In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 07:58:59 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for the
claims he made, yes.

Why?

He may know just where they are.

They may have been in a garage at one time and in a storage unit another.

Rev. Jim doesn't KNOW? Tsk, tsk!

You don't really know either way, do you? Tsk, tsk.

It's not what I know or don't know, Your Putziness....It's what
PuppetBoy can produce to substantiate his claims.

Can produce or will produce?

All us readers are still waiting for nursie to document his
"hostile action" When and Where. :-)

Regardless of wether they are in his garage, a rental storage unit, his
bathroom reading rack, or his imagination, they are NOT "here"...THAT is
fact.

So what's the problem?

Tsk, tsk. Nursie is suffering post-traumatic stress disorder
after all those "hostile actions" is the problem. :-)

Anyone who reads these exchanges knows that Mr. Burke will simply avoid/refuse
any sort of substantive answer on the subject. That's pretty much a given.

Gotta love how Rev. Jim KNOWS what will happen in the future!

A regular seer, that sucker. Tailor made. Suits him. :-)

So why bother about it?

This newsgrope would be so empty about nursie's emotional
outbursts. Worry that they might quit. :-)

Brain knows that even if he produces some log with callsigns in it, it
becomes a simple matter to contact the various persons to ascertain if they
really DID work T5/N0IMD.

Maybe.

Gosh and golly, seer Rev. Jim, nursie never once contacted any
of the radio amateurs who knew me, and still know me. Yet nursie
claimed he did because he said they "all" spoke badly of me. :-)

Or maybe those people will have moved, changed callsigns, passed away, etc.

My references haven't. One just got back from a nice cruise he
and his wife took. :-)

I am now sure that Jim was right. I am sure that Brain HAS a T5/N0IMD
"logbook" somewhere.

IIRC, the exact calim was "logs", not "logbooks". Could be some pieces of
wood.

There's a lot of licensed deadwood in here, Rev. Jim... :-)

It's just that it's empty.

Or maybe there's one entry. Or two. Or three.

Doesn't Rev. Jim KNOW how many? Tsk, tsk...

Remember there were no claims as to number of QSOs, band, mode, rig, etc. One
local VHF/UHF QSO would count as "operation" wouldn't it?

*if* that were the case - wouldn't it make all of the claims true?

Nursie will NEVER admit anything. :-)

Remember, birds of a feather flock around a lot in newsgroups.

:-)

And why get all upset about it? Nobody is claiming they worked T5/N0IMD.
Nobody is complaining they didn't get a QSL card from the alleged operation.

Nursie gets all a-twitter from any disagreement, however slight.

If he gets all upset (again), the nastygrams just keep on
coming, and coming, and coming...

[he has "organsms" over that... :-) ]

Temple fry, Rev. Jim...keep the faith... :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:31 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

This isn't Burger King and you cannot have it your way.

As I am sure you have suffered many a sleepless night trying to draft some
witty "comeback" for yet another bloodletting of one of YOUR posts, Lennie!

"Bloodletting?" :-) Poor baby, so easily injured are you?

Bon apetit and temper fry...

Seems I am not the one with an appetite problem, Lennie.

Have you seen a doctor about your problem, puppetnursie?

Or do you do your own diagnoses, like practicing medicine
without the legal license? [a big no-no in most states]

Get some mental therapy, puppetnursie. That would help all
those around you...if not yourself...

Sociopathy CAN be cured.

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for the
claims he made, yes.

You first. Where and When those "hostile actions?" :-)

You don't really know either way, do you? Tsk, tsk.

It's not what I know or don't know, Your Putziness....It's what
PuppetBoy can produce to substantiate his claims.

Tsk, tsk. Where and When Puppetnurse's "hostile actions?"

Regardless of wether they are in his garage, a rental storage unit, his
bathroom reading rack, or his imagination, they are NOT "here"...THAT is
fact.

Neither are those "hostile actions." :-)

Brain knows that even if he produces some log with callsigns in it, it
becomes a simple matter to contact the various persons to ascertain if they
really DID work T5/N0IMD.

That's like that other member of the Gang of Four "contacting those
out of band Frenchmen." :-)

We all know that when Puppetnursie makes another claim like
the "hostile action" bit, none of us can get any corroboration on
it except from your alternate personnae. :-)

I am now sure that Jim was right. I am sure that Brain HAS a T5/N0IMD
"logbook" somewhere.

Rev. Jim is ALWAYS right. He says so repeatedly, chiding others
for being "incorrect." ["incorrect" as not Believing as Rev. Jim does]

It's just that it's empty.

Tsk, tsk. Puppetnursie's reality is EMPTY except for discarded
brags and boasts.

More "meaningful discourse" from the Puppetnursie. Only problem
is that the "discourse" keeps getting defined as "dis-curse." :-)

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Able Baker Charlie (or is that Avacado Bascule Cumquat?)
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Able Baker Charlie (or is that Avacado Bascule Cumquat?)
From: Robert Casey
Date: 6/14/2004 2:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Use the Right Phonetics" as the best article in
our national Journal for May.

Dang! I wanted to get the vanity call "K2EO" and use phonetics
"Knife Two Experiment Opposum"

How about "Kill to End Oppression"...!?!?

How about calming down before you get too eager to "kill?"

[still off your meds?]

Kissed Two Eager Ogres...?!?!

[not getting enough?]

Or one reeeeeeeeally tacky one......Kinky two easy organsms...?!?!

Definitely not getting enough. Try a kumquat, not a "cumquat."

Either way, I was not the one who suggested the word.

Suggested which word? Kinky? Easy? Organsms? [sic]

Why are you against the NATO phonetic alphabet?

Where did I say I was?

True...you haven't acknowledged that NATO adopted anything
before the ICAO did... :-)

Radio communications around the world have adopted the 1955
NATO phonetic alphabet.

And now it's the ICAO alphabet. Says so in more places than I can
count.

Ten places? Twenty places? :-)

So, the NATO military now use the "ICAO phonetics?" :-)

The U.S. military adopted the NATO phonetic alphabet in 1955.
Not good enough for you? Tsk, tsk.

You're offered this opportunity to attribute the post wherein I made
such a suggestion, Your Cowardliness.

Tsk, tsk. On top of most curious sentence structures, you deny
the existance of anything but your imagination?

Tsk, tsk. You might acknowledge all if it had been the USMC
phonetic alphabet, I bet... :-)

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/15/2004 3:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 07:58:59 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for the
claims he made, yes.

Why?

He may know just where they are.

I have no doubt that he knows just where they are!

They may have been in a garage at one time and in a storage unit another.

Maybe...maybe not.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (William)
Date: 6/15/2004 9:36 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nobody
is complaining they didn't get a QSL card from the alleged operation.

Correct. I QSL'd 100%.

It's easy to do when there's nothing to send.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 21:08:55 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/15/2004 3:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 07:58:59 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for the
claims he made, yes.

Why?

He may know just where they are.

I have no doubt that he knows just where they are!

Then what's the problem?

They may have been in a garage at one time and in a storage unit another.

Maybe...maybe not.

And the problem with that is?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (William)
Date: 6/15/2004 9:36 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nobody
is complaining they didn't get a QSL card from the alleged operation.

Correct. I QSL'd 100%.

It's easy to do when there's nothing to send.

Tsk, tsk. Nursie still trying to invent a stinging rebuke and his stinger
got broke so long ago that he can't even muster a good rash... :-)

"Nothing to send."

That should be the sub-title of every post nursie makes.

Nursie's big negative nothing. Less rest mass than a neutrino.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/15/2004 3:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Stubborn Steve da Puppet Nursie) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 07:58:59 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for the
claims he made, yes.

Why?

He may know just where they are.

I have no doubt that he knows just where they are!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Why do you keep on with this, then?

They may have been in a garage at one time and in a storage unit another.

Maybe...maybe not.

Now, now...neither one of you know anything for certain. Both of
you just speculate except nursie is so obsessed with painting
opponents in false black that he can't reason.

...all that wasted bandwidth just because one extra is so damn
obsessed-dumb in hatred. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

That must be the "new" amateur radio...

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There's nothing to respect or admire able about being able to tear down,
insult, and destroy - or attempt to.

Here's a classic for ya - I call it "the sphincter post":

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001001%40nso-f
p.aol.com&output=gplain

I hear tell that those air raids on Tokyo in the fifties were exercises
in sheer terror.

I dunno, I've never been to Tokyo. Not even for 30 seconds.

Remember the exchanges about how far it is from air bases in North Korea and
Vladivostok to Tokyo, Bear bombers and such? Someone was very unhappy when it
was pointed out that the distance is well over 650 miles, not "about 500
miles". And that the statement "about an hour in a Bear bomber" meant little
because that aircraft did not enter service until the late 1950s.

Pointing out the fact that any American *under* a certain age grew up with the
knowledge that hostile ICBMs could reach us in a matter of minutes sets off a
predictable response, too.

That sequence (in "34 Years Ago Today") was a classic. ;-)

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by what
appears to be a reference to the writer's multiple sphincters (in the
next to last paragraph).

Perhaps multiple ones are needed in order to handle his prodigious output ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been
involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly proclaims
what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Poor baby.

Why didn't you answer the question, Len?

Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Nope. That's not me at all. It does, however, describe the behavior of certain
other people who post here.

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

Who is "Rev. Jim"? The only one I know is a character on the classic comedy
series "Taxi".

This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev. Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet
proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point of
not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Yup, Rev. Jim, the "renowned pediatrician" has to voice an old, bitter
"cause" of his left over from 6 years ago. :-)

[see last item in my Comments on docket 98-143...which the teen
avenger was Hot and Heavy in denunciation of...(still in the ECFS
under 13 Jan 99 filing date)]

In those Reply Comments, you proposed a minumum age requirement of 14 years for
any class of US amateur license, even sthough such a requirement has never
existed in the USA. You gave no evidence of how the lack of such a requirement
has had a negative effect on amateur radio or any other radio service, yet you
wanted such a requirement (which would not affect you, of course) created.

Here's a few simple, direct questions, Len. In fact, I'll direct them to the
entire group:

1) Should there be an age requirement for an amateur license?

2) If so, what should the requirement be for the various ages?

3) If so, why should there be such an age requirement?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Who? You cannot be referring to me, because I find Morse Code radiotelegraphy
to be a relaxing experience.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then manufactures a falsehood that I "denied its
historical importance." In any other venue that would be a LIE. :-)

For something to be a lie it must be untrue.

And how do you know that the person I referred to is you?

In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past.

That's all true.

And what's also true is that the person referred to in the preceding post
denies and distorts the role Morse Code radiotelegraphy has played since those
early days. Such as its role in World War 2 radio communications. Or its role
in maritime communications well into the 1990s. Or its widespread use by radio
amateurs.

Some would call that "lying by omission". ;-)

Today, the only real use of manual
telegraphy codes is in amateur radio where its advocates go on
angry benders of denunciation of anyone who even frowns on its
"usefulness."

"benders"?

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

All the other radio services just dropped "morse" as
being too slow, too error-prone, and requiring comm specialists
at each end that weren't useful anymore.

Only the last reason is true. Other services wanted to dispose of the need for
and cost of skilled operators.

But amateur radio is largely *about* skilled radio operation.

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry on
a
civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the
other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class,
education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

I should "show respect" for those self-empowered paragons of pride
who insist (to the point of angry jumping up and down) that all must
respect those olde-tyme manual radio telegraphers?

How do you know the person described is you, Len?

You don't have to "respect" anyone. But someone who can discuss in a civil
manner - without name calling or ad-hominem insults - earns the respect of
almost everyone, including those who disagree.

For example, I have great respect for K2UNK, Bill Sohl, even though we disagree
on almost all amateur radio policy matters. I cannot recall a single instance
where Bill made fun of anoter's age, work, gender, license class, education,
name, ethnicity, and/or military service.

That's "civil debate".

Because
telegraphy is Their Favorite and all should honor Their favorite?

Wow, ol' Rev. Jim really got cooking on his Hellfire-And-Brimstone
denunciation of all who don't Believe in the True God of Radio, Morse!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hell Hath No Fury Like A Telegrapher Scorned! :-)

Uh, Rev. Jim, send me your TS Card. I'll punch it. Save everyone
all the time and trouble of reading your raving of madness.

You DO know what a "TS Card" is, don't you? No? Tsk, tsk, an
old military service term-phrase. You weren't IN the military, were
you? Tsk, tsk. You did NOT work any military comms or even any
civilian comms, did you? No? Tsk, tsk.

Gosh, golly, and heckanddarn, all this fuss and Fury over some
NATO phonetic alphabet that went in force in the NATO militaries
of 1955 and was the forerunner of such adoption worldwide. Even
in the ICAO...whose working air carriers were, in the majority, in
NATO-member countries back in the mid-1950s. :-)


"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

There's a very wise bit of advice that says a person should treat others as
they wish to be treated.

Jim, Jim, Jim...

Message click
Block Sender click
Yes click

A dose of 'Troll-Be-Gone' works almost every time.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
PAMNO
(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been
involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims
what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Poor baby.

Why didn't you answer the question, Len?

Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Nope. That's not me at all. It does, however, describe the behavior of
certain
other people who post here.

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

Who is "Rev. Jim"? The only one I know is a character on the classic
comedy
series "Taxi".

This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev.
Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of
children,
yet
proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the
point of
not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Yup, Rev. Jim, the "renowned pediatrician" has to voice an old, bitter
"cause" of his left over from 6 years ago. :-)

[see last item in my Comments on docket 98-143...which the teen
avenger was Hot and Heavy in denunciation of...(still in the ECFS
under 13 Jan 99 filing date)]

In those Reply Comments, you proposed a minumum age requirement of 14
years for
any class of US amateur license, even sthough such a requirement has never
existed in the USA. You gave no evidence of how the lack of such a
requirement
has had a negative effect on amateur radio or any other radio service, yet
you
wanted such a requirement (which would not affect you, of course) created.

Here's a few simple, direct questions, Len. In fact, I'll direct them to
the
entire group:

1) Should there be an age requirement for an amateur license?

2) If so, what should the requirement be for the various ages?

3) If so, why should there be such an age requirement?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly
and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Who? You cannot be referring to me, because I find Morse Code
radiotelegraphy
to be a relaxing experience.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then manufactures a falsehood that I "denied its
historical importance." In any other venue that would be a LIE. :-)

For something to be a lie it must be untrue.

And how do you know that the person I referred to is you?

In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past.

That's all true.

And what's also true is that the person referred to in the preceding post
denies and distorts the role Morse Code radiotelegraphy has played since
those
early days. Such as its role in World War 2 radio communications. Or its
role
in maritime communications well into the 1990s. Or its widespread use by
radio
amateurs.

Some would call that "lying by omission". ;-)

Today, the only real use of manual
telegraphy codes is in amateur radio where its advocates go on
angry benders of denunciation of anyone who even frowns on its
"usefulness."

"benders"?

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

All the other radio services just dropped "morse" as
being too slow, too error-prone, and requiring comm specialists
at each end that weren't useful anymore.

Only the last reason is true. Other services wanted to dispose of the need
for
and cost of skilled operators.

But amateur radio is largely *about* skilled radio operation.

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not
carry on
a
civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers
to
the
other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class,
education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

I should "show respect" for those self-empowered paragons of pride
who insist (to the point of angry jumping up and down) that all must
respect those olde-tyme manual radio telegraphers?

How do you know the person described is you, Len?

You don't have to "respect" anyone. But someone who can discuss in a civil
manner - without name calling or ad-hominem insults - earns the respect of
almost everyone, including those who disagree.

For example, I have great respect for K2UNK, Bill Sohl, even though we
disagree
on almost all amateur radio policy matters. I cannot recall a single
instance
where Bill made fun of anoter's age, work, gender, license class,
education,
name, ethnicity, and/or military service.

That's "civil debate".

Because
telegraphy is Their Favorite and all should honor Their favorite?

Wow, ol' Rev. Jim really got cooking on his Hellfire-And-Brimstone
denunciation of all who don't Believe in the True God of Radio, Morse!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hell Hath No Fury Like A Telegrapher Scorned! :-)

Uh, Rev. Jim, send me your TS Card. I'll punch it. Save everyone
all the time and trouble of reading your raving of madness.

You DO know what a "TS Card" is, don't you? No? Tsk, tsk, an
old military service term-phrase. You weren't IN the military, were
you? Tsk, tsk. You did NOT work any military comms or even any
civilian comms, did you? No? Tsk, tsk.

Gosh, golly, and heckanddarn, all this fuss and Fury over some
NATO phonetic alphabet that went in force in the NATO militaries
of 1955 and was the forerunner of such adoption worldwide. Even
in the ICAO...whose working air carriers were, in the majority, in
NATO-member countries back in the mid-1950s. :-)


"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

There's a very wise bit of advice that says a person should treat others
as
they wish to be treated.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself (though
prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say on
the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to say
as
telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can
maximize
their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results. I
personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate
communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -

Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate communication
by conveying what works for him since English is almost never his native
language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific set that other sets
cause him to "stumble" mentally.

It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need speak in a
manner that the target audience will understand. In this case the target is
the DX. You are the one trying to break through to him/her. He's not
trying to break through to you.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use hydrochloric
acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the acid is highly
corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber writes back thanking
the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric acid. The chemist tries again
using similar wording. Once again the plumber thanks the chemist for his
approval. This goes on for a couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally
the chemist breaks down and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats
the hell out of the pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience (the
plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:



After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)


Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.


Well, if the shoe fits...


Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Yes, the shoe does fit.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Face it, he is good at it. It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!


Whereas most antagonists eventually find no one to write to in a news
group, Len has managed to generate enough interest to make himself and
those who would spar with him into some of the leading posters.


Nothing new there, Mike.

This is no small accomplishment. I for one have to respect that.

I don't.


You don't have to, that much is true.

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself (though
prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say on
the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to say

as

telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can

maximize

their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results. I
personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate

communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -


Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate communication
by conveying what works for him since English is almost never his native
language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific set that other sets
cause him to "stumble" mentally.

When I work DX, I try to include a little bit of the other Ham's
language in the QSO, if I can. I'm no genius, but I can pick language up
fairly quickly.

My point is most Hams are fairly intelligent people. The basic language
of an exchange is English, like it or not. A ham in a small country
speaking an obscure language is going to enjoy a lot more success if he
or she pick up the language that the communication is done in.


It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need speak in a
manner that the target audience will understand. In this case the target is
the DX. You are the one trying to break through to him/her. He's not
trying to break through to you.

Well, in my version of Hamworld, we are both trying to communicate with
each other. Perhaps I am wrong.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use hydrochloric
acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the acid is highly
corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber writes back thanking
the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric acid. The chemist tries again
using similar wording. Once again the plumber thanks the chemist for his
approval. This goes on for a couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally
the chemist breaks down and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats
the hell out of the pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience (the
plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Language being what it is, does the person that is justified in
ignoring "improper" phonetics also justified if they don't like the
pronunciation? Or inflection? Should we listen and pronounce the worked
exacltly the same as they do? What if they *want* different phonetics?

Like I say, my version of being a ham is two people that *want* to
communicate with each other and will do what they can to facilitate
that. Sometimes that takes proper phonetics, sometimes that takes
several rounds of trying to get the call, when proper phonetics may be
followed by *improper ones*. Sometimes it means straight csllsigns. And
yes, I can copy callsigns in several languages.

Unfortunately, the refusal to answer "improper" phonetics or whatever
reminds me of "No Kids, No Lids, and No Space Cadets". or an exchange I
heard in a contest a few weeks ago, where one ham told (ordered is more
like it) another to stop using "Please copy" before the exchange. Told
him he sounded like a stupid idiot when he did that.

Too many hams are entirely too rigid.

- Mike

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself
(though prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say
on the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to
say

as

telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can

maximize

their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results.
I personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate

communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -


Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate
communication by conveying what works for him since English is almost
never his native language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific
set that other sets cause him to "stumble" mentally.

When I work DX, I try to include a little bit of the other Ham's
language in the QSO, if I can. I'm no genius, but I can pick language
up fairly quickly.

My point is most Hams are fairly intelligent people. The basic
language
of an exchange is English, like it or not. A ham in a small country
speaking an obscure language is going to enjoy a lot more success if he
or she pick up the language that the communication is done in.


It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need
speak in a manner that the target audience will understand. In this
case the target is the DX. You are the one trying to break through to
him/her. He's not trying to break through to you.

Well, in my version of Hamworld, we are both trying to communicate
with
each other. Perhaps I am wrong.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use
hydrochloric acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the
acid is highly corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber
writes back thanking the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric
acid. The chemist tries again using similar wording. Once again the
plumber thanks the chemist for his approval. This goes on for a
couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally the chemist breaks down
and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats the hell out of the
pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience
(the plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Language being what it is, does the person that is justified in
ignoring "improper" phonetics also justified if they don't like the
pronunciation? Or inflection? Should we listen and pronounce the worked
exacltly the same as they do? What if they *want* different phonetics?

Like I say, my version of being a ham is two people that *want* to
communicate with each other and will do what they can to facilitate
that. Sometimes that takes proper phonetics, sometimes that takes
several rounds of trying to get the call, when proper phonetics may be
followed by *improper ones*. Sometimes it means straight csllsigns. And
yes, I can copy callsigns in several languages.

Unfortunately, the refusal to answer "improper" phonetics or
whatever
reminds me of "No Kids, No Lids, and No Space Cadets". or an exchange I
heard in a contest a few weeks ago, where one ham told (ordered is more
like it) another to stop using "Please copy" before the exchange. Told
him he sounded like a stupid idiot when he did that.

Too many hams are entirely too rigid.

- Mike



Where I am originally from (the UK) the international phonetics are on the
test, and I suspect that this is true elsewhere. Consequently, I had to
learn them so that I could instantly come up with the correct phonetic for
any letter and vicea versa. Many people can do that who can't even speak
English, as they had to learn it to get a licence. They weren't tested on
using Japan and Zanzibar, though.

Most of the 'Avocado, Bascule, Cumquat' variety of phonetics comes from US
hams, I imagine because it isn't on the FCC tests, and this is then dressed
up as 'freedom of choice', rather than admit that they don't know their
phonetics. Also, many people end up learning a different set or just use
any phonetics they have heard on air, but this is not conducive to being
understood. There is a useful American expression here, it's what you call
'all being on the same page', and that's where we should aim to be.

That isn't to say that you can't use altenative phonetics if the standard
ones don't succeed. I do that.

I suppose I ought to submit some questions on phonetics for the question
pools. I wonder if I could succeed in getting it tested? I beleive it
should be tested. Even the most diehard CW ops seem to use 2m FM, and there
are occasions where phonetics can be useful there too.

In article , "Bert Craig"
writes:

Jim, Jim, Jim...

Message click
Block Sender click
Yes click

A dose of 'Troll-Be-Gone' works almost every time.

Bert, Bert, Bert...it works the other way, too! :-)

In article , PAMNO
(Rev. Jim of the amateur moral majority crusade) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Neither can one do that by:

1. Constantly bringing up years-old exchanges from archives
and trying to win one for your gypper.

2. Using cute lil Yiddish cuss words (mild), especially when
the user doesn't know whatinheck it means.

3. Trying to be a Fundamentalist Believer in telegraphy mode
long after other radio services have given it up as any sort of
"necessary" skill in this new millennium.

4. Acting the shocked (perhaps outraged) moralist by chiding
others of impropriety in giving return fire to those who are
overtly sniping at certain individuals. Hypocrisy is clearly
seen by all readers.



Why didn't you answer the question, Len?

I do. You don't like the answers! Awww...poor baby!


Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Nope. That's not me at all. It does, however, describe the behavior of certain
other people who post here.

Such as Rev. Jim who seems to be stuck in past events
and can't go with the reality of now.

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

Who is "Rev. Jim"? The only one I know is a character on the classic comedy
series "Taxi".

That character was also fictional. :-)


This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev. Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Poor baby, you tried that schtick in here before and that one didn't
work well, either, did it? :-)


In those Reply Comments, you proposed a minumum age requirement of 14 years
for
any class of US amateur license, even sthough such a requirement has never
existed in the USA. You gave no evidence of how the lack of such a requirement
has had a negative effect on amateur radio or any other radio service, yet you
wanted such a requirement (which would not affect you, of course) created.

See? The date of acceptance of that Comment on docket 98-143
is on public view as 13 January 1999.

That's over FIVE YEARS AGO. It's been argued and bitched about by
olde-tyme hammes in here at least twice after that. Now Rev. Jim
keeps on regurgitating it...he should see a doctor about not being able
to keep opinions of others down...vomitus hate-opinion-itis is a serious
thing that may indicate a more serious malady.

R&O 99-412 rather ended any further discussion on docket 98-143 but
lots and lots of hum radio guys had to keep on commenting and
commenting and commenting and commenting and...yawn


Here's a few simple, direct questions, Len. In fact, I'll direct them to the
entire group:

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are Feenix risen from your own ash, Rev. Jim.

[if you don't know "Hashafisti Scratchi" then the above doesn't
make any humor...:-) ]

The NO-AGE non-issue is just that. No age thing on licensing for
hum radio licensees. Period. End. Full stop.

It's fairly obvious that chronologically-long-in-the-tooth radio hums
can get terribly immature and childish about their divine, sacred
olde-tyme hamme raddio traditions being scoffed. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Who? You cannot be referring to me, because I find Morse Code radiotelegraphy
to be a relaxing experience.

"Opiate of the masses" for the fundamentalist telegraphic evangelist.

Yawn.


In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past.

That's all true.

That CANNOT be! I posted it. Therefore (in Rev. Jim fanstasy) it must
be IN ERROR! INCORRECT! Full of flaws! :-)

And what's also true is that the person referred to in the preceding post
denies and distorts the role Morse Code radiotelegraphy has played since those
early days. Such as its role in World War 2 radio communications. Or its role
in maritime communications well into the 1990s. Or its widespread use by
radio amateurs.

Good news: Plenty of space on the Mall in DC for a great big
MONUMENT TO TELEGRAPHY! Start an organization to lobby
for its erection. Sounds like your sort of thing...!

Hello? World War 2 ended FIFTY-NINE YEARS AGO.

Rev. Jim took no part in WW2 nor in any of the military conflicts that
followed in all those 59 years.

Try to keep up with current events or reality might shock you.

[by the way, what has WW2 telegraphy to do with NATO
phonetic alphabets?!?!? try to stay focussed...]


You don't have to "respect" anyone. But someone who can discuss in a civil
manner - without name calling or ad-hominem insults - earns the respect of
almost everyone, including those who disagree.

Ooooo...Rev. Jim done beat hisself to a pulpit.

Sermon on the Antenna Mount! And it's only Wednesday! :-)

For example, I have great respect for K2UNK, Bill Sohl, even though we
disagree
on almost all amateur radio policy matters. I cannot recall a single instance
where Bill made fun of anoter's age, work, gender, license class, education,
name, ethnicity, and/or military service.

That's "civil debate".

I'd call the above MISDIRECTION. :-)

Bill can wade in as he wants...or doesn't want. Bill's option, not
yours.

This thread is about PHONETIC ALPHABETS. Or is it? :-)

"Able, baker, charlie..." phonetic alphabet was used by the U.S.
military prior to 1955. In 1955, the entire U.S. military adopted
the NATO Phonetic Alphabet ("alpha, bravo..."). That's factual.

Not only factual, I was in the U.S. Army at the time (1955), read
the AR, memorized the new phonetic alphabet and used it. Also
factual.

Gosh and golly, Rev. Jim, had I your gift of prescience, I would
have kept the mimeographed pages intact from 49 years ago,
had them in a safety deposit box vault for safekeeping to show
those of today! :-)

[no xerocopy machines back then, no job-printing run-offs for
most military documents, just mimeographed on rather easily
oxidizeable paper]


"You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the
communications environment with personal attacks of any kind
on those who do not agree with you."

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rev. Jim, speak softly and quit trying to use
your Big Schtick.

Look out or someone will beat you to a pulpit. :-)

[which has happened many times in here but those on
anaesthetic can't feel it... :-) ]

"You can't have 'meaningful exchanges' with Rev. Jim unless
you cherish, love, honor, and obey the Belief in manual
telegraphy and the radio times of before the Rev. existed."

Beep, beep...

LHA / WMD




There's a very wise bit of advice that says a person should treat others as
they wish to be treated.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There's nothing to respect or admire able about being able to tear down,
insult, and destroy - or attempt to.

Here's a classic for ya - I call it "the sphincter post":

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001001%40nso-f
p.aol.com&output=gplain

I hear tell that those air raids on Tokyo in the fifties were exercises
in sheer terror.

I dunno, I've never been to Tokyo. Not even for 30 seconds.

Troll, troll, troll your boat...madly down the steam (puffing away
prodigiously).

Remember the exchanges about how far it is from air bases in North Korea and
Vladivostok to Tokyo, Bear bombers and such? Someone was very unhappy when it
was pointed out that the distance is well over 650 miles, not "about 500
miles". And that the statement "about an hour in a Bear bomber" meant little
because that aircraft did not enter service until the late 1950s.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rev. Jim pulled out his Military Google-isms of the past
and tried to make an amphibious bridge over his troubled waters. [he
was all wet]

Pointing out the fact that any American *under* a certain age grew up with the
knowledge that hostile ICBMs could reach us in a matter of minutes sets off a
predictable response, too.

Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Rev. Jim IS predictable. Lives in the PAST. He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

That sequence (in "34 Years Ago Today") was a classic. ;-)

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by what
appears to be a reference to the writer's multiple sphincters (in the
next to last paragraph).

Perhaps multiple ones are needed in order to handle his prodigious output ;-)

Perhaps Rev. Jim ought to change religious orders away from
the hypocratic hellfire-and-brimstone telegraphy cult. That way
he would not be so mortally wounded again...and again and
again and again and...yawn

Some of these postings "just write themselves." :-)

LHA / WMD

"Alun" wrote in message
...

I suppose I ought to submit some questions on phonetics for the question
pools. I wonder if I could succeed in getting it tested? I beleive it
should be tested. Even the most diehard CW ops seem to use 2m FM, and
there
are occasions where phonetics can be useful there too.

Actually there are questions on the test. Theoretically, the prospective
ham is supposed to learn the phonetic alphabet. However, there's only one
or two questions on the test pertaining to the phonetic alphabet. So if the
student just memorizes the answers to the questions, he won't have a strong
grasp of it. There's often a question about why it is used but some of this
info doesn't stick with the person past the test itself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike Coslo wrote:



In fact, the whole phonetic debate is a little funny, since
despite the kvetching, an experienced operator can pick out the
different phonetics without getting his/her knickers in a twist.



For some reason, my call "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Echo" comes back
"Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Tango" fairly often. Seems people hear the
ends of the words better than the beginnings. "Echo" and Tango" rhyme
somewhat,
which I thought the phonetic alphabet was to avoid. What's the most common
alternate for "Echo" used on HF?

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Mike Coslo wrote:



In fact, the whole phonetic debate is a little funny, since
despite the kvetching, an experienced operator can pick out the
different phonetics without getting his/her knickers in a twist.



For some reason, my call "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Echo" comes back
"Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Tango" fairly often. Seems people hear
the
ends of the words better than the beginnings. "Echo" and Tango" rhyme
somewhat,
which I thought the phonetic alphabet was to avoid. What's the most
common
alternate for "Echo" used on HF?

Edward.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the
point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead
refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender,
license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.

Well, if the shoe fits...

Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Good to have you back, Mike

Yes, the shoe does fit.

Well, there you have it.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's reasons.
;-)

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

No it isn't.*

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson. It's
not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr. Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game. And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Whereas most antagonists eventually find no one to write to in a news
group, Len has managed to generate enough interest to make himself and
those who would spar with him into some of the leading posters.

Nothing new there, Mike.

This is no small accomplishment. I for one have to respect that.

I don't.


You don't have to, that much is true.

Well, there you have it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

* pop culture reference to "The Argument Clinic" - classic Monty Python sketch

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's reasons.
;-)

Speculate away, Rev. Jim, in the most "civil" negative connotations
your lil imagination thunk up...:-)

Speculate until all you see are speckles...

Of course we can all speculate on Mr. Miccolis' reasons (to sound off
like some latter-day "T.O.M.") when that ARRL president-for-life
ceased mortal existance long before Rev. Jim got is first Good Book
(ARRL Handbook, that is).

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

No it isn't.*

If you are trying to be "with-it" (of two decades plus ago), try to
remember that everyone is NOT a Monty Python fan... :-)


Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson.
It's not hard to do at all.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...your Python was gored and you think everyone else's
was, too? :-)

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

BS, Rev. Jim. You've got a bad habit of trying to convince others
that you "know" things you can't verify. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr. Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

"Torrent of anger and abuse?!?!?" :-)

Poor baby. Wanting to be the hall monitor in here, ey?

Jimmah, da Google is NOT your friend in this case. :-)

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

More times than not. I'm still here... :-)

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game. And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

Oh, dear. Isn't the nasty old Reverend getting out of hand with his
preachy moralizing? :-)

"Male nudity!" :-)

By accident, a JPG of an aerial photo of a converted B-26 with one of
the crew mooning the photo plane in the nose is considered "male
nudity!!!"

Several of the folks who are in here thought it was FUNNY.

But, the rigid moral majority, more self-righteous than mental
viagra overdosing, say it is "male nudity!!!" Good grief.
Grow up. Get a new fig leaf to cover your anguish...

If you had bothered to Google (your constant source of diss-material)
you would have found out the sequence of events was totally in public
in this venue.

By the way, I DID send the correct attachment which was, indeed, a
scan of my FIRST First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) license.
I've had several of those licenses, all the way to the change-over to
the General Radiotelephone Operator license class.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Yes, "Mr. Miccolis" wants to keep on beating dead horses until they
die all over again to prove his point that He was "correct," and all
must accept that lest they get caught in an endless loop of Rev. Jim
preaching his self-righteousness. "Mr. Miccolis" can do no wrong,
ever, and he is compelled to repeat old arguments forever and ever
to demonstrate that.

"Mr. Miccolis" will try to repeat many ancient arguments, discussions,
et al, long after they quit being topics. Why? Apparently "Mr. Miccolis"
can't let sleeping dogs lie nor can he let beaten horses die, either.

It's sort of like watching re-runs of "Wheel of Fortune" (or any other quiz
show on TV) and hoping a guest will come up with a different answer! :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...such sore losers! :-)

LHA / WMD

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



N2EY wrote:


In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:


After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)


Gee, Len, that's interesting....


You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?


Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the

point

of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead

refers to

the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender,

license

class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.


Well, if the shoe fits...

Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.


Good to have you back, Mike

Yes, the shoe does fit.


Well, there you have it.


I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.


Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's reasons.
;-)

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.


No it isn't.*


Yow - the Mostly Steve Brian MARS argument has gotten to the point
where I can hardly hack it. YMMV!

That was a good skit, though!


If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.


In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.


Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson. It's
not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

I must not be getting my point across here. This isn't about being
right. It's about the discourse. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's
wrong, and a lot of it is just neutral as in opinion.



It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr. Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

Yes, I've had that happen.


It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.


Sometimes.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.


Just different versions of the same game.

Oh, that other one is some pretty severe stuff. Between the perverse
accusations, the threats, the obscenities and the stuff that just might
end up as courtroom evidence, this stuff is tame by comparison.


And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

I've heard about that one.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.


Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!


Only by choice.


Well, sure! Steve is involved by choice too!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hello and good morning,
I am following this very interesting and funny thread since it was initiated
by ??? long ago.

"Bert Craig" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
| "Robert Casey" wrote in message
| ...
| Mike Coslo wrote:
|
|
|
| In fact, the whole phonetic debate is a little funny, since
| despite the kvetching, an experienced operator can pick out the
| different phonetics without getting his/her knickers in a twist.

Let me straighten out the whole phonetics discussion from the point of the
DX side:

1. Standart ITU Phonetics are testet everywhere outside most english
speaking countries, even in Great Britain as we where told by Alun. Thats
neccesary because they all have their alternative set of phonetics in native
language. If a US-ham now is useing a different set, there could be problems
of understanding, because the properly pronounced ITU phonetics might be the
ONLY english words, and the figures, the DX will be capable of.

2. As we are tested on the ITU-phonetics for ham-licence, in other instances
(law enforcement, emergency response, military) we are bound to homeland
phonetics. Despite that fact, hams are using the ITU-set even on VHF/UHF and
even they dont have a CEPT licence (only national) instead of the logical
native language one.

3. The use of alternative sets of phonetics, or even those funny
replacements as they are in use in the US, like
"W4ZLY " Whisky for Zebras Like Yoghurt - sometimes would make it hard to
accomplish a full QSO. BTW this is a real example.

|
|
|
| For some reason, my call "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Echo" comes
back
| "Whiskey Alpha Two India Sierra Tango" fairly often. Seems people hear
| the
| ends of the words better than the beginnings. "Echo" and Tango" rhyme
| somewhat,
| which I thought the phonetic alphabet was to avoid. What's the most
| common
| alternate for "Echo" used on HF?
|
| Edward.
|

England
Equador
Easy

| --
| 73 de Bert
WA2SI
|


73 de
Ocean Easy Eight Sugar Ocean Queen
Kay Gee Six Eee aR Zed
Helmut

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of
children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the
point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly
and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead
refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender,
license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.

Well, if the shoe fits...

Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Good to have you back, Mike

Yes, the shoe does fit.

Well, there you have it.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

Lots of other reasons, too. One can only speculate on Mr. Anderson's
reasons.
;-)

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

No it isn't.*

Rev. Jim must have gotten his shoes at Hobson's... :-)

[old Brit film, "Hobson's Choice" :-) ]

Yow - the Mostly Steve Brian MARS argument has gotten to the point
where I can hardly hack it. YMMV!

That was a good skit, though!

I doubt it is over. :-)

More one-sided name-calling and cussing from the hospital
PA...

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson.
It's
not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

I must not be getting my point across here. This isn't about being
right. It's about the discourse. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's
wrong, and a lot of it is just neutral as in opinion.

Opinion is opinion.

Problem is, too many amateurs are totally inflexible and any
deviation, however slight, from established Newington
instructions is considered "perverse." :-)

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause
Mr.Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even
one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

Yes, I've had that happen.

It's the nature of the computer-modem beast, Mike. You can't
escape it.

Neither are you assured of having the "last word." :-)

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie. :-)

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game.

Oh, that other one is some pretty severe stuff. Between the perverse
accusations, the threats, the obscenities and the stuff that just might
end up as courtroom evidence, this stuff is tame by comparison.

:-)

And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted
the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me
such
things.

I've heard about that one.

I might have it on an old CD archive, available for e-mail attachment if so.

It's good for about 3 days as a private web page. :-)

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Well, sure! Steve is involved by choice too!

Not quite. There's an obsessive-compulsive disorder going on
there and he can't help jumping back in. Wait. Once time is
available, he will bring out the putz can and start polishing
some more insults. :-)

LHA / WMD

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.


No it isn't.*


Yow - the Mostly Steve Brian MARS argument has gotten to the point
where I can hardly hack it. YMMV!

I don't read most of it.

That was a good skit, though!

Exactly.

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

In some cases, yes.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Perhaps.

Face it, he is good at it.

Not really. I have seen many other posters get the better of Mr. Anderson. It's not hard to do at all.

All I've done is present a differing opinion than his, and point out some of
his mistakes. His responses have been - predictable.

Totally predictable, in fact.

I must not be getting my point across here. This isn't about being
right. It's about the discourse. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's
wrong, and a lot of it is just neutral as in opinion.

What isn't neutral is the undeserved abuse dealt out to others for
simply disagreeing or pointing out mistakes. But see below about the
"game".

It's fascinating how a few words of a different opinion can cause Mr.
Anderson
to produce volumes of verbiage. And how a calm, polite correction of even
one
of his errors brings such a torrent of anger and abuse.

Yes, I've had that happen.

Exactly.

It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Sometimes.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Just different versions of the same game.

The game you describe is simple attention-getting behavior. It's
exactly the same as the small child who tries all sorts of behaviors
in order to get adult (typically parental) attention. That the
attention takes the form of punishments doesn't matter to the child as
much as the attention itself.

A variation is to get the adult/parent to lose control, start
screaming and yelling, etc., as a way of getting the child and adult
on the same behavioral level.

Much if not most of what Len does with his newsgroup postings here is
exactly the same thing.

You may think he is "good at it" but the reverse is true. Compare how
much response he gets for the amount of posting he does. Or if you
want to be specific, note how many of my posts elicit a response from
him, and how many of his posts elicit a response from me. Note also
the length, content and tone of the responses.

"Good at it"? Not at all.

Oh, that other one is some pretty severe stuff. Between the perverse
accusations, the threats, the obscenities and the stuff that just might
end up as courtroom evidence, this stuff is tame by comparison.

And the "game" sometimes extends
beyond the newsgroup. For example, some time back I and some others received
several unsolicited emails from Mr. Anderson, with attachments that were
allegedly pictures. I deleted them unopened, as is standard procedure for
unsolicited attachments. I found out later they were supposedly a picture of
his commercial radiotelephone license and a picture that included adult male
nudity. Of course this is second hand information because I simply deleted the
emails, but you have to kinda wonder why such Mr. Anderson would send me such
things.

I've heard about that one.

Exactly.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

Only by choice.

Well, sure! Steve is involved by choice too!

Yep. There are good choices and not-so-good choices.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

Y'know, with all this discussion about different phonetic alphabets,
people confusing "Papa" with "Japan" and DX/contest folks using a
completely different set and being cornfuzed by anything else, it makes
me wonder.

Doesn't all this add up to 'phone modes being "slow", "limited" and
"error-prone"?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I wondered when someone would pop up with that comment.

Didn't want to disappoint!

I think CW is generally slower, though.

All depends on what's being done. With a clear channel and fast talkers, it
takes skilled CW/Morse operators to keep up with 'phone. OTOH, when actual
record "write it down" messages are being handled, the speed limit is often how
fast the receiving op can write legibly. Most people who don't know some form
of shorthand run out of steam at 20 to 40 wpm. Of course typing can be much
faster.

Under those conditions, CW/Morse is often *faster* and *more accurate* than
voice - if skilled operators are available.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There's nothing to respect or admire able about being able to tear down,
insult, and destroy - or attempt to.

Here's a classic for ya - I call it "the sphincter post":

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001001%40nso-f
p.aol.com&output=gplain

I hear tell that those air raids on Tokyo in the fifties were exercises
in sheer terror.

I dunno, I've never been to Tokyo. Not even for 30 seconds.

Troll, troll, troll your boat...madly down the steam (puffing away
prodigiously).

Remember the exchanges about how far it is from air bases in North Korea and
Vladivostok to Tokyo, Bear bombers and such? Someone was very unhappy when
it
was pointed out that the distance is well over 650 miles, not "about 500
miles". And that the statement "about an hour in a Bear bomber" meant little
because that aircraft did not enter service until the late 1950s.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rev. Jim pulled out his Military Google-isms of the past
and tried to make an amphibious bridge over his troubled waters. [he
was all wet]

Pointing out the fact that any American *under* a certain age grew up with
the
knowledge that hostile ICBMs could reach us in a matter of minutes sets off
a
predictable response, too.

Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Exactly. When you were in Japan, there weren't even any Bear bombers in
service.

But in the '60s, when I was growing up, the Soviets had much more nuclear
strike capability. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, even
though I was only in elementary school at the time.

Rev. Jim IS predictable.

Who?

Lives in the PAST.

Well, you can't be referring to me.

I'm not the one who repeatedly brings up half-century-old military
communications experience as some sort of qualification to determine amateur
radio policy *today*. While neglecting to mention that the facility involved
was entirely paid for by others, and utilized the full-time contributions of
over 700 other personnel....

Now, *that's* "living in the past"

I don't "live in the past". But I do have a decent memory, and the skills to
use reference resources. That obviously bothers the heck out of you, Len,
judging by how you respond to my posts.

He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

You mean the like the one where you called another poster a "feldwebel" and
told him to "shut the hell up"?

That sequence (in "34 Years Ago Today") was a classic. ;-)

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by what
appears to be a reference to the writer's multiple sphincters (in the
next to last paragraph).

Perhaps multiple ones are needed in order to handle his prodigious output
;-)

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 07:58:59 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't
you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for
the claims he made, yes.

Why?

He may know just where they are.

They may have been in a garage at one time and in a storage unit
another.

You don't really know either way, do you? Tsk, tsk.

It's not what I know or don't know, Your Putziness....It's what
PuppetBoy can produce to substantiate his claims.

Can produce or will produce?

Regardless of wether they are in his garage, a rental storage
unit, his
bathroom reading rack, or his imagination, they are NOT "here"...THAT
is fact.

So what's the problem?

Anyone who reads these exchanges knows that Mr. Burke will simply
avoid/refuse any sort of substantive answer on the subject. That's
pretty much a given.

So why bother about it?

Brain knows that even if he produces some log with callsigns in it, it
becomes a simple matter to contact the various persons to ascertain if
they really DID work T5/N0IMD.

Maybe.

Or maybe those people will have moved, changed callsigns, passed away,
etc.

I am now sure that Jim was right. I am sure that Brain HAS a T5/N0IMD
"logbook" somewhere.

IIRC, the exact calim was "logs", not "logbooks". Could be some pieces
of wood.

It's just that it's empty.

Or maybe there's one entry. Or two. Or three.

Remember there were no claims as to number of QSOs, band, mode, rig,
etc. One local VHF/UHF QSO would count as "operation" wouldn't it?


Exactly. For example, I have operated from St Martin (FS) - one QSO on 2m
FM. I probably have a log of it somewhere. Ironically, that QSO was with
another country, St Martin (PJ7), but it doesn't count because it was via
the local repeater in PJ7.

Perfect example! Thanks, Alun!

In point of fact, the alleged /T5 operation was allegedly on 10 meters, and at
least two QSOs (OD5 and somewhere in Eastern Europe) were reportedly made.
Given the state of 10 meters in 1993, such contact reports are quite credible,
even with a very makeshift station.

*if* that were the case - wouldn't it make all of the claims true?

And why get all upset about it? Nobody is claiming they worked
T5/N0IMD. Nobody is complaining they didn't get a QSL card from the
alleged operation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:


Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Exactly. When you were in Japan, there weren't even any Bear bombers in
service.

Okay, on the basis for one wrong statement, you mount an "air"
assault? :-)

How does a mistaken NATO code name have a relation with the
adoption of the NATO phonetic alphabet in communications in
1955?

Ah! It doesn't. But, Rev. Jimmie is out to discipline "his flock"
for "inaccuracies!" [I sense another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount in preparation! :-) ]

But in the '60s, when I was growing up, the Soviets had much more nuclear
strike capability. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, even
though I was only in elementary school at the time.

...did you also think of U.S. military communications as consisting
of hundreds of radio operators with headsets and code keys busy
tapping out messages? :-)


Lives in the PAST.

Well, you can't be referring to me.

I'm not the one who repeatedly brings up half-century-old military
communications experience as some sort of qualification to determine amateur
radio policy *today*. While neglecting to mention that the facility involved
was entirely paid for by others, and utilized the full-time contributions of
over 700 other personnel....

Hmmm...let's see...Rev. Jimmie brings up all the morse code
ham stuff of the 50s and 60s (plus all sorts of tidbits of old
ham regulations which don't apply today) and I mention that
the U.S. military quit using manual telegraphy for fixed-point
communications in 1948. Now what kind of conclusion can we
draw from that?

Oh, yes, my mention is "wrong" since it fails to honor and
glorify the tradition of morse code in amateurism which must,
in the Belief system of Rev. you-know-who, be preserved
forever and ever in amateur radio regulations.

Okay, any positive statements about morse code are allowed
and even honored even though some of the individuals involved
are obviously fish stories. Those against morse code are evil,
wicked, mean, and nasty, are always incorrect and should never
be considered. :-)

So, some olde-tyme hamme can say he "shot bears for navel
intelligence" and that be okay. Navel intel is fine as long as
person is for morse code.

[someone's belly-button is undone...]

Now, *that's* "living in the past"

Wasn't there some stuff by the good Rev. about "the past is
prologue?" :-)

I don't "live in the past". But I do have a decent memory, and the skills to
use reference resources. That obviously bothers the heck out of you, Len,
judging by how you respond to my posts.

Yes, "obviously." So very serious! :-)

A regular World Sirius, "dogging" my thoughts! :-)

He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

You mean the like the one where you called another poster a "feldwebel" and
told him to "shut the hell up"?

Right. The ROE of this newsgroup is:

1. Any kind of language or lack of civility by any morse code
proponent is perfectly acceptible, even encouraged.

2. Anything said by anyone who does not love, honor, cherish
morse code is to be denigrated, insulted, vilified, and looked
at nasty just because of what they think. All of those sub-
humans must always behave civilly and show respect for the
code lovers even if the code lovers are behaving as iceholes.

That pretty well sums it up. :-)

Rev. Jimmie, go back to Google where you live...

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:


Not in the mid- to late-1950s, senior. :-)

Exactly. When you were in Japan, there weren't even any Bear bombers in
service.

Okay, on the basis for one wrong statement, you mount an "air"
assault? :-)

Nope.

On the basis of a whole pattern of your errors, I point them out. ;-)

How does a mistaken NATO code name have a relation with the
adoption of the NATO phonetic alphabet in communications in
1955?

It has the same relation as your experiences at ADA. ;-)

Ah! It doesn't.

Neither does your experience at ADA. ;-)

But, Rev. Jimmie is out to discipline "his flock"
for "inaccuracies!" [I sense another Sermon on the Antenna
Mount in preparation! :-) ]

Who is "Rev. Jimmie", Len?

But in the '60s, when I was growing up, the Soviets had much more nuclear
strike capability. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, even
though I was only in elementary school at the time.

...did you also think of U.S. military communications as consisting
of hundreds of radio operators with headsets and code keys busy
tapping out messages? :-)

Nope. I knew they had teletype and voice and lots of other systems.

Even a kid of 7 or 8 knew that, in my time.

Lives in the PAST.

You sure do ;-)

Well, you can't be referring to me.

I'm not the one who repeatedly brings up half-century-old military
communications experience as some sort of qualification to determine amateur
radio policy *today*. While neglecting to mention that the facility involved
was entirely paid for by others, and utilized the full-time contributions of
over 700 other personnel....

Hmmm...let's see...Rev. Jimmie brings up all the morse code
ham stuff of the 50s and 60s (plus all sorts of tidbits of old
ham regulations which don't apply today)

Who is "Rev. Jimmie", Len?

and I mention that
the U.S. military quit using manual telegraphy for fixed-point
communications in 1948.

They did? Everywhere?

Or did they simply start phasing it out in 1948?

And what about non-fixed-point communications, such as between ships?

Now what kind of conclusion can we
draw from that?

That you live in the past, Len. You've mentioned your ADA experience here many,
many times. How there were so many high powered transmitters, all kinds of RATT
systems, millions of messages, etc. And no Morse Code in use. ;-)

That's fine, we're all happy for ya. And the 700+ personnel who were also there
when you were. But what does it have to do with ham radio?

Oh, yes, my mention is "wrong" since it fails to honor and
glorify the tradition of morse code in amateurism which must,
in the Belief system of Rev. you-know-who, be preserved
forever and ever in amateur radio regulations.

Not at all. It's just completely irrelevant to amateur radio policy.

Okay, any positive statements about morse code are allowed
and even honored even though some of the individuals involved
are obviously fish stories.

"some of the individuals involved are obviously fish stories."??

What does that mean?

Those against morse code are evil,
wicked, mean, and nasty, are always incorrect and should never
be considered. :-)

Why should anyone be "against morse code"?

So, some olde-tyme hamme can say he "shot bears for navel
intelligence" and that be okay. Navel intel is fine as long as
person is for morse code.

Do you mean the pictures taken by W3RV? Guess what - they're real. Like it or
not, civilian contractors do go out on US Navy ships. And they do see - and
photograph - some pretty unusual stuff.

Of course such activities are also irrelevant to amateur radio policy.

[someone's belly-button is undone...]

Must be yours, Len ;-)

Now, *that's* "living in the past"

Wasn't there some stuff by the good Rev. about "the past is
prologue?" :-)

Look it up in Google and show us, Len ;-)

I don't "live in the past". But I do have a decent memory, and the skills to
use reference resources. That obviously bothers the heck out of you, Len,
judging by how you respond to my posts.

Yes, "obviously." So very serious! :-)

When you yell and scream and carry on the way you do here, you sure seem upset.
;-)

He MUST keep on
fighting the good fight over ancient postings, again and again and
again and again and...yawn

You mean the like the one where you called another poster a "feldwebel" and
told him to "shut the hell up"?

Right.

Do you think it's OK to tell someone else in a newsgroup to "shut up", Len?

The ROE of this newsgroup is:

1. Any kind of language or lack of civility by any morse code
proponent is perfectly acceptible, even encouraged.

No it isn't.

2. Anything said by anyone who does not love, honor, cherish
morse code is to be denigrated, insulted, vilified, and looked
at nasty just because of what they think.

Not at all.

All of those sub-
humans must always behave civilly and show respect for the
code lovers even if the code lovers are behaving as iceholes.

That pretty well sums it up. :-)

Really? ;-)

Rev. Jimmie, go back to Google where you live...

WHO is "Rev. Jimmie", Len?

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:



After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)


Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.


Well, if the shoe fits...


Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Yes, the shoe does fit.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

A simple retraction of the wrong statement, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS
Amateur Radio," is all that is needed for it to end.

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

I have no need for others to see my posts. It is interesting that
others claim to have me filtered, but somehow are aware of everything
I type.

Filter away!

Hi, hi, hi.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

One replies unwittingly. He has no self-control. None at all. Hi,
hi, hi.

Face it, he is good at it. It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Remember, at least one is an unwitting participant.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

Dave has the unique ability to make friends wherever he hams.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!

The good Rev. is a willing participant.

Whereas most antagonists eventually find no one to write to in a news
group, Len has managed to generate enough interest to make himself and
those who would spar with him into some of the leading posters.


Nothing new there, Mike.

This is no small accomplishment. I for one have to respect that.

I don't.


You don't have to, that much is true.

But he finds it irresistable. Kind of like the forbidden apple.