"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
hlink.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
link.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...

Back when I was giving CW tests for the license exams I used a key
and a oscillator. So there is your arguement shot down.

Dan/W4NTI




You'll have to do better than that

I understand it is difficult for you to understand how it is to be a
real ham. You know one that knows and uses other modes than phone.

Again you will simply have to learn to deal with that Alun. I am sure
you will find someone out there that will agree, and simpathize with
you and your problem. However, I am not that person.

Have a good day.

Dan/W4NTI




You are the one with the problem

Because you say so? I think not.

Dan/W4NTI




Well, I am a bit puzzled why I would need to find someone to sympathise
with "my problem", because I don't have one.

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
"Real ham" = One who abides by 1930s standards and practices

That is incorrect, Leonard.

Not in the context of the particular give-and-take with "Real Ham"
Dan. :-)

A "real ham" is one who holds an amateur radio license.

Actually, a "real ham" is the butchered meat of swine. :-)

Then why are you trying to tell us that " "Real ham' = One who abides by
1930s standards and practices"?

The FCC regulations don't define "ham" at all. The FDA does.


You have no stake whatever in amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. All you want to do in here (which is newsgrouping,
not amateur radio) is drive a stake through any heart that doesn't
beat to the rhythm of classical radiotelegraphy in amateur radio.

You've told us on numerous occasions all you want to do here. You never
seem to get around to doing what you've stated. Now you'd like to tell
me all I want to do. I've not stated all I want to do here so your
comments are conjecture on your part. Take your pick, Leonard:
classical telegraphy, classical SSB, classical AM phone. You aren't
doing any of them in amateur radio. You aren't a participant.


This is the year 2004, over 6 decades later.

...and despite your self-declared several decades interest in amateur
radio, you have yet to show enough interest to become a participant.

Oh? Did you miss something in the past six years of messaging
in here? I've been a professional involved with radio and radio
communications. Interesting work. Paid well, too. I've
communicated on frequencies you aren't allowed to as a "licensed
amateur" or even as a State Department government employee.
:-)

1. I wrote "amateur radio". You're drifting off into a description of
your past professional radio experience once again.

2. I don't really care where on which frequencies you communicated as a
professional.

3. You have no idea which frequencies are used or may be used by the
U.S. Department of State.

Didn't need a bit of manual telegraphy skills or licensing (as an
amateur) to do any of that.

You wouldn't need any to obtain the most basic amateur radio license in
the U.S. either.

Where is it "written" that I have to demonstrate some "interest in
radio" to the Great Heil?

I didn't write anything about "some interest in radio".

You DEMAND amateur radio license acquisition in order to state
anything on amateur radio regulations in here.

I've DEMANDed nothing. I continue to point out that you have nothing to
do with amateur radio as a participant or a regulator.

You should make public your "authorization" to make such demands.

You should look up the definition of the word "demand".

Without that "authorization" you are just another bitchy whining
complainer who can't hack any real discussion beyond the "official"
words on amateur-radio-as-it-used-to-was when you first engaged
in that hobby.

Wrong-o, Pops. I'm a licensed radio amateur. I have a vested interest
in any changes in regulations involving amateur radio license testing or
amateur radio operation. You, on the other hand...

Without that "authorization" you are just another SS-wannabe who
wants nothing more than to fight anyone who doesn't agree with
your "orders" posted on this bulletin board. In other words, just
another disagreeable gunnery nurse (but without bedpan).

"Fight"? "Orders"? If we were fighting, you'd best pack a lunch and
rest up beforehand, old timer. I haven't issued any orders.

Until you show your "authorization," you'll have to discuss it with
the only Real Authority on this newsgroup, Paul Schleck. Hint:
he is a licensed radio amateur of Amateur Extra rank.

I'll have to discuss what with Paul Schleck?

What you seem to want this newsgroup to become is just another
Chat Room where like-minded dittyboppers can commiserate in a
mental commisary all about "real hams" (who know and love morse
code) and follow the League's orders explicitly, complete with all
the jargon and standards and practices of 1930's amateur radio.

You aren't wrapped very tight.

Meanwhile, this newsgroup is still unmoderated and open to anyone
with Internet access. No doubt you will redouble your efforts to put
down anyone who doesn't think like you do and DEMAND certain
things in order to satisfy your "authorized" orders. Pththththth.

No DEMANDs have been made of you, Len. You continue to post. I'll
continue to point out your lack of anything to do with amateur radio.
You've certainly kept mum about your childlike antics exemplified by
some of your comments to the FCC. Wanna discuss those?

Dave K8MN

In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

What happened 'putz'? Did you sneak out of your booby bin again?

Crawl back under your rock. Better yet go somewhere and die.

Nice strength of character and civility you do NOT show,
Danny Boy. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
"Real ham" = One who abides by 1930s standards and practices

That is incorrect, Leonard.

Not in the context of the particular give-and-take with "Real Ham"
Dan. :-)

A "real ham" is one who holds an amateur radio license.

Actually, a "real ham" is the butchered meat of swine. :-)

Then why are you trying to tell us that " "Real ham' = One who abides by
1930s standards and practices"?

I'm not telling you that. All those who trumpet the 1930s standards
and practices do. :-)

You still want to maintain the ancient rules...because you got your
title, rank, status under that archaic standard.

Losing that title, rank, status, even if only to yourself, would be a
mighty blow to your self-esteem. [that's rather obvious]

The FCC regulations don't define "ham" at all. The FDA does.

Ham is the butchered meat of swine. :-)


You've told us on numerous occasions all you want to do here.

I'm doing that. :-)

You never seem to get around to doing what you've stated.

Less here where it doesn't count for much in the real world.

LOTS more at the FCC where it DOES count.

Now you'd like to tell me all I want to do.

Nobody can tell Big Dave what to do...he da man! :-)

I've not stated all I want to do here so your
comments are conjecture on your part.

All you seem to do in here is bitch, moan, get nasty at folks who
don't agree with you. Not a likeable guy you are. :-)

Take your pick, Leonard:
classical telegraphy, classical SSB, classical AM phone. You aren't
doing any of them in amateur radio. You aren't a participant.

None of THIS newsgrouping IS amateur radio, Big Dave.

The FCC is NOT a "participant" in U.S. amateur radio.

The FCC MAKES the rules and regulations for U.S. amateur radio.

You seem to have a terrible incognizance problem with those two
sentences! [mental Pampers would help you]

1. I wrote "amateur radio". You're drifting off into a description of
your past professional radio experience once again.

Boils you down to very pale meat, doesn't it? :-)

2. I don't really care where on which frequencies you communicated as a
professional.

You just don't "care" about anything but attempting to triumph over
others in a newsgroup! :-)

3. You have no idea which frequencies are used or may be used by the
U.S. Department of State.

Does State have its own MARS-like organization? :-)

Since when did State enter into this discussion...other than you want
to impress your neighbors about your mighty governmental career?

Didn't need a bit of manual telegraphy skills or licensing (as an
amateur) to do any of that.

You wouldn't need any to obtain the most basic amateur radio license in
the U.S. either.

I have no need for any amateur radio license. I'm "not a participant,"
remember? :-)

Where is it "written" that I have to demonstrate some "interest in
radio" to the Great Heil?

I didn't write anything about "some interest in radio".

Now, now, don't get petulant. This isn't a quibble over semantics
or syntax or spelling.

You've written MUCH about the equate of "having an interest in
radio" with amateur radio. You can't deny that. It's in Google all
nice and archived for those so bruised and battered over losing
verbal battles that they have to quote endlessly from it. :-)

You DEMAND amateur radio license acquisition in order to state
anything on amateur radio regulations in here.

I've DEMANDed nothing. I continue to point out that you have nothing to
do with amateur radio as a participant or a regulator.

You DEMAND that ALL who "have an interest in radio" become
radio amateurs, all nicely licensed and mentally very important.

You can't deny that. [but you will vainly, and self-importantly try]

You should make public your "authorization" to make such demands.

You should look up the definition of the word "demand".

You should take off that Luftwaffe Oberst costume and return it to
Western Casting. Otto Preminger imitations from "Stalag 17" are
outre' and trite, rather old.

Wrong-o, Pops. I'm a licensed radio amateur. I have a vested interest
in any changes in regulations involving amateur radio license testing or
amateur radio operation.

Your "vest" is in bad need of tailoring. The importance of your self
has resulted in an expansion of your mental waist beyond limits.

You are LICENSED! Oh, my. Terribly important you are!


Without that "authorization" you are just another SS-wannabe who
wants nothing more than to fight anyone who doesn't agree with
your "orders" posted on this bulletin board. In other words, just
another disagreeable gunnery nurse (but without bedpan).

"Fight"? "Orders"? If we were fighting, you'd best pack a lunch and
rest up beforehand, old timer. I haven't issued any orders.

Sweetums, if this had been a real physical fight, you wouldn't have
been able to write anydamnthing in here. :-)


I'll have to discuss what with Paul Schleck?

For starters, your "participation" in this newsgroup.

Do you have a "participation license" granted to you to bitch and
whine and moan in here about those who aren't licensed in
amateurism?

What you seem to want this newsgroup to become is just another
Chat Room where like-minded dittyboppers can commiserate in a
mental commisary all about "real hams" (who know and love morse
code) and follow the League's orders explicitly, complete with all
the jargon and standards and practices of 1930's amateur radio.

You aren't wrapped very tight.

No problem. You are unable to open packages, gift or otherwise.


No DEMANDs have been made of you, Len.

Irrelevant since you can't order anyone around, despite your mighty
psycho-war effort to bluff and bluster others off your "licensed"
turf. :-)

You continue to post.

It's your time you are wasting. No problem for me. :-)

I'll continue to point out your lack of anything to do with amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still into the "turf" thing, aren't you? :-)

You've certainly kept mum about your childlike antics exemplified by
some of your comments to the FCC.

What "childlike" antics, little toddler? :-)

Poor baby. Can't take grown-up debate against opposite-to-yours
opinions, can you?

You have to call them "childlike" as if you were a "grown-up" trying
to spank children? [you must have been talking to Dee?]

You seem to have dysfunctional attributes in your "parenting." :-)

Wanna discuss those?

Not with SS-wannabes like yourself.

The FCC makes and enforces the civil radio regulations in the United
States. If you have an old bone that you think needs gnawing on,
then go make your Comments to the FCC about regulations.

It probably busts your chops no end that actual civilians, citizens of
this country, can actually hold a discussion-debate with government.
You just can't stand it when others have opinions contrary to yours.
You have to call such folks names, denigrate them, pejorate them,
do all you can to stifle independent thought.

Hiram forbid that anyone should think opposite to your god-like
viewpoints! After all, you are federally LICENSED as an amateur!

You are a PARTICIPANT!

Only YOU RULE! ...nobody else allowed to say anydamnthing. :-)

The colonel just loves it when a dictatorial plan comes together...

LHA / WMD

"Alun" wrote in message
...

Well, I am a bit puzzled why I would need to find someone to sympathise
with "my problem", because I don't have one.

See? There it is....that's your problem. You don't even recognize you have
it.

Dan/W4NTI

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

You've told us on numerous occasions all you want to do here. You never
seem to get around to doing what you've stated. Now you'd like to tell
me all I want to do. I've not stated all I want to do here so your
comments are conjecture on your part. Take your pick, Leonard:
classical telegraphy, classical SSB, classical AM phone. You aren't
doing any of them in amateur radio. You aren't a participant.

It seems to me that Lennie's UNaccomplishments in "radio" far
exceed anything he MAY have accomplished.

And his "word" as to what he says he's going to do is useless.

Oh? Did you miss something in the past six years of messaging
in here? I've been a professional involved with radio and radio
communications. Interesting work. Paid well, too. I've
communicated on frequencies you aren't allowed to as a "licensed
amateur" or even as a State Department government employee.
:-)

1. I wrote "amateur radio". You're drifting off into a description of
your past professional radio experience once again.

2. I don't really care where on which frequencies you communicated as a
professional.

Lennie may be allowed to "communicate" on any number of of
DISCREET channels at any one time, and then only as the parameters of
the contract he may be presently working on allow.

He has never been allowed, and at present will not be allowed, to
select the frequency, the mode, or the parameters under which he
"operates".

You DEMAND amateur radio license acquisition in order to state
anything on amateur radio regulations in here.

I've DEMANDed nothing. I continue to point out that you have nothing to
do with amateur radio as a participant or a regulator.

You should make public your "authorization" to make such demands.

You should look up the definition of the word "demand".

Common sense would dictate that anyone "commenting" on how others
"do" something actually have some EXPERIENCE in what they are
commenting about.

It goes without saying that Lennie has absolutely NO experience
in Amateur Radio practice. He can cut-and-paste from various websites
all day long about the THEORY of Amateur practice (noting that I am
NOT addressing "technical" theory")

Without that "authorization" you are just another bitchy whining
complainer who can't hack any real discussion beyond the "official"
words on amateur-radio-as-it-used-to-was when you first engaged
in that hobby.

Wrong-o, Pops. I'm a licensed radio amateur. I have a vested interest
in any changes in regulations involving amateur radio license testing or
amateur radio operation. You, on the other hand...

Without that "authorization" you are just another SS-wannabe who
wants nothing more than to fight anyone who doesn't agree with
your "orders" posted on this bulletin board. In other words, just
another disagreeable gunnery nurse (but without bedpan).

"Fight"? "Orders"? If we were fighting, you'd best pack a lunch and
rest up beforehand, old timer. I haven't issued any orders.

Ahhhhh yes...As soon as he's backed into yet another corner,
Lennie switches back to making analogies to the Nazis.

How predictable.

Until you show your "authorization," you'll have to discuss it with
the only Real Authority on this newsgroup, Paul Schleck. Hint:
he is a licensed radio amateur of Amateur Extra rank.

I'll have to discuss what with Paul Schleck?

What you seem to want this newsgroup to become is just another
Chat Room where like-minded dittyboppers can commiserate in a
mental commisary all about "real hams" (who know and love morse
code) and follow the League's orders explicitly, complete with all
the jargon and standards and practices of 1930's amateur radio.

You aren't wrapped very tight.

I am wondering what "orders" he refers to, Dave...?!?!

I've never received any "directives" or other "orders" from
Newington or any League representitive.

Meanwhile, this newsgroup is still unmoderated and open to anyone
with Internet access. No doubt you will redouble your efforts to put
down anyone who doesn't think like you do and DEMAND certain
things in order to satisfy your "authorized" orders. Pththththth.

No DEMANDs have been made of you, Len. You continue to post. I'll
continue to point out your lack of anything to do with amateur radio.
You've certainly kept mum about your childlike antics exemplified by
some of your comments to the FCC. Wanna discuss those?

And he'll continue to post, regardless of how silly or obviously
uninformed or ill-prepared his rantings may be.

Works for me...Only serves to prove what we've been saying about
him all along.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
hlink.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...

Well, I am a bit puzzled why I would need to find someone to
sympathise with "my problem", because I don't have one.

See? There it is....that's your problem. You don't even recognize you
have it.

Dan/W4NTI




So, let's see if I have this right, according to you I have a problem
because I only operate one mode? Well, you're right about one thing, I do
fail to see what part of that is a problem.

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
hlink.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...

Well, I am a bit puzzled why I would need to find someone to
sympathise with "my problem", because I don't have one.

See? There it is....that's your problem. You don't even recognize you
have it.

Dan/W4NTI




So, let's see if I have this right, according to you I have a problem
because I only operate one mode? Well, you're right about one thing, I do
fail to see what part of that is a problem.

You need to stop now Alun. All you are doing is proving my point over and
over. You are a lid because you operate only phone.

Have a Good day mate.

Dan/W4NTI

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
"Real ham" = One who abides by 1930s standards and practices

That is incorrect, Leonard.

Not in the context of the particular give-and-take with "Real Ham"
Dan. :-)

A "real ham" is one who holds an amateur radio license.

Actually, a "real ham" is the butchered meat of swine. :-)

Then why are you trying to tell us that " "Real ham' = One who abides by
1930s standards and practices"?

I'm not telling you that.

Excuse me. Yes, you personally told us that.

All those who trumpet the 1930s standards
and practices do. :-)

No, nobody here except you has written that. Now you've backtracked and
have told us that it is something different. The several of you
inhabiting the body of Leonard Anderson need to come to an agreement.

You still want to maintain the ancient rules...because you got your
title, rank, status under that archaic standard.

Y'know Len? I got my four different classes of license under several
different standards. When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing.

Losing that title, rank, status, even if only to yourself, would be a
mighty blow to your self-esteem. [that's rather obvious]

It might appear that way to an outsider like you. From my perspective,
you're a guy who doesn't want to participate in an endeavor where anyone
has more status than you. Tough it out, old timer.

The FCC regulations don't define "ham" at all. The FDA does.

Ham is the butchered meat of swine. :-)

That conflicts with what you wrote in the very recent past.

You've told us on numerous occasions all you want to do here.

I'm doing that. :-)

Actually, you aren't.

You never seem to get around to doing what you've stated.

Less here where it doesn't count for much in the real world.

LOTS more at the FCC where it DOES count.

Okay, Mr. Mitty. I'm sure folks at the FCC find your sheer volume of
material fascinating.

Now you'd like to tell me all I want to do.

Nobody can tell Big Dave what to do...he da man! :-)

I respect authority, Len. You aren't authority.

I've not stated all I want to do here so your
comments are conjecture on your part.

All you seem to do in here is bitch, moan, get nasty at folks who
don't agree with you.

Are the several of you inhabiting the body of Leonard Anderson having a
group discussion among yourselves?

Not a likeable guy you are. :-)

....not by you or "William". I can certainly live with that.

Take your pick, Leonard:
classical telegraphy, classical SSB, classical AM phone. You aren't
doing any of them in amateur radio. You aren't a participant.

None of THIS newsgrouping IS amateur radio, Big Dave.

That's right. If this was amateur radio, you wouldn't be a participant.

The FCC is NOT a "participant" in U.S. amateur radio.

Yes, the Commission participates. You don't participate.

The FCC MAKES the rules and regulations for U.S. amateur radio.

You seem to have a terrible incognizance problem with those two
sentences! [mental Pampers would help you]

Your perception is incorrect. I understand that the Commission
participates in that it regulates amateur radio.

1. I wrote "amateur radio". You're drifting off into a description of
your past professional radio experience once again.

Boils you down to very pale meat, doesn't it? :-)

Actually, no.

2. I don't really care where on which frequencies you communicated as a
professional.

You just don't "care" about anything but attempting to triumph over
others in a newsgroup! :-)

I wrote what I meant to convey, that I don't care on which frequencies
you communicated as a professional.

3. You have no idea which frequencies are used or may be used by the
U.S. Department of State.

Does State have its own MARS-like organization? :-)

Do a web search.

Since when did State enter into this discussion...

Since you brought it up.

other than you want
to impress your neighbors about your mighty governmental career?

My neighbors don't read this newsgroup.

Didn't need a bit of manual telegraphy skills or licensing (as an
amateur) to do any of that.

You wouldn't need any to obtain the most basic amateur radio license in
the U.S. either.

I have no need for any amateur radio license. I'm "not a participant,"
remember? :-)

Having a need or desire and actually doing something about obtaining a
license are two very different things.

Where is it "written" that I have to demonstrate some "interest in
radio" to the Great Heil?

I didn't write anything about "some interest in radio".

Now, now, don't get petulant. This isn't a quibble over semantics
or syntax or spelling.

That's right. It isn't a quibble over semantics. I wrote "amateur
radio" no matter how badly you want it to be "radio".

You've written MUCH about the equate of "having an interest in
radio" with amateur radio. You can't deny that.

I certainly can deny it. I've written nothing about "interest in
radio". I've written of "interest in amateur radio".

It's in Google all
nice and archived for those so bruised and battered over losing
verbal battles that they have to quote endlessly from it. :-)

Good. You can research it and prove your claim then.

You DEMAND amateur radio license acquisition in order to state
anything on amateur radio regulations in here.

I've DEMANDed nothing. I continue to point out that you have nothing to
do with amateur radio as a participant or a regulator.

You DEMAND that ALL who "have an interest in radio" become
radio amateurs, all nicely licensed and mentally very important.

I've DEMANDed nothing.

You can't deny that. [but you will vainly, and self-importantly try]

Denying it is quite easy. I've made no demands of you. You rise or fall
on your own efforts. I've pointed out that you have not obtained even
the most basic amateur radio license.

You are LICENSED! Oh, my. Terribly important you are!

Without that "authorization" you are just another SS-wannabe who
wants nothing more than to fight anyone who doesn't agree with
your "orders" posted on this bulletin board. In other words, just
another disagreeable gunnery nurse (but without bedpan).

"Fight"? "Orders"? If we were fighting, you'd best pack a lunch and
rest up beforehand, old timer. I haven't issued any orders.

Sweetums, if this had been a real physical fight, you wouldn't have
been able to write anydamnthing in here. :-)

You mean for all the laughing I'd be doing, old timer? You're probably
right.

I'll have to discuss what with Paul Schleck?

For starters, your "participation" in this newsgroup.

If I have need of Paul Schleck. I'll get in touch with him. As of
right now, I don't need him.

Do you have a "participation license" granted to you to bitch and
whine and moan in here about those who aren't licensed in
amateurism?

As you pointed out earlier, this isn't amateur radio. I need no more
license to target you than you need for taking potshots at radio
amateurs and their traditions, Mr. Professional.

No DEMANDs have been made of you, Len.

Irrelevant since you can't order anyone around, despite your mighty
psycho-war effort to bluff and bluster others off your "licensed"
turf. :-)

It can't be irrelevant. You brought it up. You accused me of making
DEMANDS but you haven't come up with a single example. What demand has
been made of you?

You continue to post.

It's your time you are wasting. No problem for me. :-)

Let's see....This is an amateur radio newsgroup dealing with amateur
radio policy. I am a radio amateur. It seems to make sense for me to
be here.
You aren't a radio amateur. You, on the other hand, aren't involved in
amateur radio. Which one of us is wasting time?

I'll continue to point out your lack of anything to do with amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still into the "turf" thing, aren't you? :-)

The turf is amateur radio. You aren't in on the action. You're a
bystander.

You've certainly kept mum about your childlike antics exemplified by
some of your comments to the FCC.

What "childlike" antics, little toddler? :-)

Those on the Commission's web site; the ones deriding the comments of
others.

Poor baby. Can't take grown-up debate against opposite-to-yours
opinions, can you?

You haven't exhibited any "grown-up debate" here, ever. I'll find out
if I can take it when and if you ever do so.

You have to call them "childlike" as if you were a "grown-up" trying
to spank children? [you must have been talking to Dee?]

I call them childlike because I read them.

You seem to have dysfunctional attributes in your "parenting." :-)

I'm not your parent.

Wanna discuss those?

Not with SS-wannabes like yourself.

Is the sentence above your idea of grownup behavior?

The FCC makes and enforces the civil radio regulations in the United
States. If you have an old bone that you think needs gnawing on,
then go make your Comments to the FCC about regulations.

Quit making DEMANDS, Len.

It probably busts your chops no end that actual civilians, citizens of
this country, can actually hold a discussion-debate with government.
You just can't stand it when others have opinions contrary to yours.
You have to call such folks names, denigrate them, pejorate them,
do all you can to stifle independent thought.

Most radio amateurs are civilians. We can and do comment to and
petition our government. I've never had the opportunity to debate with
government.
You might tell us how you accomplished such debate.

Your thought is certainly independent. Independent doesn't mean that it
is rational thought.

Hiram forbid that anyone should think opposite to your god-like
viewpoints! After all, you are federally LICENSED as an amateur!

Right. I'm involved in amateur radio. You are on the sidelines and
have been for what is it?--several decades.

You are a PARTICIPANT!

Yes, I am.

Only YOU RULE! ...nobody else allowed to say anydamnthing. :-)

The FCC rules. I participate. You say much but you aren't involved.

The colonel just loves it when a dictatorial plan comes together...

The colonel is dead. KFC is owned by a big corporation.

Dave K8MN

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
hlink.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
hlink.net:


"Alun" wrote in message
...

Well, I am a bit puzzled why I would need to find someone to
sympathise with "my problem", because I don't have one.

See? There it is....that's your problem. You don't even recognize
you have it.

Dan/W4NTI




So, let's see if I have this right, according to you I have a problem
because I only operate one mode? Well, you're right about one thing, I
do fail to see what part of that is a problem.

You need to stop now Alun. All you are doing is proving my point over
and over. You are a lid because you operate only phone.


How does that prove anything? Do you think if you repeat something often
enough it becomes true?

Have a Good day mate.

Are you Australian?


Dan/W4NTI