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.

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.

PAMNO (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."

Soiling the environment is first nature for Steve, kind of like him
calling out cadence while he walks to the mail box.