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 -

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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?

I put interpretation in "" because it is a literal reading of the
rules. Everyone else who has taken me to task calls it an
interpretation.

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

You must post those at once or you are a liar. You have 12 hours to
do so.

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

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

Then no dash-dot exams have been given by the ARRL VEC since 1988.

Which is it? Has the ARRL given dash-dot exams or haven't they?

Huh? Huh?? Huh???

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.

Then it is imperative that you post such documents.

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

Their position is stated in Part 97. Even though you think it may
take many libraries to hold all of the content of Part 97, you might
try embarking on such a reading journey. It might take you the
remainder of your natural life to get through it all, but it is worth
the effort.

Hey, I managed to get through it, and so can you.

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

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

Correct. They are one thing, one mind, lock step.

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

SORRY to BUST YOUR RANT!!!

That is why I deferred to their document when Arnie asked me to
provide a workaround to the monetary rule. I cannot do so.

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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

You keep making yourself look silly, and nuts.