| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#221
May 17th 04, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William) Date: 5/16/2004 8:37 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... 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. Where's the threat? I asked you if you need a piece of paper to know if a slap in the face would hurt? No one I know does, and no one I know who is invilved with or knowledgeable of the MARS program argues with the concept that No Amateur Radio = No MARS. That you are inadequately knowledgeable of MARS programs and policies to know otherwise is also true. Now you lie. No, I do not. You continue to argue that if the licensed Amateur participants in the MARS program ceased to participate, that the program would carry on. I know better. So do people who are in the program. Anyone who can "argue" against common sense obviously is ill-prepared to REALLY "argue" the facts. 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. Nope. No Amateur Radio = No MARS. And the MARS program is 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? Nope. But then I've been a member of all three programs at one time or another. I know from EXPERIENCE that all three programs are dependent upon licensed Radio Amateurs to conduct thier programs. No Amateur Radio = No MARS. It really is THAT simple. 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. 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. That was very sweet of you, but doesn't change just how wrong your MARS=ARS claim was. It's not wrong. The Amateur Radio serice CAN live without MARS. There's precious little that MARS programs do that Amatuers can't do or aren't doing already. If, for some obscure reason, every licensed Amateur withdrew from MARS, MARS would have to fold. On the otherhand, if MARS folded up tomorrow, there'd be a lot of disappointed Amateurs, however the Amateur Service would continue. 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. I am sure it doesn't. You have already proven that your perspective is very...uhhhhhh...unique. 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." In the Marines we learned that being up high wasn't always a good idea. In either case, you often arrive at the same destination, just more tired for your effort and without any benefit of having made the trip the long way around. 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? No problem here, Brian...It's YOUR black eye. 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. I never offered my "blessing". I have simply stated that an assertion without validation can be considered invalid. Asserting something to BE true while proactively refusing to validate it is lying. And we still have your "Lennie is my hero" thing...Whew.... So you're right...it's not "even"... Not even a little bit. And again you're right, but not for the rason I am sure you THINK you are! 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. Again...My analogy to being slapped in the face applies. You will also notice that they AREN'T rushing to your defense, either. 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. None needed. Best of Luck. For what? Steve, K4YZ |
|
#222
May 17th 04, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William) Date: 5/16/2004 8:49 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... 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. He has. On several occassions. You and Lennie have simple tried to "dismiss" him with your "TAKARJ" drivvel. 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. Or he read mine wherein a quote of your comment was made. And I might point out that having read this one thing does NOT make his reading of your posts "all-inclusive". 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. Sealing of the receivers was too. Your point? 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. No...just as supervisors, watch standers, traffic handlers, technicians and engineers. That's all. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? In your case I'd say because the truth is embarrassing. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#224
May 17th 04, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... (William) wrote in message . com... even though many, many, many amateurs How many? have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. I get an entirely different feel OTA, where it counts. I've had the pleasure of meeting quite a few (Dare I say, many.) fellow newbies OTA and lemme tell ya, R.R.A.P ain't exactly the most accurate measure of how the amateur radio community feels re. the issue. OK, Done. PLONK 'Bout damn time! 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
#225
May 17th 04, 08:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(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. The gunnery nurse seems always to threaten people who disagree with him. That's a LOT of threats. :-) The Military Affiliate Radio System is authorized by Department of Defense Directive 4650.2, 26 Jan 98. Individual service branches have specific regulations. For the Army it is Army Regulation AR 25-6 as revised 29 Oct 98. For the USAF it is AFI 33-106. For the USN-USMC is is MARS Communications Instructions NTP 8(C), March 1998. The United States Army is the birthplace of MARS, first organized at the AARS or Army Amateur Radio System in 1925. The purpose was to increase skills within the Army by using amateur knowledge to improve Army communications. It was not a terribly popular thing either in or out of the Army. The AARS stopped at the start of the USA involvement with WW2 and cessation of amateur operations. It resumed in 1946. In 1948 the AARS was renamed with the organization of the USAF as a part of the new MARS, dropping the "amateur" in favor of the word "affiliate." By 1948 military radio was rather far from amateur practice and techniques. In 1962 the USN and USMC were made a part of MARS. The intent of MARS was basically a morale booster for all military personnel assigned far from USA territory. The role has changed (by directive and regulations) to become a liason between the military and civilian emergency organizations, principally FEMA. MARS also has ties with SHARES, the group of government HF radio users throughout the USA and foreign US locations. For morale purposes the military has direct Internet connections through the various DSN (Digital Switched Network) portals on land and afloat. 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. The gunnery nurse has distinct definitions of "lie" different from other people. Those who disagree with him are "always lying." 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. The gunnery nurse will never concede any mistake he made. He has his own definitions and commands all to obey those unique definitions. For example, name-calling is part of his tough-guy credo. His personal "directive" allows that as part of his "civility." It isn't in the normal definitions that all others use. And you're still a punk. Not really. The gunnery nurse "permits" that form of "civility" by his own "directive." Name-calling is SOP. 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? The gunnery nurse has had, what, three weeks, to cite one and has not. A simple Internet search will turn up the official documents from the DoD and all three service branches. He is continuing a game of bluffing in trying to intimidate others to concede to him. MARS has never been an important part of military communications, never a part of either tactical or strategic planning. At best it is an extension of Special Services (in the Army old term) for entertainment and morale boosting of service personnel. However, the affiliation with the military has terribly important self-image boost points for individual amateurs who want to enoble themselves into thinking they are "part of the grand scheme to 'serve their country'." 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. Gunnery nurse is a VERY sore loser. He can't abide by any disagreements to his statements or opinions. Ergo, all who disagree with him are "liars" and worthy of all kinds of name-calling. It must be the extension of the old USMC mythology where NCOs are all gods who MUST be obeyed and never, ever questioned. No "civility" is allowed within ranks. The problem of this ex-USMC member is that neither amateur radio nor the Internet is any part of the USMC. 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. Gunnery nurse cannot concede anything. MARS exists because of the Department of Defense Directive that says it does. A close inspection of USN-USMC NTP 8(C) will reveal that USN and USMC MARS operators do NOT need to possess amateur radio licenses in order to operate MARS radio equipment. In both USA and USAF regulations, MARS operations are done by Army or Air Force personnel who are not required to have amateur radio licenses. VOLUNTEER civilians are welcomed by all three branches but only the USA and USAF require volunteers to possess amateur licenses. USN-USMC does not. 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. :-) Gunnery nurse has his own fantasy land perspective on society and definitions and civil behavior. He hasn't been able to adjust to civilian life after being rejected by the USMC. 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. I've been gone, doing more important things in life. :-) That you voluntarilly get in step behind him is laughable at best. Its called, "The High Road." I'd call it "independent thought." Some in amateur radio do NOT permit independent thought and become outraged with anyone disagreeing with their noble, righteous bigoted thoughts of amateurism. 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? Gunnery nurse cannot concede anything on a subject. What he stated is divine law and none may go against that. 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. Actually, there's been NO third-party proof that gunnery nurse was ever in the USMC. All we have to go on is his "word" and his "I've got the proof in my wallet" sort of statements. :-) We have yet to see a "paper trail wide enough to roller skate on to show where [gunnery nurse'] assertions are true." No problem. Gunnery nurse, when confronted with the truth and evidence, will, like the fictional Col. Jessup, will simply state someone is a "liar" and then call them all sorts of nasty names to show how "wrong" they are. :-) 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. The "citations" gunnery nurse claims are constructs within his own little minds. MARS exists because of a DoD Directive and that should be that. Of course, it isn't that, but that doesn't stop the gunnery nurse from his virulent outrage. Gunnery nurse felt "wronged" by statements of disagreement. Such seems to be a cause for verbal warfare. Best of Luck. None needed...You make it too easy...Again. Easy? I see no citation. Best of Luck. I've given the appropriate directive and regulations. Anyone can find them on the Internet. Gunnery nurse doesn't know them, therefore "they don't exist." :-) 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 , 33333333333333333333 LHA / WMD |
|
#226
May 18th 04, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP? From: (William) Date: 5/16/2004 8:49 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... 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. He has. On several occassions. No, he hasn't. He did not respond at all. That's why I said, "Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago." You and Lennie have simple tried to "dismiss" him with your "TAKARJ" drivvel. You're such a "Brain." 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. Or he read mine wherein a quote of your comment was made. Or he read my posts. And I might point out that having read this one thing does NOT make his reading of your posts "all-inclusive". Do you pretend to know what Jim reads? 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. Sealing of the receivers was too. Your point? "Oh Lord it's hard to be Ham-ble, when you're radio-less in every way..." 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. No...just as supervisors, watch standers, traffic handlers, technicians and engineers. But NOT as hams. Get it? That's all. Please. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? In your case I'd say because the truth is embarrassing. The truth is, I taught you and Dave a thing or two. But the information is completely wasted on you because you'll never deploy to a foreign country without a government. You're merely a has-been ex-marine trying to fit into a CAP (Air Force-like) uniform. Suck it up, Steve. People will think you're the bus driver in "The Honeymooners." bb |
|
#227
May 18th 04, 12:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com... (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, It can only be a disincentive to Morse Code *use* if it is required for Morse Code use but not for other mode use. Can a Morse Code Exam be a disincentive for other modes? That's what I wrote. Not: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " which is what *you* wrote, and incorrectly said was a paraphrase of what I wrote. But in the proposal quoted above, the Morse Code Exam is not a disincentive for other modes. If there were EVER a reason to have a Morse Code Exam, it would be to ensure that a person operating (using) CW knew how to do so. The above proposal does EXACTLY that. But you say it's a disincentive. I say that's too bad. even though many, many, many amateurs How many? Don't know, I haven't kept count. have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. So what? They're entitled to their opinion, just as I am. Or do you think that I am not entitled to express an opinion here? You have before, and I saw no one stopping you. And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and all other opinions are wrong? Not at all. Just don't attribute an opinion to me that isn't what I wrote. So the Morse Code Exam has never been a disincentive to any mode, including CW, ever in the history of the amateur radio service? This is fascinating. I've known several NO CODE Technicians that learned Morse Code and operated CW on 2M without having ever taken a Morse Code Exam at the time. Your position has always been that it's imperative for all amateurs pass a Morse Code Exam prior to having CW privs. Except when they don't have to pass a Morse Code Exam for other priveleges. In that case, the Morse Code Exam is a disincentive to CW use!!! Holy Cow!!! 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. Your mistakes are not my responsibility. I think I nailed it. 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. Not at all. So you just happened upon two (2) of my posts out of many hundreds over the past several month. What are the odds? You are one (1) lucky guy. 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. You're still mistaken about it. Citation, please. 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. Irrelevant to the post about WAR. Relevant. Whatever they were doing, it was NOT amateur radio. 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, You're mistaken. Again. Of course. I think I nailed it. Again. despite your claim that you don't read my posts. I don't read most of them. Yet you manage to zing right into the doozies, somehow. You are one (1) lucky guy. Would you prefer that I read none of them? If you're going to be snippy about it, yes. OK, Done. See? You didn't even wait for an answer. PLONK You've made a series of astounding and rediculous statements over the past couple of months. If I weren't here to point them out, who would? The PCTA lock-step marches on. Best of Luck. |
|
#228
May 19th 04, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#229
May 19th 04, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
(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. The gunnery nurse seems always to threaten people who disagree with him. That's a LOT of threats. :-) Perhaps not a direct threat, but the implications are violent - and that's enough to be concerned. The Military Affiliate Radio System is authorized by Department of Defense Directive 4650.2, 26 Jan 98. Individual service branches have specific regulations. For the Army it is Army Regulation AR 25-6 as revised 29 Oct 98. For the USAF it is AFI 33-106. For the USN-USMC is is MARS Communications Instructions NTP 8(C), March 1998. Now that you've done half of Steve's homework, he should have a citation for us by the end of the week. The United States Army is the birthplace of MARS, first organized at the AARS or Army Amateur Radio System in 1925. The purpose was to increase skills within the Army by using amateur knowledge to improve Army communications. It was not a terribly popular thing either in or out of the Army. The AARS stopped at the start of the USA involvement with WW2 and cessation of amateur operations. It resumed in 1946. In 1948 the AARS was renamed with the organization of the USAF as a part of the new MARS, dropping the "amateur" in favor of the word "affiliate." The Air Force was always forward tinking. By 1948 military radio was rather far from amateur practice and techniques. In 1962 the USN and USMC were made a part of MARS. Hopefully they passed they entry exams rather than just being appointed. The intent of MARS was basically a morale booster for all military personnel assigned far from USA territory. The role has changed (by directive and regulations) to become a liason between the military and civilian emergency organizations, principally FEMA. MARS also has ties with SHARES, the group of government HF radio users throughout the USA and foreign US locations. They don't use CW anymore, either. They've gone digital. For morale purposes the military has direct Internet connections through the various DSN (Digital Switched Network) portals on land and afloat. 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. The gunnery nurse has distinct definitions of "lie" different from other people. Those who disagree with him are "always lying." 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. The gunnery nurse will never concede any mistake he made. He has his own definitions and commands all to obey those unique definitions. For example, name-calling is part of his tough-guy credo. His personal "directive" allows that as part of his "civility." It isn't in the normal definitions that all others use. And you're still a punk. Not really. The gunnery nurse "permits" that form of "civility" by his own "directive." Name-calling is SOP. 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? The gunnery nurse has had, what, three weeks, to cite one and has not. A simple Internet search will turn up the official documents from the DoD and all three service branches. He is continuing a game of bluffing in trying to intimidate others to concede to him. It isn't happening, is it? So the name calling escalates. Then violent acts are mentioned. I've counted two so far. MARS has never been an important part of military communications, never a part of either tactical or strategic planning. At best it is an extension of Special Services (in the Army old term) for entertainment and morale boosting of service personnel. But it is important to have a back-up for certain communications. The "Base Support Team" concept is fairly well thought through. However, the affiliation with the military has terribly important self-image boost points for individual amateurs who want to enoble themselves into thinking they are "part of the grand scheme to 'serve their country'." Until they discover that they can wear an actual uniform with "RANK" on it via the Air Force's CAP program. 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. Gunnery nurse is a VERY sore loser. He can't abide by any disagreements to his statements or opinions. Ergo, all who disagree with him are "liars" and worthy of all kinds of name-calling. It must be the extension of the old USMC mythology where NCOs are all gods who MUST be obeyed and never, ever questioned. No "civility" is allowed within ranks. And all officers are "Commanders." The problem of this ex-USMC member is that neither amateur radio nor the Internet is any part of the USMC. Nor is Steve part of the FCC, the United Nations, nor the Somalian government (if it exists yet), to be demanding documents. 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. Gunnery nurse cannot concede anything. MARS exists because of the Department of Defense Directive that says it does. And it says it does. A close inspection of USN-USMC NTP 8(C) will reveal that USN and USMC MARS operators do NOT need to possess amateur radio licenses in order to operate MARS radio equipment. In both USA and USAF regulations, MARS operations are done by Army or Air Force personnel who are not required to have amateur radio licenses. Steve estimated that it was no more than 1%, 2%, 10%, or 20% of the total MARS personnel, depending on which day he said it. VOLUNTEER civilians are welcomed by all three branches but only the USA and USAF require volunteers to possess amateur licenses. USN-USMC does not. Oh, My!!! And wasn't Steve in the U.S. Marine Corps? Shouldn't he have already known that? What he do with all that service time? Play tiddly-winks? 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. :-) Gunnery nurse has his own fantasy land perspective on society and definitions and civil behavior. He hasn't been able to adjust to civilian life after being rejected by the USMC. Ditto the adjustment, but I'm not sure about the rejected part. When did he leave the service? There was a big RIF starting in 92. The AF was down to half-strength by the end of 96. 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. I've been gone, doing more important things in life. :-) Well thanks for taking me along. That you voluntarilly get in step behind him is laughable at best. Its called, "The High Road." I'd call it "independent thought." Some in amateur radio do NOT permit independent thought and become outraged with anyone disagreeing with their noble, righteous bigoted thoughts of amateurism. Independent thought does seem to be lacking in some circles. Hey, have you read about the hams that are going to try to send an amateur rocket into space? Maybe if they donate a bunch of money to Kerry, they will receive a personal visit from the Loral techs and get the thing off the ground. 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? Gunnery nurse cannot concede anything on a subject. What he stated is divine law and none may go against that. Papers! I demand to see your papers! 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. Actually, there's been NO third-party proof that gunnery nurse was ever in the USMC. All we have to go on is his "word" and his "I've got the proof in my wallet" sort of statements. :-) We have yet to see a "paper trail wide enough to roller skate on to show where [gunnery nurse'] assertions are true." No problem. Gunnery nurse, when confronted with the truth and evidence, will, like the fictional Col. Jessup, will simply state someone is a "liar" and then call them all sorts of nasty names to show how "wrong" they are. :-) Like the "US Cavalry" t-shirt; deny, deny, deny and make counter-accusations. Was Steve in INTEL? 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. The "citations" gunnery nurse claims are constructs within his own little minds. MARS exists because of a DoD Directive and that should be that. Of course, it isn't that, but that doesn't stop the gunnery nurse from his virulent outrage. Gunnery nurse felt "wronged" by statements of disagreement. Such seems to be a cause for verbal warfare. " Sorry Han's, MARS IS Amateur Radio". " Maybe Steve could get Riley and/or Haney to verify his statement. Best of Luck. None needed...You make it too easy...Again. Easy? I see no citation. Best of Luck. I've given the appropriate directive and regulations. Anyone can find them on the Internet. Gunnery nurse doesn't know them, therefore "they don't exist." :-) 33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 , 33333333333333333333 LHA / WMD 70 three. bb |
|
#230
May 19th 04, 11:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| light bulbs in rrap | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
Linear Mode
