RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Who are the FISTS members on RRAP? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27453-who-fists-members-rrap.html)

William May 12th 04 03:22 AM

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


They don't have MARS calls???

There you go again with the personal attacks.

I'll allow you to answer your own question so that your invaluable
information will see the light of day.

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.


Its obviously not true, so they are personal attacks.

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


I bestow upon you the honor of wiping for me.

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.


For an authoritative answer, please put your question to Don Rumsfeld.

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.


"Sorry Hans..."

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.


For some stupid reason, I paid exacting attention to your reply.
Probably even more so than you paid.

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


Welp, BrokenBoy, too bad you didn't pay closer attention to what I
said.

Do you know the difference between MARS members who also happen to be
amateurs holding an amateur net on amateur frequencies, vice MARS
members holding a MARS net on amateur frequencies???

Thus, "Sorry, Hans..." is a wonderfully stupid and false statement
made by YOU.

Makes me wonder why you made it, why you won't retract it, and why
you'll defend it to the bitter end.

Maybe because you're broken?

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.


There you go with the personal attacks again.

And stay away from my rectum, nutter.

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.


You need to talk to Riley and any of the Mars Directors. Any of them.

But you won't because you'll know your on a fools mission.

They wouldn't even give the nutter the time of day.

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


Personal attacks again, Broken Steve?

William May 12th 04 03:44 AM

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


Yet you're up to your eyeballs.

You've done it again.


The deepness is of your making. Please don't attribute it to me.

I am not "back-peddling" on anything.


Yes you are. Where is your original, "Sorry Hans..." statement? Huh?

No Amateur Radio = No MARS. You
have yet to disprove this.


You said, with the exception of a few "AD" personnel, ALL MARS members
are hams.

You were wrong there, too.

So easy to prove you wrong.

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


Ther you go with the persoanal attacks again.

Your problem, not mine.


Nope, your the one making absurdly false statements.

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.


No, it isn't.

Again, ANOTHER one of your problems.


I didn't break you. You're not my problem, but I do wish you'd go get
fixed.

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...


But you're the one dragging out the false bravado. I think its all
you've got left at this point. You have no honor, you have no
dignity. You just keep piling one erroneous statement on top of
another, then call me names.

I take no joy in pointing this out to you. I sure wish someone else
would tell you to go get some help - maybe your pea-pod brother TAFKA
could break the news to you.

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.


Nope. That is your original statment.

Do you now reject it?

Do you now recognize it as stupid and false?

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.


More backpedalling.

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.


You can lie to me, and you can lie to the others on RRAP.

But when you lie to yourself and believe your own lies? You're
broken.

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


Got lots of company. They just don't want to be attacked by a rabid
dog.

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.


"Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio".

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


That's what they all say before they shake that bottle of hot sauce.

Stop lying in public. Stop making assertions you can't/won't

substantiate.
Be a man.


I am a man.


No, you're not.


You're a broken man.

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?


Just having a little fun. Killjoy.

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


Prove your original statement, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur
Radio". "

Steve Robeson K4CAP May 13th 04 03:41 AM

Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William)
Date: 5/11/2004 9:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


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


They don't have MARS calls???


What an idiot.

Is your wife looking over your shoulder right now? She should be.

There you go again with the personal attacks.


No...that was not a "personal attack"

Here's one: "You're an idiot".

Of course it's not an attack if it's true. And it is.

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


Its obviously not true, so they are personal attacks.


Sure it is.

You've been given countless opportunities to dig yourself out from under
the blanket of stupidity that you've woven for yourself, but you just keep
trying to pull it up over your head a bit higher by asserting that anyone (me
in particular) is a "nutter", "broken", etc...

Everyone except YOU seems to be responsible for making the stupid
assertions you make.

How is that...?!?!

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


I bestow upon you the honor of wiping for me.


Thanks. I have JUST the thing for you...Just go RIGHT ahead and bend
over...Just ignore that the "paper" I am opneing up is in a flat pack, not a
roll..........

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.


For an authoritative answer, please put your question to Don Rumsfeld.


No...I have asked you.

YOU have made this a two-week long diatribe. YOU insist that MARS and
Amateur Radio are not interwoven. I am sure SECDEF thinks MARS is between the
orbit of Earth and Jupiter.

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


"Sorry Hans..."


Still stands, unless YOU can prove differently, Brain:

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.

For some stupid reason, I paid exacting attention to your reply.
Probably even more so than you paid.


Obviously not.

MARS members CAN conduct nets on Amatuer frequencies and can even

discuss
thier activities thereon...


Welp, BrokenBoy, too bad you didn't pay closer attention to what I
said.

Do you know the difference between MARS members who also happen to be
amateurs holding an amateur net on amateur frequencies, vice MARS
members holding a MARS net on amateur frequencies???

Thus, "Sorry, Hans..." is a wonderfully stupid and false statement
made by YOU.


Not false.

We've gone this route, and it's quite apparent that you can't/won't ever
"get it".

Judging by your complete lack of understanding of what makes MARS tick,
you never will.

A fool...Just as I had surmised.

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.


There you go with the personal attacks again.

And stay away from my rectum, nutter.


Then quit baring it in public, Brain.

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.


You need to talk to Riley and any of the Mars Directors. Any of them.


Yep.

No Amateur Rado = No MARS.

But you won't because you'll know your on a fools mission.


That's "fool's" mission, Brain, and I guess I am on one...I've been trying
to get you see just exactly how silly you look.

They wouldn't even give the nutter the time of day.

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.


Personal attacks again, Broken Steve?


It's not an attack if it's true, Brain.

You are an idiot. Spectacularly.

Steve, K4YZ








Steve Robeson K4CAP May 13th 04 03:51 AM

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/11/2004 9:44 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


When it comes to "so wonderfully stupid" you DO seem to have a

propensity
to get in knee deep.


Yet you're up to your eyeballs.

You've done it again.


The deepness is of your making. Please don't attribute it to me.


Sorry, Brain, if you don't like being held up to the light of day.

I am not "back-peddling" on anything.


Yes you are. Where is your original, "Sorry Hans..." statement? Huh?

No Amateur Radio = No MARS. You
have yet to disprove this.


You said, with the exception of a few "AD" personnel, ALL MARS members
are hams.

You were wrong there, too.

So easy to prove you wrong.


So far YOU haven't disproven anything.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

So minus your ONE example of a civilian director (BTW..He's the Chief of
MARS...NOT a MEMBER...You should learn the difference, Brain...) and the AD
personnel that I had already cited, we still have over 98% of the participants
in MARS as licensed Amateurs.

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...


But you're the one dragging out the false bravado. I think its all
you've got left at this point. You have no honor, you have no
dignity. You just keep piling one erroneous statement on top of
another, then call me names.


No "erroneous statements", Brain.

Without LICENSED RADIO AMATEURS to fill it's ranks, there would be no MARS
program.

As for "MARS IS Amateur Radio", I again refer to your lack of ability
to think in the abstract.

I also suggest you take a listen to almost ANY MARS net frequency during
"informal" time and tell me what's different about many of the conversations
that take place there as opposed to on "Amateur" frequencies, other than
different callsigns.

Lastly, as for "dignity" or "honor", I am not the one with an honesty
deficit.

That's you and Lennie.

Sucks to be you...Or should I say "Sucks to be the two of you"...?!?!

Deleted the rest. It's been beaten already. As have you, Brain.

Steve, K4YZ






William May 13th 04 11:55 AM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From:
(William)
Date: 5/11/2004 9:44 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


When it comes to "so wonderfully stupid" you DO seem to have a

propensity
to get in knee deep.


Yet you're up to your eyeballs.

You've done it again.


The deepness is of your making. Please don't attribute it to me.


Sorry, Brain, if you don't like being held up to the light of day.


I enjoy sunshine. It feels good.

So don't pretend or insinuate that you're "exposing" me. You're no
magician, and no matter how hard you try, people aren't buying into
your tricks.

Meanwhile, why have you been hiding from the first silly statement
that you made,

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

What frequency authorizations does MARS have in the amateur service?

What frequency authorizations does the amateur service have in MARS?

I am not "back-peddling" on anything.


Yes you are. Where is your original, "Sorry Hans..." statement? Huh?

No Amateur Radio = No MARS. You
have yet to disprove this.


You said, with the exception of a few "AD" personnel, ALL MARS members
are hams.

You were wrong there, too.

So easy to prove you wrong.


So far YOU haven't disproven anything.


I've disproved your statement. Isn't that what we're talking about?
Or have you veered somewhere else now?

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

So minus your ONE example of a civilian director


And that's all it takes. ONE Example!

(BTW..He's the Chief of
MARS...NOT a MEMBER...You should learn the difference, Brain...)


You're just fool of foolish statments, aren't you?

That is like saying that the Joint -Chiefs- of Staff aren't military
members.

and the AD
personnel that I had already cited, we still have over 98% of the participants
in MARS as licensed Amateurs.


First you said it was ALL of them. Then you said it was 99%. Then
you said it was over 90%. Then you said it was over 80%. Now you're
back up to over 98%.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Moving targetsand attempts at sleight of hand just aren't working.
You're no magician, and your tricks just aren't working.

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...


But you're the one dragging out the false bravado. I think its all
you've got left at this point. You have no honor, you have no
dignity. You just keep piling one erroneous statement on top of
another, then call me names.


No "erroneous statements", Brain.


Not even this one?

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

You're so silly.

Without LICENSED RADIO AMATEURS to fill it's ranks, there would be no MARS
program.


Yes there would be.

As for "MARS IS Amateur Radio", I again refer to your lack of ability
to think in the abstract.


Equations are not abstract.

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.

I also suggest you take a listen to almost ANY MARS net frequency during
"informal" time and tell me what's different about many of the conversations
that take place there as opposed to on "Amateur" frequencies, other than
different callsigns.


If they don't have information or traffic to pass, they should remain
silent.

Lastly, as for "dignity" or "honor", I am not the one with an honesty
deficit.


Huge, huge deficit. And you keep digging.

That's you and Lennie.


Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm
paraphrasing,

" ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ "

When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a
disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond.

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. He clammed
up and won't respond.

His silence is truly golden

Meanwhile, you just pollute R.R.A.P. with your constant "Liar, Liar,
Pants On Fire," rhetoric and indefensible statements such as, "
Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". "

Good Grief!

Shouting all of the time, constantly repeating falsehoods, and making
false accusations takes no honor, gives no dignity.

Take a hint from Jim and when you get called on for making such
foolish and stupid statements, just remain silent.

You're broken. Best of luck getting yourself repaired.

Sucks to be you...Or should I say "Sucks to be the two of you"...?!?!

Deleted the rest. It's been beaten already. As have you, Brain.


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

hi hi hi ;^)

William May 13th 04 12:03 PM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From:
(William)
Date: 5/11/2004 9:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


For an authoritative answer, please put your question to Don Rumsfeld.


No...I have asked you.

YOU have made this a two-week long diatribe. YOU insist that MARS and
Amateur Radio are not interwoven.


I have done no such thing. I simply proved that not ALL (as in 100%)
of MARS members are amateur radio operators as you unsuccessfully
tried to assert.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on you to prove that MARS=AMATEUR RADIO
as you have falsely asserted.

You keep kicking sand and making personal assaults. Your time would
be better spent gathering facts.

Just back up your statement with something from Part 97 or anything
from a DoD regulation.

That is all.

Dismissed.

Steve Robeson K4CAP May 14th 04 02:32 AM

Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William)
Date: 5/13/2004 5:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message


Sorry, Brain, if you don't like being held up to the light of day.


I enjoy sunshine. It feels good.


It should. It helps air out your problems.

You ahve a LOT of airing out to do, Brain.

So don't pretend or insinuate that you're "exposing" me. You're no
magician, and no matter how hard you try, people aren't buying into
your tricks.


I'm not "exposing" anything of yours, Brain...You do that all on your own.

Meanwhile, why have you been hiding from the first silly statement
that you made,

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

What frequency authorizations does MARS have in the amateur service?

What frequency authorizations does the amateur service have in MARS?


I am sure you consider it hiding.

You would. You've been getting your nose rubbed in your OWN "silly
statements" for the last several YEARS, now you think you've found something
you can latch on to.

You failed.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

As for the allocations, etc, it doesn't matter, Brain...No Amateur Radio =
No MARS.

So far YOU haven't disproven anything.


I've disproved your statement. Isn't that what we're talking about?
Or have you veered somewhere else now?

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

So minus your ONE example of a civilian director


And that's all it takes. ONE Example!


So, YOUR assertion is tht since there is ONE person in ALL of the MARS
program, that if the licensed Amateurs in the program all quit tomorrow it
wouldn't matter........

Uh huh.

Brain, if you think you've found the Holy grail, then far be it for me to
let you down, but if you think holding on to that ONE example of ALL the
members of MARS has found you a niche, then be happy in it.

(BTW..He's the Chief of
MARS...NOT a MEMBER...You should learn the difference, Brain...)


You're just fool of foolish statments, aren't you?

That is like saying that the Joint -Chiefs- of Staff aren't military
members.

and the AD
personnel that I had already cited, we still have over 98% of the

participants
in MARS as licensed Amateurs.


First you said it was ALL of them. Then you said it was 99%. Then
you said it was over 90%. Then you said it was over 80%. Now you're
back up to over 98%.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Moving targetsand attempts at sleight of hand just aren't working.
You're no magician, and your tricks just aren't working.


No tricks, Brain.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

Are YOU saying otherwise?

Is it YOUR assertion that the MARS program will function just fine without
all those licensed Amateurs?

No "erroneous statements", Brain.


Not even this one?

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

You're so silly.


No, not even that one.

It stands as it is. MARS exists as a direct decendant of an Amateur Radio
program, and it exists today only because of the sacrifice and hard work of
licensed Amatuers.

It represents the very essence of what Amateur Radio is all about.

Without LICENSED RADIO AMATEURS to fill it's ranks, there would be no

MARS
program.


Yes there would be.


You think MY statement is "silly", but then you make an utterly idiotic
one.

Excuse me...ANOTHER utterly idiotic one.

As for "MARS IS Amateur Radio", I again refer to your lack of

ability
to think in the abstract.


Equations are not abstract.

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 also suggest you take a listen to almost ANY MARS net frequency

during
"informal" time and tell me what's different about many of the

conversations
that take place there as opposed to on "Amateur" frequencies, other than
different callsigns.


If they don't have information or traffic to pass, they should remain
silent.


It's called "informal traffic", Brain.

It's allowed.

Lastly, as for "dignity" or "honor", I am not the one with an honesty
deficit.


Huge, huge deficit. And you keep digging.


Nope. This one's ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL yours, Mr. Burke. You've proven
yourself untrustworthy and dishonest.

Live with it...Your family manages to.........

Steve, K4YZ






Steve Robeson K4CAP May 14th 04 02:34 AM

Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From: (William)
Date: 5/13/2004 6:03 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From:
(William)
Date: 5/11/2004 9:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


For an authoritative answer, please put your question to Don Rumsfeld.


No...I have asked you.

YOU have made this a two-week long diatribe. YOU insist that MARS and
Amateur Radio are not interwoven.


I have done no such thing. I simply proved that not ALL (as in 100%)
of MARS members are amateur radio operators as you unsuccessfully
tried to assert.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on you to prove that MARS=AMATEUR RADIO
as you have falsely asserted.

You keep kicking sand and making personal assaults. Your time would
be better spent gathering facts.

Just back up your statement with something from Part 97 or anything
from a DoD regulation.

That is all.


No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

Dismissed.


Never by a punk like you, Mr. Burke. You haven't got it in you.

Steve, K4YZ







William May 14th 04 01:38 PM

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From:
(William)
Date: 5/13/2004 6:03 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: MARS IS "Amateur Radio".
From:
(William)
Date: 5/11/2004 9:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...


For an authoritative answer, please put your question to Don Rumsfeld.

No...I have asked you.

YOU have made this a two-week long diatribe. YOU insist that MARS and
Amateur Radio are not interwoven.


I have done no such thing. I simply proved that not ALL (as in 100%)
of MARS members are amateur radio operators as you unsuccessfully
tried to assert.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on you to prove that MARS=AMATEUR RADIO
as you have falsely asserted.

You keep kicking sand and making personal assaults. Your time would
be better spent gathering facts.

Just back up your statement with something from Part 97 or anything
from a DoD regulation.

That is all.


No Amateur Radio = No MARS.


Can you give me the volume and paragraph number for that?

It really is THAT simple.


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.

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.

William May 14th 04 01:47 PM

(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.

bb

Steve Robeson K4CAP May 14th 04 08:45 PM

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






Steve Robeson K4CAP May 14th 04 08:49 PM

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








N2EY May 14th 04 10:30 PM

(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.

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. I just don't have the time to read all the
back-and-forth between you and Steve.

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 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.

btw - ever hear of WERS?

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.

William May 16th 04 05:17 PM

(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. 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.

Is that correct?

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.

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 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.

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. I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as
amateurs. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that
amateur radio makes, was it not?

Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur
Radio. "

btw - ever hear of WERS?


Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where

"Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS."

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.

William May 16th 04 05:45 PM

(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.

N2EY May 16th 04 10:26 PM

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.

Steve Robeson, K4CAP May 16th 04 10:39 PM

(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

William May 17th 04 02:37 AM

(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.

William May 17th 04 02:49 AM

(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?

William May 17th 04 02:49 AM

(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?

Steve Robeson K4CAP 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






Steve Robeson K4CAP 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






N2EY May 17th 04 05:24 PM

(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.

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.

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.


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?

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.

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 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.
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.

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.

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.

despite your claim that you don't read my posts.


I don't read most of them. Would you prefer that I read none of them?
OK, Done.

PLONK


Bert Craig 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



Len Over 21 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



William 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

William 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.

Steve Robeson, K4CAP May 19th 04 01:57 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message

. com...


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 only "threat" is to those people who think that lying is an
acceptable means of "representing" Amateur Radio.

The Military Affiliate Radio System is...(SNIP)


...a lot older than the 1998 manual you cited.

Thanks for the history lesson. You cut and paste well.

It still does not change the fact that without licensed Amateur
Radio operators to man it, it would be defunct.

Now you lie.


The gunnery nurse has distinct definitions of "lie" different
from other people. Those who disagree with him are "always
lying."


Nice try. It's still not true.

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.


Back up Putzy.

There many in this forum who can attest to my having offered an "I
stand corrected" on several occasions.

On the OTHER hand, we have caught you in NUMEROUS errors or
blatant misrepresentations of the facts, and YOU have NEVER
apologized, offered a correction, or otherwise admitted your errors,
even when they were corroborated as errors by several respondents.

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'."


"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"....

Remember who said THAT Lennie?

You really have your moments of lowness and sliminess, but this
one was pretty well in the running with the lowest.

In as much as YOUR rear-area radio clerk duties were probably of
even less importance in :the grand scheme" of the Armed Forces, I
imagine it eats at you that MARS members do more for free than you
EVER did while on Uncle Sam's payroll.

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.


Thanks for once again demonstrating that your current events
knowldege of the Armed Forces is even less now than it was when you
were in it....If that's at all possible.

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.


Well, Your Scumminess...why don't you go right ahead and apply
for membership and a station authorization in N/MC MARS...?!?!

I'd love to see the result.

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.


I am sure you think that those are the circumstances, Lennie.

We'll just add it to the ever-expanidng list of what you DON'T
know.

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.


Contact the VA, Lennie.

You've got my full name, branch of service, and my date of birth
is 18 Sept 1955. You'll excuse me if I don't offer you my SSAN, too.

Of course that's been offered to you before and like most REAL
facts, you never follow-up on it.

That would be because you're a coward.

We have yet to see a "paper trail wide enough to roller skate
on to show where [gunnery nurse'] assertions are true."


You've been offered access to the VA to verify it before, Lennie.

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.


Not "someone", Lennie...You. Because you are a liar.

Always have been...always will. What a loser.

Steve, K4YZ

William 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

Len Over 21 May 19th 04 11:48 PM

In article ,
(the gunnery nurse presently off his medications again) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message

. com...


Please, not another threat to injure me.


[the above line is from Brian Burke using the "Billy Beeper" name
which the gunnery nurse forgot to include in quote lines...]

The gunnery nurse seems always to threaten people who disagree
with him. That's a LOT of threats.


The only "threat" is to those people who think that lying is an
acceptable means of "representing" Amateur Radio.


Quoting the official titles and military branches who control MARS
is not lying.

The Military Affiliate Radio System is...(SNIP)


...a lot older than the 1998 manual you cited.


I did not cite "manuals." I cited the current Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE as well as the three major military branch
REGULATIONS that define MARS within each others' branch.

MARS was "born" in 1925 as the AARS or Army Amateur Radio
System. That is thirty years older than you.

Thanks for the history lesson. You cut and paste well.


SOMEONE had to inform you since you were ignorant of the
beginnings of the Military Affiliate Radio System AND the pertinent
regulations of MARS.

It still does not change the fact that without licensed Amateur
Radio operators to man it, it would be defunct.


Incorrect. MARS functions - at its core - through military personnel
who man the headquarters such as Fort Huachuca, AZ, for the
Army and Scott AFB, IL, for the Air Force. Various military branch
net control stations around the country and the globe are manned
by military personnel who do NOT have to be licensed radio
amateurs.

Without the DoD DIRECTIVE, the Military Affiliate Radio System
would be defunct. It would no longer be military.

MARS seeks VOLUNTEERS for extensions of the MARS objective
and those come from amateur radio. Volunteers volunteer their
services but MUST abide by MARS regulations and operate for a
minimum amount of air time in any half-year period. In return, such
volunteers gain self-esteem plus a great deal of bragging rights to
fellow amateurs as if they "were somebody." Ho-hum.

Now you lie.


The gunnery nurse has distinct definitions of "lie" different
from other people. Those who disagree with him are "always
lying."


Nice try. It's still not true.

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.


Back up Putzy.


Who are you talking to? Do you call all who disagree with you
by Yiddish colloquialisms meaning "asshole" in English?

There many in this forum who can attest to my having offered an "I
stand corrected" on several occasions.


Those exist but they are BURIED under a torrent of verbal abuse
and denigrations you heap in hate of all those who disagree with
you. Google has it ALL.

On the OTHER hand, we have caught you in NUMEROUS errors or
blatant misrepresentations of the facts, and YOU have NEVER
apologized, offered a correction, or otherwise admitted your errors,
even when they were corroborated as errors by several respondents.


Incorrect again.

But, your newsgroup technique is noted. When confronted by a
challenge of misbehavior, you turn around and try the "mirror ploy"
of changing the subject of the accuser of the same "crime."

You have repeatedly tried to accuse Brian Burke of "not citing" any
military regulations pertaining to the Military Affiliate Radio System
for three weeks, yet were UNABLE to come up with any military
regulations or directives as any cite. Those were very easy to get
via a simple Internet search.

You can't "prove me wrong" on what I quoted about MARS since
all I had to do was to contact the appropriate directive and
regulations origins and repeat them. You were unable to do this.

There MIGHT be some DoD or military branch revisions that were
done since 1998 (six years ago) on MARS. If so, I will stand
corrected on proof of validity of such later revisions and being
presented with a publicly-accessible reference source for same.

However, YOU presented NOTHING in the way of MARS cites or
regulations that govern the existance of MARS. You had three
weeks to do that in and FAILED. You were attempting to "win
message points" by just bluster and bluff. That may work in the
USMC on lower ranks but it doesn't work in civilian society.

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'."


"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"....


The Military Affiliate Radio System does NOT employ any on-off
carrier keying communications modes such as "morse code."
:-)

You are trying to misdirect again by the "mirror ploy." That doesn't
work but you can't seem to understand that after six years of trying
to use it. You FAILED to come up with any cites of DoD Directives
of military branch Regulations after three weeks, and now you think
you can misdirect by more bluff and bluster? :-)

Remember who said THAT Lennie?


Who is "Lennie?" A character out of a Steinbeck novel? :-)

[if so, the name is spelled wrong...]

I am TRYING to concentrate on the manual telegraphy testing issue
but am engulfed in a sea of hatred from the pro-telegraphy proponents
who engage in uncivil behavior against those against the test.

However, YOU told a number of LIES in describing the Military
Affiliate Radio System and YOU are held accountable for those LIES.

You really have your moments of lowness and sliminess, but this
one was pretty well in the running with the lowest.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nasty name-calling does not befit the rank, status,
and privileges of amateur extra. Not even amateur human being.

Telling the TRUTH about the Military Affiliate Radio System is NOT
any form of "lying."

Challenging YOU on your inability to find appropriate cites for the
creation and continued existance of the Military Affiliate Radio
System is NOT any form of "lying." It may make you livid and
outraged, but that is so much TS for you. [send me your TS card
and I'll punch it for you]

In as much as YOUR rear-area radio clerk duties were probably of
even less importance in :the grand scheme" of the Armed Forces, I
imagine it eats at you that MARS members do more for free than you
EVER did while on Uncle Sam's payroll.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Livid and Outraged is an appropriate description of the
gunnery nurse.

1. I was NEVER a "radio clerk" in any capacity, not even in a Radio
Shack store. :-)

2. I was an MOS 281.6, microwave radio relay operations and
maintenance SUPERVISOR as well as a fixed-station HF radio
transmitter operations and maintenance SUPERVISOR.

3. I was assigned to the third-largest HF radio communications
facility in the entirety of the Army Command Administrative
Network for three years. The work I did during assignment
resulted in promotion as well as increase in responsibility.

4. Nothing "eats at me" for any reason of the existance of the
no-longer-primary HF radio communications networks of the
past, present, or future. I did my duties well, was rewarded
both professionally and personally (for liking what I did), and
that resulted in a personal change of future career directions
after completing military service.

5. Since the end of my military service obligations, I have worked
IN radio communications of civilian, military, and commercial
services, from VLF on up through about 25 GHz. While I've
never worked ON the DSN, any part of it, I have used it for
communications. [do you know what "DSN" is?]


Well, Your Scumminess...why don't you go right ahead and apply
for membership and a station authorization in N/MC MARS...?!?!

I'd love to see the result.


Why? I have NO desire to become a part of MARS. I was simply
injecting some official Directives and Regulations which you were
unable to supply in support of your little tantrum against Brian
Burke.

I'd love to see you return to regular medications to control your
emotional outbursts of hatred and outrage against those who
disagree with you. I don't expect to see that happen, but it would
be nice for all concerned.


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.


Contact the VA, Lennie.

You've got my full name, branch of service, and my date of birth
is 18 Sept 1955. You'll excuse me if I don't offer you my SSAN, too.


We don't believe you.

I don't have any such data that you describe. All anyone has is
"your word." So far all anyone has is a lot of bluff and bluster,
NO referenced documents and NO references from others who
supposedly "know you."

Of course that's been offered to you before and like most REAL
facts, you never follow-up on it.

That would be because you're a coward.


What "REAL facts?" NARA (National Archives and Records
Administration) in St. Louis has all the archived militrary service
records. It isn't worth 37 cents stamp and trouble of posting to
obtain your supposed "military record."

But, you are trying to misdirect again, trying to shift focus on
some supposed flaw of my character...and all I did was quote the
official Directive and branch Regulations of MARS. :-)

It wasn't "cowardice" to do a simple search and find all that
information. Took only a half hour at no cost. YOU failed to do
a simple thing like that in three weeks time in your tantrum
against Brian Burke. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

We have yet to see a "paper trail wide enough to roller skate
on to show where [gunnery nurse'] assertions are true."


You've been offered access to the VA to verify it before, Lennie.


The Veterans Administration can't "verify" your service record.

NARA can. Try to understand your government.

Not "someone", Lennie...You. Because you are a liar.

Always have been...always will. What a loser.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still off the meds. A supposed "medical professional"
who can't get medical help. :-)

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 May 19th 04 11:48 PM

In article , (the
gunnery nurse presently off his medications again) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message

. com...


Please, not another threat to injure me.


[the above line is from Brian Burke using the "Billy Beeper" name
which the gunnery nurse forgot to include in quote lines...]

The gunnery nurse seems always to threaten people who disagree
with him. That's a LOT of threats.


The only "threat" is to those people who think that lying is an
acceptable means of "representing" Amateur Radio.


Quoting the official titles and military branches who control MARS
is not lying.

The Military Affiliate Radio System is...(SNIP)


...a lot older than the 1998 manual you cited.


I did not cite "manuals." I cited the current Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE as well as the three major military branch
REGULATIONS that define MARS within each others' branch.

MARS was "born" in 1925 as the AARS or Army Amateur Radio
System. That is thirty years older than you.

Thanks for the history lesson. You cut and paste well.


SOMEONE had to inform you since you were ignorant of the
beginnings of the Military Affiliate Radio System AND the pertinent
regulations of MARS.

It still does not change the fact that without licensed Amateur
Radio operators to man it, it would be defunct.


Incorrect. MARS functions - at its core - through military personnel
who man the headquarters such as Fort Huachuca, AZ, for the
Army and Scott AFB, IL, for the Air Force. Various military branch
net control stations around the country and the globe are manned
by military personnel who do NOT have to be licensed radio
amateurs.

Without the DoD DIRECTIVE, the Military Affiliate Radio System
would be defunct. It would no longer be military.

MARS seeks VOLUNTEERS for extensions of the MARS objective
and those come from amateur radio. Volunteers volunteer their
services but MUST abide by MARS regulations and operate for a
minimum amount of air time in any half-year period. In return, such
volunteers gain self-esteem plus a great deal of bragging rights to
fellow amateurs as if they "were somebody." Ho-hum.

Now you lie.


The gunnery nurse has distinct definitions of "lie" different
from other people. Those who disagree with him are "always
lying."


Nice try. It's still not true.

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.


Back up Putzy.


Who are you talking to? Do you call all who disagree with you
by Yiddish colloquialisms meaning "asshole" in English?

There many in this forum who can attest to my having offered an "I
stand corrected" on several occasions.


Those exist but they are BURIED under a torrent of verbal abuse
and denigrations you heap in hate of all those who disagree with
you. Google has it ALL.

On the OTHER hand, we have caught you in NUMEROUS errors or
blatant misrepresentations of the facts, and YOU have NEVER
apologized, offered a correction, or otherwise admitted your errors,
even when they were corroborated as errors by several respondents.


Incorrect again.

But, your newsgroup technique is noted. When confronted by a
challenge of misbehavior, you turn around and try the "mirror ploy"
of changing the subject of the accuser of the same "crime."

You have repeatedly tried to accuse Brian Burke of "not citing" any
military regulations pertaining to the Military Affiliate Radio System
for three weeks, yet were UNABLE to come up with any military
regulations or directives as any cite. Those were very easy to get
via a simple Internet search.

You can't "prove me wrong" on what I quoted about MARS since
all I had to do was to contact the appropriate directive and
regulations origins and repeat them. You were unable to do this.

There MIGHT be some DoD or military branch revisions that were
done since 1998 (six years ago) on MARS. If so, I will stand
corrected on proof of validity of such later revisions and being
presented with a publicly-accessible reference source for same.

However, YOU presented NOTHING in the way of MARS cites or
regulations that govern the existance of MARS. You had three
weeks to do that in and FAILED. You were attempting to "win
message points" by just bluster and bluff. That may work in the
USMC on lower ranks but it doesn't work in civilian society.

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'."


"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"....


The Military Affiliate Radio System does NOT employ any on-off
carrier keying communications modes such as "morse code."
:-)

You are trying to misdirect again by the "mirror ploy." That doesn't
work but you can't seem to understand that after six years of trying
to use it. You FAILED to come up with any cites of DoD Directives
of military branch Regulations after three weeks, and now you think
you can misdirect by more bluff and bluster? :-)

Remember who said THAT Lennie?


Who is "Lennie?" A character out of a Steinbeck novel? :-)

[if so, the name is spelled wrong...]

I am TRYING to concentrate on the manual telegraphy testing issue
but am engulfed in a sea of hatred from the pro-telegraphy proponents
who engage in uncivil behavior against those against the test.

However, YOU told a number of LIES in describing the Military
Affiliate Radio System and YOU are held accountable for those LIES.

You really have your moments of lowness and sliminess, but this
one was pretty well in the running with the lowest.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nasty name-calling does not befit the rank, status,
and privileges of amateur extra. Not even amateur human being.

Telling the TRUTH about the Military Affiliate Radio System is NOT
any form of "lying."

Challenging YOU on your inability to find appropriate cites for the
creation and continued existance of the Military Affiliate Radio
System is NOT any form of "lying." It may make you livid and
outraged, but that is so much TS for you. [send me your TS card
and I'll punch it for you]

In as much as YOUR rear-area radio clerk duties were probably of
even less importance in :the grand scheme" of the Armed Forces, I
imagine it eats at you that MARS members do more for free than you
EVER did while on Uncle Sam's payroll.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Livid and Outraged is an appropriate description of the
gunnery nurse.

1. I was NEVER a "radio clerk" in any capacity, not even in a Radio
Shack store. :-)

2. I was an MOS 281.6, microwave radio relay operations and
maintenance SUPERVISOR as well as a fixed-station HF radio
transmitter operations and maintenance SUPERVISOR.

3. I was assigned to the third-largest HF radio communications
facility in the entirety of the Army Command Administrative
Network for three years. The work I did during assignment
resulted in promotion as well as increase in responsibility.

4. Nothing "eats at me" for any reason of the existance of the
no-longer-primary HF radio communications networks of the
past, present, or future. I did my duties well, was rewarded
both professionally and personally (for liking what I did), and
that resulted in a personal change of future career directions
after completing military service.

5. Since the end of my military service obligations, I have worked
IN radio communications of civilian, military, and commercial
services, from VLF on up through about 25 GHz. While I've
never worked ON the DSN, any part of it, I have used it for
communications. [do you know what "DSN" is?]


Well, Your Scumminess...why don't you go right ahead and apply
for membership and a station authorization in N/MC MARS...?!?!

I'd love to see the result.


Why? I have NO desire to become a part of MARS. I was simply
injecting some official Directives and Regulations which you were
unable to supply in support of your little tantrum against Brian
Burke.

I'd love to see you return to regular medications to control your
emotional outbursts of hatred and outrage against those who
disagree with you. I don't expect to see that happen, but it would
be nice for all concerned.


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.


Contact the VA, Lennie.

You've got my full name, branch of service, and my date of birth
is 18 Sept 1955. You'll excuse me if I don't offer you my SSAN, too.


We don't believe you.

I don't have any such data that you describe. All anyone has is
"your word." So far all anyone has is a lot of bluff and bluster,
NO referenced documents and NO references from others who
supposedly "know you."

Of course that's been offered to you before and like most REAL
facts, you never follow-up on it.

That would be because you're a coward.


What "REAL facts?" NARA (National Archives and Records
Administration) in St. Louis has all the archived militrary service
records. It isn't worth 37 cents stamp and trouble of posting to
obtain your supposed "military record."

But, you are trying to misdirect again, trying to shift focus on
some supposed flaw of my character...and all I did was quote the
official Directive and branch Regulations of MARS. :-)

It wasn't "cowardice" to do a simple search and find all that
information. Took only a half hour at no cost. YOU failed to do
a simple thing like that in three weeks time in your tantrum
against Brian Burke. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

We have yet to see a "paper trail wide enough to roller skate
on to show where [gunnery nurse'] assertions are true."


You've been offered access to the VA to verify it before, Lennie.


The Veterans Administration can't "verify" your service record.

NARA can. Try to understand your government.

Not "someone", Lennie...You. Because you are a liar.

Always have been...always will. What a loser.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still off the meds. A supposed "medical professional"
who can't get medical help. :-)

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

Steve Robeson, K4CAP May 21st 04 12:20 AM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...


But it is important to have a back-up for certain communications. The
"Base Support Team" concept is fairly well thought through.


MARS is "backup?" For what, Special Services? USO?


Watch out, Your Scumminess...your lack of practical experience is
showing...

In today's battlefield...(SNIP)


MARS is not, never was and never will be intended for "today's
battlefield".

I know that it's almost impossible for you to maintain relevance
while trolling, but please try and exceed our expectations JUST
ONCE...

MARS "might" be a good backup for civilian organization liason
such as REAL emergency interface with FEMA, etc., but it is an
old thing that never adapted beyond 1954. If nothing else, a few
MARS volunteers get to take home military commo equipment
that was declared surplus. Real green machines they can play
with...that the taxpayers once owned.


No "might" to it, Lennie...

Again...lack of experience...

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?


He sure wasn't in any military commo work. He can't name a single
military radio by either nomenclature or familiar name. Not even a
"plugger" (AN/PSN-11 GPS receiver).


Too bad for you, Lennie.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty in thinking he was ever IN the USMC.


You were once given my MOS's, dates of service, etc, both in this
forum and in private e-mail.

You have again been given adequate information to call the VA
yourself and verify my service.

Of course you won't...It would validate your liar status, even to
you.

If he was born in 1955 as he says (I'd already made E-5 then,
working on microwave terminals), then he could have enlisted at 18,
making that 1973 (I was a senior staff engineer at RCA EASD in
Van Nuys, CA, then). If he did about 18 years in the corpse, then he
got his medical discharge about 1991. [if he did a full 20 it was 1993]


Still not paying attention, Lennie...

As if THAT was a surprise...

Supposedly he got out on a medical "due to an accident." Okay, so
if the accident resulted in physical damage to curtail a USMC career
completion, how come for why he got a private pilot's rating? Did the
FAA "dumb down" the private pilot physical?


Nope.

The progression doesn't add up or make any logical routing. The
REAL story hasn't come out yet.


Sure it has. And it's made a liar out of you several times over.
Oh well...Sucks to be you.

Now we await what form the next spasm of hate and outrage will
take as the intrepid ace vomits more personal insults.


Nope. No "spasm"...That's YOUR schtick.

And it's not an "insult" if it's true.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson, K4CAP May 21st 04 01:23 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,

(the gunnery nurse presently off his medications again) writes:


It still does not change the fact that without licensed Amateur
Radio operators to man it, it would be defunct.


Incorrect. MARS functions - at its core - through military personnel
who man the headquarters such as Fort Huachuca, AZ, for the
Army and Scott AFB, IL, for the Air Force. Various military branch
net control stations around the country and the globe are manned
by military personnel who do NOT have to be licensed radio
amateurs.


As usual, only partially correct...more wrong than ocrrect.

Those programs are headquartered at the locations you cited.
Good job.

Those programs, beyond those confines, are mangaged by, conducted
by, and are "staffed" by volunteer licensed Amateur Radio operators.

I had already acknowledged that there are military personnel
assigned to certain MARS stations.

However those "net control stations" will have a hard time
"controlling" ANYthing if there was no one there to control.

Rest of usual "if you yell louder they will understand you"
trolling snipped.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

Steve, K4YZ

Len Over 21 May 21st 04 07:03 PM

In article ,
(Stevie the gunnery nurse) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(the gunnery nurse presently off his medications again) writes:


It still does not change the fact that without licensed Amateur
Radio operators to man it, it would be defunct.


Incorrect. MARS functions - at its core - through military personnel
who man the headquarters such as Fort Huachuca, AZ, for the
Army and Scott AFB, IL, for the Air Force. Various military branch
net control stations around the country and the globe are manned
by military personnel who do NOT have to be licensed radio
amateurs.


As usual, only partially correct...more wrong than ocrrect.


"Ocrrect?" :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...without the DoD Directive there would be NO MARS!

You don't seem to understand that.

I can't make it any simpler. MARS IS MILITARY.

MARS is NOT amateur.

MARS doesn't operate ON amateur radio frequencies.

MARS doesn't use amateur radio callsigns.

MARS has its own callsigns.

Amateurs can't use MARS callsigns IN amateur radio.

Those programs are headquartered at the locations you cited.
Good job.


What is "good" about doing a simple, one-time search?

YOU were unable to do the same simple task in three weeks.

BAD JOB to you, Oddjob-wannabe.

Those programs, beyond those confines, are mangaged by, conducted
by, and are "staffed" by volunteer licensed Amateur Radio operators.


Beyond what "confines?"

Confines of being UNABLE LEGALLY to operate MARS in amateur
bands?

Confines of being UNABLE LEGALLY to use amateur call signs
outside of ham bands?

Confines of being UNABLE LEGALLY to use MARS callsigns IN
ham bands?

I had already acknowledged that there are military personnel
assigned to certain MARS stations.


MARS is MILITARY. [that's what the "M" refers to in the acronym]

However those "net control stations" will have a hard time
"controlling" ANYthing if there was no one there to control.


If you say so, Man from MARS. :-)

However, it's very easy for a thousand or so MILITARY MARS
personnel to communicate with OTHER military MARS stations,
including inter-service-branch communications.

MARS military stations have the equipment, have the personnel,
have the authorization.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.


You have it really SO WRONG. :-)

No Department of Defense authorization for MARS means NO MARS.

MARS operates OUTSIDE of civil amateur radio bands.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

...and that's the way it is.

LHA / WMD

William May 21st 04 11:29 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,

(Stevie the gunnery nurse) writes:

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.


You have it really SO WRONG. :-)

No Department of Defense authorization for MARS means NO MARS.

MARS operates OUTSIDE of civil amateur radio bands.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

...and that's the way it is.

LHA / WMD


Yup.

Steve Robeson, K4CAP May 22nd 04 02:26 PM

(William) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,

(Stevie the gunnery nurse) writes:

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.


You have it really SO WRONG. :-)

No Department of Defense authorization for MARS means NO MARS.

MARS operates OUTSIDE of civil amateur radio bands.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

...and that's the way it is.



Yup.


Nope.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

Steve,K4YZ

Steve Robeson, K4CAP May 22nd 04 02:47 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,

(Stevie the gunnery nurse) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(the gunnery nurse presently off his medications again) writes:


It still does not change the fact that without licensed Amateur
Radio operators to man it, it would be defunct.

Incorrect. MARS functions - at its core - through military personnel
who man the headquarters such as Fort Huachuca, AZ, for the
Army and Scott AFB, IL, for the Air Force. Various military branch
net control stations around the country and the globe are manned
by military personnel who do NOT have to be licensed radio
amateurs.


As usual, only partially correct...more wrong than ocrrect.


"Ocrrect?"


My apologies, Lennie...I forgot that YOU are the only one allowed
to make typos in RRAP...Forgive me, Your Worminess...

Tsk, tsk, tsk...without the DoD Directive there would be NO MARS!


The DoD directive ENABLES MARS.

The civilian, licensed Radio Amateurs make it work.

You don't seem to understand that.


I understand it just fine. You and PuppetBoy are the one's with
comprehension problems.

I can't make it any simpler. MARS IS MILITARY.


MARS is supported and subsidized by the military. If MARS folded
tomorrow, the Armed Forces would manage just fine.

MARS is NOT amateur.


No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

MARS doesn't operate ON amateur radio frequencies.


You just noticed that, eh?

MARS doesn't use amateur radio callsigns.


Whoopie doo, Lennie.

MARS has its own callsigns.


And I said othrwise WHERE...?!?!

Amateurs can't use MARS callsigns IN amateur radio.


Sure they can.

Those programs are headquartered at the locations you cited.
Good job.


What is "good" about doing a simple, one-time search?


Nothing at all in your case, Lennie. I was trying to be civil.

YOU were unable to do the same simple task in three weeks.


Why? It's not necessary. They could be headquartered on the Sea
of Tranqulity and my assertion of No Amateur Radio = No MARS would
still be correct.

BAD JOB to you, Oddjob-wannabe.


You think I want to be a fat Japanese dude in an old James Bond
movie...?

Those programs, beyond those confines, are mangaged by, conducted
by, and are "staffed" by volunteer licensed Amateur Radio operators.


Beyond what "confines?"

Confines of being UNABLE LEGALLY to operate MARS in amateur
bands?


No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

Confines of being UNABLE LEGALLY to use amateur call signs
outside of ham bands?


No Amateur Radio = No MARS

Confines of being UNABLE LEGALLY to use MARS callsigns IN
ham bands?


No Amatuer Radio = No MARS

I had already acknowledged that there are military personnel
assigned to certain MARS stations.


MARS is MILITARY. [that's what the "M" refers to in the acronym]


And the "A" is "A"ffiliate...Amateur Radio being the organization
it (MARS) is affiliated with.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

However those "net control stations" will have a hard time
"controlling" ANYthing if there was no one there to control.


If you say so, Man from MARS.


And they'd be talking to...whom...?!?!

Those messages would be getting delivered by...whom..?!?!

However, it's very easy for a thousand or so MILITARY MARS
personnel to communicate with OTHER military MARS stations,
including inter-service-branch communications.


A THOUSAND...?!?!

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

ANDERSCUM, every time I think you've exhausted your last stupid
assertion about Amateur Radio or anything associated with it, you
prove me wrong and add ONE MORE to the till!

MARS military stations have the equipment, have the personnel,
have the authorization.


Authorization...Yes...almost every Marine Corps unit I was
attached to had a Navy/MC callsign assigned to it.

In almost every case, I was the ONLY person in the unit who knew
what it was, and that was only because I found out from some personal
interest.

I know of at least four Navy vessels that had MARS callsigns
assigned that had NO operators, and in two of those cases the CEO had
no idea what his MARS call was nor how to go about using it!

Two local Army Reserve units have MARS calls. They are only
active because the local, civilian, licensed Amateurs who happen to be
MARS members have approached the commanders of the units to which they
are assigned and got them "active".

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.


You have it really SO WRONG.

No Department of Defense authorization for MARS means NO MARS.

MARS operates OUTSIDE of civil amateur radio bands.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

...and that's the way it is.


The "way it is" is that you ahve once again unzipped your fly and
let us see just how little you really have to show, Lennie!

You make a loud rant "on paper", but what you have shown us is
that beyond the "theoretical" of searchable public documents, you have
absolutely NO IDEA of what you are talking about.

You are the very epitiome of the ABUSE of free speech...A big
mouth with no facts to back it up...

Oh well...Nothing new from you, Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson, K4CAP May 22nd 04 02:59 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

No Department of Defense authorization for MARS means NO MARS.


No Amateur Radio = No MARS

MARS operates OUTSIDE of civil amateur radio bands.


Which SHOULD be good news to you....BUT...

MARS is NOT amateur radio.


And NEITHER ARE YOU!

...and that's the way it is.


Yup.

BTW...You gonna put that application through to N/MC MARS and see
what happens or what...???

Steve, K4YZ

JJ May 22nd 04 05:18 PM

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
(William) wrote in message . com...

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

In article ,

(Stevie the gunnery nurse) writes:


No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.

You have it really SO WRONG. :-)

No Department of Defense authorization for MARS means NO MARS.

MARS operates OUTSIDE of civil amateur radio bands.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

...and that's the way it is.



Yup.



Nope.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

Steve,K4YZ


Maybe it should be No Amateur Radio = No MARS participation.


Brian Kelly May 23rd 04 04:48 AM

(William) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,

(Stevie the gunnery nurse) writes:

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

It really is THAT simple.


You have it really SO WRONG. :-)

No Department of Defense authorization for MARS means NO MARS.

MARS operates OUTSIDE of civil amateur radio bands.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

...and that's the way it is.

LHA / WMD


Yup.


Yo Bleeper . . this thread brings up a question . . how many pieces of
MARS traffic did your morphed version of T5/NØIMD handle?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com