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