapted from commercial
gear. (as per the rewuirements of the FAR)

The VTC is video teleconferencing.

Old stuff, senior. I was teleconferencing back in 1981, four locations
tied in, two with audio-video, two with only audio. In 1955 I was in a
two-location teleconference between two ACAN stations, the TTY page
opaque-projected on a screen with a voice circuit in parallel for all the
brass (as lowest rank with three-up and one down I was there only for
any operational specifics but was never called up).

Fancy acronyms you've picked up is just a form of name-dropping.
You can try sprinkling them into casual conversation to impress
friends and neighbors, but that doesn't mean you've DONE those
things.


If you mean the little palmtop unit favored in Europe and the UK,
I do.

WOW, I'm impressed. Leonard has made it out of the 1960s. Very good. BTW,
it's also favored in the Pentagon.

Wow, implying you haunt the hallowed hauls, I mean, halls of the
Big 5 Building? How many stars you wearing now?

Do you know what a "raspberry" is? Here, have one from me
to you.

For someone that eschews personal attack so often, you seem to be very good
at it.

Your first post in here after a long absence was nothing but a
direct personal attack on me. You want to attack, then expect
lots of return fire. Not my problem. Got more ammo for that
than you realize.

You got any raspberries? If so, take one. EAT IT.

Plonk

LHA / WMD

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Pizza off.

What does that mean? Sounds like you're telling me to shut up. Very unAmerican
of you, Len, telling someone to shut up when they correct your mistakes.

You got pizza now? EAT IT.

LHA / WMD

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Jim, with each others help, we can avoid feeding the trolls! 8^)

ahem!

Yes, secure this Chat Room for your own private little klatch.

Send a memo to that Schleck guy and close it off so you won't
be disturbed.

Plonk

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

Plonk

Finally! Thank you!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Arnie Macy" wrote ...

I understand your point, but the intent of this section in the FCC rules
was
to stop Ham radio from being used for commercial purposes, not to prohibit
emergency communications. Nothing in the rules prohibits use of this
equipment during an emergency by any licensed person. Or for that matter,
any person whatever. As I said, our Ham equipment is being used for
redundancy, so for all practical purposes, it will never be used for
routine
communication -- other than testing to ensure it is working properly.


I just wanted to add that there are always exceptions to the rule. Two that
I can think of, right off hand, would be the Space Shuttle Crew (obviously
government employees) and Federal, State, and local EM directors and staff
(many of whom are Hams). Do you really think either of the aforementioned
would not be allowed to use their privileges because of part 97?

Arnie -

Arnie, please don't ask me to bless what others do on amateur radio.
I've been heavily criticized for a couple of positions that I've taken
wrt a literal "interpretation" of Part 97.

1. The no monetary rule, and repeater owners charging "dues" for
repeater use.

2. Administering a Farnsworth exam when Part 97 clearly states "Morse
Code."

I don't make the rules, and I don't take it upon myself to interpret
workarounds to what Part 97 states.

I leave that sort of work to the experts on RRAP and the FCC.

bb

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Plonk

Finally! Thank you!

Plink.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/25/2004 6:02 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Well...I guess it just exacerbates an existing problem, when I think
about
it...

Steve, K4YZ

Yep. It exasperates you.

Yes, Brain...You "exasperate" me. Liars do.

And your on-going trolling and misrepresentation of truth still exacerbate
a larger problem.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/25/2004 6:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/24/2004 5:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Fair enough.

It only took you three days.

Steve, K4YZ

Is there now a time limit on replying?

Oh no, Brain...You go right on spinning your spin and dancing your dance.

I'll keep pointing out how silly you look going around in circles.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: (William)
Date: 3/26/2004 9:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Arnie Macy" wrote ...

I understand your point, but the intent of this section in the FCC rules
was
to stop Ham radio from being used for commercial purposes, not to
prohibit
emergency communications. Nothing in the rules prohibits use of this
equipment during an emergency by any licensed person. Or for that
matter,
any person whatever. As I said, our Ham equipment is being used for
redundancy, so for all practical purposes, it will never be used for
routine
communication -- other than testing to ensure it is working properly.


I just wanted to add that there are always exceptions to the rule. Two
that
I can think of, right off hand, would be the Space Shuttle Crew (obviously
government employees) and Federal, State, and local EM directors and staff
(many of whom are Hams). Do you really think either of the aforementioned
would not be allowed to use their privileges because of part 97?

Arnie -

Arnie, please don't ask me to bless what others do on amateur radio.
I've been heavily criticized for a couple of positions that I've taken
wrt a literal "interpretation" of Part 97.

1. The no monetary rule, and repeater owners charging "dues" for
repeater use.

What "interpretation" did YOU make, Brain?

The FCC itself has issued several "clarifications" on these very specific
topoics that you've cited here. What interpretation was left to be made?

2. Administering a Farnsworth exam when Part 97 clearly states "Morse
Code."

There is no such thing as a "Farnsworth" exam, Brain.

I don't make the rules, and I don't take it upon myself to interpret
workarounds to what Part 97 states.

What "workarounds"...?!?! The FCC had already "interpreted" the specific
items you've mentioned in this post, Brain.

Or are you simply voicing your disagreement with thier position on those
specifics?

I leave that sort of work to the experts on RRAP and the FCC.

The "experts" in RRAP are one thing....

The FCC staffers, on the otherhand, ARE the "experts". Even your
"mentor" says so. Do you disagree?

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

I make a pretty good homemade pizza - sauce *and* crust. No, you can't have
any.


Did you know they still make Chef Boyardee Pizza kits Jim?

There are all sorts of products out there which claim to be food, Mike. A few
of them are actually worth eating.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Pizza off.

What does that mean? Sounds like you're telling me to shut up. Very
unAmerican
of you, Len, telling someone to shut up when they correct your mistakes.

You got pizza now?

Not tonight, wasn't very hungry. Had a ham and cheese on home made whole wheat.

EAT IT.

Is that your "professional" way of acknowledging your mistakes, Len?

"Len Over 21" wrote ...

Sheesh, Leonard. We don't use much in the way of milspec electronics
anymore. The new theory adopted by the armed services in 1994 relies
heavily on commercially available gear.

Are you sleeping on your COTS?

The day of everything having to be milspec is long gone.

Bravo Sierra. Those are still here. So are Military Specifications,
abbreviated "Mil Spec" among those of us who still have to use
them.


The Bravo Sierra is yours, Leonard. Since you don't actually work with the
military anymore, you are forced to search things out on the net and hope
they are up to date. OTOH, I work IN the system and understand how it
ACTUALLY is quite well. I quoted from the FAR and you still sit there and
argue with me. What part of FACT don't you get?

Do you know what COTS is? Ask around. Don't sleep on the job.

The FAR "requires" that we use commercial gear when
available, or modify it where possible for that use. "A key goal of
federal
aquisition reform is to maximize the use of commercial supplies and
services. the FAR requires activities to explore the use of commercial
items to meet their needs." I learned this when I was being certified as
a
COR on a 6 million dollar contract.

Wow, the "Six Million Dollar Ham!" "...We have the technology, we
can rebuild Arnie..." Cut to promo, voice-over "Coming to your
favorite channel any day now...!", up exciting music bkgd, take
title...


Say what you want, but I have the EXPERIENCE with the contract and KNOW what
I'm talking about. All you have is an internet search tool, and "Old"
knowledge concerning how the aquisition system works.

When are you being awarded a medal for that? Will it be on CSPAN?

Got both CSPAN channels here.

Nearly everything that we aquired for
use in EM was either strictly commercial gear, or adapted from commercial
gear. (as per the rewuirements of the FAR)

The VTC is video teleconferencing.

Old stuff, senior. I was teleconferencing back in 1981, four locations
tied in, two with audio-video, two with only audio. In 1955 I was in a
two-location teleconference between two ACAN stations, the TTY page
opaque-projected on a screen with a voice circuit in parallel for all
the
brass (as lowest rank with three-up and one down I was there only for
any operational specifics but was never called up).

New stuff, Leonard. Doesn't even remotely resemble what you did in 1955. I
gave you the web site to research. What, did the BIG words stump you?

Fancy acronyms you've picked up is just a form of name-dropping.
You can try sprinkling them into casual conversation to impress
friends and neighbors, but that doesn't mean you've DONE those
things.


If you mean the little palmtop unit favored in Europe and the UK,
I do.

WOW, I'm impressed. Leonard has made it out of the 1960s. Very good.
BTW,
it's also favored in the Pentagon.

Wow, implying you haunt the hallowed hauls, I mean, halls of the
Big 5 Building? How many stars you wearing now?

Do you know what a "raspberry" is? Here, have one from me
to you.

For someone that eschews personal attack so often, you seem to be very
good
at it.

Your first post in here after a long absence was nothing but a
direct personal attack on me. You want to attack, then expect
lots of return fire. Not my problem. Got more ammo for that
than you realize.

You got any raspberries? If so, take one. EAT IT.


You don't have the brain power to have any ammo of consequence, Leonard.

Plonk

LHA / WMD

Subject: Clarification, was: Wrong Again, Len! (Communicator Power)
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 3/27/2004 2:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

EAT IT.

Is that your "professional" way of acknowledging your mistakes, Len?

He's gone "high-tech", Jim...

He's got a puppet to do his dirty work for him these days!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Len Over 21 wrote:


Plonk

Finally! Thank you!


I though you plonked me, kind sir?

- Mike KB3EIA -