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 , 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

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

In article , Dave Heil Herr Robust uf das
newsgroup polizei writes:

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.

Anyone who espouses the 1930s standards and practices, such as
requiring manual telegraphy skills in order to be licensed in
amateur radio, says that. It doesn't have to be overtly stated (this
is not a court of law and you are NO judge...).

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

No, nobody here except you has written that.

Like I said, this is NOT a court of law and you are NO judge.

Now you've backtracked and
have told us that it is something different.

No. Nothing different. I've said that all along. You haven't been
paying attention. :-)

The several of you
inhabiting the body of Leonard Anderson need to come to an agreement.

NO "agreement" needed with a single body, single personality.

I suggest that YOUR multiple personalities can't reach any
agreement on what this one person wrote.

Call a meeting and discuss that among YOUR personalities.

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.

Wonderful. Keep on doing that until you get it right. :-)

When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing.

I already have several licenses.

Your "rationality" is on short ration.

YOU define "rational" as strict and utter obediance to a SINGLE
set of standards AND take the arrogant, UNofficial role of being a
judge (plus jury and executioner) of who can say what and to whom.

That is NOT "rational," herr robust. That is DICTATORIAL.

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.

:-) An "outsider" is it? [of course, no official license, absolute
inability to say anydamnthing according to Herr Heil]

From my perspective,
you're a guy who doesn't want to participate in an endeavor where anyone
has more status than you.

Ol' Dozer Davie is busy, busy, busy moving soil to make a mountain
out of metaphoric molehill. [your OSHA backup beeper is not working
old timer, get it fixed...at an appropriate service place that knows how
to work on simple circuitry]

Dozer Davie is also busy, busy, busy trying to cover up the subject of
WHEN the manual telegraphy test will be eliminated in U.S. amateur
radio licensing. He wanna keep shifting to denigrating others that
don't think as arrogantly and self-importantly as Him. :-)

Tough it out, old timer.

I do that constantly. That's how I've survived that long. :-)

By the way, did you return that SS costume to Western Casting?
The rental prices are going up soon.

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.

No conflict. I've written before (roughly over a year ago) that a W6
already defined "ham" as "the butchered meat of swine" a number
of years ago.

That fits with one dictionary definition.

As far as I know, without bothering to check with the Food and Drug
Administration, the FDA still has rules on ham and can approve it
or disapprove it. Also beef, fish, and poultry. Are you too chicken
to defy the FDA? :-)

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

I'm doing that. :-)

Actually, you aren't.

Not in this message, true. I'm replying to nothing more than some
idiot's heckling and cat-calling about "cannot say anydamnthing
about amateur radio without a amateur radio license."

Except for its personal amusement value, your constant mention of
needing an amateur radio license in order to discuss matters of
amateur radio policy, is just a time-wasting exercise. :-)

You don't have a single bit of authority to judge who can say what
and to whom in here.

All you have is a big keyboard and wayyyyy too much time on your
hands to satisfy that warped thought-control police mind one of your
personalities has.

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.

How would you know? [did you add Thurber to your schiz ids?]

Oh, yes...you are one of those claiming "insider information" on U.S.
government...because you once got a regular salary for working for
working in one part of it. You claim to KNOW things. Uh huh.

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You only respect Davie Heil.

YOU ARE NOT AUTHORITY.

[can you understand it better if written all-caps?]

Davie, all you've got is a Big Ego and all you have is a Big keyboard
in front of a control-freak personality problem.

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?

I'm not the schizoid, herr robust.

Your own multiple personalities badly need to seek consensus there.

:-)

Not a likeable guy you are. :-)

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

So, you are unable to live with dissent.

Must be hell to be so royal. Or "heil." :-)

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.

If this were a "rational discussion," you would have LOST long ago.


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

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

The FCC makes regulations and - sometimes - enforces those
regulations.

The FCC does NOT promote amateur radio, nor does it put amateur
radio over and above all other radio services it is required to regulate.

NO staff or commissioner is required to have any "participatory"
amateur radio license in order to exercise regulatory power over
amateur radio.

Ain't that a bitch, though? :-)

Imagine that...THE regulatory power over amateur radio and not a
single FCC person is required to have any amateur radio license!

You precipitate in here, little snowflake, not participate.

You are a crystalized form of ego condensed out of a fog of old-
time ideas, standards, and practices, trying to clump in drifts to
disable independent thought of others.

The weather is too hot for your rigid, arrogant assertion of mandatory
old-time ideas, standards, and practices. Your precipitation only
leaves a wet smudge on the surface of rational discussion.

A paper towel can quickly wipe up your mess.

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. There you go with the "participation" thing again.

Hello? Did your ancient dictionary dry up and blow away?

The FCC is somehow a "participator" like the ARRL? :-)

NOT ONE SINGLE FCC STAFFER NEED HAVE ANY AMATEUR
RADIO LICENSE TO *REGULATE* U.S. AMATEUR RADIO.

You are a precipitate. Dried sludge at the bottom of a Petrie dish.

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.

Actually, YES. :-)

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.

Poor precipitate.

You "care" only to denigrate all those who disagree with you and
stand up to you, tossing back the same sort of thing (and in greater
quantity) as you try to heap on others.

Doesn't feel good to your noble, royal ego, does it?

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.

All I find is Heilian spiders squeaking "you can't talk about amateur
radio without an amateur radio license!" :-)

Since when did State enter into this discussion...

Since you brought it up.

You never mentioned the U.S. Department of State before?!?!?

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

My neighbors don't read this newsgroup.

Then they can't be "rational," can they?

They aren't "participatory?" :-)

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.

Oh? Now it is a finer Heilian definition of "NEED OR DESIRE?"

Of course, according to the arrogant Heilian definition, one MUST have
an amateur radio license in order to discuss amateur radio!

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".

Quibble, quibble, just so much dribble. :-)

Up near the beginning of your message you said:
"When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing."

Hello? I've got SEVERAL licenses by SEVERAL STANDARDS.

Had them (plural) before you got a single one. :-)

Want to "quibble" more about what YOU wrote...and all readers have
read?


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

I've DEMANDed nothing.

Sure you have. Many times. It's getting to be a standard bit of
off-key singing done in falsetto.

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.

Yes you have. Demands on TIME.

Except for its amusement value, replies to you WASTE TIME.

You rise or fall on your own efforts.

Yes. I've risen to this occasion more than once, Dozer Davie.

Must really gripe your big, sorry butt that I keep telling things
like they are. :-)

I've pointed out that you have not obtained even
the most basic amateur radio license.

There you go again. :-)

Oberst Heil adjusts his monocle and addresses the troops:

"You cannot have a rational discussion about amateur radio
without FIRST getting an amateur radio license!!!"

As you pointed out earlier, this isn't amateur radio.

No kidding? Ah, but, the Grate Heil said that an amateur radio
license is REQUIRED in order to have a "rational" discussion
about getting an amateur radio license!

That's a "chicken-egg paradox" thing painted different colors and
repackaged. :-)

I need no more
license to target you than you need for taking potshots at radio
amateurs and their traditions, Mr. Professional.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. One of your personalities getting paranoid pot-shots?

Bandage that personality's wounds and continue on...

You need some (unlicensed) ability to take adversity, Mr. Amateur.

You've shown repeatedly that YOU CAN'T TAKE IT. You become
petulant, irritated, sometimes outraged at the slightest negativism
of your arrogant, follow-my-directive authority. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


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?

Something about "one has to have an amateur radio license in
order to 'rationally' discuss anything about amateur radio." :-)

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.

In general, it would, but you go FAR beyond that in your arrogant
petulance of constantly trying to heckle, jeer, denigrate all those
who disagree with you.

Social-wise, you are rated a "LID" as a human being on newsgroups.

You aren't a radio amateur. You, on the other hand, aren't involved in
amateur radio. Which one of us is wasting time?

According to Heilian Law, obviously the one without OFFICIAL
AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE to do the "rational" ritual. :-)

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 the heat of the discussions?

Precipitates are like that. Snowflake condensates melt quickly and
turn into hot vapor when exposed to heat. They steam and try to
burn others but quickly cool down and do no more. It's a return to
room temperature. :-)

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.

Poor baby. Still angry, still trying to get the last word, still trying
to bluff and bluster like you are some kind of "leader." :-)

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.

Slowly, with a finger tracing out each letter? :-)

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

I'm not your parent.

Darwinian Law comes to humanity's rescue! :-)


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.

A CONDITIONAL phrase begins with "if," senior. That wasn't a demand,
just a conditional statement.

But, if you CAN'T take any controversy, much less negative opinion,
by all means stay away from making any comments in public to the
FCC. Stay in here where you have the fictional equivalent of King of
the Loud Hill, where you can safely send nastygrams to those who
won't agree with you.

Most radio amateurs are civilians. We can and do comment to and
petition our government.

Ah, but amateur radio is DIFFERENT according to Heilian Law.

In order to comment to government on amateur radio, Heilian Law
states that commenter MUST have an amateur radio license!

Well, so much for the First Amendment...

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

Neither is your arrogant petulant whining over your perceived "hurts"
in this newsgroup...done for years...

Poor baby.

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil Herr Robust uf das
newsgroup polizei writes:

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.

Anyone who espouses the 1930s standards and practices, such as
requiring manual telegraphy skills in order to be licensed in
amateur radio, says that. It doesn't have to be overtly stated (this
is not a court of law and you are NO judge...).

Neither are you, yet YOU presume to know what is better for all
of us based upon non-Amateur Radio knowledge or experience.

When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing.

I already have several licenses.

None of them on FCC form 660, and none of them granting operating
priviledges in the Amateur Radio Service.

Your "rationality" is on short ration.

Your's is short on ANY rationale.

From my perspective,
you're a guy who doesn't want to participate in an endeavor where anyone
has more status than you.

Ol' Dozer Davie is busy, busy, busy moving soil to make a mountain
out of metaphoric molehill. [your OSHA backup beeper is not working
old timer, get it fixed...at an appropriate service place that knows how
to work on simple circuitry]

Dozer Davie is also busy, busy, busy trying to cover up the subject of
WHEN the manual telegraphy test will be eliminated in U.S. amateur
radio licensing. He wanna keep shifting to denigrating others that
don't think as arrogantly and self-importantly as Him.

While Lennie the Lame is busy attempting to hide his lack of
experience behind piles of obfuscation, Dave has DECADES of it.

Tough it out, old timer.

I do that constantly. That's how I've survived that long.

You've "survived" so long at the expense of others work.

All you have is a big keyboard and wayyyyy too much time on your
hands to satisfy that warped thought-control police mind one of your
personalities has.

Actually, the one with way too much time on his hands is you,
Lennie...Perhaps if YOU had an Amateur Radio license and spent some
time on the air you'd have less to waste...?!?!

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

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You only respect Davie Heil.

YOU ARE NOT AUTHORITY.

You keep wanting to argue about who's "in authority", Lennie.

No doubt due to YOUR desire to be the one IN authority.

However your lack of maturity (in terms of character, not
chronological years) and experience will keep you from EVER being that
in ANY Amateur Radio forum or event.

[can you understand it better if written all-caps?]

LEONARD H. ANDERSON IS A FOOL.

Did YOU understand THAT, Lennie...?!?!

Davie, all you've got is a Big Ego and all you have is a Big keyboard
in front of a control-freak personality problem.

Pot/Kettle/Black.

You're awash in it, Your Scumminess. Everyone here except you
and Brian see it. Sucks to be you.

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

I'm not the schizoid, herr robust.

Sure you are. There's the Lennie who makes claims that he's
going to do things, then there's the Lennie who makes excuses about
why he didn't do them.

Pretty "schizoid" to me, Lennie, and I am far more qualified to
know the difference than you are.

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

The FCC does NOT promote amateur radio, nor does it put amateur
radio over and above all other radio services it is required to regulate.

The FCC DOES promote Amateur Radio. Please refer to the
Basis and Purpose of the service as set forth in 97.1.

You precipitate in here, little snowflake, not participate.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

You are a crystalized form of ego condensed out of a fog of old-
time ideas, standards, and practices, trying to clump in drifts to
disable independent thought of others.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The weather is too hot for your rigid, arrogant assertion of mandatory
old-time ideas, standards, and practices. Your precipitation only
leaves a wet smudge on the surface of rational discussion.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

A paper towel can quickly wipe up your mess.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

NOT ONE SINGLE FCC STAFFER NEED HAVE ANY AMATEUR
RADIO LICENSE TO *REGULATE* U.S. AMATEUR RADIO.

You keep trying to hide behind the skirts of the "FCC staffers".

None of them are in here trying to invoke thier "greater wisdom"
on anyone. They are REQUIRED to "regulate" by an Act of COngress.

YOU are NOT.

You are a precipitate. Dried sludge at the bottom of a Petrie dish.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

Poor precipitate.

You "care" only to denigrate all those who disagree with you and
stand up to you, tossing back the same sort of thing (and in greater
quantity) as you try to heap on others.

Doesn't feel good to your noble, royal ego, does it?

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

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.

All I find is Heilian spiders squeaking "you can't talk about amateur
radio without an amateur radio license!"

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

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

Quibble, quibble, just so much dribble.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

Up near the beginning of your message you said:
"When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing."

Hello? I've got SEVERAL licenses by SEVERAL STANDARDS.

None of them an Amateur Radio license, and none of them with ANY
experience in practical Amateur Radio applications.

Had them (plural) before you got a single one.

Had ONE before he got a single one, according to what you've
posted in here before, if we are to believe ANYthing you've posted
before.

Want to "quibble" more about what YOU wrote...and all readers have
read?

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

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

I've DEMANDed nothing.

Sure you have. Many times. It's getting to be a standard bit of
off-key singing done in falsetto.

And you HAVEN'T, Scummy one?

You have "point blank" demanded that I or others "shut up"..."go
away", etc etc etc.

But then stand-up-manship was never your forte.

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.

Yes you have. Demands on TIME.

Except for its amusement value, replies to you WASTE TIME.

Then stop replying. So far, you've only proven that all
assertions about YOUR lack of character, honesty and practical
knowledge of the Amateur Radio Service were correct all-along.

You rise or fall on your own efforts.

Yes. I've risen to this occasion more than once, Dozer Davie.

Only to have fallen on your own, dull, sword.

Must really gripe your big, sorry butt that I keep telling things
like they are. :-)

I've pointed out that you have not obtained even
the most basic amateur radio license.

There you go again. :-)

Oberst Heil adjusts his monocle and addresses the troops:

"You cannot have a rational discussion about amateur radio
without FIRST getting an amateur radio license!!!"

Only an idiot would argue with the concept of having some sort of
first-person based experience in a topic before trying to comment on
it.

So far, all YOU have been able to offer is what you can glean
from various websites or second hand opinions.

Dave, on the otherhand, has "credentials" in the Amateur Radio
Service that YOU could not hope to duplicate if you and Mrs Scummy hit
the road for the next 10 years in pursuit of nothing else but.

As you pointed out earlier, this isn't amateur radio.

No kidding? Ah, but, the Grate Heil said that an amateur radio
license is REQUIRED in order to have a "rational" discussion
about getting an amateur radio license!

That's a "chicken-egg paradox" thing painted different colors and
repackaged.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

I need no more
license to target you than you need for taking potshots at radio
amateurs and their traditions, Mr. Professional.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. One of your personalities getting paranoid pot-shots?

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

Bandage that personality's wounds and continue on...

You need some (unlicensed) ability to take adversity, Mr. Amateur.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

You've shown repeatedly that YOU CAN'T TAKE IT. You become
petulant, irritated, sometimes outraged at the slightest negativism
of your arrogant, follow-my-directive authority. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Pot/Kettle/Black...Witness your own frequent "demands" peppered
with liberal doses of profanity and lack of facts.

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.

In general, it would, but you go FAR beyond that in your arrogant
petulance of constantly trying to heckle, jeer, denigrate all those
who disagree with you.

Social-wise, you are rated a "LID" as a human being on newsgroups.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

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

Poor baby. Can't take the heat of the discussions?

Precipitates are like that. Snowflake condensates melt quickly and
turn into hot vapor when exposed to heat. They steam and try to
burn others but quickly cool down and do no more. It's a return to
room temperature.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

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.

Poor baby. Still angry, still trying to get the last word, still trying
to bluff and bluster like you are some kind of "leader."

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

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

I'm not your parent.

Darwinian Law comes to humanity's rescue!

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

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

Neither is your arrogant petulant whining over your perceived "hurts"
in this newsgroup...done for years...

Dave has not "whined" about 'perceived "hurts"

He HAS accurately pointed out YOUR shortcomings of facts and
practical experience, that lack most often manifesting in your errors
about Amateur Radio programs or practice.

Poor baby.

Sucks to be you, Lennie.


Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(gunnery nurse trying to impersonate an offizier uf das newsgroup polizei)
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Heil Herr Robust uf
das
newsgroup polizei writes:

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.

Anyone who espouses the 1930s standards and practices, such as
requiring manual telegraphy skills in order to be licensed in
amateur radio, says that. It doesn't have to be overtly stated (this
is not a court of law and you are NO judge...).

Neither are you, yet YOU presume to know what is better for all
of us based upon non-Amateur Radio knowledge or experience.

Based upon published regulations and directives. :-)

When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing.

I already have several licenses.

None of them on FCC form 660, and none of them granting operating
priviledges in the Amateur Radio Service.

tsk, tsk, tsk...you should read what was WRITTEN, little man.

Herr Robust said NOTHING about any "FCC form 660." :-)

Your "rationality" is on short ration.

Your's is short on ANY rationale.

Now, now, don't get all hot and bothered and start calling folks by
nastynames again.

From my perspective,
you're a guy who doesn't want to participate in an endeavor where anyone
has more status than you.

Ol' Dozer Davie is busy, busy, busy moving soil to make a mountain
out of metaphoric molehill. [your OSHA backup beeper is not working
old timer, get it fixed...at an appropriate service place that knows
how
to work on simple circuitry]

Dozer Davie is also busy, busy, busy trying to cover up the subject of
WHEN the manual telegraphy test will be eliminated in U.S. amateur
radio licensing. He wanna keep shifting to denigrating others that
don't think as arrogantly and self-importantly as Him.

While Lennie the Lame is busy attempting to hide his lack of
experience behind piles of obfuscation, Dave has DECADES of it.

...as an AMATEUR...as a self-trained stuffed shirt. :-)

Tough it out, old timer.

I do that constantly. That's how I've survived that long.

You've "survived" so long at the expense of others work.

How do you know, gunnery nurse? You couldn't hold a job as an
electronics purchasing agent more than half a year...what other
jobs "in electronics" have you had?

All you have is a big keyboard and wayyyyy too much time on your
hands to satisfy that warped thought-control police mind one of your
personalities has.

Actually, the one with way too much time on his hands is you,
Lennie...Perhaps if YOU had an Amateur Radio license and spent some
time on the air you'd have less to waste...?!?!

I'm retired, gunnery nurse. Comfortable income, money in the bank,
good health, nice home, wonderful wife. I've got U.S. patent
3,848,191. You haven't got any. [which may be your problem...]

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

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You only respect Davie Heil.

YOU ARE NOT AUTHORITY.

You keep wanting to argue about who's "in authority", Lennie.

I'm not arguing who has lawful authority, gunnery nurse.

It isn't you, it isn't Davie.

No doubt due to YOUR desire to be the one IN authority.

No.

However your lack of maturity (in terms of character, not
chronological years) and experience will keep you from EVER being that
in ANY Amateur Radio forum or event.

Ooooo...aren't you sweet and respectful this morning. Fail to swipe
some of the good stuff from the hospital medicine room?

[can you understand it better if written all-caps?]

LEONARD H. ANDERSON IS A FOOL.

Nope.

Did YOU understand THAT, Lennie...?!?!

No, your nastygram was over-driven resulting in signal distortion.

You are splattering all over the band, out of control...(again).

Davie, all you've got is a Big Ego and all you have is a Big keyboard
in front of a control-freak personality problem.

Pot/Kettle/Black.

Out of curiosity, how many keyboards do you go through in a month?

Four? Six? They sure take a beating when you get all fired up in
outrage and hatred...

You're awash in it, Your Scumminess. Everyone here except you
and Brian see it. Sucks to be you.

"Awash?" No floods here like in the midwest.

At a ground elevation of about 840 feet MSL there's not much danger
of flooding at this location.

We have a General Electric washer and dryer used on a regular basis.
Front-load washer, five years old. Very efficient. Got rebates for
energy efficiency. Not overworked.

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

I'm not the schizoid, herr robust.

Sure you are. There's the Lennie who makes claims that he's
going to do things, then there's the Lennie who makes excuses about
why he didn't do them.

I'm still trying to invent anti-gravity. Something is holding me down.

Pretty "schizoid" to me, Lennie, and I am far more qualified to
know the difference than you are.

From gunnery nurse to Dr. Sigmund Rosebud, Docktor of
Sinkiatry. Nice morph, murph.

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

The FCC does NOT promote amateur radio, nor does it put amateur
radio over and above all other radio services it is required to
regulate.

The FCC DOES promote Amateur Radio. Please refer to the
Basis and Purpose of the service as set forth in 97.1.

Please jump in the water to cool down the inflamation in your brain
and eyes.

The FCC have a Ham Website? No? Don't they "promote" hamming?

The FCC sponsors Ham Events? No? Don't they "promote" it?

The FCC publishes all kinds of Ham Books? No? Don't they "promote"
Ham Radio stuff?

The FCC issues nice little radio contest awards? No? [the FCC only
issues amateur radio licenses to amateurs]

You precipitate in here, little snowflake, not participate.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

You are a crystalized form of ego condensed out of a fog of old-
time ideas, standards, and practices, trying to clump in drifts to
disable independent thought of others.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

The weather is too hot for your rigid, arrogant assertion of mandatory
old-time ideas, standards, and practices. Your precipitation only
leaves a wet smudge on the surface of rational discussion.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

A paper towel can quickly wipe up your mess.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

NOT ONE SINGLE FCC STAFFER NEED HAVE ANY AMATEUR
RADIO LICENSE TO *REGULATE* U.S. AMATEUR RADIO.

You keep trying to hide behind the skirts of the "FCC staffers".

Only Commissioner Abernathy wears a skirt. The rest are suits.

None of them are in here trying to invoke thier "greater wisdom"
on anyone. They are REQUIRED to "regulate" by an Act of COngress.

You DO have a problem relating to other people...tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

YOU are NOT.

Never claimed to be, gunnery nurse. :-)

[you REALLY can't take dissention, can you? tsk, tsk, tsk]

You are a precipitate. Dried sludge at the bottom of a Petrie dish.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

Poor precipitate.

You "care" only to denigrate all those who disagree with you and
stand up to you, tossing back the same sort of thing (and in greater
quantity) as you try to heap on others.

Doesn't feel good to your noble, royal ego, does it?

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

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.

All I find is Heilian spiders squeaking "you can't talk about amateur
radio without an amateur radio license!"

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

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

Quibble, quibble, just so much dribble.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

Up near the beginning of your message you said:
"When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of
amateur
radio licensing."

Hello? I've got SEVERAL licenses by SEVERAL STANDARDS.

None of them an Amateur Radio license, and none of them with ANY
experience in practical Amateur Radio applications.

Poor deluded gunnery nurse...thinks amateur radios work by different
laws of physics than any other radio...thinks amateur radios won't
work without passing a test for manual telegraphy. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Had them (plural) before you got a single one.

Had ONE before he got a single one, according to what you've
posted in here before, if we are to believe ANYthing you've posted
before.

Make up your deluded little mind, gunnery nurse.

You keep saying I'm always LYING but now you think I've told a
truth?

You are very confused. Get mental help.

Want to "quibble" more about what YOU wrote...and all readers have
read?

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

See? There you went ahead and said I "LIE" again...yet you try to
say I've told a truth. Very mixed up you are...

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

I've DEMANDed nothing.

Sure you have. Many times. It's getting to be a standard bit of
off-key singing done in falsetto.

And you HAVEN'T, Scummy one?

I've not learned to type in falsetto... :-)

You have "point blank" demanded that I or others "shut up"..."go
away", etc etc etc.

I don't shoot blanks, little gunnery nurse.

But then stand-up-manship was never your forte.

"Stand-up-manship?" :-)

You mean like the puerile little penwomanship you exhibit all the
time with such cute phrases like "putz," "your scumminess,"
"sucks to be you," etc., etc., etc. :-)

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.

Yes you have. Demands on TIME.

Except for its amusement value, replies to you WASTE TIME.

Then stop replying. So far, you've only proven that all
assertions about YOUR lack of character, honesty and practical
knowledge of the Amateur Radio Service were correct all-along.

"Stop replying?" Ooooo...issuing Orders, gunnery nurse?

This is just an amusing morning word workout, gunnery nurse.

Your name isn't "Dave Heil," gunnery nurse.

You don't need to jump in and disrupt a dispute between two
others...but you are OBSESSED with "getting certain folks."

Poor baby. You are frustrated that your tactic DOES NOT WORK!

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You rise or fall on your own efforts.

Yes. I've risen to this occasion more than once, Dozer Davie.

Only to have fallen on your own, dull, sword.

Nope. :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, to try for wordsmithing you need to control the
selection of words in your phrases. You should have written:

"Only to fall on your own blade."

Bulldozers have a BLADE. See the connection? "Blade" on a
bulldozer and "blade" on a knife?

Your "knife" is unsharp and you can't handle it properly.

BULL you can do and "bulldozing" you attempt...but you don't know
how to control anything yet.

Must really gripe your big, sorry butt that I keep telling things
like they are. :-)

I've pointed out that you have not obtained even
the most basic amateur radio license.

There you go again. :-)

Oberst Heil adjusts his monocle and addresses the troops:

"You cannot have a rational discussion about amateur radio
without FIRST getting an amateur radio license!!!"

Only an idiot would argue with the concept of having some sort of
first-person based experience in a topic before trying to comment on
it.

tsk, tsk, tsk...[all in lower-case due to pitifulness of reply]

You are OBSESSED with hatred of certain other people. You are
still mentally unbalanced. Get help.

So far, all YOU have been able to offer is what you can glean
from various websites or second hand opinions.

Not "glean" but rather reveal, as in regulations and directives of the
latest effective dates.

Gunnery nurse was UNABLE to name or reference a single MARS
directive or regulation in three weeks of give-and-take with Brian
Burke. UNABLE. Despite holding an "amateur extra" license
(suitable for framing), gunnery nurse tried to bluff and bluster through
an argument, NOT ONCE being ABLE to reference a single directive
or regulation concerning MARS. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Poor gunnery nurse is sick and disgusted that anyone not licensed
in amateur radio EVER worked in other radio on a professional
basis...and for half a century!

Dave, on the otherhand, has "credentials" in the Amateur Radio
Service that YOU could not hope to duplicate if you and Mrs Scummy hit
the road for the next 10 years in pursuit of nothing else but.

Not a problem. A good digital scanner can duplicate all sorts of
"credentials." :-)

Is there a "change in requirements" now?

One has to join the Department of State, spend years in foreign
lands, in order to obtain a U.S. amateur radio license?!?!?!?

I have to commit adultery with some "Mrs. Scummy" to do all that?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

As you pointed out earlier, this isn't amateur radio.

No kidding? Ah, but, the Grate Heil said that an amateur radio
license is REQUIRED in order to have a "rational" discussion
about getting an amateur radio license!

That's a "chicken-egg paradox" thing painted different colors and
repackaged.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

I need no more
license to target you than you need for taking potshots at radio
amateurs and their traditions, Mr. Professional.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. One of your personalities getting paranoid pot-shots?

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

Bandage that personality's wounds and continue on...

You need some (unlicensed) ability to take adversity, Mr. Amateur.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

You've shown repeatedly that YOU CAN'T TAKE IT. You become
petulant, irritated, sometimes outraged at the slightest negativism
of your arrogant, follow-my-directive authority. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Pot/Kettle/Black...Witness your own frequent "demands" peppered
with liberal doses of profanity and lack of facts.

"Liberal doses of 'profanity?'"

Tsk, tsk, tsk...talk about the deep black pot with continued use of
a Yiddish colloquialism for "asshole" (the word "putz") trying to call
anyone else nasty... :-)

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.

In general, it would, but you go FAR beyond that in your arrogant
petulance of constantly trying to heckle, jeer, denigrate all those
who disagree with you.

Social-wise, you are rated a "LID" as a human being on newsgroups.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

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

Poor baby. Can't take the heat of the discussions?

Precipitates are like that. Snowflake condensates melt quickly and
turn into hot vapor when exposed to heat. They steam and try to
burn others but quickly cool down and do no more. It's a return to
room temperature.

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

[this reply seems to "write itself"... :-) ]

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.

Poor baby. Still angry, still trying to get the last word, still
trying
to bluff and bluster like you are some kind of "leader."

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

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

I'm not your parent.

Darwinian Law comes to humanity's rescue!

"I am only here to civillly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

[yup...real easy reply this one... :-) ]

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

Neither is your arrogant petulant whining over your perceived "hurts"
in this newsgroup...done for years...

Dave has not "whined" about 'perceived "hurts"

And what is your busy, but poorly constructed "reply" but another
obsessive NEED to "get someone" he hates?

YOU are NOT Davie Heil, will never be.

Get some mental therapy and work on your ability to get along
with others. It will help you and those around you.

So far, your identity crisis has resulted only in some mild amusement
for me and a a lot of irritation to other readers in here. That is NOT
good for your image.

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(gunnery nurse trying to impersonate an offizier uf das newsgroup polizei)
writes:

All of Lennie's usual "look at how much smarter I am than you"
rantings snipped.

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue",
from the laundry list of lies and other obfuscations of Leonard H.
Anderson.

Scumbag, liar, putz.

All in one package. Did your wifey do the ribbon, Lennie...???

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: The Pool
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 5/24/2004 2:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing.

I already have several licenses.

None of them on FCC form 660, and none of them granting operating
priviledges in the Amateur Radio Service.

tsk, tsk, tsk...you should read what was WRITTEN, little man.

Herr Robust said NOTHING about any "FCC form 660."

But I did.

You are still not a licensed Amateur Radio operator. Too incompetent to
pass the test, obviously.

Actually, the one with way too much time on his hands is you,
Lennie...Perhaps if YOU had an Amateur Radio license and spent some
time on the air you'd have less to waste...?!?!

I'm retired, gunnery nurse. Comfortable income, money in the bank,
good health, nice home, wonderful wife. I've got U.S. patent
3,848,191. You haven't got any. [which may be your problem...]

Don't need a "patent", Lennie.

I'll accept all of your assertions as true, especialloy the ones about
your wife...It would take a woman with a heart of gold (or too broken and
depressed) to tolerate a creep like you.

I guess SOMEONE had to do it, though.

[can you understand it better if written all-caps?]

LEONARD H. ANDERSON IS A FOOL.

Nope.

Yep. YOU continue to prove it.

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"...
From the archived lies of Leonard H. Anderson.

The gunnery nurse is here only to attempt personal attacks on
humans he can't get along with. Poor baby.

First of all, you're not what I consider to be human.

Secondly, you provide me the stuff to work with.

Lastly, it's not an "attack" if it's true.


Hello? I've got SEVERAL licenses by SEVERAL STANDARDS.

None of them an Amateur Radio license, and none of them with ANY
experience in practical Amateur Radio applications.

Poor deluded gunnery nurse...thinks amateur radios work by different
laws of physics than any other radio...thinks amateur radios won't
work without passing a test for manual telegraphy. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

You continue to avoid the fact that "physics" are not the issue.

And I have never suggested that the ONLY test to take was the Morse test.


I have repeatedly encouraged you to take the Amateur Technician since it
doesn't require a Morse Code examination.

However you still seem stymied byt the process. Actually, I think it's
because you might have to actually demonstrate your REAL knowledge base...Your
ego wouldn't allow you to expose yourself to the ridicule of failing the test
in a room full of grade school kids who just passed it.

Poor baby. Sucks to be Lennie.

You have "point blank" demanded that I or others "shut up"..."go
away", etc etc etc.

I don't shoot blanks, little gunnery nurse.

Obviously you do.

Tell us about those kids you raised that helped you to formulate an
informed opinion on the ability of teenagers (and younger) to be competent
Amateur licensees...?!?!

Oh yeah...I forgot, that's yet another arena in which you slobbered your
ill-prepared vulgarities in.

But then stand-up-manship was never your forte.

"Stand-up-manship?" :-)

You mean like the puerile little penwomanship you exhibit all the
time with such cute phrases like "putz," "your scumminess,"
"sucks to be you," etc., etc., etc.

But you ARE a putz, Lennie. It DOES suck to be you, and you are scummy.

So what's the problem?

So far, all YOU have been able to offer is what you can glean
from various websites or second hand opinions.

Not "glean" but rather reveal, as in regulations and directives of the
latest effective dates.

And absolutely NO practical experience...Not one second's worth.

Gunnery nurse was UNABLE to name or reference a single MARS
directive or regulation in three weeks of give-and-take with Brian
Burke. UNABLE. Despite holding an "amateur extra" license
(suitable for framing), gunnery nurse tried to bluff and bluster through
an argument, NOT ONCE being ABLE to reference a single directive
or regulation concerning MARS. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Didn't need to, Lennie.

No Amateur Radio = No MARS.

Just like the slap in the face, it doesn't need to be documented that it
hurts to KNOW it hurts...

Poor gunnery nurse is sick and disgusted that anyone not licensed
in amateur radio EVER worked in other radio on a professional
basis...and for half a century!

I think it's great, Lennie.

I just think you're a scumbag for trying to push your oblivious weight
around in THIS forum over Amateur PRACTICE when you have abasolutely ZERO
experience in it.

The real pitiful part is knowing that you probably were a lot of the
things you claim, only to have it all undone by your now well documented
propensity for lying and antagonism.

Again...Sucks to be you.

I have to commit adultery with some "Mrs. Scummy" to do all that?

Nope...Just roll over and tap her on the shoulder tonight. Or is that
walk down the hall and tap on the door...?!?!

Pot/Kettle/Black...Witness your own frequent "demands" peppered
with liberal doses of profanity and lack of facts.

"Liberal doses of 'profanity?'"

Tsk, tsk, tsk...talk about the deep black pot with continued use of
a Yiddish colloquialism for "asshole" (the word "putz") trying to call
anyone else nasty...

But you ARE a putz, Lennie.

The very post I am responding to has only served to revalidate that
assertion.

Get some mental therapy and work on your ability to get along
with others. It will help you and those around you.

I am still waiting for you to enlighten us as to what credentials in
"mental health" you have that qualify you to make that suggestion.

So far, your identity crisis has resulted only in some mild amusement
for me and a a lot of irritation to other readers in here. That is NOT
good for your image.

The amusement IS all yours, Lennie. I quite clearly imagine you laughing
at a lot of things, not all of them perceptible to those around you.

Laugh on, Lennie. You're the putz the REST of us are laughing at.

Steve, K4YZ

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