|
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William) Date: 5/14/2004 7:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Seems really difficult for you to back up your, " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," nonsense statement with anything substantive from either Part 97 or any DoD Regulation. What's needed, Brain? No Amateur Radio = No MARS Dismissed. Never by a punk like you, Mr. Burke. You haven't got it in you. Steve, K4YZ Always calling people names. There's something wrong with you. Well...You're a punk. I see no reason to pull my punches. YOU insist on calling me "nuts"...been doing it for several months, yet you have no degree or training with which to validate such a proclamation. Your only "proof" is that I constantly dog you about stupid assertions and claims YOU make. That "Lennie is my hero" line REALLY put you out front! So...we're even. If you'd stop lying and hiding behind double-speak and dodging direct questions put to you, I'd stop calling you a liar and coward, but the likelyhood of THAT happening is, in my estimation, pretty poor. And there we are... Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William) Date: 5/14/2004 7:47 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... snip Steve, quit you're silly charade. Just admit that you were wrong. All of this sand kicking just makes you look bad - like a cat trying to cover up something stinky. The "something stinky" is in Ohio...Shall I come bury it for you? I perceive a threat in that question. snip Steve, K4YZ You keep making references to wanting to come to Ohio to do something to me or for me. I suggest that you stay away. Sorry..I was born an raised in Ohio. Never can tell when I might pass through. Keep an ear peeled to your local repeater for me signing "mobile eight". As for th threat, you claimed somehting was stinky. I offered to bury it for you. Sorry that you saw a threat in that. YOU asserted I was a "cat trying to cover up something stinky". I don't need to tell you how I "percieved" that... And as for coming to Ohio to "do something to (you)"...Don't flatter yourself. You're not worth the gas...especially THESE days... Steve, K4YZ |
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio". From: (William) Date: 5/14/2004 7:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Seems really difficult for you to back up your, " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," nonsense statement with anything substantive from either Part 97 or any DoD Regulation. What's needed, Brain? A citation from an applicable regulation. No Amateur Radio = No MARS " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," is simply untrue. Dismissed. Never by a punk like you, Mr. Burke. You haven't got it in you. Steve, K4YZ Always calling people names. There's something wrong with you. Well...You're a punk. I see no reason to pull my punches. YOU insist on calling me "nuts"...been doing it for several months, yet you have no degree or training with which to validate such a proclamation. Your only "proof" is that I constantly dog you about stupid assertions and claims YOU make. That's another reason why I think you're nuts. You are the one who made a stupid assertion (Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio"). I'm the one dogging you. So, please substantiate your silly, stupid statement with a citation from an applicable regulation. That "Lennie is my hero" line REALLY put you out front! Yep, he pulls out all the stops when he rubs your nose in your silly, stupid statments. I don't. I try to remain civil. Apparently, you don't respect civility. So...we're even. Maybe before God, or before the Law. But in very, very few other ways. If you'd stop lying and hiding behind double-speak and dodging direct questions put to you, I'd stop calling you a liar and coward, but the likelyhood of THAT happening is, in my estimation, pretty poor. And there we are... Steve, K4YZ Here we are. You've lost all credibility. No one believes, " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," and you can't seem to find a citation to prove it's true. Best of Luck. |
In article ,
(William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message .com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. In fact I started a new thread with that post. It was a description of radio station WAR at a specific point in time. I didn't write it, I just quoted it - exactly as written. Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio. " I have no opinion on the matter. btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. He clammed up and won't respond. I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because you didn't understand it. His silence is truly golden Time is money. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. |
(William) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio". From: (William) Date: 5/14/2004 7:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Seems really difficult for you to back up your, " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," nonsense statement with anything substantive from either Part 97 or any DoD Regulation. What's needed, Brain? A citation from an applicable regulation. Brain, do you need to have a piece of paper in hand that says "If you are abruptly slapped with the open hand across the face, it will be markendly and acutely painful" in order to know that it's true? No Amateur Radio = No MARS. No Amateur Radio = No MARS " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," is simply untrue. No, it's not. That you are inadequately knowledgeable of MARS programs and policies to know otherwise is also true. Dismissed. Never by a punk like you, Mr. Burke. You haven't got it in you. Steve, K4YZ Always calling people names. There's something wrong with you. Well...You're a punk. I see no reason to pull my punches. YOU insist on calling me "nuts"...been doing it for several months, yet you have no degree or training with which to validate such a proclamation. Your only "proof" is that I constantly dog you about stupid assertions and claims YOU make. That's another reason why I think you're nuts. You are the one who made a stupid assertion (Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio"). I'm the one dogging you. It's not stupid. Perhaps poorly worded, at least to a person such as yourself who cannot understand the interdependence of the two. And you're still a punk. So, please substantiate your silly, stupid statement with a citation from an applicable regulation. Still need that peice of paper to know a slap in the facr hurts, Brain? That "Lennie is my hero" line REALLY put you out front! Yep, he pulls out all the stops when he rubs your nose in your silly, stupid statments. I don't. I try to remain civil. Apparently, you don't respect civility. Sure I do. And right up to the part where you started in on your usual crapola in THIS thread, I had made it a point of very carefully typing B r i a n. As for Lennie...the only "stops" he usually winds up pulling out are the ones holding him and the rest of his fecally contaminated verbal effluent back. That he does it to himself (and now takes you along with him) is evident. That he was once a person of accomplishment and responsibility now fallen on his lack of character and honesty is pitiful. That you voluntarilly get in step behind him is laughable at best. So...we're even. Maybe before God, or before the Law. But in very, very few other ways. You're right, but not for the reason I am sure YOU think... SO FAR we are still waiting for you to back up your assertions that "unlicensed radio services" play a "major role" in disaster communications. We're also waiting for you to back up your Somalia claims. You continue to argue that "It's true because I say it's true", yet there should be a paper trail wide enough to roller skate on to show where your assertions are true. And we still have your "Lennie is my hero" thing...Whew.... So you're right...it's not "even"... If you'd stop lying and hiding behind double-speak and dodging direct questions put to you, I'd stop calling you a liar and coward, but the likelyhood of THAT happening is, in my estimation, pretty poor. And there we are... Steve, K4YZ Here we are. You've lost all credibility. No one believes, " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," and you can't seem to find a citation to prove it's true. No one except everyone who knows enough about the current affairs of the various MARS programs and thier dependence upon the Amateur Radio service to make it work and sustain it. Too bad YOU don't...Cudda saved yourself a lot of effort and humiliation. Best of Luck. None needed...You make it too easy...Again. Steve, K4YZ |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio". From: (William) Date: 5/14/2004 7:38 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Seems really difficult for you to back up your, " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," nonsense statement with anything substantive from either Part 97 or any DoD Regulation. What's needed, Brain? A citation from an applicable regulation. Brain, do you need to have a piece of paper in hand that says "If you are abruptly slapped with the open hand across the face, it will be markendly and acutely painful" in order to know that it's true? Please, not another threat to injure me. No Amateur Radio = No MARS. No Amateur Radio = No MARS " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," is simply untrue. No, it's not. That you are inadequately knowledgeable of MARS programs and policies to know otherwise is also true. Now you lie. Dismissed. Never by a punk like you, Mr. Burke. You haven't got it in you. Steve, K4YZ Always calling people names. There's something wrong with you. Well...You're a punk. I see no reason to pull my punches. YOU insist on calling me "nuts"...been doing it for several months, yet you have no degree or training with which to validate such a proclamation. Your only "proof" is that I constantly dog you about stupid assertions and claims YOU make. That's another reason why I think you're nuts. You are the one who made a stupid assertion (Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio"). I'm the one dogging you. It's not stupid. Perhaps poorly worded, at least to a person such as yourself who cannot understand the interdependence of the two. Poorly worded? Naw, Wrongly Worded! It's just wrong. And you're still a punk. Not really. So, please substantiate your silly, stupid statement with a citation from an applicable regulation. Still need that peice of paper to know a slap in the facr hurts, Brain? Nope. I need a cite from any applicable regulation to convince me that your statement is true. Got one? That "Lennie is my hero" line REALLY put you out front! Yep, he pulls out all the stops when he rubs your nose in your silly, stupid statments. I don't. I try to remain civil. Apparently, you don't respect civility. Sure I do. No, you don't. And right up to the part where you started in on your usual crapola in THIS thread, I had made it a point of very carefully typing B r i a n. That was very sweet of you, but doesn't change just how wrong your MARS=ARS claim was. As for Lennie...the only "stops" he usually winds up pulling out are the ones holding him and the rest of his fecally contaminated verbal effluent back. Geee, it just doesn't look that way from my perspective. That he does it to himself (and now takes you along with him) is evident. That he was once a person of accomplishment and responsibility now fallen on his lack of character and honesty is pitiful. Odd, but I haven't seen much of Len lately. How nice of him to be taking me along with him. That you voluntarilly get in step behind him is laughable at best. Its called, "The High Road." So...we're even. Maybe before God, or before the Law. But in very, very few other ways. You're right, but not for the reason I am sure YOU think... SO FAR we are still waiting for you to back up your assertions that "unlicensed radio services" play a "major role" in disaster communications. So? I hope you won't mind if I keep you waiting? We're also waiting for you to back up your Somalia claims. You continue to argue that "It's true because I say it's true", yet there should be a paper trail wide enough to roller skate on to show where your assertions are true. But I never needed your blessing. You'll just have to roller skate elsewhere. And we still have your "Lennie is my hero" thing...Whew.... So you're right...it's not "even"... Not even a little bit. If you'd stop lying and hiding behind double-speak and dodging direct questions put to you, I'd stop calling you a liar and coward, but the likelyhood of THAT happening is, in my estimation, pretty poor. And there we are... Steve, K4YZ Here we are. You've lost all credibility. No one believes, " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". ," and you can't seem to find a citation to prove it's true. No one except everyone who knows enough about the current affairs of the various MARS programs and thier dependence upon the Amateur Radio service to make it work and sustain it. If its so obvious to "everyone," then anyone should be able to post the citation. But they aren't. Too bad YOU don't...Cudda saved yourself a lot of effort and humiliation. I haven't felt the slightest humiliation. How are you coming with that citation? How are all of you backers coming with any citation at all? Best of Luck. None needed...You make it too easy...Again. Easy? I see no citation. Best of Luck. |
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. So a Morse Exam can only be a disincentive if it's in the future, even though many, many, many amateurs have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and all other opinions are wrong? When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. It would have to be presented as a quote to do that. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. I think we put out about equal time, despite your claim that you don't read my posts. In fact I started a new thread with that post. It was a description of radio station WAR at a specific point in time. I didn't write it, I just quoted it - exactly as written. Cool. Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio. " I have no opinion on the matter. You're a funny guy. btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. The article didn't say anything about -amateur- transmissions being allowed. There were also community civil defense type radio transmissions authorized, and amateurs were often the operators of such community stations, but not in an amateur capacity. He clammed up and won't respond. I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because you didn't understand it. His silence is truly golden Time is money. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? |
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. So a Morse Exam can only be a disincentive if it's in the future, even though many, many, many amateurs have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and all other opinions are wrong? When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. It would have to be presented as a quote to do that. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. I think we put out about equal time, despite your claim that you don't read my posts. In fact I started a new thread with that post. It was a description of radio station WAR at a specific point in time. I didn't write it, I just quoted it - exactly as written. Cool. Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio. " I have no opinion on the matter. You're a funny guy. btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. The article didn't say anything about -amateur- transmissions being allowed. There were also community civil defense type radio transmissions authorized, and amateurs were often the operators of such community stations, but not in an amateur capacity. He clammed up and won't respond. I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because you didn't understand it. His silence is truly golden Time is money. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com