|
In article ,
(William) writes: Dave Heil wrote in message ... William wrote: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: What we got is an "interpretation" by the FCC that Farnsworth spacing "is okay for VECs to use in testing." Not in any Part 97 and never even left the Commission (except to the supreme court of the league). Yep. Sumbuddy said it was OK. You should certainly understand that concept, "William". It mirrors your amateur radio experience in Somalia. Dave K8MN Wow! Farnsworth testing is like Somalia. "Dave" knows all that. He was in the State Department! [that may explain some of the reasons why the rest of the world has some vexation with the U.S. of A. in foreign relations] :-) |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both military and nonmilitary government service. Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-) Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what they did or where. Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in the USAF, 1970-1971. Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-) Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry I was there? Did you throw away YOUR medals, too? Not my medals. Not my ribbons. When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency? Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Can you figure out how much longer I was in Viet Nam than John Kerry? [must have missed that part on the news...] I'm sure there's a lot you miss. What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail) (no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.) Yawn...snore Why do you feign sleep after asking? You made insulting remarks about it. I ran out of medals and pretty certificates (suitable for framing). You no more issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service than you participate in amateur radio. I wasn't claiming to "issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service (or Vietnam service)." Tsk. You are connecting unrelated sentences. :-) One of those sentences was directly under the other. You wrote both of them. If they aren't connected, what can the second one mean? :-) :-) Tsk. I'm just copying the style of the PCTA...all "heroes" if from their glowing self-styled words. Any NCTA never "really" served their country. You're actually just copying your own style. I can but I haven't. :-) I'm just copying the style of the PCTA... but without barfing their puke about morse code being the ultimate skill of an amateur. Are you sure you're not some kid, playing with his Mom's computer? "Dave" wants his State experiences enobled as wonderful radio acts for the nation or something. When was that ever claimed by me? It's in between just about every line you write... :-) You should get together with your fan base, "William". Both of you spend your time reading what isn't written instead of what is written. Tsk. YOU are the one trying to relate unrelated sentences. :-) You wrote them and placed one above the other. If they are truly unconnected, there is no reason to have written the second of them. It would have been totally out of place. By the way, Dave is my name. It needs no quotes. "William's" name isn't William. I thought you were "K8MN." Apparently that is the formal name that other PCTA use in referring to you. We radio amateurs are issued callsigns. We often use them instead of names. You may forgiven your ignorance since you're an outsider. Oh, thank you, thank you, Holy Father! No need for that, Leonard. My friends call me Dave or K8MN. You may call me Mr. Heil. Are we supposed to kiss your ring, too? If you did, I'd think you a little light in your loafers. "Dave" is your legal signature? It isn't "David?" Tsk. My bad. Is "Len" your legal signature? You recently told someone to call you "Len"...or ". Holy Father, I can't possibly tell a noble radio god what to do! Well? Can't you answer the question? You did tell someone to call you Len, didn't you? Is that your legal signature? Tsk. For years the U.S. Army Signal Corps has been assigned the task of providing communications for the President of the United States. That's wonderful news, Leonard. I'd have never known anything about WHCA if not for your insider information. Haw! The Department of State is not involved with POTUS communications. That's a growing problem in the Republican adminstration...they get the wrong information on the communications? I was there for the Clinton administration. They didn't change the policy on communications. Gosh, several Presidents of the U.S. of A. (both parties) have USED that "hotline" at various times to communicate directly with the USSR in Moscow. Guess that was "improper" or something, huh? Those fool adminstrations should have gone through "proper diplomatic procedures" through the State? Let's see, you've told us that the hotline was manned by military personnel. State Department personnel are not military personnel. The White House is not part of the Department of State. I see some gaps in your story. My involvement in the '97 Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki dealt with obtaining frequency clearances, obtaining permission to use repeater sites, obtaining a mini-switch and the requested number of telephone lines for the site hotel and obtaining a number of cellular telephones for the President's team. So, you were "involved" but, at the same time, "not involved" with POTUS (President of the United States) communications. Arranging the things described was strictly administrative in function. I handled no Presidential message traffic. POTUS travels with his own comm center. You are both ways. Anyplace else that is called "hypocrisy." Any place else and you'd have to have your ducks in a row, old fellow. When the "hotline" was operational (I don't know if it still is), it was manned by Signal Corps personnel at the Washington end. [public references are available for that information] And this information, relates to Department of State communications in what particular way? You tell us...(as you surely will, being the "expert" Man from State). I've told you. Last I looked the President had the ULTIMATE U.S. say on direct diplomatic communications, and general stuff like that. You say that isn't so? That State operates "independently?" Tsk. I've said no such thing. The words I wrote contained everything necessary for the average man to understand. The DSN is now the main communications means for all government communications, military and civilian alike. ...or so you apparently think. No, I don't "think" so. The U.S. government SAYS so. But, whathehell, a "seven hostile actions" veteran in here, another PCTA extra, said that "MARS IS amateur radio!" DoD says the DoD defines who is what on MARS. I'm not discussing MARS operation, Len. The Department of State doesn't handle MARS traffic. PCTA extras are "naturally" the most "correct" ones, right? What? Did you ever handle message traffic for the U.S. Department of State? The DSN is maintained by military personnel, usually by USA or USAF units depending on the territory. In all my days in Department of State communications, I never once dealt with military personnel as a part of normal operations. That was true whether the circuit was radio or leased line. Riiiiight. NEVER had any military officer at any embassy, correct? Ohhhhhhh. I see where you're going. You think that if some Colonel from the Defense Attache Office comes to the comm center and sez, "Any message traffic for me?", that constitutes military involvement in State Department communications? Is that where this is headed? There were NEVER any USMC guards at embassies (who had their own radios)? Sure, did you think the MSG's worked in the comm center? They had radios, but not their own. They had my radios and used them on my net. They never handled any State Department message traffic. Then again, in most embassies, every employee had hand-held radios. I see you've come up with a simplistic view of things. That might have led you to make some very incorrect assumptions. The President is OVER the CIA. The military does not run CIA communications. The President is OVER the Department of Energy. The military does not run Department of Energy communications. You're batting zip. Riiiiight..."Dave" says there is NO such thing as "chain of command." No, "William"....er, Len. I didn't say any such thing. If "Dave" says so, it IS so. Amen. Dave told it like it is. If you choose to retain your previous beliefs, your ignorance is your responsibility. The "hotline' (continuous TTY circuit, Washington to Moscow) served for at least three decades, all that time run at this end of the circuit by U.S. Army Signal Corps people. [one can see a couple photos of that in David Kahn's "The Codebreakers," NYT best-seller listing in the early 1960s] ...and this relates to the Department of State in what way? The fact is, you're completely incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. Well, heck and darn, neither does the U.S. government (except for Department of State) "know what it is talking about" since they released the information on that "hotline" and many other things. You keep trying to make the assertion that Department of State communications takes place through military channels. T'ain't so. If it is possible, you know less about Department of State communications than you know of amateur radio. Riiiight...both are highly classified, sensitive, SECRET things. Much of the information on the State Department is classified. I can't tell you. None of the information on amateur radio is classified. In the end, it makes no difference. Your ignorance of both is large. Or, as in the "Dave" definition "Ayes Only" classification ("correct" only if all others agree or say "Aye" to whatever "Dave" says). One can only speculate as to what that is supposed to mean. Is that what you call humor, Len? Yes, Steve made a statement. If I'm not mistaken, he viewed your attempt to associate yourself with those who died in battle as dishonoring them. Who is this "Steve?" Ask "William". Someone using that name keeps shouting that all who disagree with him are "penis heads" in Yiddish and saying they are "pathological liars!" [tsk...he's never been a qualified pathologist or psychiatric expert] All who disagree with him? I don't see it like that at all. I note that you snipped my remarks about your classici Sphincter post, the one in which you described what it feels like to be in battle. My remakrs ended with the line below: Your remarks NEVER end. They keep on dredging up old, old messages, you fighting them all over and over again. Hopefully you might "win" one if you keep barfing up old defeats? Your "Sphincter Post" describes what a man feels under battle. I can respost it if your memory is hazy. The problem is, the one hostile (you assume) shot aside, you weren't in battle. It can't be simpler than that. You fabricated out of whole cloth. Why? Were you shooting off your mouth about morse testing back then? No. Tsk. You've completely IGNORED what I've said about morse testing from my experience. You don't have any morse experience to speak of and yes, I've completely ignored it. Prior to being assigned at ACAN station ADA... Here we go again... That's all nice. Thanks for yet another irrelevant restatement of your knowledge of SINCGARS, IHFR and small unit military communications. I never served in a small unit nor do I need SINCGARS or IHFR in my amateur radio operations. Come to think of it, I never needed them in my Department of State communications. What DID you use? AN/FRC-93? :-) Keep guessing. Tsk. YOU don't know, do you? Or, you want to imply some kind of "secrecy" and therefore "don't want to say." :-) There are things which I can't tell you. There are things which I choose not to tell you. Amateurs may know the AN/FRC-93 as the commercial version of the Collins Radio KWM-2. :-) [Collins made two versions of that one, full crystal set for the commercial version - entire HF range - and a limited one for the amateur market] Uhhhhhhh, the commercial version of the KWM-2 was the KWM-2. Do you refer to the military version? After the KWM-2 came the KWM-2A. It has the second crystal deck, though one can't describe it as covering the entire HF range. Parts of the entire HF range could be covered in 200 KHz segments if you had the crystal packs. I have one sitting right here. According to the Army's Center for Military History, the FRC-93 had important work in Vietnam to do all those MARS contacts with the 'States (the other 50, not the Department). That's from the Signal Corps History of Vietnam operations. That's all swell, Len. It has nothing to do with the Department of State communications; nothing to do with amateur radio and nothing to do with my tour in Viet Nam. I did use some Collins KWM-2A units in Viet Nam and never had a thing to do with an FRC-93. The units I used bore the KWM-2A label and engravings. I wasn't in the Signal Corps nor was I in the Army. I never handled communications for the President of the United States in Viet Nam, even though we recognized that he had--how do you put it?--the ULTIMATE say. If he wanted us to do anything differently, he wasn't talking. Tsk. Department of State communications isn't REALLY relevant to U.S. amateur radio, is it? It is at least as relevant as your experience at ADA--a lot more recent too. Then again, you brought up my State Department service. I did? You mentioned your illustrious "foreign service" a long time ago...along with great tales of experiences in Africa at the cashew nut center of Guinea-Bisseau. Something about "doing good things with CW in the '80s where CW got through when nothing else did" (or words to that effect). :-) Yes, you did. I'm not talking about "a long time ago". I'm talking about just recently. Neither your manufactured quote nor words to that effect were used by me. "Bagedness"? This newsgroup has never seen your equal as a pontificating windbag. Trouble is, much of your information is just wrong. Well then, you should bring out your "fact" that the rest of the U.S. government and all sorts of journalism media are "wrong." I've not addressed the USG nor journalists. You, Len Anderson, are wrong. Show us the "truth" oh noble god of radio...set us straight and we will all bow down and kiss your ring in appreciation at the next Holy Service. I've shown you. You can lead either end of a horse to water to see which part drinks... The FCC is tasked to regulate all of U.S. civil radio. That has to be a tough assignment since, as you said, radio obeys only physical laws, not the laws of mankind. Just how does the Commission manage to make radio behave? Tsk, tsk, TSK. The FCC doesn't "make radio behave." It is supposed to make the PEOPLE who use civil radios behave. Then you'll want to edit your previous statement. Why'd you snip it? Now THAT was humor. Yup, you've got some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder going since you can't get simple civics lessons straight. Poor "Dave." Tsk, tsk. We haven't been having a civics lesson, Len. If you like, I can help you with your spelling after school. It isn't odd at all, Len. Let me paint your a pictu FCC: Regulates radio. Paid to do so. Involved in amateur radio. Radio Amateurs: Tested and licensed to use radio under Part 97 of FCC regs. Taking payment for providing radio service is prohibited. Involved in amateur radio. Len Anderson: Does not regulate amateur radio. Not licensed under Part 97 of FCC rules. Not involved in amateur radio. Bad "painting" "Dave." Technique is awful. Your paintings will not hang in any gallery...but "Dave" should not hang in a gallery, rather stuffed and mounted in an unnatural history museum as a species of Humus Morsemanus Ridiculum. According to "Dave" rules, the FCC is NOT INVOLVED because they aren't required to license themselves in the amateur radio service! You'd better go look at that picture, Len. I wrote that the FCC IS involved. Since the FCC is "not involved," that means they are paid for doing illegal work! Call the Supreme Court! Throw the rascals out! :-) You look silly when you spout off after not having read something correctly. You're a regular Emily Litella. "Dave" is a licensed amateur, "involved!" That's correct. I'm just a lowly pro in electronics engineering, You're right. ... a citizen of the USA, entitled to Rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. That's also right. "Dave" says that is insufficient, "no involvement!" It certainly isn't sufficient to make you knowledgeable about how amateur radio should be regulated. It isn't sufficient to make you a licensed radio amateur. The fact is, you aren't involved in amateur radio. "Dave" recently said "I show NO interest in radio" because I didn't get an amateur license FIRST!" Tsk. I should have gone through the ranks like He did...so that I could be both "interested" and "involved!" My bad. :-) You cannot at this time, do as I did. You could have earlier but you didn't. You could have met the current requirements for amateur radio licensing but you didn't. You don't have quite enough interest to actually get off your duff and take an exam for any class license. You are not involved. Dirty rotten scoundrels, those professionals! Don't know that they should respect and adore all those amateur morsemen! It reads like a bunch of sour grapes on your part, Len. You don't have to adore or respect any radio amateur. You aren't in the game. Dave K8MN |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: Dave Heil Date: 11/9/2004 11:56 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both military and nonmilitary government service. Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-) Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what they did or where. Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in the USAF, 1970-1971. Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-) Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry I was there? Did you throw away YOUR medals, too? Not my medals. Not my ribbons. When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency? Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Can you figure out how much longer I was in Viet Nam than John Kerry? [must have missed that part on the news...] I'm sure there's a lot you miss. What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail) (no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.) Yawn...snore Why do you feign sleep after asking? For the same reason I am sure Mrs Lennie feigns sleep...The prospect of having to face that kind of humiliation is unbearable.... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both military and nonmilitary government service. Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-) Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what they did or where. Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in the USAF, 1970-1971. Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-) Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry I was there? Did you throw away YOUR medals, too? Not my medals. Not my ribbons. When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency? Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Neither is Dubya. :-) I'm sure there's a lot you miss. Yes, but my aim is improving. What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail) (no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.) Yawn...snore Why do you feign sleep after asking? Your prussian schoolmaster tone is very tiring. Ah, but you TAP DANCED AWAY FROM ANSWERING! :-) You did NOT say in any detail WHAT you did. Tsk. Tell us, might warrior of in-country action, describe your herosim under fire, how you closed with and destroyed the enemy with your magnificant morsemanship. You made insulting remarks about it. I ran out of medals and pretty certificates (suitable for framing). You no more issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service than you participate in amateur radio. I wasn't claiming to "issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service (or Vietnam service)." Tsk. You are connecting unrelated sentences. :-) One of those sentences was directly under the other. You wrote both of them. If they aren't connected, what can the second one mean? :-) :-) Are you now teaching English? Are you going to "dismiss" some from your "class" if strict, absolute formalism isn't obeyed? Seig Heil! Tsk. I'm just copying the style of the PCTA...all "heroes" if from their glowing self-styled words. Any NCTA never "really" served their country. You're actually just copying your own style. I can but I haven't. :-) I'm just copying the style of the PCTA... but without barfing their puke about morse code being the ultimate skill of an amateur. Are you sure you're not some kid, playing with his Mom's computer? I am whatever your imagination conjurs up, bile-barf-master. "Dave" wants his State experiences enobled as wonderful radio acts for the nation or something. When was that ever claimed by me? It's in between just about every line you write... :-) You should get together with your fan base, "William". Both of you spend your time reading what isn't written instead of what is written. Tsk. YOU are the one trying to relate unrelated sentences. :-) You wrote them and placed one above the other. If they are truly unconnected, there is no reason to have written the second of them. It would have been totally out of place. Poor baby. Still demanding utter, strict formalism. Tsk. By the way, Dave is my name. It needs no quotes. "William's" name isn't William. I thought you were "K8MN." Apparently that is the formal name that other PCTA use in referring to you. We radio amateurs are issued callsigns. We often use them instead of names. You may forgiven your ignorance since you're an outsider. Oh, thank you, thank you, Holy Father! No need for that, Leonard. My friends call me Dave or K8MN. You may call me Mr. Heil. Yes, yer Lardship, beggin yer pardon. Are we supposed to kiss your ring, too? If you did, I'd think you a little light in your loafers. Sorry, I don't have court shoes with little LEDs in them. Aren't you NOBILITY or something? A divine messenger? "Dave" is your legal signature? It isn't "David?" Tsk. My bad. Is "Len" your legal signature? You recently told someone to call you "Len"...or ". Holy Father, I can't possibly tell a noble radio god what to do! Well? Can't you answer the question? You did tell someone to call you Len, didn't you? Is that your legal signature? Legal signature for what? Tsk. For years the U.S. Army Signal Corps has been assigned the task of providing communications for the President of the United States. That's wonderful news, Leonard. I'd have never known anything about WHCA if not for your insider information. Haw! The Department of State is not involved with POTUS communications. That's a growing problem in the Republican adminstration...they get the wrong information on the communications? I was there for the Clinton administration. They didn't change the policy on communications. What has that to do with amateur radio policy? Gosh, several Presidents of the U.S. of A. (both parties) have USED that "hotline" at various times to communicate directly with the USSR in Moscow. Guess that was "improper" or something, huh? Those fool adminstrations should have gone through "proper diplomatic procedures" through the State? Let's see, you've told us that the hotline was manned by military personnel. State Department personnel are not military personnel. The White House is not part of the Department of State. I see some gaps in your story. Tsk. No "gaps." Just a precis of official government information. We all understand that your thinking has the Department of State as a separate and distinct agency unrelated to the administration. My involvement in the '97 Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki dealt with obtaining frequency clearances, obtaining permission to use repeater sites, obtaining a mini-switch and the requested number of telephone lines for the site hotel and obtaining a number of cellular telephones for the President's team. So, you were "involved" but, at the same time, "not involved" with POTUS (President of the United States) communications. Arranging the things described was strictly administrative in function. I handled no Presidential message traffic. POTUS travels with his own comm center. We see gaps in your story. You are both ways. Anyplace else that is called "hypocrisy." Any place else and you'd have to have your ducks in a row, old fellow. Meaningless remark. Has nothing to do with amateur radio policy. Hunting newsgroup is on the 2nd floor, left. Check to see if ducks are in season before entering. When the "hotline" was operational (I don't know if it still is), it was manned by Signal Corps personnel at the Washington end. [public references are available for that information] And this information, relates to Department of State communications in what particular way? You tell us...(as you surely will, being the "expert" Man from State). I've told you. We detect gaps in your story. Last I looked the President had the ULTIMATE U.S. say on direct diplomatic communications, and general stuff like that. You say that isn't so? That State operates "independently?" Tsk. I've said no such thing. The words I wrote contained everything necessary for the average man to understand. Yes, of course, Holy Father. You condescend to give us lowly mortals your divine words. Uh huh. The DSN is now the main communications means for all government communications, military and civilian alike. ...or so you apparently think. No, I don't "think" so. The U.S. government SAYS so. But, whathehell, a "seven hostile actions" veteran in here, another PCTA extra, said that "MARS IS amateur radio!" DoD says the DoD defines who is what on MARS. I'm not discussing MARS operation, Len. The Department of State doesn't handle MARS traffic. According to one PCTA extra in here "MARS IS amateur radio!" Of course "State" doesn't handle "MARS traffic." [I wonder if they could handle diplomacy with Mars itself should that need arise...:-) ] PCTA extras are "naturally" the most "correct" ones, right? What? Did you ever handle message traffic for the U.S. Department of State? Yes, a few. :-) The DSN is maintained by military personnel, usually by USA or USAF units depending on the territory. In all my days in Department of State communications, I never once dealt with military personnel as a part of normal operations. That was true whether the circuit was radio or leased line. Riiiiight. NEVER had any military officer at any embassy, correct? Ohhhhhhh. I see where you're going. You think that if some Colonel from the Defense Attache Office comes to the comm center and sez, "Any message traffic for me?", that constitutes military involvement in State Department communications? Is that where this is headed? Where what is "headed?" Department of State is not about amateur radio policy. Why do you keep bring that up? There were NEVER any USMC guards at embassies (who had their own radios)? Sure, did you think the MSG's worked in the comm center? They had radios, but not their own. They had my radios and used them on my net. They never handled any State Department message traffic. Then again, in most embassies, every employee had hand-held radios. Did they all have ham licenses? Have to take tests on morsemanship to be legal on using those radios? I see you've come up with a simplistic view of things. That might have led you to make some very incorrect assumptions. The President is OVER the CIA. The military does not run CIA communications. The President is OVER the Department of Energy. The military does not run Department of Energy communications. You're batting zip. Riiiiight..."Dave" says there is NO such thing as "chain of command." No, "William"....er, Len. I didn't say any such thing. Try to keep straight on who you are trying to insult, "Dave." If "Dave" says so, it IS so. Amen. Dave told it like it is. If you choose to retain your previous beliefs, your ignorance is your responsibility. "Dave" told it like "Dave" thinks it is...and must take full responsibility for his own ignorance. The "hotline' (continuous TTY circuit, Washington to Moscow) served for at least three decades, all that time run at this end of the circuit by U.S. Army Signal Corps people. [one can see a couple photos of that in David Kahn's "The Codebreakers," NYT best-seller listing in the early 1960s] ...and this relates to the Department of State in what way? The fact is, you're completely incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. Well, heck and darn, neither does the U.S. government (except for Department of State) "know what it is talking about" since they released the information on that "hotline" and many other things. You keep trying to make the assertion that Department of State communications takes place through military channels. T'ain't so. Tsk. "Dave" is trying to put 2 and 2 together to make 19. Mathematical as well as linguistic ignorance is your own responsibility. If it is possible, you know less about Department of State communications than you know of amateur radio. Riiiight...both are highly classified, sensitive, SECRET things. Much of the information on the State Department is classified. I can't tell you. None of the information on amateur radio is classified. In the end, it makes no difference. Your ignorance of both is large. At your end it makes no difference. Or, as in the "Dave" definition "Ayes Only" classification ("correct" only if all others agree or say "Aye" to whatever "Dave" says). One can only speculate as to what that is supposed to mean. Is that what you call humor, Len? Call it anything you like...except you don't like it. :-) Yes, Steve made a statement. If I'm not mistaken, he viewed your attempt to associate yourself with those who died in battle as dishonoring them. Who is this "Steve?" Ask "William". Who is this "William?" Someone using that name keeps shouting that all who disagree with him are "penis heads" in Yiddish and saying they are "pathological liars!" [tsk...he's never been a qualified pathologist or psychiatric expert] All who disagree with him? I don't see it like that at all. You need an opthalmologist to examine your "see-ing" ability. You fabricated out of whole cloth. Tailor made. For an emperor. Why? Were you shooting off your mouth about morse testing back then? No. Tsk. You've completely IGNORED what I've said about morse testing from my experience. You don't have any morse experience to speak of and yes, I've completely ignored it. Your ignorance is your own responsibility. Prior to being assigned at ACAN station ADA... Here we go again... That's all nice. Thanks for yet another irrelevant restatement of your knowledge of SINCGARS, IHFR and small unit military communications. I never served in a small unit nor do I need SINCGARS or IHFR in my amateur radio operations. Come to think of it, I never needed them in my Department of State communications. What DID you use? AN/FRC-93? :-) Keep guessing. Tsk. YOU don't know, do you? Or, you want to imply some kind of "secrecy" and therefore "don't want to say." :-) There are things which I can't tell you. There are things which I choose not to tell you. Tsk. I know things which I can't tell you. There are things which I choose not to tell you. Lots of Title 18 USC stuff. :-) Amateurs may know the AN/FRC-93 as the commercial version of the Collins Radio KWM-2. :-) [Collins made two versions of that one, full crystal set for the commercial version - entire HF range - and a limited one for the amateur market] Uhhhhhhh, the commercial version of the KWM-2 was the KWM-2. Do you refer to the military version? I refer to what the TM says. You refer to what you think is there. Your ignorance is your own responsibility. After the KWM-2 came the KWM-2A. It has the second crystal deck, though one can't describe it as covering the entire HF range. Parts of the entire HF range could be covered in 200 KHz segments if you had the crystal packs. I have one sitting right here. According to the Army's Center for Military History, the FRC-93 had important work in Vietnam to do all those MARS contacts with the 'States (the other 50, not the Department). That's from the Signal Corps History of Vietnam operations. That's all swell, Len. It has nothing to do with the Department of State communications; nothing to do with amateur radio and nothing to do with my tour in Viet Nam. I did use some Collins KWM-2A units in Viet Nam and never had a thing to do with an FRC-93. The units I used bore the KWM-2A label and engravings. I wasn't in the Signal Corps nor was I in the Army. I never handled communications for the President of the United States in Viet Nam, even though we recognized that he had--how do you put it?--the ULTIMATE say. If he wanted us to do anything differently, he wasn't talking. Tsk. POTUS didn't fill you in? How terrible. I'll be he didn't QSL. You did ham radio in Vietnam (or Viet Nam)? Gosh. A rare one. Did you QSL? Tsk. Department of State communications isn't REALLY relevant to U.S. amateur radio, is it? It is at least as relevant as your experience at ADA--a lot more recent too. Then again, you brought up my State Department service. I did? You mentioned your illustrious "foreign service" a long time ago...along with great tales of experiences in Africa at the cashew nut center of Guinea-Bisseau. Something about "doing good things with CW in the '80s where CW got through when nothing else did" (or words to that effect). :-) Yes, you did. I'm not talking about "a long time ago". I'm talking about just recently. Neither your manufactured quote nor words to that effect were used by me. Twenty years plus ago is "just recently?" Must be "ham years" or something like that... "Bagedness"? This newsgroup has never seen your equal as a pontificating windbag. Trouble is, much of your information is just wrong. Well then, you should bring out your "fact" that the rest of the U.S. government and all sorts of journalism media are "wrong." I've not addressed the USG nor journalists. You, Len Anderson, are wrong. Your ignorance is your own responsibility. Show us the "truth" oh noble god of radio...set us straight and we will all bow down and kiss your ring in appreciation at the next Holy Service. I've shown you. You can lead either end of a horse to water to see which part drinks... Your knowledge of horsemanship is not related to morsemanship. The FCC is tasked to regulate all of U.S. civil radio. That has to be a tough assignment since, as you said, radio obeys only physical laws, not the laws of mankind. Just how does the Commission manage to make radio behave? Tsk, tsk, TSK. The FCC doesn't "make radio behave." It is supposed to make the PEOPLE who use civil radios behave. Then you'll want to edit your previous statement. Why'd you snip it? Now THAT was humor. Your humerous seems to be broken. Get it set. Yup, you've got some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder going since you can't get simple civics lessons straight. Poor "Dave." Tsk, tsk. We haven't been having a civics lesson, Len. If you like, I can help you with your spelling after school. True, you're trying to run a most-formal prussian schoolmasterish class on writing English. You don't have the qualifications for that but you vainly try. It isn't odd at all, Len. Let me paint your a pictu FCC: Regulates radio. Paid to do so. Involved in amateur radio. Radio Amateurs: Tested and licensed to use radio under Part 97 of FCC regs. Taking payment for providing radio service is prohibited. Involved in amateur radio. Len Anderson: Does not regulate amateur radio. Not licensed under Part 97 of FCC rules. Not involved in amateur radio. Bad "painting" "Dave." Technique is awful. Your paintings will not hang in any gallery...but "Dave" should not hang in a gallery, rather stuffed and mounted in an unnatural history museum as a species of Humus Morsemanus Ridiculum. According to "Dave" rules, the FCC is NOT INVOLVED because they aren't required to license themselves in the amateur radio service! You'd better go look at that picture, Len. I wrote that the FCC IS involved. They can't be. None of them are required to have ham licenses. You cannot at this time, do as I did. Nobody can. You broke the mould. You could have earlier but you didn't. I "should" have? Why? You could have met the current requirements for amateur radio licensing but you didn't. I "should have?" Why? Tsk. You would not accept that, either. :-) You don't have quite enough interest to actually get off your duff and take an exam for any class license. Right you are. Been a licensed professional too long. My bad. You are not involved. Right you are. I'm just a citizen of the USA, still active in electronics engineering design, and think ALL of radio-electronics is most interesting. I'm a professional and am very involved in that...as well as being a citizen of the USA. The one thing about radio that is not interesting is the group of self-righteous oafs who think they are some kind of radio gods and try (but fail) to put down those who don't honor and respect them for their mighty macho morsemanship. Those have amateur radio licenses and all seem to be PCTAs...as well as having way overblown egos thinking they are "superior" to those not thinking as they do. |
In article ,
(William) writes: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... For the same reason I am sure Mrs Lennie feigns sleep...The prospect of having to face that kind of humiliation is unbearable.... 73 Steve, K4YZ Interesting how Steve can claim knowledge about Len's wife that he couldn't possibly know. Tsk. That sort of PCTA extra behavior is condoned and even encouraged in here. All the PCTA extras can do is to turn on their insult machines and fabricate all sorts of LYING comments about spouses and family members. The PCTA extra have lost the ability to boost their morsemanship in open discussion and can only insult those who do not love morsemanship. Doesn't lend much credence to the FCC definition of "international good will" by amateurs, does it? Heh heh. My wife would never be that hard-up so as to "inform" the "pilot in command" of any private thoughts...about anything. Let the CAP ace live in his Brittney Spears daydreams. That's about all he has left now... |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: Dave Heil wrote in message ... William wrote: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: What we got is an "interpretation" by the FCC that Farnsworth spacing "is okay for VECs to use in testing." Not in any Part 97 and never even left the Commission (except to the supreme court of the league). Yep. Sumbuddy said it was OK. You should certainly understand that concept, "William". It mirrors your amateur radio experience in Somalia. Dave K8MN Wow! Farnsworth testing is like Somalia. "Dave" knows all that. He was in the State Department! And oozing with green envy. [that may explain some of the reasons why the rest of the world has some vexation with the U.S. of A. in foreign relations] :-) After that French 6M fiasco... Maybe the Air Force in Vietnam was on to something when they denied him amateur operating priveleges. |
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... Jimmie got as far as looking up Bear bombers in some book. Naw, just the Internet. Found out they weren't a threat to Len when he was in Japan. Sunuvagun! Sunnuvagun, indeed! Danged shame Lennie didn't get far with THAT rant, either. Jimmie knew Soviet air tactics like the back of your hand. Where did you get that idea, Len? He got it from his flailings at trying to discredit Brian Kelly, W3RV. Lenie can't keep his stories straight. He saw the film "Dr. Strangelove: etc." and that makes him an "expert" on SAC, TAC, Manny, Moe, and Jack. :-) Where have I ever claimed to be an expert on anything? Rest of your bile snipped. Can't deal with the facts, I see. And I've been saying that for...HOW LONG...?!?! You've said a lot more, too, Steve, Well, that bile has to go somewhere. Better here than polluting some PA community. :-) The bile on rrap comes from the three-way Steve/Len/Wiliam whizzing contest. You all must get something from it, because you sure put a lot of effort into it. C'mon, Jim! Don't count yourself out! You're a bit more civil about it, but you're right in there too! Don't be shy! You've jabbed me on several occassions about "not replying" to Lennie and Brainless, however your responses to Lennie outnumber mine in the last 6 months by a loooooong stretch! There's a difference, though. Do I call people names, or fling personal insults in those posts? Or do I simply offer observations of their behavior here? btw, Len, a little googling turned up the fun fact that Steve began calling you a putz back on August 6, 1999 - if not earlier. Of course you had previously made a habit of calling him "nursie" and other names, and referring to him by the wrong gender. Perhaps you need to try some new techniques if you want him to stop. But I don't think you want him to stop. I am a nurse, Jim. That he cares to feminize it is of no concern to me. In a workplace, such behavior could be construed to be sexual harassment. And he IS a putz. In 2004 as in 1999. It's the ONE thing he DOES have practical experience in. Does it do any good for you to keep calling him one? Your doing so hasn't made his behavior change in a positive direction. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: Jimmie got as far as looking up Bear bombers in some book. Naw, just the Internet. Found out they weren't a threat to Len when he was in Japan. Sunuvagun! Tsk. You seem to be saying there were NO Soviet bombers in range of Japan in the 1950s? That's wrong (again), Leonard. He is saying that Soviet "Bear" bombers could not have been a threat to you during your military service in Japan, despite what you indicated here. Here's exactly what Len wrote about "Bear" bombers: From: Len Over 21 ) Subject: 34 Years Ago Today Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2002-12-08 21:01:08 PST "The distance between Chongjin, North Korea and Tokyo (where I was assigned) is about 500 air miles. The distance between Vladivostok, USSR, was about the same distance. That's about an hour's flight in a Bear (NATO name for a Soviet bomber). Less time of flight now with jet turbine aircraft." Note that Len doesn't actually say there were any Bear bombers in Vladivostok or Chongjin at the time, or that he ever saw any, etc. But the implication that he was in some sort of imminent danger from them is clear. Here's what I wrote in response: I think you missed some relevant points, Dave. Len's reference to the "Bear" bomber might lead the unsuspecting to think he was in some sort of danger from them while in Japan. However: - The airline distance from Chongjin, North Korea to Tokyo is at least 670 statute miles. The distance from Vladivostok to Tokyo is 663 statute miles. (Source: "Esso War Map III, Featuring The Pacific Theater", printed 1944). - For interesting info on the Tupolev TU-95, and its variants, known to NATO as the "Bear", see: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm which tells us that: - Development of the TU-95/"Bear" began in June, 1951. - First flight of the first prototype, November, 1952. - Production began January, 1956. - First deployment August, 1957. - Four turboprop engines driving counterrotating propellers. "Turboprop" refers to jet turbine engines driving propellers. - Len left Japan before any TU-95s were deployed. Therefore, they were no threat at all to him when he was in Japan. Also, the distances and flight times were greater than he stated. As with your well known "Sphincter Post", it leads some of us to question your character. It just leads me to question Len's grasp of objective reality. What's curious about the Sphincter Post is that it's a direct insult to the military service of a member of the Coast Guard, who served as a radioman in Hawaii and who described some experiences while serving. Yet Len was never in the Coast Guard and never did the kind of radio operating he criticizes. More telling, however, is Len's classic "Feldwebel Post" in which he told you (Dave) to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". In just one short sentence, Len manages to violate Godwin's Law, insult a branch of the US military, attempt to deny someone their First Amendment rights, uses a mild profanity, tries to act as the moderator of an unmoderated newsgroup, and arguably makes an ethnic slur in the mix. As we often say where I work: "Everybody's good at *something*. The bile on rrap comes from the three-way Steve/Len/Wiliam whizzing contest. You all must get something from it, because you sure put a lot of effort into it. Tsk. Rev. Jim is readying another Sermon on the Antenna Mount? Jim states a fact. Don't you have an acceptable response? Acceptable to whom? Len sees nothing unacceptable in his behavior, but finds the behavior of certain others to be unacceptable to him. In the above example, it is perfectly acceptable (to Len) for him to imply that he was in constant, imminent danger from TU-95s while he was in Japan, but completely unacceptable for me to point out that there were no TU-95s deployed anywhere until after he left. Rev. Jim "puts a lot of effort" into making SURE that all those he thinks need "corrections" get those "corrections!" QED. Takes very little effort on my part. Len makes so many mistakes here that I don't try to correct all of them. What has that to do with your whizzing contest? Nothing. btw, Len, a little googling turned up the fun fact that Steve began calling you a putz back on August 6, 1999 - if not earlier. Of course you had previously made a habit of calling him "nursie" and other names, and referring to him by the wrong gender. Tsk. You are still being Judge and Jury via Google, aintfcha? :-) Jim is? Not at all, Leonard. Your archived words and the dates on which you posted them are archived. It is proof of your actions. In this case, things didn't happen the way you claim they did. When Rev. Jim runs out of arguments in the present, he MUST resort to Googling to "prove" something. Len constantly rehashes the past, then is angered by and abusive of those who present conflicting information disproving his assertions. Most importantly, Len cannot seem to get Steve to stop calling him a putz. ...and it looks like the Google archives of newsgroup posts did just that. The archive seems to prove that version of events is not correct. Which is why Len switches to name-calling and excessive emoticons. He's been shown to be mistaken, which is simply unacceptable. Jimmie thinks he can "win" some past arguments by repeating and rehashing OLD ones? The facts speak for themselves. When you start the "Jimmie" stuff, it is obvious that he has zapped you good. You made a recent statement and issued it as a factual account of something which took place. The trouble is, the Google archives say otherwise. The amusing part is that Len talks about "the past" more than anyone else here, then gets angry when his version of events is shown to be somewhat unreliable or incomplete (to put it mildly). Of course...if for no other reason that Jimmie Must Be Right in his own mind. Subject itself be damned, concentrate on defaming the opponent in order to "win." Tsk. Posting of facts is "defaming the opponent"? Diversion on your part. If you didn't want to be batted around on this issue, you could have refrained from, "Well, HE started it". Perhaps you need to try some new techniques if you want him to stop. Ah...you must have run out of damp hankies to slap folk on the wrist as self-styled moderator! :-) When did it become Jim's job to regulate Steve? But I don't think you want him to stop. Doesn't really matter to me. There will ALWAYS be some yo-yo out there who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal insult thing in order to "win an argument." :-) Those are alleasy marks. Plenty of them. :-) If anyone would know, you'd know. You don't want anyone else doing what you do. Let's remember that phrase, shall we? "who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal insult thing in order to "win an argument." " That's pretty much a fair description of what Len does here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com