| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
May 13th 04, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William) Date: 5/11/2004 9:44 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... When it comes to "so wonderfully stupid" you DO seem to have a propensity to get in knee deep. Yet you're up to your eyeballs. You've done it again. The deepness is of your making. Please don't attribute it to me. Sorry, Brain, if you don't like being held up to the light of day. I am not "back-peddling" on anything. Yes you are. Where is your original, "Sorry Hans..." statement? Huh? No Amateur Radio = No MARS. You have yet to disprove this. You said, with the exception of a few "AD" personnel, ALL MARS members are hams. You were wrong there, too. So easy to prove you wrong. So far YOU haven't disproven anything. No Amateur Radio = No MARS. So minus your ONE example of a civilian director (BTW..He's the Chief of MARS...NOT a MEMBER...You should learn the difference, Brain...) and the AD personnel that I had already cited, we still have over 98% of the participants in MARS as licensed Amateurs. Maybe I ought to copy all this stuff and send it to Mrs. Beeper. Perhaps she can explain it to you. Perhaps she can also explain to US why you have a history of pathological lying and an inate ability to get yourself into corners with your mouth that your bravado can't bull you out of... But you're the one dragging out the false bravado. I think its all you've got left at this point. You have no honor, you have no dignity. You just keep piling one erroneous statement on top of another, then call me names. No "erroneous statements", Brain. Without LICENSED RADIO AMATEURS to fill it's ranks, there would be no MARS program. As for "MARS IS Amateur Radio", I again refer to your lack of ability to think in the abstract. I also suggest you take a listen to almost ANY MARS net frequency during "informal" time and tell me what's different about many of the conversations that take place there as opposed to on "Amateur" frequencies, other than different callsigns. Lastly, as for "dignity" or "honor", I am not the one with an honesty deficit. That's you and Lennie. Sucks to be you...Or should I say "Sucks to be the two of you"...?!?! Deleted the rest. It's been beaten already. As have you, Brain. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#3
May 14th 04, 02:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William) Date: 5/13/2004 5:55 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message Sorry, Brain, if you don't like being held up to the light of day. I enjoy sunshine. It feels good. It should. It helps air out your problems. You ahve a LOT of airing out to do, Brain. So don't pretend or insinuate that you're "exposing" me. You're no magician, and no matter how hard you try, people aren't buying into your tricks. I'm not "exposing" anything of yours, Brain...You do that all on your own. Meanwhile, why have you been hiding from the first silly statement that you made, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". " What frequency authorizations does MARS have in the amateur service? What frequency authorizations does the amateur service have in MARS? I am sure you consider it hiding. You would. You've been getting your nose rubbed in your OWN "silly statements" for the last several YEARS, now you think you've found something you can latch on to. You failed. No Amateur Radio = No MARS. As for the allocations, etc, it doesn't matter, Brain...No Amateur Radio = No MARS. So far YOU haven't disproven anything. I've disproved your statement. Isn't that what we're talking about? Or have you veered somewhere else now? No Amateur Radio = No MARS. So minus your ONE example of a civilian director And that's all it takes. ONE Example! So, YOUR assertion is tht since there is ONE person in ALL of the MARS program, that if the licensed Amateurs in the program all quit tomorrow it wouldn't matter........ Uh huh. Brain, if you think you've found the Holy grail, then far be it for me to let you down, but if you think holding on to that ONE example of ALL the members of MARS has found you a niche, then be happy in it. (BTW..He's the Chief of MARS...NOT a MEMBER...You should learn the difference, Brain...) You're just fool of foolish statments, aren't you? That is like saying that the Joint -Chiefs- of Staff aren't military members. and the AD personnel that I had already cited, we still have over 98% of the participants in MARS as licensed Amateurs. First you said it was ALL of them. Then you said it was 99%. Then you said it was over 90%. Then you said it was over 80%. Now you're back up to over 98%. Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about? Moving targetsand attempts at sleight of hand just aren't working. You're no magician, and your tricks just aren't working. No tricks, Brain. No Amateur Radio = No MARS. Are YOU saying otherwise? Is it YOUR assertion that the MARS program will function just fine without all those licensed Amateurs? No "erroneous statements", Brain. Not even this one? " Sorry Hans, MARS IS "Amateur Radio". " You're so silly. No, not even that one. It stands as it is. MARS exists as a direct decendant of an Amateur Radio program, and it exists today only because of the sacrifice and hard work of licensed Amatuers. It represents the very essence of what Amateur Radio is all about. Without LICENSED RADIO AMATEURS to fill it's ranks, there would be no MARS program. Yes there would be. You think MY statement is "silly", but then you make an utterly idiotic one. Excuse me...ANOTHER utterly idiotic one. As for "MARS IS Amateur Radio", I again refer to your lack of ability to think in the abstract. Equations are not abstract. Steve, quit you're silly charade. Just admit that you were wrong. All of this sand kicking just makes you look bad - like a cat trying to cover up something stinky. The "something stinky" is in Ohio...Shall I come bury it for you? I also suggest you take a listen to almost ANY MARS net frequency during "informal" time and tell me what's different about many of the conversations that take place there as opposed to on "Amateur" frequencies, other than different callsigns. If they don't have information or traffic to pass, they should remain silent. It's called "informal traffic", Brain. It's allowed. Lastly, as for "dignity" or "honor", I am not the one with an honesty deficit. Huge, huge deficit. And you keep digging. Nope. This one's ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL yours, Mr. Burke. You've proven yourself untrustworthy and dishonest. Live with it...Your family manages to......... Steve, K4YZ |
|
#4
May 14th 04, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
May 14th 04, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Subject: Who are the FISTS members on RRAP?
From: (William) Date: 5/14/2004 7:47 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... snip Steve, quit you're silly charade. Just admit that you were wrong. All of this sand kicking just makes you look bad - like a cat trying to cover up something stinky. The "something stinky" is in Ohio...Shall I come bury it for you? I perceive a threat in that question. snip Steve, K4YZ You keep making references to wanting to come to Ohio to do something to me or for me. I suggest that you stay away. Sorry..I was born an raised in Ohio. Never can tell when I might pass through. Keep an ear peeled to your local repeater for me signing "mobile eight". As for th threat, you claimed somehting was stinky. I offered to bury it for you. Sorry that you saw a threat in that. YOU asserted I was a "cat trying to cover up something stinky". I don't need to tell you how I "percieved" that... And as for coming to Ohio to "do something to (you)"...Don't flatter yourself. You're not worth the gas...especially THESE days... Steve, K4YZ |
|
#6
May 14th 04, 10:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
May 16th 04, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. Is that correct? When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio. " btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." He clammed up and won't respond. I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because you didn't understand it. His silence is truly golden Time is money. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. |
|
#8
May 16th 04, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message .com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. In fact I started a new thread with that post. It was a description of radio station WAR at a specific point in time. I didn't write it, I just quoted it - exactly as written. Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio. " I have no opinion on the matter. btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. He clammed up and won't respond. I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because you didn't understand it. His silence is truly golden Time is money. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. |
|
#9
May 17th 04, 02:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. So a Morse Exam can only be a disincentive if it's in the future, even though many, many, many amateurs have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and all other opinions are wrong? When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. It would have to be presented as a quote to do that. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. I think we put out about equal time, despite your claim that you don't read my posts. In fact I started a new thread with that post. It was a description of radio station WAR at a specific point in time. I didn't write it, I just quoted it - exactly as written. Cool. Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio. " I have no opinion on the matter. You're a funny guy. btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. The article didn't say anything about -amateur- transmissions being allowed. There were also community civil defense type radio transmissions authorized, and amateurs were often the operators of such community stations, but not in an amateur capacity. He clammed up and won't respond. I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because you didn't understand it. His silence is truly golden Time is money. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? |
|
#10
May 17th 04, 02:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (William) wrote in message . com... Nope, like your pea-pod brother TAFKA Jim/N2EY saying, and I'm paraphrasing, " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " Brian, You're not paraphrasing what I wrote. You're misquoting me. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: N2EY ) Subject: My Idea For A New License Structure View: Complete Thread (48 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2004-01-31 07:50:35 PST In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim, I paraphrased your statment. No, you didn't. You isquoted it, in such a way that the meaning was changed. You stated, and the idea was, if the CW exam is dropped for voice, and if retained for CW use, it would act as a disincentive for CW to be used in the lower 100 KHz of any band. That's correct. *IF* such changes were made *in the future*, the test *would act* as a disincentive. Which is quite a different thing from what you wrote: " ~Morse Code exams are a disincentive to CW use.~ " *are* is present tense. *Would be* is future conditional tense. Your misquote changes the meaning. So it's neither a quote nor a paraphrase. Is that correct? See above. Now you can argue the details all you want but the fact remains your misquote does not have the same meaning. So a Morse Exam can only be a disincentive if it's in the future, even though many, many, many amateurs have posted here that it has been a disincentive in the past, and is currently a disincentive. And only you can say what is a disincentive in the amateur world, and all other opinions are wrong? When I pointed out that Morse Code exams have always been a disincentive to amateur radio, he clammed up and won't respond. I don't respond to most of your posts because they're not worth my time to read. You could have responded immediately to my direct post to your statement about the CW exam being a disincentive. You could have quoted me accurately, but you didn't. Then you could have corrected it a long, long time ago. I just don't have the time to read all the back-and-forth between you and Steve. Nor does Steve, but he makes an effort. I'm not Steve. Despite your calling me names and characterizing me as his "pea-pod brother", I'm not him. Not even close. So you really do read all of my posts, or at least make an effort. I came across this one by chance and am responding. Or when he held up some OT amateurs who saved the day in WWII, but I pointed out that we had no operating priveleges in WWII. Another misquote. I didn't quote nor did I paraphrase. That's true! You misquoted. It would have to be presented as a quote to do that. I posted a historic item about the use of Morse Code by our military in WW2. Some of the operators were hams. No claim was made that they were operating amateur radio stations. But some folks get all riled up over *anything* positive being posted about Morse Code, even if it happened over 60 years ago. I don't have a problem with historical fact or even Morse Code use today. Then why did you misquote me? Why all the fuss about the historical item I posted? I do have a problem with inaccurately holding up soldiers as amateurs. Where was that done? Fact is, many WW1 and WW2-era radio operators were also amateurs. Many were recruited specifically because they *were* radio amateurs. This is well documented fact. Silencing of the transmitters is also a well documented fact. And the flavor of the post was about contributions that amateur radio makes, was it not? Look it up. You obviously have more time for newsgrouping than I. I think we put out about equal time, despite your claim that you don't read my posts. In fact I started a new thread with that post. It was a description of radio station WAR at a specific point in time. I didn't write it, I just quoted it - exactly as written. Cool. Do you agree with Steve that, " Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio. " I have no opinion on the matter. You're a funny guy. btw - ever hear of WERS? Is this the reciprocol of Steve's Law, where "Sorry Hans, Amateur Radio IS MARS." You don't know what WERS was, then. The article didn't say anything about -amateur- transmissions being allowed. There were also community civil defense type radio transmissions authorized, and amateurs were often the operators of such community stations, but not in an amateur capacity. He clammed up and won't respond. I'm responding now. You are misquoting what I wrote, probably because you didn't understand it. His silence is truly golden Time is money. Then be succinct, and do clear up any misunderstandings right away. Why? You don't do that. Time is money? |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| light bulbs in rrap | Policy | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
Hybrid Mode
