KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And ya know, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!



Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.

I thought a crutch was on a car!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


I thought a crutch was on a car!


My Cororra has no crutch. It has an automagic tlansmission, powel
blakes, powel steeling, and white warr tiles.

Sebentee tlee to you and the XYR,

de Hans, K0HB/4ID

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 6:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

There's nothing to "stuff". MARS, under current regulations and
plans,
would cease to exist without Amateur Radio Operators to flesh it out.

Sorry you don't agree.

Sorry you're not man enough to understand.

Maniliness? That has nothing to do with it.

No wonder you're the Pariah of RRAP.

I can be the "pariah" of anything, Briam, but it doesn't negate this
simple truth:

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

That you seem to want to make an argument out of it when no argumant can
exist is silly. That you have a hard time telling the truth (or at least being
able to accept it) is evident. This is directly related to your inability to
suck-it-up as a man and admit that there are greater truths in the world than
your own made up ones.

Sucks to be you.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 9:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini bra
my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Former?

You sure got a lot of "former's" in your life.

Why am I not suprised?

You've only had one woman in your entire life, Brain?

You met and dated one and only one woman your ENTIRE life?

Yes, there a lot of "former" girlfriends. A bit jealous, are you?
Perhaps it's that residual fecal material behind your ears from plugging and
unplugging your head in the wrong orifice all the time...

You might try toothpaste, too....

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".

In amateur radio, anyway.

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

The quote I posted here demonstrates that the realities of getting
"kids" into amateur radio are quite different from what Carl has
presented.

In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.

What ages are we talking about?

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

FCC makes that call. And note this: One of the arguments for dumping
Element 1 is the claim that when it was dumped for Tech, the whole ARS
didn't fall apart.
So if we get over 323,000 free upgrades to General with no testing and
the ARS
doesn't fall apart.....

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!

Nope. A person might think that 20 wpm code tests given by FCC
examiners are relevant and necessary to an Extra license, but they
will have a hard time finding them today..

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.

the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?


I'm a bit curious too...........

If I were to butt in here, I would say that aside from the obvious CW
transceiver, simple and easy to build, There are plenty of other
possibilities.

AM transmitters. - Yeah, groan.

Simple SSB transmitters. There appear to be a few out there that can be
homebrewed. If not, Jim should design one!

The reality of modern amateur HF SSB operation is transceivers, not
separate transmitters and receivers with the difficulties of
zero-beating - although it *can* be done...

All these would be somewhat more complex than the classic CW
transmitter, but that brings me back to the point I like to make about
what hams "should know". Now that we are probably moving beyond the time
when a super simple transmitter is the rig of choice for the budding
homebrewer, it is more important than ever that the same should have a
well grounded knowledge of basic electronics.

It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits. A rig doesn't
have to be SOTA to be useful.

Aside from homebrewing entire radios, the youngster can do things like
building interfaces to their computers from their radios.

Sure, but that misses the point.

Note that
there is a PSK31 Transceiver that can be built from Rocky mountain Labs
IIRC that while it isn't quite a homebrew design, it isn't a bad start -
it's like building a modern da version of a Heathkit.

Sort of. While the little PSK rigs are fascinating, they are QRP
monobanders that cover a tiny slice of one band each. And you have to
have a computer to use them. They're certainly an option, though.

Antennas are another matter. There is a lot of quackery on the matter
of antennas these days, and some serious guidance is needed to keep the
kids from getting discouraged. And yaknow, a homebrew tuner might just
be a good project too!

Knowledgeable guidance is needed. That's in short supply sometimes.

Someone oughta write a book. hmmmmmmm.

ARRL used to put out a book called "Understanding Amateur Radio".
Great stuff. Lots of practical projects.

Discouraging homebrew is possibly the most damaging part of at least
one of the proposals out there as far as attracting young people.


Exactly.

I just don't think that there are that many youngsters that want to
simply mash the PTT button on their Yeacommwood transceiver and yak as
their primary activity in the ARS. We won't attract too many people that
way.

I agree 100%.


I'm firmly convinced that kids that might want to join the ARS want to
BUILD!

And since the most practical first projects are related to a certain
mode...

Boils down to this: Both the ARRL and NCVEC proposals are trying to
recapture the success of the old Novice license, although their
approaches are somewhat different. Yet they fail to see that said
success wasn't impeded in the least by a basic code skill test.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits.


Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.


A rig doesn't have to be SOTA to be useful.


"Any sufficicently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
agic." -- A. C. Clarke

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently
dvanced." -- K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
. net...

"N2EY" wrote

It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits.

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.

Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

But do you think my proposal will work? We have a number of years of
operation under such a system, and I have not heard of any problems with
the database administration of the orphan licensees.

- Mike KB3EIA -


It's not *just* the database administration. Another aspect of the problem
is that the *rules* have to be maintained for those orphaned classes. How
do you deal with the sub-band by class privs without consolidation.

Easy! See below.

By consolidating into just three classes (including the new beginner class
with meaningful HF privs), the rules can be simplified greatly.

Not really. See below.

That will
ease the administrative burden on the FCC (and the VECs) in ways that go
beyond just the database issue.

Let's get down to the *real* differences in operating privileges
between license classes.

Above 30 MHz, we have the following:

Novices: Limited privileges on a few bands

All other classes: All privileges.

The proposed "NewNovice" won;t change that situation at all, so the
regs don't get any simpler for VHF/UHF.


Below 30 MHz:

Technicians: Nil

Novices & Technician Pluses: Small bits of 80/40/15/10

Generals: All privileges *except* some parts of 80/40/20/15

Advanceds: All privileges *except* some parts of 80/40/20/15

Extras: All privileges.

On HF, we now have 4 sets of privileges:

Novice/Tech
General
Advanced
Extra

and the differences between the last three are only on four popular
bands.

Now suppose we do the free upgrades. Here's the result:

"NewNovices": Small but different bits of 80/40/15/10

Generals: All privileges *except* some parts of 80/40/20/15

Extras: All privileges.

Three sets of operating privileges remain. All we've really lost is
the Advanced set, which was simply some 'phone/image space on
80/40/20/15.

Now suppose instead of the free upgrades we do the following:

"New Novices" - Revised set of privileges. Existing Novices, Techs and
Tech Pluses get NewNovice HF privileges. Existing Techs and Tech
Pluses keep full VHF/UHF privs.

Everybody else stays the same.

Here's the result:

Above 30 MHz, we have the following:

"NewNovices": Limited privileges on a few bands

All other classes: All privileges.

Below 30 MHz:

"NewNovices", Techs & Technician Pluses: Bits of 80/40/15/10

Generals: All privileges *except* some parts of 80/40/20/15

Advanceds: All privileges *except* some parts of 80/40/20/15

Extras: All privileges.

On HF, we still have 4 sets of privileges:

NewNovice/Tech
General
Advanced
Extra

and the differences between the last three are only on four popular
bands.

Let me make it even simpler for ya:

Giving free Generals to existing Techs and Pluses, rather than just
giving them "NewNovice" HF privileges, doesn't simplify the regs at
all. We still need a section to describe the NewNovice privs.

Giving Advanceds a free upgrade to Extra *does* simplify the regs
slightly, by eliminating the Advanced subbands on 4 HF bands. Big deal
- they amount to a few lines of text and a few blocks in the band
tables.

As for VEs, the rules on testing and element credit are
straightforward. clear and in the regs already. Works like this for
the "legacy" licenses:

If you have or had a Novice, you get Element 1 credit only.
If you have a Tech plus, you get credit for Elements 1 and 2, and
possibly 3 depending on the date.
If you have an Advanced, you get the same credits as a General -
Elements 1, 2 and 3.

Simple as that.


And note this:

The NCVEC proposal includes a whole bunch of unnecessary junk such as
restrictions on the type of equipment that can be used, special
callsigns for "Communicators", and the "signed Part 97 statement"
nonsense. (Note that since those special callsigns are only for
Communicators, upgrading means a new callsign and more admin work for
FCC. Since the new-callsign-with-upgrade thing would be an FCC
requirement if NCVEC has its way, it wouldn't be part of the vanity
rules and they couldn't charge for it.

I ask again: Show us why the "legacy" license classes *must* be
immediately eliminated.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

But NCVEC's proposal wants to do just that. Read
the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal.

I'm having some doubts about the "21st Century" paper authorship.

I can certainly understand that.

KL7-whatever-his-call-is

KL7CC

claims W3BE as a co-author, yet W3BE in
his comments to FCC comes down in opposition to most of those
ideas like free upgrades as looney-tune-stupid (which they are).

All it takes to claim somebody as coauthor is for them to contribute a
few things. They don't have to agree with the entire paper. But I do
think that someone who is as much at odds with that paper as the
comments reveal would have demanded their name be removed from the
author list.

What really tells the tale is who signed the NCVEC submittal to FCC.
It wasn't either of the hams you mentioned above.

For the record, I find the following NCVEC proposal ideas to be
"looney-tune-stupid" (great phrase):

- Limitations on homebrewing
- Free upgrade to General for post-March-21-1987 Techs and Tech Pluses
- Free upgrade to Extra for Advanceds
- 30 volt rule
- Special callsign block reserved only for newbies
- Any replacement of relevant regs questions by "signed statement"
nonsense. (If it takes a few more questions to test regs knowledge,
add 'em)

Your proposal looks better and better, Hans.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Robert Casey wrote:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler. Despite what marketing
wonks may tell us, nothing is. Give me what you think is an example,
and I can quickly tell you why it isn't.

OK, here goes:

Way back in the 1930s, hams began to replace their "blooper"
(regenerative) receivers with "super-hets" (superheterodynes). The
added complexity of the "super" was justified by the invention of the
single signal crystal filter, which gave improved adjacent-channel
selectivity.

Those early ham supers almost all used an IF around 455 kHz, because
the available crystal filter systems worked best around that
frequency. The better ones had one or preferably two RF stages before
the mixer, to reduce image response and override the mixer noise. A
top receiver of those days might have two RF stages and three IF
stages, plus a couple of audio stages and the mixer and detector. And
even so, image response was a problem.

After WW2, the trend moved towards "double conversion". The first IF
was typically in the low HF region, to reduce images, and the second
IF much lower, to get selectivity. Some designs like Collins kept the
455 kHz second IF, while many others (National, Hallicrafters) used a
first IF around 1700 or 2215 kHz and a second IF of 50-60 kHz. Such a
low second IF meant that LC circuits could be used for the
selectivity.

Such receivers were arguably "better" - and unarguably more complex.
Compare the prewar National NC-101X with the mid-50s NC-300, or a
typical homebrew super of the '30s with an HBR. And while better in
some ways, they were worse in others.

Then packaged high-frequency crystal filters were developed (about
1957), followed by improved mixer designs such as the Pullen mixer. It
became possible to design receivers with a high IF for image
rejection, no RF stages and a much reduced parts count. The Squires
Sanders SS-1R is an example of such a design. It is simpler than, say,
an NC-300, as well as smaller, lighter and less power-hungry.

There are lots of other examples. Compare an Elecraft K2 with almost
any other current amateur HF transceiver - then compare the specs and
features. In many ways its high performance is a direct result of the
relative simplicity.

Simplification can be an improvement. But simplicity isn't always
simple, or easy.

73 de Jim, N2EY

KØHB wrote:





Antenna tuners (more properly called feed line tuners) are a crutch for
people who can't manage to build a proper antenna to fool their
transmitter into thinking it has a proper antenna.




If you use low loss feedline and a tuner, it doesn't much matter how bad
the antenna's
SWR is. Low loss feedline means that you don't lose much RF energy as
it bounced
back off the bad antenna to the tuner, and then back to the antenna.
Actually, lossy
feedline can make your SWR look better. The propagation delays of
these bounces
are of little importance for the narrowband modes we use on HF (SSB, CW,
RTTY
and such). I use some old Ethernet cable (essentially foam RG8U) to run
the feed
from the shack upstairs down to the basement, and there I switch over to
coax
more weather resistant thru a small hole in the wall (caulked to keep
bugs out) to the
vertical in the back yard. It's a pre WARC multiband HF vertical.

A major reason for bad antennas is a lack of space or place to install a
good
antenna.

Bill Sohl wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
. net...

"N2EY" wrote


It's still very practical to build a simple CW *transceiver* from
scratch. Plenty of designs out there, as well as kits.

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.


Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.

hehe, now that sounds like fun! 8^0

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/30/2004 7:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air".
Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are
licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.

What ages are we talking about?

CAP cadets can be 12 to 21 if they join before age 18, however the one's I
am addressing specifically are all between 15 to 17. (Ironically the 17 year
old is the one who has yet to upgrade!)

And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!

FCC makes that call. And note this: One of the arguments for dumping
Element 1 is the claim that when it was dumped for Tech, the whole ARS
didn't fall apart.
So if we get over 323,000 free upgrades to General with no testing and
the ARS
doesn't fall apart.....

Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!

Nope. A person might think that 20 wpm code tests given by FCC
examiners are relevant and necessary to an Extra license, but they
will have a hard time finding them today..

Point taken, Jim, but what I was trying (unsuccessfully) to say was that
it's partly the applicant's decision to decide if acquiring the knowledge or
skill was appropriate to gaining the license...In other words, are the benefits
of licensure worth the time and effort expended to get it...?!?!

Any better?

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/30/2004 3:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 6:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

There's nothing to "stuff". MARS, under current regulations and
plans,
would cease to exist without Amateur Radio Operators to flesh it out.

Sorry you don't agree.

Sorry you're not man enough to understand.

Maniliness? That has nothing to do with it.

No wonder you're the Pariah of RRAP.

I can be the "pariah" of anything, Briam, but it doesn't negate this
simple truth:

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

This is your simple truth, and it's simply wrong:

No, I am not...Not unless recent MARS policy has provided for a major
shift in MARS membership demographics and prerequisites.

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

OK, Brain...You're back in "Idiot Mode" and there's nothing I can do to get
around it.

Steve, K4YZ

Which you might postulate as an argument to retain the Morse
examination, except that knowledge of Morse is not a requirement to heat
a soldering iron.



Exactly. When I was in college we buit a 10w CW transmitter
and tested the results into a dummy load. No knowledge
of code was needed or expected.



Now, if you used the soldering iron *as* the dummy load, ...... :-)

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/1/2004 10:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

OK, Brain...You're back in "Idiot Mode" and there's nothing I can do to
get
around it.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, why can't you just admit that you were wrong? Huh?

Because I am not.

Sorry you have a problem with it. No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

Do you recall TAFKARJ commenting on those great AMATEUR CW
Operators saving the day during WWII? When AMATEUR Radio was
off the air?

Wake up knuckle head and crack some history books OTHER than the tained and
antagonistic crap that Lennie spews.

Welp, there's another one who cannot admit that he was wrong. Ever.

So far neither you or Lennie has "proven" Jim to be wrong. So far you
have not proven yourself to be right...About ANYthing...

Two peas in a pod.

If that was supposed to be an insult, you missed...By a mile.


Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 5/1/2004 10:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 4/29/2004 9:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 4/29/2004 2:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nothing is ever improved by making it simpler.

I dunno about that, Mike...I kinda liked the velcro-closed bikini
bra
my
former g/f used to wear!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Former?

You sure got a lot of "former's" in your life.

Why am I not suprised?

You've only had one woman in your entire life, Brain?

You met and dated one and only one woman your ENTIRE life?

Yes, there a lot of "former" girlfriends. A bit jealous, are you?
Perhaps it's that residual fecal material behind your ears from plugging
and
unplugging your head in the wrong orifice all the time...

You might try toothpaste, too....

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, I happen to be married. Out of respect for my wife I don't
dredge up the velcroed past. But you do.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....I see.

You can make such aspurgences against others, however vague or
insinuating, but it's not OK for others...Uh huh...

BTW...You were the one who opened THAT can of worms, so sit down and get
you a plate full, Puppet Boy.

YOU are the one making insinuating comments about how many "former"
girlfriends I may or may not have had...That it's more than one probably makes
you jealous. Too bad for you, eh...???

Sucks to be you, Brian.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions
From: (William)
Date: 5/2/2004 8:44 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

BTW...You were the one who opened THAT can of worms, so sit down and
get
you a plate full, Puppet Boy.

No, I made no mention of bikini clad formers. You did. Are you still
married this time?

Which "time", Brain?

And you haven't answered MY question..."Did you ONLY date and marry ONE
woman, having never dated any OTHER woman...???"

You seem to insinuate that having had a "former" girlfriend was a flaw of
some kind. I'd like to know the answer to THIS question...And please don't
gimme that "out of respoect for my wife" mularkey again. If you TRULY
respected her you wouldn't make such a fool out of yourself in public.

Just "yes" or "no"...Did you ever have a girlfriend before the present Mrs
B took office?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/2/2004 8:53 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/1/2004 10:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

OK, Brain...You're back in "Idiot Mode" and there's nothing I can do
to
get
around it.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, why can't you just admit that you were wrong? Huh?

Because I am not.

But you are. Here is what you said again:

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

And I stand by it..

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

Sorry you have a problem with it. No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

That was your backpedalling recovery from making such a stupid
statement.

What backpeddling, Brain?

I am STANDING BY it.

No Amatuer Radio = No MARS.

It is equally wrong as I have shown.

You've "shown" nothing.

Do you recall TAFKARJ commenting on those great AMATEUR CW
Operators saving the day during WWII? When AMATEUR Radio was
off the air?

Wake up knuckle head and crack some history books OTHER than the tained
and
antagonistic crap that Lennie spews.

TAFKARJ is our self-appointed historian. Even he will spout the dates
that the ARS was denied priveleges during WWII, but not in the same
post where Amateur Radio Operators saved the day in WWII.

You'll have to show me the post wherein Jim "appo9inted" himself.

And as far as "self appointed historians" go, you had better survey some
of the posts your scumbuddy has put up here...More than a few way off Amateur
Radio topic and in the thousands of bytes of bandwidth.

It's one of those PCTA double standard things.

I think YOU need to read what you write before YOU assert any "double
standard" allegations, Your Creepiness.

And don't forget that he also said that code testing was a barrier to
CW use.

Welp, there's another one who cannot admit that he was wrong. Ever.

So far neither you or Lennie has "proven" Jim to be wrong. So far you
have not proven yourself to be right...About ANYthing...

Of course we have. Time and again. But his most obnoxious
cheerleader won't hear of it.

Two peas in a pod.

If that was supposed to be an insult, you missed...By a mile.

Then you haven't seen his reaction.

It's not about what JIM may percieve as an insult, Brain.

But you never do seem to keep your perspectives in order, do you?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/5/2004 5:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

You really are that simple, and foolish to keep repeating such a false
statement as:

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

I don't keep repeating that statement, Your Sliminess...YOU do.


Sorry you have a problem with it. No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

That was your backpedalling recovery from making such a stupid
statement.

What backpeddling, Brain?

I am STANDING BY it.

No Amatuer Radio = No MARS.

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

It is equally wrong as I have shown.

You've only shown that you don't understand the relationship between the
Military Affiliate Radio System and the Amateur Radio Service.

Your problem, Your Putziness...Not mine;

You've "shown" nothing.

I've shown that a person neither has to be an amateur radio operator,
nor a military personnel to be in MARS. That was another one of your
stupid assertions.

And I did acknowledge that there ARE a FEW people in MARS who are neither.

I had stated that almost from the outset. You DID point out ONE person
who was neither a licensed Amateur nor military person assigned as official
duty.

It still does not make my statement any less true.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

YOU repeated it again, Brain. It's the only way you can slide out from
under the truth.


TAFKARJ is our self-appointed historian. Even he will spout the dates
that the ARS was denied priveleges during WWII, but not in the same
post where Amateur Radio Operators saved the day in WWII.

You'll have to show me the post wherein Jim "appointed" himself.

No, I won't have to.

I know you won't.

You can't.

You've stated that Jim Miccolis has somehow "appointed" himself to some
imaginary post.

Of course you ignored the fact that your "mentor" is far more guilty of
ravaging this NG with "historical" ramblings 100-to-1.

And if you DID try to "show" where Jim alledgedly appointed himspelf to
ANY post, you would, of course, be lying.

And as far as "self appointed historians" go, you had better survey
some
of the posts your scumbuddy has put up here...More than a few way off
Amateur
Radio topic and in the thousands of bytes of bandwidth.

Carl spanked you for wasting bandwidth, and here you are... again.

He didn't spank anything, Brain.

And it seems to me that you're just as equally cupable.

It's one of those PCTA double standard things.

I think YOU need to read what you write before YOU assert any "double
standard" allegations, Your Creepiness.

It was well thought out. That is precisely why I used the phrase,
"PCTA double standard."

As for "double standards" your admonishment about what Carl alledgedly did
and then wasting reams of bandwidth to (unsuccessfully) engage me over the
relationship between the MARS program and Amateur Radio is one of them.

Got your britches around your ankles, Brain, and the picture ain't
pretty....

Then you haven't seen his reaction.

It's not about what JIM may percieve as an insult, Brain.

There you go assuming again.

I am not "assuming" anything, Your Wimpiness.

I said this is not about what Jim perceives, and that's true.

But you never do seem to keep your perspectives in order, do you?

Yep. You're nuts and I'm not.

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

Pffft.

You're the one who keeps repeating that, Brain, not me.

I keep saying No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

That is true. MARS is dependent upon Amateur Radio for it's own
existence. If you can't accept that, then you're everybit the idiot I have
reason to believe you are. You welcome to try and disprove it, however you've
littered the NG with so much evidence to the contrary that you'll be at it for
a verrrrrrrrrry long time.

Why don't you just admit that, once again, you tried to make an issue
from a non-issue and got your private parts caught in the zipper. I have a
pair of tweezers and a steri-strip to bandage it with, if you need it.

Now...About those T5 logs.........?!?!?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/6/2004 6:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/5/2004 5:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

You really are that simple, and foolish to keep repeating such a false
statement as:

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

I don't keep repeating that statement, Your Sliminess...YOU do.

Why is that, Steve? It's a wonderfully stupid statement. I enjoy
attaching it to your name.

But YOU keep stating that I am allegedly repeating it.

I am not. You are. That act alone once again underscores my assertion
that you are a liar. And you have, in this statement, acknowledged that you
are indeed doing it.

Which makes you an idiot.

So, if you want vindicated for making such a wonderfully stupid
statement, you can look in the Army, Air Force, and Navy regulations,
as well as Part 97, Title 47, and give me -any- citation whatsoever
where your statement, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio", "
is substantially true.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

That is sufficient.

No, I don't expect Hans to be named in any regulation. That's not
what I'm after. Forcus on the part where you said, "MARS IS
"Amateur Radio."

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

That is all. And since you're probably a radio volunteer for all
three services, and an amateur radio operator, you should be able to
vindicate yourself in short time.

NNN0VVU (1977-1982)

CHOP NNN0MOC/MOF 1981.

AFA1OQ 1983 thru 1988

AAT4SA/T....Didn't stay long...Decided it wasn't feasable to

Best of luck in making me eat crow. Hope you enjoy yours.

I don't have to "make" you do anything, Brain. YOU
continually make assertions you can't/won't substantiate, make assertions of
derring-do that are not documented ANYwhere, and you generally keep walking all
over your own tail over and over while claiming others to be "nuts".

I ahve no crow to eat here or anywhere, Brain.

Stop lying in public. Stop making assertions you can't/won't substantiate.
Be a man.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/7/2004 5:53 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/6/2004 6:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Why is that, Steve? It's a wonderfully stupid statement. I enjoy
attaching it to your name.

But YOU keep stating that I am allegedly repeating it.

I am not.

But you should; it's so wonderfully stupid. And it is the statement
(of fact) that got this ball rolling. You back-pedalled and are now
soft pedalling a different statement, which was also shown to be
wrong.

When it comes to "so wonderfully stupid" you DO seem to have a propensity
to get in knee deep.

You've done it again.

I am not "back-peddling" on anything. No Amateur Radio = No MARS. You
have yet to disprove this.

Otherwise, you just keep trying to dazzle us with your brilliance only to
realize it the glare off the baldness of your ignorance.

Your problem, not mine.

So, if you want vindicated for making such a wonderfully stupid
statement, you can look in the Army, Air Force, and Navy regulations,
as well as Part 97, Title 47, and give me -any- citation whatsoever
where your statement, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio", "
is substantially true.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

That is sufficient.

No, it is not sufficient. Quote A Military Regulation or Title 47
document.

Yes, it IS sufficient. Each MARS program is wholly dependent on the
Amateur Radio Service to exist. It seems that everyone except you is aware of
this.

Again, ANOTHER one of your problems.

Maybe I ought to copy all this stuff and send it to Mrs. Beeper. Perhaps
she can explain it to you. Perhaps she can also explain to US why you have a
history of pathological lying and an inate ability to get yourself into corners
with your mouth that your bravado can't bull you out of...

No, I don't expect Hans to be named in any regulation. That's not
what I'm after. Forcus on the part where you said, "MARS IS
"Amateur Radio."

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

Nope, not sufficient.

Why do you keep running away from your statement,

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio".

It's still correct.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

I knew you were qualified to research the DoD and Title 47 regs to
back up your statement, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
"
The only question now is when you'll post the applicable citation.

No need, Brain. Again, it seems everyone knows about teh relationship
between the MARS programs and Amateur Radio EXCEPT you.

Must be kinda lonely on the outside looking in, huh...?!?!

Best of luck in making me eat crow. Hope you enjoy yours.

I don't have to "make" you do anything, Brain. YOU
continually make assertions you can't/won't substantiate, make assertions
of
derring-do that are not documented ANYwhere, and you generally keep walking
all
over your own tail over and over while claiming others to be "nuts".

Document this:

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio".

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

I have no crow to eat here or anywhere, Brain.

Stop lying in public. Stop making assertions you can't/won't
substantiate.
Be a man.

I am a man.

No, you're not.

Now you be a man and post any DoD or Title 47 citation whatsoever that
substantially says,

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio", "

without the "Sorry Hans" part, of course.

"Caw, caw!"

Now who's nuts?

Steve, I hear your crow calling. You might want to locate some
Tobasco sauce.

Sorry Brain...That's only your over-active imagination and wishful
thinking.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

You can prove differently, of course?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William)
Date: 5/8/2004 3:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

This statement is eyeball deep: " MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio".

hi hi. What silliness!

Not sufficient. And while you're at it, find a citation for, "Each
MARS program is wholly dependent on the Amateur Radio Service to
exist."

Very simple, Brain.

Review the roster of active stations in each service.

Disenroll all those who are participants based upon licensure in the
Amateur Radio Service.

Please tell us how many "stations" would be left in each service after
doing that.

I repeat...No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

Maybe I ought to copy all this stuff and send it to Mrs. Beeper.
Perhaps
she can explain it to you. Perhaps she can also explain to US why you have
a
history of pathological lying and an inate ability to get yourself into
corners
with your mouth that your bravado can't bull you out of...

I told you to stay away from my family.

I just wanted to see what kind of reaction I'd get.

It's very predictable. Cowards never do want thier families to know about
thier "alternative lifestyle".

I wouldn't want MY wife to see me acting like that and developing a
reputation as not being truthful either. You DO have that reputation, Brain.
Stupid assertions...tales of radio bravado...public assertions of admiration
for a documented pathological liar...

Is THAT message getting through to you yet, Brain?

I wouldn't want YOU "near" my family if I knew the net result would be
some revelation of alternate-reality behaviour to them.

If her reaction was anywhere NEAR "normal", she'd probably jack-slap you,
tell you to stay off of the Internet, and not embarras the family name any
further.

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

I am a man.

No, you're not.

I am a man. You are a creep.

Backwards as always, Brain.

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

How much longer are you going to humilate yourself, Brain?

Checked your mail box lately, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William)
Date: 5/9/2004 1:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William)
Date: 5/8/2004 3:54 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

This statement is eyeball deep: " MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

" MARS IS "Amateur Radio".

hi hi. What silliness!

Not sufficient. And while you're at it, find a citation for, "Each
MARS program is wholly dependent on the Amateur Radio Service to
exist."

Very simple, Brain.

Nope, wrong again. Finding such a citation is not only very
difficult, but it is impossible because it doesn't exist except in one
nutter's mind.

Review the roster of active stations in each service.

They have MARS calls.

Uh huh...And...?!?!

Disenroll all those who are participants based upon licensure in the
Amateur Radio Service.

I have no such authority.

I doubt you have adequate authority to wipe with your non-dominant hand
without written permission.

That's nice, but what about this statement?

" Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

Exactly how is MARS amateur radio?

Subtract the participation of licensed Radio Amateurs and what do you
have...???

Do you know the transitive property of your false little equation?
Doubt it.

My statement is not false.

No Amatuer Radio = No MARS.

It's very predictable. Cowards never do want thier families to know
about
thier "alternative lifestyle".

Did some lunatic send your wife a photo of you cross-dressing?

Had it occured I am sure she would have.

I wouldn't want MY wife to see me acting like that and developing a
reputation as not being truthful either. You DO have that reputation,
Brain.
Stupid assertions...tales of radio bravado...public assertions of
admiration
for a documented pathological liar...

Not with anyone I know. But there is this nutter on R.R.A.P.....

Yep..Named Brian Burke. Well known for not being able to stand up to his
rhetoric.

Is THAT message getting through to you yet, Brain?

I wouldn't want YOU "near" my family if I knew the net result would be
some revelation of alternate-reality behaviour to them.

If her reaction was anywhere NEAR "normal", she'd probably jack-slap
you,
tell you to stay off of the Internet, and not embarras the family name any
further.

You do have trouble staying on topic, don't you?

None at all.

YOU mentioned family, Brain. I only asked if your wife knew how foolish
you act in a public forum.

And I repeat my previous question...Is THAT message getting through to you
yet?

So when are you going to fire up your MARS net on amateur radio
frequencies?

It's perfectly legal for most MARS personnel to conduct a net on Amateur
frequencies, Brain...just as it is for gardners, NASCAR fans and other
hobbyists

Hey, when are you going to fire up amateur radio on MARS frequencies?

You're not, if you value your license, Brain.

Be sure to invite Reilly to both.

Sure. And while he's listening, I think we'll ask HIM what major role
non-licensed radio services play in emergency communication.

After all, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio" ," according
to one nutter on this planet.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

You've still not been able to tell me how I am wrong, Brain.

Yet another assertion you've made that remains unsubstantiated.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William)
Date: 5/9/2004 5:04 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

They have MARS calls.

Uh huh...And...?!?!

and they have MARS calls.

Uh huh...Guys in MARS do. You dodged again. Coward.

I doubt you have adequate authority to wipe with your non-dominant
hand
without written permission.

Please stay on subject and quit resorting to personal attacks.

It's not "personal attacks" if it's true.

And I STILL doubt you have adequate authority to wipe with your
non-dominant hand without written permission.

Subtract the participation of licensed Radio Amateurs and what do you
have...???

Answer the question, if you can.

I have.

I continue to ask YOU what would be the result if all those licensed
Amateurs quit the MARS programs tomorrow. You refuse to answer.

Do you know the transitive property of your false little equation?
Doubt it.

My statement is not false.

Your statement is false.

No. It is not. No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

Sure. And while he's listening, I think we'll ask HIM what major role
non-licensed radio services play in emergency communication.

You won't be asking Reilly anything because you won't be conducting a
MARS net on amateur frequencies, or an amateur net on MARS
frequencies. The reason I say that is because MARS IS NOT AMATEUR
RADIO!

Well, PuppetBoy, too bad you didn't pay closer attention to what I said.

MARS members CAN conduct nets on Amatuer frequencies and can even discuss
thier activities thereon...

Again...GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR RECTUM, BURKE! Or at least wipe the
brown stuff off your nose before you make a public appearance.

I further suggest that before you further humiliate yourself about what
MARS is or isn't that you take some time to actually LISTEN to MARS frequencies
and then tell me exactly how much difference there is between the two.

Now, you can keep running off at the mouth if you care to, Mr. Burke, but
the ONLY person you are making a fool of here is yourself. And I might add
you're doing a spectacular job of it.

Idiot.

Steve, K4YZ