N2EY wrote:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/21/2004 6:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:



Do I have some sort of "evidence"...?!?! No. But he's already set the
pace and I see no likelyhood he'd get into office then suddenly get a spine.


So it's emotional, not based on objective facts with supporting evidence.

Part emotional, yes, but based on past experience with the Demoncratic
Party.


So it's really not about John Kerry as it is about Democrats vs.
Republicans.


That's not necessarily "wrong" or "right". In the end, what an
election comes down to is "who do you trust more?" Because regardless
of somebody's record, once they're in office it's a matter of trust
because you can't watch every issue and action. And you can't stop
them in time anyway.

That's why folks are/were so ticked off at Clinton and Nixon. They
betrayed the trust.

Do you see the problem?

I do.

I also know Kerry has made public remarks that supported Fonda.


Where? When? What exactly were the remarks?


Someone was a bit creative with a camera...OK...


No, they weren't.

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.


Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place. It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard
about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every
story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.

Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.

The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.

Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.

It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis

Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard

about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.

Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


The picture at the Valley Forge VVAW rally is real. (Another photo is
faked, but the one most often seen is real). Kerry is there, three
rows behind Hanoi Jane.

I don't think that Political Photoshopping is a small deal.


Nor I. You can see both photos and the surrounding story on the snopes.com
website. The real photo is from the VVAW rally, the faked one shows Kerry and
Fonda at a podium.


The point is that the surrounding information (date of the picture and
HJ's trip) are left out, and the picture presented as being *after*
that trip, rather than 2 years before.

You fell for it. Many others did, too. That's the problem.

Another version of Gore's "Invention of the Internet" lie.


Yep.

I have an logical disconnect with this sort of thing.

Why is it wrong for a president to lie about having gotten fellatio (
Which I agree is wrong)

YET!

It is perfectly acceptable to continue the LIE about Gore saying he
invented the internet, or showing a faked picture of Kerry and Jane
Fonda together coupled with another LIE about the date on which the
picture was taken - even though that picture was never taken in the
first place.


It's not OK. And as bad as Clinton's lie was, it wasn't as bad as Nixon's "I am
not a crook" lie and surrounding coverup.

Note that there are *two* Kerry/Fonda photographs. One is real, the other
faked. The real one seems to prove a point until you find out it was taken 2
years before Fonda went to Hanoi - then it proves a very different point.


It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.

And that is just three examples I can call up without thinking too hard


about it.

Seriously folks, Think for yourself. If you are willing to accept every


story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

No they are not. But I see that as the difference these days. Everyone
makes mistakes, every group can have a problem and a plan that simply
won't work. I would never blame all the problems on Conservatives or
Republicans. I share too many of their values. (mostly fiscal and
smaller government) But it isn't the other side blaming everything on
them. They (mostly NeoCons) are blaming *everything* on *everyone* else.


Your advice is right on, Mike. But remember that it's a natural human trait to
want easy, quick answers to complex problems, And it's even more attractive if
someone else or some other group can be blamed for a problem.

Simple answers for simple minds. Sounds great until you try to apply it
to the problem at hand.



And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!


Yup!

- mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas. Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing. The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it
as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to
tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

If BPL makes inroads as a legacy system, it will be very difficult
to remove, let alone stop.

The Iowa case will set a precedent.

BPL system companies will make money, the whole purpose of
that kind of thing.

Maybe. Or maybe not - many technologies that were highly touted never made a
dime and faded away. How many billions were lost on the Iridium system?

The rest of the HF communications world can
go away. Simple. A no-brainer.

President Bush and Commissioner Powell say it's not a problem. NTIA says BPL
can reduce line noise. A lot of "professionals" say we amateurs don't know what
we're talking about. Folks like ARRL have produced voluminuous documentation
and measurements of what BPL interference is like, yet that has not been
convincing to FCC.

How does anyone argue against that?

Michael Powell will have made his small mark on history, unable
to complete his military career or emulate his father much.

You mean his father who presented evidence before the UN that turned out not to
be very accurate? He didn't want to, but his boss insisted. Same thing is going
on with BPL. Shrub wants *anything* that looks good in the techno-world. And
he's goit highly paid *professionals* telling him BPL and HF radio can coexist
peacefully.

So what else can be done? Thousands of hams and others saying "BPL is bad"
hasn't stopped it. FCC doesn't have to go with the majority, or even interpret
its own rules the same way all the time.

devil's advocate mode = ON

Besides, Len, who really uses HF radio much anymore? The important military
stuff all goes by satellite, right? You don't see the Pentagon making trouble
about BPL. Ships use GMDRSS and EPIRB and satellites and such. SWBC is being
replaced by satellites and netcasting. All that's really left on HF are hams,
cbs, freebanders and some backup systems. HF is unreliable at best and useless
at worst. It's slow, error prone and inadequate for things like streaming video
and broadband connectivity. The few services still using it are "living in the
past", aren't they?

Besides, why are *you* upset, Len? You're not a ham.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to sell
it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

Then educate them. You have the mighty certificates, you have
the technology..."train" them.

Choo choo. :-)

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL.

Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL.

Docket 04-37 asks for comment for a proposed R&O.

NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!"

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA?

My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative. What did
you build in 1947, senior?

Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in
1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too.
Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their
ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other
strong signals adjacent. Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad,
made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed).

Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL,
Rev. Jimmie Who?!?

Did we see your pearls of technical and economic wisdom in
multi-page Comments on docket 04-37?

Say goodnight.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

And there *is* a tie to BPL in all this. BPL advocates are trying to
sell
it as
a cheap, easy, quick solution to the broadband access problem. The
administration is trying to sell it as a way back to the technoboom of
the
'90s, without a lot of tedious mucking about with infrastructure. Trying
to tie
it in with homeland security is a classic example of adhomineming those
who
oppose it. 'Those dern pinko liberal antenna-huggers!'

Interference? Reliability? Spectrum pollution? Too complicated!

Not complicated at all.

It's too complicated for the politiicans and regulators.

Then educate them.

I tried, Len. They just don't get it. I'm just a poor dumb old amateur anyway.
You've told me time and time again how unqualified I am, how I "live in the
past", how I don't know anything about "big time radio" and such, and how
you're a "professional in radio". I still work regular hours and then some -
I'm not retired like you. I'm not a wordsmith like you. I don't even make up
names to call other people in newsgroups like you. I'm only 50 years old. If
they won't listen to you, why should they listen to me?

My main interests in HF amateur radio are operating Morse code and building ham
radio equipment - either from kits or from my own designs. Three years ago I
bought a kit from a little company in California and built it. Rest of my
projects are what we hams call "homebrew". You've made fun of them so many
times that they must be of no account, right?

BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF communications in
urban areas.

FCC and NTIA say differently

The FCC has NOT said much technically on Access BPL.

That's different from saying "BPL will be the demise of low-level-signal HF
communications in urban areas."

They're the professionals and the regulators and the military, Len. I'm just a
poor dumb old amateur anyway. What do I know? Who am I to contradict
professionals who know what's best for me?

FCC has said a Morse code test "serves no regulatory purpose". FCC has reduced
the requirements for a ham radio license again and again for more than 25
years. The same FCC now refuses to interpret Part 15 the same way I do.

Docket 03-104 asked for input on BPL.

I gave them plenty. I also contributed to the ARRL fund to fight BPL.

NTIA said "A 10 db increase in background noise is acceptible!!!!"

Does it say "acceptible" or "acceptable", Len? How do you know it isn't
acceptable? How much communicating on the HF amateur bands have you done in the
past month?

Kiss off any thoughts of signal-to-noise ratios
required in modern receivers. All that advanced technology will
go to waste. Hams can go back to using one-tube regenerative
receivers, those being as "low-signal-level" as any other in an
RF cesspool of noise on HF.

Never used a regenerative receiver, have you, Len? That's obvious from your
statement. A good one is as sensitive as a modern superhet on HF.

Poor baby. Joining in an attempted gang-bang of an NCTA?

No. I'm just commenting on you lack of receiver knowledge and skill. That's
understandable - professionals gave up on regenerative receivers decades ago.

My first receiver, built in 1947, was a regenerative.

Couldn't get it to work, huh? Here's a hint: The tickler coil has to be
connected the right way to get the detector to regenerate. Even I know that.

What did you build in 1947, senior?

Nothing, Len. I wasn't around. I wasn't bootlegging an unlicensed transmitter,
either.

But 20 years later, in 1967, I got an amateur radio license. And began to use
it. Today it's 57 years later than 1947 and you haven't done any of that. .

Senior? Guess what - yesterday I got an application to join AARP. They want me
as a member. So I guess I'm a senior citizen now, huh? Maybe I'll join.

I've built regenerative and superheterodyne receivers. Also transmitters,
transceivers, power supplies, antennas, antenna tuners, station control
systems, test equipment and much more. Most of it from scratch, some kits. But
none of that counts for anything, does it, Len? Homebrewing is "living in the
past", according to you, isn't it? We hams all just buy our factory made
equipment, right?

Last regenerative receiver I checked out (for son of friend) was in
1968 (give or take). Had an RF stage ahead of detector, too.

Then it wasn't "one tube". was it?

Had MAYBE 5 uV input "sensitivity" at best (if one squinted their
ears), was terrible in selectivity, full of intermods from other
strong signals adjacent.

Poorly designed and built, then. Or maybe you couldn't get that one to work
either, huh? Too 'primitive' for you, I suppose.

Didn't tell friend or son it was that bad,
made nice-nice, gave only technical figures (they were impressed).

So you lied to a child. That must be the "professional" thing to do, eh?
Couldn't you do anything to improve it? You're a "professional in radio".

Here's a hint, Len: It's possible to build a very good regenerative receiver
and possible to build a very bad one. And everything in between. A regen that
can't hear the noise level is very bad indeed.

Are you going to make a case FOR widespread Access BPL,
Rev. Jimmie Who?!?

I don't know anyone by that name. To whom do you refer, Len? It can't be me -
Reverends are professionals in religion. I'm just an amateur.

N2EY wrote:

It's perfectly to do a smear campaign on the patriotis


Something got cut off there, Mike.


Oops, sorry about that. That's what I get when I get interrupted and
don't do a spell check,


I was just going to say that I would caution people about how a person
that I consider a patriot - Max Cleland - was attacked as unpatriotic
in a recent election.

Max lost 2 legs and an arm in the service of our country. Problem was,
he didn't have the "correct" politics. If you don't like the man's
political leanings, fine. Challenge his voting record.

But not his patriotism. That makes me want to puke.

All those that serve our country honorably are patriots in my book. Too
bad there is a new breed that ties patriotism to "goodthink" in addition
to the willingness to lay down your life for your country.

Seems political correctness has been reincarnated!

story that your "group" sends down the wire, you will be hoodwinked.
Lying to advance your parties agenda is not moral or right. I've lived
around some people that have ruined their lives by lies, starting small,
then turning compulsive. It's where we are today, when so-called
Liberals are the cause of every problem on the face of the planet. They
aren't.


Neither are conservatives the cause of every problem.

Of course not. I never said they were, nor will I ever. But most I know
now admit to no shortcoming *ever*.

- Mike KB3EIA -