Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/6/2004 10:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

My spam filtering blocked this until Dave's reply....

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Mostly, his
windbag routine consists of insulting radio amateurs and the ARRL.

One caveat: That behavior is reserved for those who disagree with him, or
point
out errors in his statements.

Which is, unfortunately for him, just about anyone with a week's worth of
practical experience in Amateur Radio that KNOWS BETTER.

I'd strongly suggest that you do so--especially if you're sitting on top
of one of the posts.

By his own logic, "William" must support Len's behavior here.

I prefer to think of it as sinking to the lowest irrational denominator.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:
In article , Dave Heil

writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

All that's needed is for
him to obtain a valid amateur radio license, and an amateur radio station.

Why are you so focussed on all MUST have a ham license to
discuss anything in here?

Where did I say that?

Jim, that is a pervasive theme in RRAP, the "requirement" of having an
amateur radio license to discuss things -radio- related.

One of your continuing problems is that of telling the difference
between what you think has been written and what has actually been
written.

David, one of your continuing problems is that you assume that all of
the RRAP rules are written. Some rules born out my your actions, not
necessarily carved in stone with a flood light illuminating it.

Firstly, this isn't a "radio-related" newsgroup.

But it is.

It is an "amateur
radio-related" newsgroup.

Please try to keep up. Notice the second "R" in RRAP? Amateur radio
is radio related.

Len discusses and discusses.

David decides and decrees.

"One of your problems is..."

"This has not been written..."

"This is not a radio related..."

Mostly, his
windbag routine consists of insulting radio amateurs and the ARRL.
Sometimes he includes personal historical data having nothing to do with
amateur radio. Very little of what he posts has a thing to do with any
current or past amateur radio policy matter.

Like "shooting bears?" I didn't see you complaining about that.

If you missed it, then you must must be necrotic. If you support it,
then you do so by your silence, as you do so many other topics on
RRAP. Schindler.

I note your silence on gay marriage. By your silence, you must support
it.

I don't believe that it has been a topic of discussion.

Are you making it one?

You've been awfully silent on the matter of Scott Pederson. It
could be said that you must support him.

I don't believe that Scott Pederson has been a topic of discussion.

Are you making him one?

So you're either for it or agin it. Support Kelly, Heil, and Robeson?

...or he couldn't care less.

You get vociferous if Len does something, yet strangely silent if
Kelly or Robeson does something Quitesimilar.

Time to get off of the fence.

I'd strongly suggest that you do so--especially if you're sitting on top
of one of the posts.

The only thing I've been on the fence over was the renewal of my ARRL
membership when the ARRL was recommending a license structure that I
couldn't support. That was years ago.

I've been very clear on other topics.

Dave K8MN

Are you now making fenceposts the topic of discussion?

William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:
In article , Dave Heil

writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

All that's needed is for
him to obtain a valid amateur radio license, and an amateur radio station.

Why are you so focussed on all MUST have a ham license to
discuss anything in here?

Where did I say that?

Jim, that is a pervasive theme in RRAP, the "requirement" of having an
amateur radio license to discuss things -radio- related.

One of your continuing problems is that of telling the difference
between what you think has been written and what has actually been
written.

David, one of your continuing problems is that you assume that all of
the RRAP rules are written. Some rules born out my your actions, not
necessarily carved in stone with a flood light illuminating it.

I'm really having trouble deciphering "born out my your actions".
Did you perhaps mean "Some rules borne out by your actions"?
Was there supposed to be a verb in there somewhere? I made no comments
concerning "the RRAP rules", written or otherwise.

Firstly, this isn't a "radio-related" newsgroup.

But it is.

No, it isn't. Read statement below:

It is an "amateur
radio-related" newsgroup.

Please try to keep up. Notice the second "R" in RRAP? Amateur radio
is radio related.

This is not a general interest radio newsgroup.

Len discusses and discusses.

David decides and decrees.

"One of your problems is..."

....and an illustration was provided.

"This has not been written..."

....is not a quote from me.

"This is not a radio related..."

Actually, this one should have been "This is not a 'radio-related'..."
and it isn't. This newsgroup concerns amateur radio policy, not
broadcast radio policy, Citizens Band radio policy, GMS radio policy or
general radio policy. You can try making this into a "Sorry, Hans.
Mars is" argument but I'm not buying it.

Mostly, his
windbag routine consists of insulting radio amateurs and the ARRL.
Sometimes he includes personal historical data having nothing to do with
amateur radio. Very little of what he posts has a thing to do with any
current or past amateur radio policy matter.

Like "shooting bears?" I didn't see you complaining about that.

Actually, that was in response to one of Windy's tales of Soviet Bears,
"Willie".

If you missed it, then you must must be necrotic. If you support it,
then you do so by your silence, as you do so many other topics on
RRAP. Schindler.

I note your silence on gay marriage. By your silence, you must support
it.

I don't believe that it has been a topic of discussion.

See, you've been silent on it. You must condone it.

Are you making it one?

I can, if you like.

You've been awfully silent on the matter of Scott Pederson. It
could be said that you must support him.

I don't believe that Scott Pederson has been a topic of discussion.

By your silence on the matter, you must support him, according to your
rules.

Are you making him one?

I can, if you like.

So you're either for it or agin it. Support Kelly, Heil, and Robeson?

...or he couldn't care less.

You get vociferous if Len does something, yet strangely silent if
Kelly or Robeson does something Quitesimilar.

It is up to Jim whether he cares to comment on a post or not. It is up
to me whether I choose to comment on a post or not. If it bothers you,
do try and get over it.

Time to get off of the fence.

I'd strongly suggest that you do so--especially if you're sitting on top
of one of the posts.

The only thing I've been on the fence over was the renewal of my ARRL
membership when the ARRL was recommending a license structure that I
couldn't support. That was years ago.

I've been very clear on other topics.

....or so you seem to believe.

Are you now making fenceposts the topic of discussion?

Check it out, "William". You brought up fences.

Dave K8MN

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: (William)
Date: 10/6/2004 8:42 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Sounds like libel.

Only if it's not true.

Are you certain it's true?

I am more certain of the honesty and reliability of the person from who
I
obtained this information than I am of Lennie or you.

You evade the question.

Are you certain that it's true?

I evaded nothing.

I stated that I trust my source more than I trust ANYthing you or Lennie
say.

I know the man from face-to-face meetings.

He retired after 30+ years at the facility in question. Lennie was there
less than three years and was never, to my knowledge, permitted to retun on ANY
contract.

He's a member of numerous community service organizations and is the only
person I have ever known to NOT run for re-election for a community office, yet
still get re-elected in write-ins.

Oh, nevermind. You're a habitual liar.

I am sure you wished it was true.

Actually, I wished it were not true.

Well you're in luck, because it's not. See...I "made your day" by making
one of your wishes come true~!

We'll discuss it at next Dayton...See you there, Brain!

Stay away from me.

Afraid of having to look someone in the eyes and THEN tell your tales,
Brain?

Whether or not I'm at Dayton will be a mystery to you.

No it won't.

More a successful con-man than
"professional in radio"

I am gald you agree.

Wherever did you get that idea?

Why, through your SILENCE, Brain!

No "SILENCE." I said "sounds like libel."

Uh uh uhhhhhhhhh!

Brain trying to wiggle out again! BAD Brain! BAD ! ! !

You requoted the statement and didn't
comment on it.

Must I hang on your every word?

Well here you go again, Brain!

YOU have directly accused numerous other posters for NOT commenting on the
word, actions or comments of others, thereby allegedly "condoning" said
conduct. You've made THAT assertion several times within the last 30 days.

Now you've been caught re-quoting stuff that substantiated what I
said, yet now that "rule" doesn't apply!

So now do you suppose everyone ELSE must hang on YOUR every word, Brain?
Or are they "condoning" something just because they choose to skip over posts
you make?

What would be the point? Most of them are lies.

None of them are lies. And in any case, Brain, "most" implies a
significant majority.

You are challenged to answer each and every one of my posts and PROVE that
the content of more than 50% of them are mistruthful, deceitful, or in error.

Remember...YOUR silence is condoning whatever I say should you NOT respond
to even ONE post on that topic!

By your own "Rules of Engagement", failure to comment on
something means you condone it by virtue of that silence. You've expressed
those very sentiments in another thread within the last 12 hours.

But where is the rule written?

Again, you provide us with yet another example of not being able to
keep
your OWN stories straight, Brain.

The story is yours. I said it looked libelous.

Oh...I SEE!

YOU can quote, re-quote, and re-re-quote ONE SENTENCE that I made, OUT OF
THE CONTEXT of the whole post that it was made in, yet when its turned on you,
suddenly you want different rules applies, written or unwritten.

I hold my agreement in abayence. Exactly what are you gualled about?

I think you meant "gaulled".

Sorry. I thought you meant "gald.".

Well...there you go trying to think again.

We could start with your complete lack of character, your DOCUMENTED
pattern of lying and deceit, and we can wrap it up with your complete
failure
to validate even ONE example of your self-proclaimed "superior operator"
status.

Strange. The very same thing is said about you.

Oh?

By whom?

Lennie? Vipul? YOU...?!?!

I, on the other hand, AM in the logbooks of several RRAP'ers (mixed
modes), and am on the ARRL's DXCC (also mixed modes). Certainly no "superior
operator", but then (a) I never made so stupid an assertion, (b) at least
there is third party corroboration of what I have said and/or done, and (c)
K4YZ has appeared in the various Amateur related publications on occassion in
contest result columns, public service events, and as a group pariticpant in
various club activites since I acquired the call in 97. You may refer to any
of my previous callsigns before that.

Unless you can point out an example to the contrary, I've never seen YOUR
call (ANY of your calls) in ANY publication other than one of the callsign
servers.

And that's just what we know of you from THIS forum. I shudder to
think
what any deeper investigation might reveal.

You own several Yahoo groups...(SNIP)

Yes, I do.

"CAP_Communications" has 136 members. The topic should be self
explanatory as to it's purpose and application.

"ER-Nurses" has over 400, many in Western Europe, the United Kigdom,
Australia and New Zealand, in addition to the Canadian and US members. There
was one in Uruguay, however I think she moved back to Toronto.

"CitizenSoldiers" has over 50. It's a forum for veterans, members of
the Auxiliaries, and/or any of the lawful state defense forces.

You (and anyone else here) are welcome to join any of them if you have
some interest in any of them. The archives of each are open, BTW, and you're
free to browse.

....(UNSNIP)...and have been kicked off of at least one.

John K's group...THAT really hurt! Owie...Ooooie....

Now...what does my "ownership" of several discussion groups have to do
with YOUR patterns of lying and deceit...?!?! Still trying to figure out how
your "PuppetBoy" brain figured that they were somehow germane to the discussion
about your online conduct.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: US Licensing Restructuring ??? When ???
From: Dave Heil
Date: 10/6/2004 10:46 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

William wrote:

If you missed it, then you must must be necrotic. If you support it,
then you do so by your silence, as you do so many other topics on
RRAP. Schindler.

I note your silence on gay marriage. By your silence, you must support
it.

I don't believe that it has been a topic of discussion.

See, you've been silent on it. You must condone it.

Are you making it one?

I can, if you like.

Brain was probably one of those folks who sat around mumbling "Why doesn't
Anita Bryant keep here mouth shut...?!?!"

And now that he's hooked up with Lennie the Lame, I am sure the whole
thing hits just a lil bit closer to home!

The only thing I've been on the fence over was the renewal of my ARRL
membership when the ARRL was recommending a license structure that I
couldn't support. That was years ago.

I've been very clear on other topics.

...or so you seem to believe.

For sure...

Goofball can't remember what he wrote just 2 days prior, so it's of no
small wonder at some of the things he must "believe"...For example he beleives
that some butter bar LT can give him permission to operate Amateur Radio from
within the jurisdiciton of another country.

He also believes that "unlicensed devices play a major role in emergency
communicaitons" I am still waiting one some kinda validation of that.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...

Actually, this one should have been "This is not a 'radio-related'..."
and it isn't. This newsgroup concerns amateur radio policy, not
broadcast radio policy, Citizens Band radio policy, GMS radio policy or
general radio policy. You can try making this into a "Sorry, Hans.
Mars is" argument but I'm not buying it.


Ummmm, Dave? Seems you've not only bought the argument, but you're pretty
much leading it. Of course, after all your tirades about me, seems the only
thing I've seen from you since I started reviewing the group again, is,
arguments. And, ya can't blame it on me, because I haven't been here.

Class? PAH!!!!

Kim W5TIT

Kim wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...

Actually, this one should have been "This is not a 'radio-related'..."
and it isn't. This newsgroup concerns amateur radio policy, not
broadcast radio policy, Citizens Band radio policy, GMS radio policy or
general radio policy. You can try making this into a "Sorry, Hans.
Mars is" argument but I'm not buying it.


Ummmm, Dave? Seems you've not only bought the argument, but you're pretty
much leading it. Of course, after all your tirades about me, seems the only
thing I've seen from you since I started reviewing the group again, is,
arguments. And, ya can't blame it on me, because I haven't been here.

Kim, do you find any disagreement with my statement or did you just stop
by for a friendly "hello"?

Class? PAH!!!!

I haven't blamed anything on you. I've given no thought to you at all.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
William wrote:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:
In article , Dave Heil

writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message
.com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article
,

(Brian Kelly) writes:
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article
,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

All that's needed is for
him to obtain a valid amateur radio license, and an amateur radio
station.

Why are you so focussed on all MUST have a ham license to
discuss anything in here?

Where did I say that?

Jim, that is a pervasive theme in RRAP, the "requirement" of having an
amateur radio license to discuss things -radio- related.

Where did I say that anyone had to have an amateur radio license to discuss
things (radio-related or not) on rrap?

One of your continuing problems is that of telling the difference
between what you think has been written and what has actually been
written.

David, one of your continuing problems is that you assume that all of
the RRAP rules are written. Some rules born out my your actions, not
necessarily carved in stone with a flood light illuminating it.

I'm really having trouble deciphering "born out my your actions".
Did you perhaps mean "Some rules borne out by your actions"?
Was there supposed to be a verb in there somewhere? I made no comments
concerning "the RRAP rules", written or otherwise.

Len discusses and discusses.

David decides and decrees.

"One of your problems is..."

...and an illustration was provided.

Anyone who posts an opinion here "decides and decrees", just like Dave.
Lenover21 and "william" do it more than anyone else.

"This has not been written..."

...is not a quote from me.

"This is not a radio related..."

Actually, this one should have been "This is not a 'radio-related'..."
and it isn't. This newsgroup concerns amateur radio policy, not
broadcast radio policy, Citizens Band radio policy, GMS radio policy or
general radio policy. You can try making this into a "Sorry, Hans.
Mars is" argument but I'm not buying it.

Mostly, his
windbag routine consists of insulting radio amateurs and the ARRL.
Sometimes he includes personal historical data having nothing to do with
amateur radio. Very little of what he posts has a thing to do with any
current or past amateur radio policy matter.

Like "shooting bears?" I didn't see you complaining about that.

Actually, that was in response to one of Windy's tales of Soviet Bears,
"Willie".

I recall Len underestimating the distance from where he was stationed to the
USSR and North Korea. The difference was more than 25%. He also mentioned how
long it would take one of those aircraft designated 'Bear' to reach where he
was - neglecting to mention that none were in service until after he had left
the area.

Meanwhile, he disputes and denies W3RV's experiences with the US Navy.

If you missed it, then you must must be necrotic. If you support it,
then you do so by your silence, as you do so many other topics on
RRAP. Schindler.

I'm still wondering what is meant by the word "Schindler" as it is used above.

I note your silence on gay marriage. By your silence, you must support
it.

I don't believe that it has been a topic of discussion.

See, you've been silent on it. You must condone it.

Are you making it one?

I can, if you like.

You've been awfully silent on the matter of Scott Pederson. It
could be said that you must support him.

I don't believe that Scott Pederson has been a topic of discussion.

By your silence on the matter, you must support him, according to your
rules.

Are you making him one?

I can, if you like.

So you're either for it or agin it. Support Kelly, Heil, and Robeson?

...or he couldn't care less.

You get vociferous if Len does something, yet strangely silent if
Kelly or Robeson does something Quitesimilar.

Who started it?

It is up to Jim whether he cares to comment on a post or not.

True. It is also dependent on whether I actually read a posting. I don't read
every post, and of the ones I do read, I don't always read all the way through.
This method has made rrap much more enjoyabel for me, and saves lots of time
and energy.

It is up
to me whether I choose to comment on a post or not. If it bothers you,
do try and get over it.

Time to get off of the fence.

I'd strongly suggest that you do so--especially if you're sitting on top
of one of the posts.

The only thing I've been on the fence over was the renewal of my ARRL
membership when the ARRL was recommending a license structure that I
couldn't support. That was years ago.

I've been very clear on other topics.

...or so you seem to believe.

Are you now making fenceposts the topic of discussion?

Check it out, "William". You brought up fences.

Discuss all you want...

73 de Jim, N2EY