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...

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

I'm not.

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.

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.

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 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).

Dave K8MN

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 , 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

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 , 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?

Subject: Able Baker Charlie
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/19/2004 6:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

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?

I guess we can throw out as "irrelevent" the fact that there has been
rather thorough documentation of the Armed Forces' use of "manual telegraphy"
for routine communications right up to the 80's....And NOT "spoon fed by ARRL
publications".

Of course those are FACTS, and facts don't sit well with one who can't
stand the truth.

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?

It means that if it ruins one of Lennie's rants it but be a fish story.

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"?

Becasue to be "for" Morse Code is to be AGAINST Lennie...Can't have that
now!

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.

Once again Lennie displays his colors with the "olde tyme hamme"
reference.

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?

Obviously he does. He does it frequently. Usually when he's got his tail
caught under yet another rocking chair, which is pretty frequently these days!

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.

No more or no less than the use of blatant profanity by allegedly college
educated, "professional" engineers who are "against" Morse Code.

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.

No more or less than the insistence by certain alleged "professionals"
that Amateurs show awe and reverence to them as our "superiors"...Recent
suggestions by one of those alleged professionals that some in this forum are
"jealous" or otherwise despise them for BEING an (alleged) engineer is a prime
example.

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?

Again with the inference of profanity.

Some professional.

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

WHO is "Rev. Jimmie", Len?

Sheeesh, Jim...You don't expect Lennie will ever live up to his own
rhetoric and treat others in the same way he demands that HE be treated...even
when you ARE treating him the way he expects...?!?!

Almost seven years now and I STILL have yet to see him do as he professes
or what he says he will do.

And I take the "...go back to Google" remark to be yet another "shut up"
by someone who can't stand being made a fool of with his own words....Again.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,

(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. ;-)

Sounds like nursie after the remedial English classes.

"WHOLE *PATTERN* OF ERRORS!!!"

:-)

Billions and billions served? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Rev. Jimmie Who mounts the antenna and transmits a Sermon.

Meanwhile, I thought this thread to be about Phonetic Alphabets.

Must be the "new" English.

It's really about some angry extra trying to get even for losing
arguments in here years ago.

Yawn.

Rev. Jimmie Who is very predictable in that he WILL bring up
old arguments time and again.

We readers aren't sure exactly WHAT will be brought up and
WHEN...and that lends a bit of suspense to the proceedings.

Okay, so Rev. Jimmie Who says this thread is "not" about
phonetic alphabets.

In that case, "Able Baker Charlie" (in the subject field) must
be about some skilled baker with the given name of Charles.

THAT doesn't have much to do with amateur radio, let alone
amateur radio policy, does it?

Rev. Jimmie Who, you are becoming more cryptic every
day.

Reminder: FCC sayeth amateur communications must not
contain encryption or anything intended to obscure meanings.

The 'mean' of "meanings" is obscured, but still visible.

So...tell us about YOUR days in military communications?

Or civilian communications (other than amateur)?

LHA / WMD

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...


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?

And what about the CW courses still being taught at Fort
Huncha-something somewhere in the southwest? Ohyez, the feds still
have an abiding and ongoing interest in the use of CW.



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.

Har, I forgot about that, you did see some of those shots I took
didn't ya? Geez that pile of old photos was a real trip back huh?
Gotta love the way the Putz has twisted 'em into "Naval intel" BS. No
such thing, they were typical on-the-road personal unclassified
snapshots and I never claimed otherwise.

I wasn't a contractor, I was a direct employee of the U.S. Department
of Defense and an offical civilian guest of the skipper while I was
aboard. The Putz never managed to be either, his types did my drudge
work for me for cheap.
Steerage dwellers.


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

End of.

w3rv

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
PAMNO
(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? :-)

Ditto the number of active hams hamming it up for WWII [exactly zero
(0)]. But that does not stop some from revering the contributions
that hams hamming it up made in WWII [exactly zero (0)].

BTW, did you know that a Morse Exam acts as a disincentive to CW use
on HF?

And that MARS IS Amateur Radio?

Hi, hi.

These guys keep getting sillier and sillier.