Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 17th 04, 11:24 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , (Steve
the Grate Meaningful Communicator) writes:

Subject: The Game's Afoot!
From: Mike Coslo

Date: 6/17/2004 1:39 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Amateur radio in general seems to be one of the most conservative
of all radio services...plus the fact that most of the hobbyists are
quite unaware of what goes on in other radio services. Amateur
radio publications seldom mention other radio services in the USA.
As a result there is a great deal of insularity (a sort of "dielectric
materialism") which, in turns, breeds even more conservatism.


I'm so glad I re-read this one - I missed that pun the first
read-through. Simply excellent.


It wasn't meant as a pun, Mike. He's being insulting. Again.


Poor nursie...can't even take some simple word-play.

Note "dielectic materialism" v. "dielectric materialism."

See "dialectic" as "a logical test of ideas for validity" versus
"dialectric" which is a fancy word for "insulator." :-)

Tsk, tsk...some are strung so tight that they are "insulated"
from a little levity. :-)

Not to mention that the paragraph you cited was yet another utterance of
ignorance, in particularly the part about ".....(radio) hobbyists are quite
unaware of what goes on in other radio services.".

He couldn't be MORE wrong....Well...Yes, he could, but it's hard to tell
with him.

I like the part about "Amateur radio publications seldom mention other
radio services in the USA".

First of all, they do. Regularly.


Oh? Where? When? :-)

Was the SINCGARS family of radios ever mentioned? A quarter million
of those radios have been produced since 1989 and are in standard
small-unit communications use of the U.S. military today. Made by
ITT, Fort Wayne, IN.

Has the PRC-104 HF manpack radio ever been mentioned? Dates back
before 1986, still in use today. The R/T module is standard in a variety
of ground radios, from the manpack through vehicular to the fixed-site
systems. Made by Hughes Ground Systems. Neat little antenna
tuner module in the manpack version...uses the same Bruene detector
first used on the USMC-contract T-195 HF transmitter back in 1955.

Has the AN/FRC-93 ever been mentioned? It should. Amateurs know
it as the ham version of the Collins KWM2. :-) Trouble is, the FRC-93
is the military-labeled version of the COMMERCIAL KWM2 which is
supplied with a quartz crystal pack covering much more than ham bands.

Ham publications have strummed HAARP and mentioned only the ham
involvement in MARS...and lots of ancient stuff of old radio stations
before most everyone's time. Just nothing in the last two decades.

Therefore Lennie's busted lying again.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nursie getting all red in the face with rage again and
can't pull out any information from all those "secret" military radios
"he can't talk about." :-)

Secondly, there are several "radio hobbyist" magazines available in the
US, espcially "Popular Communications" and "Monitoring Times" that cover the
"SWL" and scanning disciplines. If someone is interested in "other radio
services", then they can go to those other sources.


Won't be much there, either. :-)

There's much more on the Internet, especially the military collector
sites...but those are about as behind the times as the boatanchor
and surplus sites.

Or, anyone that is interested in what is done today in the military
(or of two decades back) can just ask anyone in the defense
electronics industry. Very little of the "radios" built for the U.S.
military or government are classified or "sensitive" (for security
reasons, not receiver sensitivity).

Lastly, why would an Amateur Radio-specific publication spend an
inordinate amount of time on "other" radio services?


"Inordinate?!?" No one was asking for "inordinate." Even a minor
mention might draw some interest...except for those who wish to
remain insular, isolated from having to learn anything but the latest
DX contest scores. :-)

Where does this idiot
(and I am being a bit liberal with praise there...) get the idea that an
AMATEUR RADIO publication should discuss issues pertaining to Public Service,
Common Carrier or military services when the topic does not correspondingly
and directly affect Amateur Radio...?!?!


Must be more of this "meaningful discourse" again. :-)

The "A" in APCO does NOT refer to Amateur.

The "A" in SHARES does NOT refer to Amateur.

The "A" in MARS does NOT refer to Amateur.

Nursie needs to know his "A" from a hole in the ground. :-)

One has to wonder what Lennie could have REALLY amounted to if he'd been
issued some grade-school level common sense.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. "Meaningful discourse?"

Poor nursie. Still resentful that someone took the time and trouble
to educate himself and keep working in radio-electronics in the
aerospace industry as a design engineer in radio-electronics and
then retire with a comfortable income. :-)

Sucks to be nursie? :-)

LHA / WMD
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 18th 04, 02:46 PM
Steve Robeson K4CAP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: The Game's Afoot!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/17/2004 5:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,

(Steve
the Grate Meaningful Communicator) writes:


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

Was the SINCGARS family of radios ever mentioned? ...(SNIPPED)


There are a LOT of military radio systems and equipment NOT mentioned in
Amateur media...and byt eh same token most of those systems are NOT mentions in
a great many professional journals, either...! ! ! ! !

Your point?

Therefore Lennie's busted lying again.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nursie getting all red in the face with rage again and
can't pull out any information from all those "secret" military radios
"he can't talk about."


Only you've tried to make it "secret".

Secondly, there are several "radio hobbyist" magazines available in the
US, espcially "Popular Communications" and "Monitoring Times" that cover the
"SWL" and scanning disciplines. If someone is interested in "other radio
services", then they can go to those other sources.


Won't be much there, either.


Then you've not been reading any of THOSE publications either.

There's much more on the Internet, especially the military collector
sites...but those are about as behind the times as the boatanchor
and surplus sites.


Then carry your rants THERE, Lennie. I am sure your spiteful wit and
willingness to be antagonistic will be as well received there as it is here.

At least it will be a bit more pertinent in those forums...Not by much,
but some.

Lastly, why would an Amateur Radio-specific publication spend an
inordinate amount of time on "other" radio services?


"Inordinate?!?" No one was asking for "inordinate."


Sure "they" are....Well, at least YOU are.

Even a minor
mention might draw some interest...except for those who wish to
remain insular, isolated from having to learn anything but the latest
DX contest scores.


Perhaps the Amateur Radio magazines limit the scope of thier content for
the same reasons you don't find a whole lot of fly fishing technique articles
in "Cosmo"...?!?!

Where does this idiot
(and I am being a bit liberal with praise there...) get the idea that an
AMATEUR RADIO publication should discuss issues pertaining to Public

Service,
Common Carrier or military services when the topic does not correspondingly
and directly affect Amateur Radio...?!?!


Must be more of this "meaningful discourse" again.

The "A" in APCO does NOT refer to Amateur.

The "A" in SHARES does NOT refer to Amateur.

The "A" in MARS does NOT refer to Amateur.


Sure it does...to what other radio service is MARS "affiliated"
with...?!?!

Nursie needs to know his "A" from a hole in the ground.


Too bad YOU don't realize that all those "A"'s don't represent "Army
communications of ocer 50 years ago".

One has to wonder what Lennie could have REALLY amounted to if he'd

been
issued some grade-school level common sense.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. "Meaningful discourse?"

Poor nursie. Still resentful that someone took the time and trouble
to educate himself and keep working in radio-electronics in the
aerospace industry as a design engineer in radio-electronics and
then retire with a comfortable income.


Too bad there weren't some human relations courses in that 14 years of
night school, Lennie.

And I don't resent your efforts to be an engineer. One day you may be
one.

That you invested your money well was, as I have acknowleged before, one
of your only positive acts in your adult life. Congratulations. My nest egg
isn't quite as secure yet, but then I still have another 15-20 years to go
before I think I'll be ready to stop wotking.

Unlike you, I DO have the pleasure of seeing a meaningful, positive impact
on my chosen profession.

When I retire, I'll stop by your grave and see if all of YOUR "comfortable
income" got you any farther than it does any other working person.

Sucks to be nursie?


If there was a "nursie" here, it might.

But we KNOW it sucks to be Lennie!

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ





  #3   Report Post  
Old June 18th 04, 08:48 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Putzcussionist of the Rock-head group Grateful Dood) writes:

Subject: The Game's Afoot!
From:
(Len Over 21)
Date: 6/17/2004 5:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,

(Steve the Grate Meaningful Communicator) writes:


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

Was the SINCGARS family of radios ever mentioned? ...(SNIPPED)


There are a LOT of military radio systems and equipment NOT mentioned in
Amateur media...and byt eh same token most of those systems are NOT mentions
in a great many professional journals, either...! ! ! ! !


Hmmm...General Dynamics as well as ITT make a quarter million
radio sets over a period of 15 years and it is "not" mentioned in
any professional journals?!?!?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. SINCGARS has been in the news since Defense
Electronics monthly was published, is in SIGNAL, the monthly of
AFCEA, gets mentioned periodically in EDN, Electronics Design,
EE Times, RF Design, RF & Microwaves magazines, plus articles
in both Proceedings and some Transactions of the IEEE. It's in
the UK too since Harris is making SINCGARS-compatible radio
systems for them.

Those are all "professional journals" since they are non-
subscription "controlled" periodicals requiring identification of
the reader to the magazines as being in/part/associated with
the electronics industry. Decidedly professional.

Not only that, there are many subscription services which have
newsletters and periodicals and surveys, etc., of the defense
electronics contracts, awards, amounts, add-ons, etc. for those
who can't handle the free information from the government on
such things. Example of the latter is Central Electronics
Command at Fort Monmouth, NJ, which concerns itself with
procurement and overseeing of Army electronics contracts.

Your point?


There's quite a bit of FREE information out there for anyone to
find out about military or government radio systems and
communications. Been there for a long time, even before the
Internet went public such as the SINCGARS.

A QUARTER MILLION radio sets of one kind makes for some
future surplus market, doesn't it? [that's the most of any one
kind of radio system in government history...]

If poor nursie is annoyed at not being spoon-fed enough info
through hum radio magazines, then he should not try to mean-
mouth those who know about such things. Tsk, tsk.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nursie getting all red in the face with rage again and
can't pull out any information from all those "secret" military radios
"he can't talk about."


Only you've tried to make it "secret".


No, nursie did, way back when I first mentioned the SINCGARS in
here plus the public availability of FM 24-24 of December 1994 (a
compendium of signal equipment of all kinds, including HF radio
sets, then in military inventory).

Nursie claimed then - in broad generalities - he had "worked in
military communications" but could not name ONE SET by
either nomenclature or familiar name ANY of them. Claimed
he could not talk about them due to not revealing military
secrets or some rationalistic reason. Which was all BS, of
course, since the general information had long been publicly
available through many government sources.

Secondly, there are several "radio hobbyist" magazines available in the
US, espcially "Popular Communications" and "Monitoring Times" that cover the
"SWL" and scanning disciplines. If someone is interested in "other radio
services", then they can go to those other sources.


Won't be much there, either.


Then you've not been reading any of THOSE publications either.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. I keep mentioning all those periodicals and controlled-
subscription magazines and other information, write them in here,
sometimes giving detailed information, and nursie keeps saying "I
don't read them! :-)

I'm NOT a regular subscriber to PopComm or Monitoring Times,
never did get every annual WRTH, don't buy every issue of CQ or
QST, nor of the old 73. Got a free subscription to HR after becoming
an Associate Editor there. Neither did I buy every issue of
PopElectronics or Radio Communication (the RSGB monthly) nor
of the old Radio Craft or Radio and Television News or many of the
old newsstand monthlies of ancient history. Don't have to...I'm not
interested in ham DX contest scoresheets or nostalgia articles of
old hum radio from the 1930s or building two-transistor transmitters
in discarded tuna tine cans nor of building super-duper state-of-the-
art one-tube regenerative receivers (all-band!).

Been IN the electronics industry, seen lots of stuff up close and
personal, designed a little bit of it, used it in the field. Radios.
Modern radios. Got into the guts of them behind the front panel,
know how they work...followed the contract awards, know who
did what on some of it, know the modern history of it instead of
concentrating on old history of one small part of radio related to
hobby activities.


There's much more on the Internet, especially the military collector
sites...but those are about as behind the times as the boatanchor
and surplus sites.


Then carry your rants THERE, Lennie. I am sure your spiteful wit and
willingness to be antagonistic will be as well received there as it is here.


Naw. I like the "meaningful discourse" of mighty gunnery nurse
and his liberal viewpoints of my-way-or-the-highway-you-putz!"

:-)

Perhaps the Amateur Radio magazines limit the scope of thier content for
the same reasons you don't find a whole lot of fly fishing technique articles
in "Cosmo"...?!?!


Nursie get amateur radio info from Cosmopolitan or Field & Steam? :-)


Where does this idiot
(and I am being a bit liberal with praise there...) get the idea that an
AMATEUR RADIO publication should discuss issues pertaining to Public

Service,
Common Carrier or military services when the topic does not correspondingly
and directly affect Amateur Radio...?!?!


Must be more of this "meaningful discourse" again.

The "A" in APCO does NOT refer to Amateur.

The "A" in SHARES does NOT refer to Amateur.

The "A" in MARS does NOT refer to Amateur.


Sure it does...to what other radio service is MARS "affiliated"
with...?!?!


FEMA, SHARES, several government agencies. :-)

See the Army Communicator write-up on Grecian Firebolt 2002
for a good example. :-)



Too bad there weren't some human relations courses in that 14 years of
night school, Lennie.


There were under California rules for the early 1960s. :-)

Some of those courses were done during the day. All for
college accreditation.

And I don't resent your efforts to be an engineer. One day you may be
one.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

Poor nursie resents the existance of anyone who has opinions
contrary to his own. The spirit of the "new amateur radio" of this
millenium. :-(

Get mental help.

Meanwhile, temper fry...

LHA / WMD

  #6   Report Post  
Old June 19th 04, 08:16 PM
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 19 Jun 2004 05:57:47 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

On 18 Jun 2004 19:48:44 GMT,
(Len Over 21) wrote:

See the Army Communicator write-up on Grecian Firebolt 2002
for a good example. :-)


For that matter, just turn on a shortwave receiver. Grecian Firebolt
2004 is being conducted as I type this, and will continue until some
time in August.


Interesting! :-)

Frequencies?


Among those that have been logged over the last week or so a

14396.4 kHz (they were .1 low) 14/1800 Jun UTC:
SHARES exercise in support of GRECIAN FIREBOLT 2004.
Check-in window #1 of 4 scheduled, each day at 1800-1900 UTC.
Ctrl shared by: KGD34 ( NCC/Shares liason, VA), AFA4BR (Shares
Coordination Station, Gulf Coast, Houston), DLA303 (SCS, Northwest,
Defense Logistics Agency, WA.); Working: KOQ434 (US Customs, NC,
possible SCS), KOQ636 (US Customs, ?), KDM52 (FAA, Memphis, TN),
KHA925 (NASA, Johnson Space Flight Ctr, Houston), WGY908 (SCS, FEMA
Region 8 Control, Denver, CO), KCR873 (USDA, Boise, ID, with traffic),
Puerto Rico CAP 20, WNIC426 (Phone company/ NTA, IL), among others
which were missed due to QSB.

KGD 34 went to 14995.0 at 1830 with KCR 873, to receive the traffic.
They were weak - message was copied by KGD 34 and passed successfully,
but no copy here. ALE and PACTOR BBS check-ins are 24 hours daily for
the duration.

5403.3 - Group HF with T, A and lots of others

8668.5 - This is a WHISKEY Air Defense battlegroup net with HOTEL
WHISKEY as NCS. Simulated air attacks, with carrier strike package
targeting track 3515, track 3515 being declared hostile, eventually
with "splash two". Later, VICTOR wkg HW re strike package is feet dry.

8252.0 - BRAVO FOXTROT Net (USB) USN FOXTROT battlegroup net with
BRAVO FOXTROT as NCS.

The U.S. Navy's current exercise is named SUMMER PULSE 04 and will
conclude in August, this involves having simultaneous deployment of
seven aircraft carrier strike groups.

The carriers involved are the Norfolk-based USS George Washington (CVN
73), the San Diego-based USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), the Yokosuka,
Japan-based USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), the Mayport, Fla.-based USS John F
Kennedy (CV 67), the Norfolk-based USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), the
Norfolk-based USS Enterprise (CVN 65), and finally, the USS Ronald
Reagan (CVN 76), which will conduct operations in the U.S. Northern
Command and U.S. Southern Command theaters during the ship's
interfleet transfer from Norfolk, Va., to its Pacific Fleet homeport
of San Diego.

When you consider that no carrier goes anywhere alone but instead has
various mixtures of destroyers, cruisers, attack subs, and at least
one ammo/oiler/supply ship in its CSG (Carrier Strike Groups are
formed and disestablished on an as-needed basis; but while one may be
different from another, all are comprised of similar types of ships),
that's a heck of a lot of radio traffic, so I'm sure the freqs listed
above only skim the surface. Conspicuous by their absence from the
above freqs are freqs for LINK-11 (TADIL-A) voice coordination nets,
for example.

Needless to say, these guys can also change frequency at any time, and
will according to mission requirements, propagation, QRM, and other
considerations - including COMSEC.

73 DE John D. Kasupski
Tonawanda, New York, USA
Amateur Radio (KC2HMZ), HF/VHF/UHF Monitoring (KNY2VS)
Member ARATS, ARES, RACES, WUN

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 19th 04, 11:17 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

When you consider that no carrier goes anywhere alone but instead has
various mixtures of destroyers, cruisers, attack subs, and at least
one ammo/oiler/supply ship in its CSG (Carrier Strike Groups are
formed and disestablished on an as-needed basis; but while one may be
different from another, all are comprised of similar types of ships),
that's a heck of a lot of radio traffic, so I'm sure the freqs listed
above only skim the surface. Conspicuous by their absence from the
above freqs are freqs for LINK-11 (TADIL-A) voice coordination nets,
for example.

Needless to say, these guys can also change frequency at any time, and
will according to mission requirements, propagation, QRM, and other
considerations - including COMSEC.


Roger that, John, thanks.


  #9   Report Post  
Old June 19th 04, 11:03 AM
Steve Robeson K4CAP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: The Game's Afoot!
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/18/2004 2:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,

(Putzcussionist of the Rock-head group Grateful Dood) writes:


"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"...From the
archived mistruths of an ex radio technician parading about as an engineer,
Leonard H. Anderson.

Was the SINCGARS family of radios ever mentioned? ...(SNIPPED)


There are a LOT of military radio systems and equipment NOT mentioned

in
Amateur media...and byt eh same token most of those systems are NOT mentions
in a great many professional journals, either...! ! ! ! !


Hmmm...General Dynamics as well as ITT make a quarter million
radio sets over a period of 15 years and it is "not" mentioned in
any professional journals?!?!?


I didn't say "ever", Your Wimpiness.

Your point?


There's quite a bit of FREE information out there for anyone to
find out about military or government radio systems and
communications. Been there for a long time, even before the
Internet went public such as the SINCGARS.


Great.

Then all those Amateurs who ARE interested in military communications
DON'T have to depend on QST, et al to discuss them.

A QUARTER MILLION radio sets of one kind makes for some
future surplus market, doesn't it? [that's the most of any one
kind of radio system in government history...]


Sure it does. And "surplus" radio gear has NOT been the preferred method
of getting on the air by Amateurs for TWO DECADES....Not when folks can buy
brand new, under warranty equipment for under $200.

If poor nursie is annoyed at not being spoon-fed enough info
through hum radio magazines, then he should not try to mean-
mouth those who know about such things. Tsk, tsk.


Perhaps if you HAD been reading those Amateur magazines you'd understand a
bit more about what you are talking about.

But you go right on ahead, Lennie...


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nursie getting all red in the face with rage again and
can't pull out any information from all those "secret" military radios
"he can't talk about."


Only you've tried to make it "secret".


No, nursie did, way back when I first mentioned the SINCGARS in
here plus the public availability of FM 24-24 of December 1994 (a
compendium of signal equipment of all kinds, including HF radio
sets, then in military inventory).

Nursie claimed then - in broad generalities - he had "worked in
military communications" but could not name ONE SET by
either nomenclature or familiar name ANY of them. Claimed
he could not talk about them due to not revealing military
secrets or some rationalistic reason.


Actually, my words then, as they are now, are that what I did in the Armed
Forces have nothing to do with Amateur Communications. Just like YOUR "link"
with Amateur Radio, Lennie, those "happenings" only shared the theoretical
basics of radio wave generation and propagation.

It's the application...not the physics...that separates you from the rest
of us, Sir Scummy.

Sucks to be you.

Steve, K4YZ







  #10   Report Post  
Old June 19th 04, 10:17 PM
Len Over 21
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: The Game's Afoot!
From:
(Len Over 21)
Date: 6/18/2004 2:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,

(Putzcussionist of the Rock-head group Grateful Dood) writes:


"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"...From the
archived mistruths of an ex radio technician parading about as an engineer,
Leonard H. Anderson.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

Nursie be here to just FIGHT anyone not thinking like nursie. :-)

Was the SINCGARS family of radios ever mentioned? ...(SNIPPED)

There are a LOT of military radio systems and equipment NOT mentioned

in
Amateur media...and byt eh same token most of those systems are NOT

mentions
in a great many professional journals, either...! ! ! ! !


Hmmm...General Dynamics as well as ITT make a quarter million
radio sets over a period of 15 years and it is "not" mentioned in
any professional journals?!?!?


I didn't say "ever", Your Wimpiness.


tsk, tsk, tsk. [lower-case comment as befits lower-case nursie]

Your point?


There's quite a bit of FREE information out there for anyone to
find out about military or government radio systems and
communications. Been there for a long time, even before the
Internet went public such as the SINCGARS.


Great.

Then all those Amateurs who ARE interested in military communications
DON'T have to depend on QST, et al to discuss them.


...and nursie thinks amateur radio is exclusive, different from all
other radio. :-)

Did nursie ever bother to check out other radio services (other
than the CBs he saw shrink-wrapped at Wal-Mart)?

A QUARTER MILLION radio sets of one kind makes for some
future surplus market, doesn't it? [that's the most of any one
kind of radio system in government history...]


Sure it does. And "surplus" radio gear has NOT been the preferred method
of getting on the air by Amateurs for TWO DECADES....Not when folks can buy
brand new, under warranty equipment for under $200.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. For a nearly-fifty "olde-tyme" hamme nursie sure
doesn't know much about surplus. :-)


If poor nursie is annoyed at not being spoon-fed enough info
through hum radio magazines, then he should not try to mean-
mouth those who know about such things. Tsk, tsk.


Perhaps if you HAD been reading those Amateur magazines you'd understand

a
bit more about what you are talking about.


tsk, tsk, tsk...nursie imagines others' worlds and doings instead
of finding out.

But you go right on ahead, Lennie...


tsk, tsk, tsk...nursie getting on high horse again, forgetting which
end is head and which is tail. :-)

Nursie hasn't been able to stop many, despite his shouting,
hollering, cursing, and threatening. :-)


Actually, my words then, as they are now, are that what I did in the

Armed
Forces have nothing to do with Amateur Communications. Just like YOUR "link"
with Amateur Radio, Lennie, those "happenings" only shared the theoretical
basics of radio wave generation and propagation.


tsk, tsk, tsk...translated, nursie never did any military communications
at all (except maybe to use the day room telephone). :-)

Nursie was involved too much in those "hostile actions" in the
military. Must be the post-traumatic stress disorder thing showing
in his postings...


It's the application...not the physics...that separates you from the rest
of us, Sir Scummy.


tsk, tsk, tsk...more "meaningful discourse" from nursie? :-)

Sucks to be you.


Only when I use either of the two Hoover appliances here. :-)

Or the solder-sucker on the bench. :-)

The melting point of solder is well below the temper temperature
of nursie...easier to suck up melted solder than to put out the
fires of outraged, angry egos such as nursie's... :-)

I guess this must be all of what modern U.S. amateur radio is
about...a bunch of mad-as-hell extras berating all the "lower
classes." Nice hobby. For Huns and other barbarians...?

LHA / WMD


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:04 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017