In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Then I advise that your seeing an opthalmologist for an
eye examination is a good idea. That way you could observe
the several fracases that nursie starts with ANYONE who
disagrees with him...besides Brian, try Hans and Dieter.

Takes at least two people to make a fight.

Not in computer-modem communications venues. :-)

Have to say I can't understand that one.

Tsk. After 20 years of computer-modem communications (on BBSs
as well as the Internet), there are still individuals who jump on in
with some ranting on someone or something, daring all to "challenge"
them about that. Funny as well as pathetic.



Thank you Mike Tyson. [excellent taste? :-) ]

Tyson foods?

Tyson the ear-biter. :-)


Stop objecting to personal insults? Stop objecting to insulting remarks
about spouses? Stop objecting to manufactured lies he makes about
my past?

Now your getting it!

Ah, so score one for "rules" favoring the PCTA extras!

They are allowed to DO anything, SAY anything...but no one else
should be posting?

Gosh, you sure know how to wall off the playing field only for your
team...


In general, the PCTA comments on retention of the code test are
(and were long ago) repetitive, puerile, and invalid. All any of them
can do is resort to is pejorating any outspoken NCTA.

Exactly as are the arguments against it. THere are no new arguments, no

new material. It's so old.

There's no reasoning with emotional belief systems...such as the
PCTA's insistence that all who come after must jump through the
same hoops they had to when younger.

I agree it's "old." Morse code was first used in 1844. 160 years ago.
Quite OLD. :-)


We are all big boys now. You can call them ****ing contests
rather than use the cutesy euphemisms.

Michael Powell's gonna get us! ;^)

For what? Failure to gratuitously use cutesy euphemisms? :-)

Mikey Powell is already getting in more hot water that he can't
swim in very well. Try reading the business section of your paper
beyond the Howard Stern BS pieces. FCC and Powell have been
prominent in the bigger papers for other than broadcasting.


****ing contests with nursie are NOT any "battle of wits." :-)

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.

You aren't controversial enough, try too hard to work both sides of
the aisle. Align yourself with one or the other side and you will
get MANY complaints! :-)

I've been called much worse than that. One fine fellow even threatened
to kill me. Before I could do anything about it, he was arrested and
jailed on some other charges, so an offhand threat - and a real one to
boot - wasn't going to add a whole lot more time to his sentence.

Tsk. Offing him would have freed up some taxpayer monies, no?

Do you LIKE that sort of thing?

Life in the jungle, sir! 8^)

No problem in here. Bunch of snarling PCTA pussiecats. :-)

Bunch of wussies here compared to other newsgroups or the
nonsense that went on in some of the BBSs before Internet.

Just a habit of mine to not speak ill of the dead.

Feel free to say nice things about Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ted
Bundy. They are all dead. :-)

Okay, I'm still waiting for those "nice things" about that trio.

Should I name some more? :-)


Tsk. You mistake persistence for obsession. :-)

And many obsessed people just think they are persistent. Null.

You got a null-null score...try a remedial class next summer.

Let me know when there's a federal requirement to run for some
political office in order to talk about political affairs, OK?

Since when did the First Amendment get altered? Every one who
is a USA citizen has the Right to communicate with their
government...about any existing laws and potential, pending laws.


Morse code was a boon to landline communications two centuries
back (in the 1800s), enabling the wired telegraphy service providers
to give good service to all needing quick communications.

When radio as a communications medium was demonstrated, morse
code was used...not because it was unique, the best, or any other
positive attribute. On-off keying of early radio transmitters was the
ONLY practical means to use technologically-primitive early radio
apparatus for communications.

For some radio amateurs in the United States, morse code skill is
about the ONLY thing they have to show their "superiority" in a
radio service that is still just a hobby. Tsk. Those amateurs are
the ones seeing a mythical "sky is falling" scenario if the code test
is ever eliminated. Not my paranoia. :-)

I've been transmitting RF energy legally since 1953, over more
parts of the EM spectrum than is allowed to radio amateurs. Never
had any requirement to demonstrate any morse code skill to anyone
in order to transmit below 30 MHz...or above it. Doesn't make any
personal difference to me whether or not the code test stays or is
tossed in the dumpster. It's time the code test went to the landfill.
It's long overdue.

All those PCTA extras just hate the thought of removing the code
test. For so many of them it's all they've got to show their eliteness
in a hobby. shrug Some of them get rather angry and want to
"fight" about it, calling any persistent NCTA personal insults.

Thanks for another story. I really do enjoy them (and I'm not being
sarcastic.

Tsk. NOT a "story." Documented fact.

Your "Why" would indicate that you simply aren't interested in the ARS
to the level that you would take the effort to get the license.

Tsk. I don't "owe" anyone a reason for my doing anything. :-)

Of course not. But I must admit that I find that a rather odd response
to my statement.

Tsk. You are too into ham radio as a personal thing. You must think
that unlicensed folks (unlicensed in the amateur radio service, that is)
don't know anything about radio?

There are lots and lots of Parts to Title 47 C.F.R. From time to time
all of them MUST be corrected, revised, brought up to date. "Radio"
is still evolving, has existed only for 108 years. It has grown much
since its infancy, changed considerably. No one Part of Title 47 can
remain as-is forever, nor is amateur radio solely the provence of some
olde-tyme hammes to use as their private playground.

Do you "owe" someone anything for talking about politics? Does one
HAVE to be IN politics to talk about it? :-)

I'm not interested in joining any Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Right. Your why comes up that way. Just as I note above.

Tsk. I might, at some future date, get an amateur radio license.
Or maybe not. [one can't get too specific in this bunch of anal-
retentive prissy literalists, they think everything one says is some
kind of Religious Vow taken before God!]

Why should I take the trouble to relearn morse code just for a
chance to get a low-cost federal merit badge? I don't need to
prove myself in anything to anyone on any endeavor.

You forget I HAVE a federal radio operator license and obtained it
long ago. :-) Not a big deal. Had to use it only two years after
getting that in 1956.

Tsk. I was into HF radio communications without ANY sort of
license requirement from 1953 to 1956. Certainly not having any
sort of requirement to learn or use morse code. Not once did
that come up for the next half century of radio transmitting.

Hehe, I was just about in diapers then! 8^)

Irrelevant.

Why yes, I do! I have spent most of my career in computers, from the
old IBM mainframes of the 70's to today's so called cutting edge PC's.
Ended up making videos and doing photography in addition. So now I am
interested in learning more about RF, yet don't want to go back to
school. Here I is! Having a whale of a good time, learning all kinds of
new stuff!

You've only just begun to learn.

Guaranteed you WON'T learn anything if you adopt a pose of being
the Great (Amateur) Communicator because you are a code-tested
extra in front of some long-time other-radio-service pros. Listen and
learn...there is much to be gained by taking advantage of their
knowledge...but be careful on HOW you act.

You have to realize that those older than you have ALREADY met
up with the braggarts and the insolents in life as well as having
gained an enormous amount of experience. They will KNOW when
you don't know something but are trying to pass yourself off as
something you are not. You get eaten alive in trying that.


Had a friend in Junior High school. Short fellow, pretty funny guy. The
guys in our group started calling him "Stub", referring to a particular
body part. That irritated the heck out of him. He'd yell at them, tell
'em to knock it off. This was getting pretty stressful for the guy. Once
he even got into a fight with another kid over being called "Stub". As
one of the few people in the group that didn't call him that, he often
talked with me about how frustrated he was. I gave what advice I could,
but he found it lacking. Finally one day a new kid shows up, and we're
doing introductions. When I introduced him to the new guy in front of
everyone by his proper name, (Tim) he just went up to the new guy, shook
his hand, and said "Aww F**K it, just call me Stub!" Name went away
immediately.

Nice tale, but life doesn't work that way all the time.

Those who do the name-calling don't get absolution from their sins
therefore they usually continue. They think they can "get away"
with anything they do.

The KKK is a good example of one group that not only liked to call
others whatever they wanted but also killed those that objected
to their actions too strongly.

Anything

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/27/2004 6:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/27/2004 9:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I have made other apologies in this forum before, Brain. (Care to
ask
Cecil, among others?)

There's a blast from the past. Cecil departed here years ago, but you
have made mountains of false accusations since Cecil's departure.

"Blast from the past"...?!?!

Yup. Cecil hasn't posted here in eons. That means your apology to
Cecil is ancient history.

Perhaps...but it's one more than you've ever posted (taht I recall), and
certainly wasn't the last.

...., Pants on Fiar.

Please recall my recent aopolgy to Dee. And I apologized for the right thing.

Cecil's been the topic of discussion here for several
weeks...Including
YOUR suggestion that you might "...pull a Cecil..."

Indeed. But I don't recall Cecil commenting.

And I've already shown where I got my attributions wrong with Hans'
story
vs the one I read in QST.

An error. I admitted it and apologized fror it.

It wasn't the attributions that you should apologize for. It was the
accusation of plagiarism.

Hello?

Unlike you, Brian P. Burke, who is an unashamed liar.

Period.

That's another of your false accusations.

No, it's not.

Within the last 7 days you've made numerous assertions of fact that were
patently false when you made them, and that error pointed out by more than one
person.

You're in the liar mode again.

So far you've not been able to delineate ANY facts, Brain.

Nor have you kept pace with your own rhetoric.

Steve, K4YZ

No one can keep pace with your unfounded accusations.

Such as...???

Sheesh! I said "No one." If I had known someone who could keep pace
with your false accusations, I would have said who.

The "such as" comment was not directed at "who" but at "what".

Then you need to work on your presentation.

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/28/2004 4:15 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Please recall my recent aopolgy to Dee. And I apologized for the right
thing.

I stand corrected...And I did too, Brain.

Unless you can prove otherwise?

We still have that "Steve doesn't admit errors or apologize" thing out
there.

When are you going to live up to your own rhetoric, Brain?

It wasn't the attributions that you should apologize for. It was the
accusation of plagiarism.

Hello?

I guess it would be too much to ask you to go back and look at the thread
I made specifically FOR that purpose, Burke?

Within the last 7 days you've made numerous assertions of fact that
were
patently false when you made them, and that error pointed out by more than
one
person.

You're in the liar mode again.

Nope.

YOU stated, hours AFTER I had done exactly that thing, that I never admit
mistakes nor did I apologize.

It's still out there, Brain.

Are you going to own up to it, or do we just let it drop on the chance
that we'll cross paths one day and settle up face-to-face?

Sheesh! I said "No one." If I had known someone who could keep pace
with your false accusations, I would have said who.

The "such as" comment was not directed at "who" but at "what".

Then you need to work on your presentation.

Nope.

You need to work on your character. You're still a lying loser.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing.

Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, yet complains the loudest
when
others do it. Just another example of his double standard, do as Len says
not as Len does mentality.

Tsk.

What's the matter, Len? (if you want to be called something other than Len, say
so in clear direct language, please).

What I wrote about your behavior here is true. Anyone who reads rrap can see
it. - you post off-topic more than anybody. Then you complain about others'
off-topic posting. Double standard - it's OK for Len but not OK for others.

You also do more old-timer posting, too...

I say enjoy the hobby.

Which one? I have several.

I say don't try to force archaic, imaginary
needs in testing for an amateur radio license just because some
olde-tymers had to do it.

I don't. Not in any way. Never have.

You have formally requested that FCC institute an age requirement of 14 years
to get any class of amateur radio license. You've argued that idea here, too,
and accused VEs of fraud in the licensing of young children. Yet when
challenged, you could not name even one single incident where the youth of an
amateur radio operator was a factor in any sort of rules violation.

There has never been an age requirement for an amateur radio license in the USA
- even in 1912. Canada had an age requirement, but dropped it as unnecessary.

After all, it was *you* who wrote:

"I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a
primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity."

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...utput=gpla in

So what it comes down to is that FCC should adopt new rules because *you* have
a problem dealing with young people....

If anyone tries "to force archaic, imaginary needs in testing for an amateur
radio license", it's *you*, Len.

I say enjoy freedom.

I do, Len. With freedom comes responsibility, and the recognition of other
people's freedoms.

For example, there's freedom of speech and freedom of the press, both of which
are evident here on Usenet. Anybody with internet access can post their words
to these newsgroups. No license required! You've exercised freedom to post on
Usenet with great frequency and volume...

Yet you've also told others here to shut up simply because they disagreed with
you. You say this to people who have *never* told you to shut up in any way,
shape or form.

Sometimes you say it indirectly, but at least once you've come out and told
someone to "shut the hell up". Which shows how you really feel about freedom:
it's fine for those who agree with you but not for others. Double standard.

I say try to keep up with the technology.

Which technology? What does "try to keep up" really mean? Is it OK to use a
design or components that are 5 years old? 10 years old? 20 years old? 30 years
old? Where's the dividing line?

Does "keeping up with the technology" include using MS Paint to make
"professional" PC boards?

Who decides that a particular technology is not to be used any more?

You criticize the homebrew radio projects of others, but have none of your own
to show. Instead, you go on at length about a 20+ year old manufactured
receiver, and how you bought it for cash. Do as Len says, not as Len does...

I say the technology isn't restricted solely to what ARRL publishes.

I don't know anybody who says it is. ARRL publications are an excellent source
of information, designs, and ideas, though.

Is that "bad mentality?"

Not at all! But your behavior here doesn't match those words.

Or would you rather everyone be subject
to rule by the raddio kopps carrying dazzling bright kopp badges?

Who are they, Len? Can't be me - I'm not a "kopp" and I have no "badges".

[that way you could get to push around others who don't agree
with you and your opinions - which you call "facts"]

That's a pretty good description of what *you* try to do here, Len. Not me.

Do I do "OT posting more than anybody?" No.

Yes, you do. Don't you ever read what you write?

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

The trouble is, you criticize others for doing exactly what *you* do, even
though you do it more.

Do as Len says, not as Len does. Double standard.

If I DO talk about old time (OT) subjects it is for a reason of
explanation since I've DONE those things and have first-hand
experience.

You also talk a lot about old-time stuff you have *not* done and were *not* a
part of. Also off-topic stuff you have *not* done and were *not* a part of.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

The trouble is, you criticize others for doing exactly what *you* do, even
though you do it more.

Do as Len says, not as Len does. Double standard.

Is it somehow OK to post off-topic if someone has done a thing, but not OK if
it wasn't a personal experience?

If so, why do you post about things you haven't personally experienced?

If not, what's *your* problem?

I don't need "confirmation" from any "league"
organization to "document" it. :-)

What does that mean?

When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Agreed!

The denials are almost funny.

No. Tragic.

You're as much a part of it, and cause of it, as the other two, Len.

Can't you deal with Steve, K4YZ? Do you need my help?

The damp hankie slap on nursie's wrist isn't very
good therapy, "doctor" Jimmie.

I'm not a doctor. And I prefer to be called "Jim" or "N2EY" or "Jim/N2EY" in
amateur radio discussions.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]

That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup,
Len. After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell
up"..

I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He
claims otherwise.

It's how he acts that makes the claims ring hollow. Perhaps it's time to
repost the "feldwebel" classic...

Poor baby. Losing your "group leader" self-imposed title?

Not me, Len. You're the one telling people to "shut the hell up", and
determining what is and is not acceptable subject of discussion here.

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.

"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

Yeah, what's with that?

Len's trying to cover up his gaffe of laughing at them.

Tsk, tsk. I don't, have never "laughed" at innocent victims of
anything.

Yes, you did.

When it was suggested that all would have survived if the Titanic had hit the
iceberg head-on rather than trying to turn away, you laughed and made fun of
the idea. Even though it has been validated by computer simulations, and by the
actual experiences of the liner Niagara three days before Titanic sank - in the
same ice field. (Niagara, an older and less-state-of-the-art liner, rammed into
an iceberg, crumpling the bow and tossing everyone aboard about. The captain
initially feared the worst and radio distress calls were sent out. But the
damage was such that the distress calls were rescinded and Niagara made it to
New York without the death or serious injury of any passengers).

What you've just said above is a damned LIE, sweetums.

No, it isn't.

At worst, it might be a mistake.

But I don't think it is:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001133%40mb-m0
1.aol.com&output=gplain


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001131%40mb-m0
1.aol.com&output=gplain

Not unexpected from the Wrong Reverend Jimmie Who. It was
bound to happen that - as "led" by that other shining example of
modern U.S. hamdom, the gunnery nurse.

Why all the name calling, Len?

What next? Little eptithets in some language your aren't familiar
with?

Perhaps you would prefer that. But you won't get it from me, Len. You've
already started, though, with the name-calling and such.

For years I've referred to you as "Len", "Mr. Anderson", or sometimes just
"Anderson". Maybe a "Lennie" slipped in there 5-6 years ago, but not recently.
I've even asked what you prefer to be called here. I'm still waiting for a
clear answer.

[nursie has the lock on cute Yiddish pejoratives, doesn't
know squat about Yiddishers or Judaism]

How do you know that? Do you speak Yiddish? Are you Jewish?

Maybe something
choice in Italian? [you could use my neighbor, the Scicilian, in
that regard...:-) ]

I know a few good phrases in Italian. But I leave the ethnic/gender/religious
slur stuff to folks like you, Len.

btw, what is a "Scicilian" ?

I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband

Now see - there you go off-topic.

You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

Yeah - what's up with that?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names.
Perhaps you don't have the guts to do it.

Have you ever noticed, Mike, that Len practically *never* addresses someone
who disagrees with him by the name they use on their posts? He almost
always has to make up an insulting nickname for them.

Beggin' yer highbrow pardon, m'lord hamme-on-wry.

Is that an apology, Len?

Why not just call people by their names?

Do you think your nicknames are funny? They're not. All they do is give some
people (not me) the idea that they can respond in kind.

and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

More OT....

What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

;-) ;-)

M'lord Hamme, what is the "significance" of discussing the Titanic
disaster at all in an amateur radio policy newsgroup?

It's more significant than discussing military teletype communications in Japan
in the 1950s. Or property values in a Southern California housing development
over a 42 year period.

Shouldn't you be taking that up before the House of Lords?

Sounds like you're telling me to shut up...

Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in
a quirky sort of way?

Very attractive, really. Not at the Jan Smithers level, of course.

Tsk. Letting all your sexual fantasies hang out in public again?

You *do* want to be the moderator.

"quite cute in a quirky sort of way" is pretty tame stuff. Suitable for family
viewing, I'd say.

It was *you* who emailed a picture containing adult male nudity to me and some
others. Completely unsolicited and unwelcome.

Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

OT?

Commercial air carriers don't concern themselves with amateur
radios...requiring ANY RF radiation source to be turned off when
in-flight.

Again, that and mention of Boeing Aircraft Company is NOT an
amateur radio policy subject.

So why did you bring it up?

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

Very OT

So is claims that vacuum tube kluges you've "designed" in
the 1990s as "state of the art." :-)

"So is claims"?

Who claimed that anything radio-related that I have designed is "state of the
art"? Not me.

What's interesting is that we haven't yet seen *anything* radio-related you
have designed and built at home, Len.

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Yawningly OT

So is Rev. Jimmie's regular "subject" of the Titanic disaster in
here.

Then why do you comment on it?

Jimmie have fantasies of being a "hero" saving lives through
moursemanship in that disaster scenario?

"Moursemanship"?

Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at
low altitude.

Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of
the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day
with him at the yoke.

Did you see the film clip? It's on the 'net at a few sites. Not the best
quality, but scary enough.

Has Jimmie actually RIDDEN in a B-52?

No. Have you, Len?

What difference does it make to the discussion?

I've been inside a B-52, btw.

Who cares? Jimmie never served his country in a military capacity,

Never claimed to. You don't see me in military newsgroups, telling soldiers how
to run the armed services.

wouldn't have any need to ride a B-52 for any reason.

I think it would be fun.

Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

"Yawningly OT." Hi hi. :-)

The morsemanship test REMAINS and that suits Mr. "I serve my
country in OTHER ways" Miccolis, the artist of the state, just
dandy.

Where did I ever write "I serve my country in OTHER ways", Len?

They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.

Why does that bother you so much?

Notice how Len avoids the relevant questions...

What is the "relevant question?" :-)

Why the morse code test bothers you so much.

Oh, I see. You be da Lord Hamme-on-wry, de Lawgiver of what
be relevant for all to follow! Beggin' me humble pardon, m'lord.

Just answer the question, please, Len.

It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.

Perhaps some do.

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic
level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Hmmm?

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The
Art" car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes?

Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband connection?

If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.

Roger that!

Who had a "personal computer" in 1912? :-)

"You can not answer a question with another question"

Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20
years old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about
it.

"Lecture?" :-)

Yes!

Tsk, tsk, TSK! I have an R-70. Leo has an R-70. Both still work to
specifications (which are quite good).

How do you know they still work to specifications? Have you run a full lab test
on them? Put them in the environmental chamber and all the rest?

Or are you just guessing?

Oh, yes, a couple of NCTAs mentioned it, so, according to m'lord hamme
(on rye?) they are just snit. :-)

The only snit I see is from you, Len.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Mostly analog, really!

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

Yep.

How so? Can't get any digital parts to "recycle?" :-)

Is recycling a bad thing, Len?

I like the old Yankee saying:

"Use it up
Wear it out
Make it do
Or do without"

Is that bad? Perhaps you subscribe to Our Ford's mantra "Ending is better than
mending".

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

Indeed.

Children's story characters? More fantasy portrayed as "fact?"

A fable with a relevant moral. Didja know "Dr. Seuss" drew political cartoons
before, during and after WW2?

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Oatmeal boxes made of cardboard are still used. They have a plastic rim at
the top but they still make good coil forms

Go for it, Mr. State of the Art! :-)

Who would that be, Len?

Is it OK to call you Len? If you want to be called something other than Len,
say so in clear direct language, please.

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

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

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing.

Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody, yet complains the loudest
when
others do it. Just another example of his double standard, do as Len says
not
as Len does mentality.

Tsk.

I say enjoy the hobby. I say don't try to force archaic, imaginary
needs in testing for an amateur radio license just because some
olde-tymers had to do it. I say enjoy freedom. I say try to keep
up with the technology. I say the technology isn't restricted solely
to what the ARRL publishes.

Ca-a-arefu1!

I like to live dangerously! :-)

You are. What with the nut loose in here. ;^)

Is that "bad mentality?" Or would you rather everyone be subject
to rule by the raddio kopps carrying dazzling bright kopp badges?
[that way you could get to push around others who don't agree
with you and your opinions - which you call "facts"]

Steve's opinions are facts. Others opinions are lies.

Standing Orders of the Day posted behind glass at the recon
company Hq., personally signed by Genl. Chesty Puller hisself.

I think the only thing Steve learned in the service was how to bandy
about like a little rooster.

Steveism:

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and NCTA Opinions.

That's what gets written in here... :-)

And then some.

Do I do "OT posting more than anybody?" No.

If I DO talk about old time (OT) subjects it is for a reason of
explanation since I've DONE those things and have first-hand
experience. I don't need "confirmation" from any "league"
organization to "document" it. :-)

Ah oh! Mistake #1. Can't say nuttin bad about the league.

I know, I know...we can't call it what it is...we MUST enoble it
to sainthood and worship at the Church of St. Hiram.

Too much Holy water under the bridge.

When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Agreed!

The denials are almost funny.

No. Tragic. The damp hankie slap on nursie's wrist isn't very
good therapy, "doctor" Jimmie.

DJ (Doc Jimmie) run Yell DMC health records. Clean Bill.

Is Jimmie Who a "qualified health professional?" :-)

Being a "qualified health professional" is an absolute MUST in
here when anyone mentions the CAPman.

Strange, hams talk weather all day (and all night) long but none of
them are required to be weathermen. After the weather, they start
talking about their gall bladders, but I doubt they are medical
professionals.

Pair of Docs.

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences..and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]

That's a pretty good summation of what *you* want from this newsgroup,
Len.
After all, you're the one telling other people to "shut the hell up"..

I've thought that Lenover21 wanted to be the moderator in here. He
claims otherwise.

It's how he acts that makes the claims ring hollow. Perhaps it's time to
repost the "feldwebel" classic...

Poor baby. Losing your "group leader" self-imposed title?

Awwww.

Not: MARS is like Amateur Radio.

Not: MARS has lots of Amateur Radio Volunteers.

But: "MARS IS Amateur Radio!"

Hi hi!

False religion. "True lies." :-)

The connection to the UNIFORMED military is obvious to me and
you but others don't quite see it.

Steve was in the UNINFORMED service. That's why he got it wrong.

He lies about knowing something about MARS.

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope.

"Bleeding-heart imaginary sailors"? Who would that be?

Yeah, what's with that?

Len's trying to cover up his gaffe of laughing at them.

Tsk, tsk. I don't, have never "laughed" at innocent victims of
anything.

What you've just said above is a damned LIE, sweetums.

Not unexpected from the Wrong Reverend Jimmie Who. It was
bound to happen that - as "led" by that other shining example of
modern U.S. hamdom, the gunnery nurse.

What next? Little eptithets in some language your aren't familiar
with? [nursie has the lock on cute Yiddish pejoratives, doesn't
know squat about Yiddishers or Judaism] Maybe something
choice in Italian? [you could use my neighbor, the Scicilian, in
that regard...:-) ]

I think the next runaway insult language will be Palistinian.

Who knows? I'm not into any form of Arabic although my former
opthalmologist taught me a couple of Farsi words (he was born
in Persia...what is now Iran).

As long as a nastyword isn't in a native language, some yo-yo
in here will use it as a euphemism.

Bozo.

I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband

You mean James Cameron? If so, why not just use his name?

You seem to have a serious problem calling people by their names.
Perhaps
you don't have the guts to do it.

Have you ever noticed, Mike, that Len practically *never* addresses
someone
who
disagrees with him by the name they use on their posts? He almost always
has
to
make up an insulting nickname for them.

Beggin' yer highbrow pardon, m'lord hamme-on-wry.

Who is K4CAP? Isn't that a defunct callsign?

Totally DEFUNCT.

So he lies when he puts slash/K4CAP behind his name.

and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

;-) ;-)

M'lord Hamme, what is the "significance" of discussing the Titanic
disaster
at all in an amateur radio policy newsgroup?

Shouldn't you be taking that up before the House of Lords?

Put a Trace on that Lords.

I'll call "Mr. Trace, keener than most persons" if someone in here
remembers Bob and Ray... :-)

"Olde Tyme Radio?"

Linda is quite quirky in a cute sort of way... or is that quite cute in
a quirky sort of way?

Very attractive, really. Not at the Jan Smithers level, of course.

Tsk. Letting all your sexual fantasies hang out in public again?

What possible significance has YOUR sexual fantasies to do with
amateur radio policy matters?

Oh, yes, you like to present them to show your "manliness?"

Weird.

It's all merely a frustration with "thier" station in life.

Passing that 20 WPM morse code test was VERY meaningful to
them...gave them something to brag about, to feel oh, so superior
to other amateur radio hobbyists.

I wonder if those girls on Petticoat Junction would be impressed with
their Morse Prowess?

Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

OT?

Commercial air carriers don't concern themselves with amateur
radios...requiring ANY RF radiation source to be turned off when
in-flight.

Again, that and mention of Boeing Aircraft Company is NOT an
amateur radio policy subject.

Mebbe we should check with the CAPman on that. He's practically a
Boeing insider when he jumps into that jumpsuit.

Don't forget that he is "Pilot in Command" when he do dat!

He can probably marry, divorce, and condemn people when he's the
Captain of his Air Ship. Or is that Major?

Got the silver wings with little laurel wreath around the star above
the center shield! Maybe he had it gold plated to match USN
wings? USAF wings are physically larger than USN wings. :-)

No doubt he's struttin' around about that. I used to get a kick out
of the CAP guys. They got to eat in the chow hall once a month like
real military. The Banty Roosters would loosly gather their gaggle of
follows and sort of march them out in the parking lot. Hi!

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

Very OT

So is claims that vacuum tube kluges you've "designed" in
the 1990s as "state of the art." :-)

But, but, but, it is immune to BPL...

Absolutely! Immune to RFI, EMI, and EMP effects, too, I'll bet.
Immune to everything except negative criticism (however slight).
:-)

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Yawningly OT

So is Rev. Jimmie's regular "subject" of the Titanic disaster in
here.

Jimmie have fantasies of being a "hero" saving lives through
moursemanship in that disaster scenario?

And here I thought that SAC invented the checklist. Thank goodness I
read RRAP.

SAC no doubt improved on the checklist...but Boeing made so many
of the SAC aircraft that there must have been some transfer of
methods and procedures. :-)

Nephew-in-law works for Boeing in the production complex near
Marysville, WA. But, I was somewhat familiar with Boeing aircraft
long before the family got extended.

Stop-loss?

Of course there was the PROFESSIONAL pilot who tried to roll a B-52 at
low
altitude.

Did you see the case study of that one, Jim? Spooky! Too bad so many of
the folk flying with him knew they were probably going to die some day
with him at the yoke.

Did you see the film clip? It's on the 'net at a few sites. Not the best
quality, but scary enough.

Has Jimmie actually RIDDEN in a B-52?

Saw him in a movie. Sittin atop an A-Bomb. Oooop! He jarred it
loose.

"Dr. Strangelove." :-)

Yeah, like a (mximum) 200 pound male can "jar loose" 4000
pounds of bomb (approximate weight of a special weapons of the
time) from its shackles designed to take many g of force. :-)

Tsk. These guys go to the movies and think that all the FICTION
they see is the TRVTH and nothing but... :-)

The mosquito squadron. Wrapped a bomb in rubber and with a low
altitude approach bounced it right into a bunker. Movies are great
stuff. I don't base my life around movies though.

Who cares? Jimmie never served his country in a military capacity,
wouldn't have any need to ride a B-52 for any reason.

But he likes to write about it.

Sure does...and really, really bristles with antagonism on the slightest
negative comment on what he say...

B-52s are older than Jimmie...he MUST love them for that reason.

Is this the part where he is called a non-participant? A mere
spectator?

Or was that Kelly?

Both. :-) Except Kellie DID have dinner with the Captain! :-)

Maybe Steve will wear his CAPman suit to Dayton and we can sit at his
table.

Jimmie has some fundamental seamanship flaws. It's easy to
drive (excuse me, sail) a Sabot directly into an iceberg to "save
the passengers (at most two)." Brian Kelly knows better than
that so I give him credit for some common sense, sailor-wise.

Wonder if the titanic came up at the Captain's table?

Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

"Yawningly OT." Hi hi. :-)

Hardly.

For THEM it is "up to date." They ARE amateur radio!

The Elite of the Elite. An Army of One. All that they can be.

If, "Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio," is true, then Steve
must struggle with ham radio as much as he does MARS. Hi!

The morsemanship test REMAINS and that suits Mr. "I serve my
country in OTHER ways" Miccolis, the artist of the state, just
dandy. That will secure U.S. amateur radio for morse-tested hams
and assure Jimmie someone to play with...

Gotta protect the laurels that ye rest upon.

They need whoopee cusions...

And baby wipes.

They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands.

Why does that bother you so much?

Notice how Len avoids the relevant questions...

What is the "relevant question?" :-)

Oh, I see. You be da Lord Hamme-on-wry, de Lawgiver of what
be relevant for all to follow! Beggin' me humble pardon, m'lord.

The relevant question is "Steel chassis or Aluminum chassis?"

"Greenlee punch or Nibbler?"

Such relevant questions.

Actually, it would be. Jimmie say he build with "recycled parts"
and his "rig" didn't cost him more than $100.

Now anyone considering any sort of metal work for radios had
better have $ome money since an average aluminum chassis
from Bud Industries, LMB-Heeger, or Hammond Manufacturing
(good folks in Canada) is going to cost about $30...and that isn't
including a bottom cover plate. Metal cabinets are Out Of Sight.
Check any catalog, paper or on-line, Allied, Newark, DigiKey,
Mouser, even Ocean State Electronics.

Some alloys of aluminum are sort of malleable. 2024 is somewhat
that way but don't bend it too much. 6061 is NOT. One can't take
a chunk of ordinary aluminum and hammer it flat to fill in the holes
(using "recycled" i.e., previously-used), then bend/brake it back to
some new shape. That means BUYING chassis somewhere...or
snaffling ("swipe") them. At early 1990 prices, that average
chassis alluded to before would cost about $25. So, for six chassis
in the photograph that would be a total of about $150.

The excuse to be given will be that he "bought it at a flea market"
or some hamvention for "a very low price." :-)

Whatever the story is, it will have the usual embellishments, the
brags of greatness, the usual suspects. :-)

Maybe an estate sale? Should be getting more and more common all of
the time.

It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004.

Perhaps some do.

Many more think that a simple test of Morse code skill at a very basic
level is a worthwhile requirement for an amateur license.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

Len, do you live in a "State Of The Art" house? Drive a "State Of The
Art"
car? Wear "State Of The Art" clothes?

Is your computer "State Of The Art", complete with broadband
connection?

If we owns PC's, we isn't state of the art.

Roger that!

Who had a "personal computer" in 1912? :-)

It's an egnima. Ooops! Prolly later.

Heck, the only HF radio equipment you've admitted to owning is over 20
years
old. Definitely not "State Of The Art", yet you lecture others about
it.

"Lecture?" :-)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! I have an R-70. Leo has an R-70. Both still work to
specifications (which are quite good).

Oh, yes, a couple of NCTAs mentioned it, so, according to m'lord hamme
(on rye?) they are just snit. :-)

I've got a ratshack dx150. Wanna trade? Hi, hi!

I'll trade you my old RS "Color Computer" for it... :-)

My first computer. A COCO II with a whopping 16k ram. I swapped out
the chips, cut a trace and added a jumper: 64K whoohoo!

I had the first floppy drive around, too. Couldn't stand the tape
recorder.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Mostly analog, really!

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

Yep.

How so? Can't get any digital parts to "recycle?" :-)

Wow! An IC-745. Time to swap out the lithium battery.

Or have some of the folks in here take their lithium regularly...

Maybe there's enough lithium remaining in the batteries. I say
recycle!

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

Indeed.

Children's story characters? More fantasy portrayed as "fact?"

"...every Mode has it's place." Time to tune up the arc-welder and
draw a bead and a dit. Hi, hi!

Do a long seam for a spark transmitter "key down" equivalent?

The Petersen Auto Museum on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles
had a display of all the Grinchville vehicles used in the movie.
Cute. Fiberglass bodies all, some "recycled" auto parts in the
chassis. Made by movie industry PROFESSIONALS! :-)

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Oatmeal boxes made of cardboard are still used. They have a plastic rim at
the
top but they still make good coil forms

Go for it, Mr. State of the Art! :-)

I prefer the "Hogan's Heroes" teapot radio.

heh heh heh Another PROP...but not about aviation...

Quaker Oats still does some packaging in round (thin) cardboard
cartons. In the 1920s that would have been a very low-cost "coil
form" for the 195-meter wavelength hammes of olde.

Speaking of coil forms, I need to replace the coil on my hygain 18vs.
I want to use plastic water pipe or conduit, but I recall reading that
some of that stuff is somewhat conductive. Have you heard anything
about that?

Reinvent the 1920s and claim your fame as the "innovator!"

Good grief.

Next thing you know, Rev. Jimmie will tout "Ralph 124C41+" as
"mainstream
science fiction!" :-)

bwahahahahahah



Whatever he tout's is da troof!

Hugo Gernsback (of the publication fame) wrote "Ralph 124C41+"
way way back. TERRIBLE writing. Fiction wasn't his thing and
one can suspect he became a publisher to control the editors who
wouldn't buy copy from him as an author. :-)

I read it in one sitting in 1953. Small thin book. Dreck. It is so
"camp" that the Science Fiction Writers of America wanted to
name the annual SF writing award trophy as the "Hugo." :-)

Gernsback could have become a "leader" in ham radio way back
in the early 1920s. He had branched out too far into other radio,
trying to be a visionary. Gernsback Publications was much much
larger than what the league could get together.



All of the mistakes of history. What if we never got that second
front in WWII?

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/28/2004 6:03 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

After all, it was *you* who wrote:

"I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a
primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity."

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...utput=gpla in

Talk about your "blast from the past..."

And still just as ill-informed and ill-prepared then as today.

QUOTE:

From: (Len Anderson)
Subject: CW the final solution
Date: 1996/09/02
Message-ID:
distribution: world
references:
organization: TGT Technologies / The MOG-UR'S EMS: 818-366-1238
newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

K1From: Burt Fisher
K1Subject: CW the final solution

K1WHAT IS C W

K1* It is a unique,intimate,concise and effective communications skill still
K1employed throughout the world....(SNIP TO...)

K1* It is an equalizer,negating age,speech impediments and dialectical
K1differences;it provides for ready acceptance of youngsters in an
K1adult enviornment.

I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a
primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity. The
dialectical difference negation part is pure nonsense and far-liberal
pipedreaming. RTTY, packet, computer can negate age, speech
impediments, _and_ hearing loss; computers with artificial speech
adapters are used by some blind persons.

SNIP AND UNQUOTE

"...The dialectial difference negation part is pure nonesense and
far-liberal pipedreaming."

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

Stupid stuff like Lennie's post is what happens when any PUTZ with the
bucks can buy a computer and subscribe to an ISP.

Absolutely proof positive that Leonard H. Anderson has absolutely NO idea
of what he's talking about, and that LACK of knowledge comes DIRECTLY from a
lack of practical experience.

And the "...trouble with integrating "youngsters" line...Proof (to me)
that Lennie's biggest fear of Amateur Radio is getting on the air and being
"shown up" by some "kid" who can't even shave yet!

As always, Lennie's own words are his own un-doing....

Thanks, Jim...

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

Tsk, tsk.

It's true, true.

The "whizzing" is almost entirely one way, nursie
"whizzing" on anyone who disagrees (in the slightest) with
him. [that's all archived in Google, go live in the past and see
it...:-) ]

All three of you do about the same amount of whizzing. You whizz on anyone who
disagrees in the slightest with you.

It's a plain, simple fact.

Tsk, wrong again. Error. Mistake.

What's the mistake?

Worse yet, you use "fact" interchangeably with Your Personal
Opinion. Not correct.

How is it not correct?

Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

Very very little.

Actually, quite a bit.

Wrong again. Quite wrong.

Your opinion.

1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency.

No, that's not true. Radio was regulated by the US and by international
treaty
before 1912. The regulations were very vague and loose, but they did exist.

Tsk.

It's true.

What agency had the official power of law in the United States
prior to 1912?

Depends on which law.

"Loose and vague" apply to your specious "arguments" there.

Not at all, Len. Was there *no* regulation of radio in the USA before 1912?

That's
about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very
tenuous one...if at all. :-)

Wrong again, Len!

No. Not "wrong" in the real world.

Were you there, in the real world, in 1912?

You need to sever your imaginary ties of emotion to a pet subject
of yours in order to examine the bigger picture.

There was NO REAL RELATION of the Titanic disaster event to U.S.
amateur radio policy, regulations, or laws.

Sure there was. You just won't admit it because I brought it up.

If you notice the
chronology, all that can be said is that the creation of the first U.S.
radio regulating agency and the Titanic sinking took place in the same
year, 1912.

The Department of the Navy and the Department of Commerce did not exist before
1912?

Because of the Titanic disaster, the existing loose regulations were
tightened
up and much more closely defined. Licenses were required of all transmitting
stations, new procedures set up, new treaties and agreements put in place.

That's an absurd mental elastomeric stress breaking point. :-)

Not really.

I would suggest that anyone who really cares about the very early
history of radio to study Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave,
Technology and American Radio, 1900-1932." Princeton University
Press, 1985, softcover 561 pp. At the time of writing, Aitken was
a professor at Amherst College and the work was supported by the
National Science Foundation.

Was he there in 1912? Were you? I wasn't.

There was considerably more involved in the decision of the United
States to create its first radio regulating agency PRIOR to the
Titanic sinking. [agencies aren't created overnight by some
disaster even and the start of the first radio agency in the U.S.
began considerably before the infamous sinking]

There were more than a dozen "wireless" bills before Congress in the two years
preceding April 1912. All failed to be enacted. There was no urgency to
enacting US wireless regulation at all. Then the Titanic sinking and the
resulting investigations led to quick govt. action.

And it was because of the Titanic disaster that amateurs were limited to
"200
meters and down" and 1 kW input to their transmitters. Those limitations
caused
amateurs to organize themselves into groups like ARRL (1914), to push for
legislative protection, and to explore what could be done with those
supposedly "useless" wavelengths.

Tsk. You aren't in line with the ARRL's own bio of its creation. :-)

How would you know, Len?

The way the league wrote themselves up,

Where?

they began as a local
club using their ham sets to what was essentially hacking on the
services of commercial telegraph providers.

"hacking on the services of commercial telegraph providers"?

Nope.

Amateur radio message handling of those days did not "hack" anyone else's
facilities. Nor was it done for money.

[see the details on the
league's web site and in other published works by them]

Try actually reading them yourself, Len.

ARRL did not spring into national prominence until AFTER World
War 1, at least 8 years AFTER the Titanic sinking.

Wrong again, Len!

The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before WW1. That's a
documented fact. The League and amateur radio all but disappeared during WW1,
then were reorganized soon after Armistice Day.

Even so, the
league was very busy with competition from OTHER wannabe
national amateur organizations.

Such as?

Note: The Radio Club of America
began 5 years before the creation of the little New England club,
and "RCA" (as they call themselves) is still in existance.

The Radio Club of America exists as a small organization today. It is not
devoted entirely or even seriously to amateur radio. It's a tiny shadow of what
it once was.

One of the most influential of the early wireless organizations was the
Wireless Association of Pennsylvania. Two of its organizers, Charles Stewart
and David Rittenhouse, defended the interests of amateurs in 1910, 1911, and
1912. For example, it is because of their efforts that attempts to require the
licensing of *receivers* were not successful.

Had there been no Titanic or similar disaster, it's very probable that the
loose state of radio regulatory affairs would have continued until the
outbreak of WW1.

Tsk. World War One (in Europe) began in 1914. The ARRL was
created in 1914. :-)

And the US did not get involved until 1917.

And it's also very possible that without the Titanic disaster, amateur radio
would not exist today, or even after WW1.

Yes, yes, "The Old Man" Went To Washington To Save Ham Radio!
AFTER the end of World War 1. Six years AFTER the Titanic
sinking.

You can't deal with a hypothetical situation.

Perhaps that's why Len gets so worked up over mention of the Titanic.

Tsk. Here begins Rev. Jim's "fire and brimstone" demonizing. :-)

Noooooo. The Titanic sank in 1912. That is NINETY-TWO YEARS
AGO.

Why are you shouting, Len? You must be very upset.

Or perhaps it's the fact that the rescue was effected by Morse Code used on
radio that gets Len so upset.

Tsk. Way back then (92 years ago) ANYONE using radio for
communications HAD TO use on-off keying of some kind.

Fessenden and his workers didn't "HAVE TO"...

Reginald A. Fessenden was using amplitude-modulated voice radio almost a dozen
years before the Titanic sank. By November 1906 he had two-way transatlantic
*voice* radio communication working on a regular basis. Your historic
references probably mention Fessenden, too. Look him up.

92 years later, hardly anyone (except for a few amateurs, a minority)
use on-off keying communications modes.

So what? If that fact has any significance it all, it points to the need for
testing knowledge of those "on-off keying communications modes" for an amateur
license.

Also, repeated surveys and polls of today's radio amateurs show that, of those
who operate on the HF amateur bands, a *majority* use Morse Code at least some
of the time.

Len laughed at the disaster when I wrote that hitting the iceberg head-on
would have probably saved all aboard. And he refuses to show any respect
for those who perished.

Tsk. Sneaky implied pejorative. :-)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001133%40mb-m0
1.aol.com&output=gplain


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001131%40mb-m0
1.aol.com&output=gplain

I don't claim to be a mariner at all

Nor do I.

despite having crossed the Atlantic
and Pacific twice by ship and gone sailing on a friend's 35-foot
something or other (forget the class of sailboat), all as a passenger.

Then why do you mention it?

I WILL laugh and laugh at the thought of "expert seamanship" involving
"hitting an iceberg (or anything else) head-on in order to save it"!

Then you're laughing at the expert mariners who have said doing so would have
saved Titanic. And you're laughing at what happened to the liner Niagara, April
11, 1912.

IOW, you're laughing at reality.

Ain't nobody going to get "respect" for stating such alleged "safety
measures" to stay afloat at sea as "going head-on into a berg."

Tell it to the experts who say it was a better choice than sinking the ship.

Defies common sense. :-)

So does the theory of relativity. But it's true.

I don't show any "respect" for ANYONE stating that "hitting anything
head-on will save a ship."

In the case of Titanic, it's true.

It sure seems to. You're obsessed by it.

Tsk. Persistence is not obsession.

You're obsessed.

I'm not in here every day. :-)

Nor am I. But that's not the point.

I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-)

That's a good thing!

Why is that "good?"

Because it's better that your behavior is confined here, rather than on the
amateur bands.

Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right
out of the box".

Did I do that in church?

No - right here.

Tsk. I've seen what Being An Extra makes of some amateurs and
such is not for me.

Then whay are you here?

I'm of the opinion that radio and electronics is terribly fascinating,
interesting, and makes an enjoyable field of both avocation and
occupation. To me. So much so that I made a major shift in my
formal education long ago, changing from illustration art to
electronics engineering. That despite a natural talent in
illustration and some prior work experience as an illustrator.

How is that at all relevant to amateur radio policy?

That was personally successful, not the "lackluster career" you
stated.

People's standards of "success" vary.

I do electronics hobby work in my home workshop to please me,

Me too!

not some raddio kopps demanding a certain formal Way To Do
Things, nor worshipping the old traditional ways as they were
done long ago, trying to re-enact a past that was before I was
born. The future happens right after now and I keep looking forward
to new things, to enjoy them.

Yet you still have an old R-70 receiver, and use software kluges like MS Paint
to do PC board layouts when much newer, better methods exist.

What person are you referring to, Len?

Whomever. :-)

Can't call people by name, I see.

Note how Len avoids the question about why the code test bothers him so
much.

It doesn't "bother me." :-)

Sure it does. Whenever anyone says anything good about the test - or even Morse
Code itself - you come out swinging with shouting and insults.

You've long since run out of valid arguments to retain the U.S. amateur
radio regulation requiring passing a code cognition test for operating
privileges in amateur bands below 30 MHz.

In *your* opinion. Others (including FCC) disagree.

You've resorted to the
usual PCTA demonizing of any NCTA who dares to talk back to a
member of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS).

"Demonizing"? How? All I do is point out your mistakes and offer commentary on
your behavior here. Is that not allowed?

It seems that you take *any* differing opinion, or facts that you don't like,
as personal insults to you.

As predicted, you've gotten all emotional and upset about being
(in the slightest) corrected on certain (actual) facts (not your
opinions although you use fact-opinion interchangeably).

Not me, Len. I'm not the one making up nicknames, shouting, etc. I leave that
stuff to you.

You want to keep the ARS in your version of pure, pristine, and
prissy-literally

What in the world does that mean?

and don't (now) hesitate to pejorate others and
make some mild perjerous remarks to "reinforce" your opinions
(which you call "facts").

"Peforate others and make some mild perjerous remarks"?

What *are* you talking about?

Besides, it wouldn't matter what sort of homebrew rig I produced - Len would
have lots of disparaging things to say about it.

Tsk. You took your rig's photo. You put it on an AOL home page.

Is that wrong? Is it somehow not allowed?

One photo.

There are more out there. You haven't found them yet, have you?

Doesn't go into much detail.

Why should it? Your reaction is predictable regardless of the detail provided.

Six and a half cabinet-less
chassis with lots of vacuum tubes.

Six and a half chassis? Count again.

And what's the obsession with cabinets?

No schematics. No descriptions
in detail that you claim visitors are astounded about. :-)

I've already described that rig elsewhere. I've outlined its basic principle
here, but you couldn't even solve the heterodyne problem, so it's pointless for
me to go further.

What homebrew HF radio transceivers have *you* produced since the mid
1990s, Len, using only your own time and resources?

No transceivers on HF. :-)

Exactly. You criticize others, but have nothing to show of your own work.

As usual, you've wasted my time.

How? You choose to read the postings here, and you choose to answer.

"N2EY" wrote


The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before WW1.
That's a
documented fact. The League and amateur radio all but disappeared
during WW1,
then were reorganized soon after Armistice Day.


Jim, even you can't rewrite history well enough to lend credence to that
statement.

The "war to end all wars" began in the summer of 1914 (August, IIRC).

The first issue of QST was published late in 1914 (December, IIRC).

So much for "nationally prominent" before WW1.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before WW1.
That's a
documented fact. The League and amateur radio all but disappeared
during WW1,
then were reorganized soon after Armistice Day.

Jim, even you can't rewrite history well enough to lend credence to that
statement.

I think the statement needs correction.

The "war to end all wars" began in the summer of 1914 (August, IIRC).

The first issue of QST was published late in 1914 (December, IIRC).

So much for "nationally prominent" before WW1.

You are correct, sir!

It should read:

The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before the USA
entered WW1. That's a documented fact. The League and US amateur radio all but
disappeared during our participation in WW1, then the ARRL was reorganized soon
after Armistice Day.

--

Thanks, Hans. The statement was way too US-centric as written. It's the same
sort of mistake that people make when they say WW2 started on Dec 7, 1941.

--

It should be noted that one of the provisions of the early wireless acts would
have licensed both receivers and transmitters. Through the efforts of the
Wireless Association of Pennsylvania (most notably David Rittenhouse and
Charles Stewart) and the Radio Club of America, the licensing of receivers was
not enacted.

However, the WW1 shutdown involved both receiving and transmitting. Maxim and
other League officials (Including Stewart) were instrumental in getting first
the receiving and later the transmitting bans lifted.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,




(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:



For some radio amateurs in the United States, morse code skill is
about the ONLY thing they have to show their "superiority" in a
radio service that is still just a hobby. Tsk. Those amateurs are
the ones seeing a mythical "sky is falling" scenario if the code test
is ever eliminated. Not my paranoia. :-)

Some radio amateurs have told you that morse skill is the only
"superiority" they have in amateur radio? I don't believe you.
The hobby is one in which you are not a participant, code tested or
otherwise.

I've been transmitting RF energy legally since 1953, over more
parts of the EM spectrum than is allowed to radio amateurs.

That's wonderful for you, Leonard. If it provides you solace, go to
those parts of the spectrum permitted to you and operate. Live it up.
The hams I know are pretty much content to stay within their allocated
bands. I know of none expressing envy of those who may legally transmit
elsewhere.
It seems obvious that you have some envy of radio amateurs. Why else
would you haunt this newsgroup and appoint yourself advocate for
something or other?

Never
had any requirement to demonstrate any morse code skill to anyone
in order to transmit below 30 MHz...or above it.

That's fine. In amateur radio, you'll need to demonstrate a little
knowledge to the tune of 5 wpm to operate below 30 MHz. If those
frequencies above 30 megs are your cup of tea, you needn't learn morse
at all.

Doesn't make any
personal difference to me whether or not the code test stays or is
tossed in the dumpster. It's time the code test went to the landfill.
It's long overdue.

Many disagree with you. I'm one of 'em.

All those PCTA extras just hate the thought of removing the code
test. For so many of them it's all they've got to show their eliteness
in a hobby. shrug Some of them get rather angry and want to
"fight" about it, calling any persistent NCTA personal insults.

You, on the other hand, never get angry and never insult anyone with a
different point of view than your own. :-) :-)


I've operated in many radio services. Never once had to use any old
morse or be required to know it...even though I did "know it" once,
way back in time. Doesn't matter. I don't look on the code test as
some kind of my-personal sort of thing. The code test isn't necessary
for the FCC nor anyone else except all those Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society "extras."

It isn't only Extra class licensees who support continued morse testing.
Where did you get the idea that it was so?

As to personal time spent "learning" something, I've spent many
more hours per day over many, many more months to complete
my formal schooling.

You probably spent those hours because you had requirements to fulfill
in order to complete school. Amateur radio isn't any different. There
are requirements to fulfill to qualify for the three license classes.
No exceptions are granted for "I don't want to".

Your "Why" would indicate that you simply aren't interested in the ARS
to the level that you would take the effort to get the license.

Tsk. I don't "owe" anyone a reason for my doing anything. :-)

Mike wasn't asking for your reason for doing anything; he was asking for
your reason for doing nothing. :-) :-)


I'm not interested in joining any Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Has someone invited to join one?

You forget I HAVE a federal radio operator license and obtained it
long ago. :-)

Well, there you go then. Use that one.

Not a big deal. Had to use it only two years after
getting that in 1956. Such federal licenses make some folks think
they are real big shots (stretch that O vertically). Not me. Just a
piece of paper.

It must have some meaning to you. After all, you've brought it up time
and time again.

Dave K8MN