Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 6th 04, 08:01 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Nursie's interpretation went off into some personal dialect of
"ranting" (and raving) when there was no actual rant going on.


Sure there has been, Lennie.


Only on nursie's side... :-)

[poor person thinks his every utterance is "truth"... ]

From my own experience, over six years of assertions of how
Amatuers are allegedly NOT involved in any kind of research. Goggle
archives attest.


No "amatuer" is involved in any kind of research.

A few amateurs are.

What is a "goggle" other than an eye shield?

Do you get little archives on your helmet goggles while flying?

Try GOOGLE instead.

[no, you don't grow archives in the garden to put on salads...]

I don't care about the intimate details of the project. The
POINT was (and still is) that Amateurs ARE involved in research and
they ARE recognized for thier contributions AS Amateurs by entities
OTHER than Amateur Radio-related sources.


You "don't care about the intimate details" because you can't
get intimate with basic electronics enough to understand what
is being talked about. Not the newsgroup's problem...except to
to see your blabbering of injured ego...

You have asserted on numrous occassions that since no one except
ARRL sources routinely report on such things, they obviously don't
occur.


I don't make a career of such "numrous occasions" but the
"research" into radio technology is still, overwhelmingly, done
by corporations and academicians...VERY little by licensed
radio amateurs.

Of course, if the only source of your information is the ARRL, then
you will appear thoroughly brainwashed into believing them and
that hams are busy, busy, busy "advancing the state of the
radio art" all over the place.

Yoda asks, "What state of any art has nursie advanced...hmmm?"

You were (again) proven wrong.


"Wrong?" By a news release from URI that gave NO details on
this wondrous new antenna other than more snake-oil sales
pitching? Hundreds of those news releases appear every month.

Those inventions assume some legitimacy when they appear as
papers in known publications or presentations at conferences.

The fields on your antenna are crossed but you are still not
a Stone's Throw from Antennex.

[a pun for those who know Jack...]

[nursie won't understand]


The rest of your "more smoke = less credibility" spin deleted.


I gave up smoking a long time ago. :-)

You didn't. Your "hostile actions" claim is still on fire.

So is "MARS is amateur radio."

Smokey the Bear say, "Only YOU can put out forest fires..."

Try again, Grampa Lennie...


That's GREAT in front of that to be a "meaningful discussion" thing.

Now show us your logs on working Rob Vincent in RI on one of
the URI micro-antennas.

Remember...No proof = Doesn't exist.


  #9   Report Post  
Old June 11th 04, 03:06 AM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: So Much For THAT Rant....
From:
(William)
Date: 6/9/2004 12:50 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Steve, if you don't like me giving you crap, stop posting such stupid
things as, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio."


I haven't stated that in weeks, Brain. You have, however... Dozens of
times.

You've repeated it over and over despite the fact that I acknowledged

it
was poorly worded, and have explained my intent.


Flat out wrong, not poorly worded.


Nursie did NOT "explain his intent" in the beginning.

Nursie backpedalled AFTER the proper documents were
identified and locations given to him after three weeks of
stating "MARS is amateur radio."

Nursie's "intent explanation" was ALSO poorly worded.

Nursie will never ever admit he do wrong.

That you won't acknowledge that and move on is evidence that this is

ALL
you have to try and deflect attention from your every expanding list of NG

faux
pax.


"MARS is amateur radio" statement is not a faux pas?

Nursie never once in three weeks of arguments identified or located
the documents which define and detail the Military Affiliate Radio
System. It took two others only a short search to find them on the
Internet and post that here.

Nursie has never once acknowledged that MARS is a MILITARY
radio system, not even when the predecessor, AARS, was
shown to be the Army Amateur Radio System. [he must not
think the U.S. Army is a military branch...a bad case of murine
brainwashing]

It's apparent that this is ALL you have to "argue" about, Brain.

Sucks to be you, Brain.


You're stupid words being shown to you again and again must finally be
getting to you.

"Sorry Hans...."

Hi, hi.


Brian, one might as well give up trying to make a chunk of igneous
rock understand anything, much less agree to have made a wrong
statement any time in his alleged life. [rock as a sentient life form
has only been portrayed as "life" on science-fiction shows...]

If nursie say MARS is amateur radio, then that is all he (or she)
understands as "correct." It is nothing else. That's why there isn't
any definition or regulations on MARS in Part 97.

shrug Decomposed granite cannot be argued with... :-)

LHA / WMD


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Theological Rant [email protected] Antenna 0 November 27th 03 06:58 PM
Rant Michael A. Terrell Homebrew 17 October 24th 03 05:42 AM
Another Self-Humiliating LenniRiffic Rant Leo Policy 52 October 6th 03 05:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017