D. Stussy wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Mike Coslo wrote:

Radionews wrote:

Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1390 * April 2, 2004
...

I wonder why they didn't just use their cell phone? ;^)


Idiot. With responders like you, Pasternak will continue to spam this group
with his drivel. Then again, this whole group is a collection of trolls.

[In case you weren't aware, the guidelines for the rec.radio hierarchy FORBID
his weekly posting on "rec.radio.amateur.policy". The posts are permitted on
"rec.radio.info" (because a specific request to do so was granted) and on
"rec.radio.amateur.misc" (because it is not forbidden there), yet the jerk
continues to post here, and it's assholes like you who respond to him (in any
way) that will further encourage him to post here. Why does he need to post
this here anyway - it's all up on his website?


1. If he's doing something wrong, report it to his ISP abuse.

2. Think you are going to convert me to your cause by calling me names?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Amateur_Radio_Newsline=28tm=29_Repo?=
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 4/5/2004 4:03 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: g

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Mike Coslo wrote:
Radionews wrote:
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1390 =AD April 2, 2004
...

=09I wonder why they didn't just use their cell phone? ;^)

Idiot. With responders like you, Pasternak will continue to spam this grou=
p
with his drivel. Then again, this whole group is a collection of trolls.

Hey Dieter. Seems to me that you're a regular, if not frequent, poster
here too.

Do you include yourself in that, or are you "above" off topic
conversations of ANY nature?

73

Steve, K4YZ

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Amateur_Radio_Newsline=28tm=29_Repo?=
From: "D. Stussy"
Date: 4/5/2004 4:03 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: g

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Mike Coslo wrote:
Radionews wrote:
Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1390 =AD April 2, 2004
...

=09I wonder why they didn't just use their cell phone? ;^)

Idiot. With responders like you, Pasternak will continue to spam this grou=
p
with his drivel. Then again, this whole group is a collection of trolls.

Hey Dieter. Seems to me that you're a regular, if not frequent, poster
here too.

Do you include yourself in that, or are you "above" off topic
conversations of ANY nature?

You will find that I never start an "off-topic" thread and that most of my posts
do seem to relate back to the original topic, even if the post I'm responding to
is off-topic. I certainly am not a regular in that I don't post 10 times/day
like some of the other characters do - I'm only here once a week at most.

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Mike Coslo wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Mike Coslo wrote:

Radionews wrote:

Amateur Radio Newsline(tm) Report 1390 =AD April 2, 2004
...

=09I wonder why they didn't just use their cell phone? ;^)


Idiot. With responders like you, Pasternak will continue to spam this =
group
with his drivel. Then again, this whole group is a collection of troll=
s.

[In case you weren't aware, the guidelines for the rec.radio hierarchy =
FORBID
his weekly posting on "rec.radio.amateur.policy". The posts are permit=
ted on
"rec.radio.info" (because a specific request to do so was granted) and =
on
"rec.radio.amateur.misc" (because it is not forbidden there), yet the j=
erk
continues to post here, and it's assholes like you who respond to him (=
in any
way) that will further encourage him to post here. Why does he need to=
post
this here anyway - it's all up on his website?


=091. If he's doing something wrong, report it to his ISP abuse.

I have been, every week for the past 18 months. His ISP is AOL and they do=
n't
do a damn thing about spammers. I have even quoted the part of the newsgro=
up's
guidelines he violates.

=092. Think you are going to convert me to your cause by calling me names=
?

I doubt it. It hasn't phased anyone else who dares participate here on a d=
aily
basis. Now, the fact that you considered yourself inclusive of "the whole
group" speaks for itself.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...



I wonder why they didn't just use their cell phone? ;^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

Maybe he wasn't in America where there is good infrastructure.

JJ wrote in message ...


And another bunch of hams showing off by using their ham radios and
communication skills to help someone in distress, and someone even had
the audacity to report it. Lennyboy must really be ashamed of these hams.

The only shame is the ham who refuses to give his call.

JJ wrote in message ...
Radionews wrote:



RESCUE RADIO: VK HAM BRINGS BOAT TO PORT SAFELY - BY RADIO


A pair of Australian and American hams are credited with being a
lifeline to a storm damaged boat with six people on board. The
Australian was at his home QTHand the American was at sea on the
stricken ship. Q-News Robert Broomhead, VK3KRB, in Waverly,
Australia picks up the story from he


And another bunch of hams showing off by using their ham radios and
communication skills to help someone in distress, and someone even had
the audacity to report it. Lennyboy must really be ashamed of these hams.

http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...ST&f=3&t=59811

William wrote:
JJ wrote in message ...

Radionews wrote:



RESCUE RADIO: VK HAM BRINGS BOAT TO PORT SAFELY - BY RADIO


A pair of Australian and American hams are credited with being a
lifeline to a storm damaged boat with six people on board. The
Australian was at his home QTHand the American was at sea on the
stricken ship. Q-News Robert Broomhead, VK3KRB, in Waverly,
Australia picks up the story from he


And another bunch of hams showing off by using their ham radios and
communication skills to help someone in distress, and someone even had
the audacity to report it. Lennyboy must really be ashamed of these hams.


http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...ST&f=3&t=59811

An interesting situation. I was reading that last night.


my thoughts a

1. The ham op did well despite his embarrassment in having participated
in a false alarm.

2. Law enforcement and emergency people would have him react the same
way if the same situation cropped up again. His job was as a
communicator. It wasn't (or shouldn't be) his decision to report the
problem or not. Someone calls for help, then it gets reported. If
someone gave a false report to him then it becomes law enforcement's job
to take care of it at that point.

I say he did a good job.


Did you read the part in the thread about the guy that *couldn't* get a
ham to turn in an emergency call? Chilling.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
William wrote:
JJ wrote in message ...

Radionews wrote:



RESCUE RADIO: VK HAM BRINGS BOAT TO PORT SAFELY - BY RADIO


A pair of Australian and American hams are credited with being a
lifeline to a storm damaged boat with six people on board. The
Australian was at his home QTHand the American was at sea on the
stricken ship. Q-News Robert Broomhead, VK3KRB, in Waverly,
Australia picks up the story from he


And another bunch of hams showing off by using their ham radios and
communication skills to help someone in distress, and someone even had
the audacity to report it. Lennyboy must really be ashamed of these hams.


http://www.qrz.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard...ST&f=3&t=59811

An interesting situation. I was reading that last night.


my thoughts a

1. The ham op did well despite his embarrassment in having participated
in a false alarm.

2. Law enforcement and emergency people would have him react the same
way if the same situation cropped up again. His job was as a
communicator. It wasn't (or shouldn't be) his decision to report the
problem or not. Someone calls for help, then it gets reported. If
someone gave a false report to him then it becomes law enforcement's job
to take care of it at that point.

I say he did a good job.


Did you read the part in the thread about the guy that *couldn't* get a
ham to turn in an emergency call? Chilling.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I like the several replies that went something like ~~~ "with the
proliferation of cell phones..."