Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
William wrote:
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...

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,


and is told more often than anybody that he is OT.

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/26/2004 5:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Yes, you DARE say it, Sir Putzy Jr!.

I have never chastised Sir Scumbag about being "off topic" except when HE
is chastizing others for doing exactly the same thing HE does.

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Oh...You mean the SAME "double standard" that YOU just exercised here?

Steve, K4YZ

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:

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

Try a quartet. :-)

Naw, the three of them do enough.

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

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.

It's a plain, simple fact.

I just call them as everyone else can see them.

Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to see?

Yep.

Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!"

Heh heh heh.

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.

Tsk. Nice troll cast, but inaccurate.

No, completely accurate.

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.

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.

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

Wrong again, Len!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

Tsk. You two don't really READ what you've written? :-)

Jimmie wanted me to show ten kinds of respect and sorrow for all
the passengers and crew of the Titanic who perished in 1912!

When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a
"bleeding heart".

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.

Just three nights earlier than the Titanic disaster the liner Niagara plowed
head-on into an iceberg at almost the same spot where Titanic sank. Although
passengers were thrown to the deck and the ship was damaged, and an SOS was
sent, no lives were lost and the ship continued to New York under its own
power.

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.

Tsk. "Serious problem?" More tsk. :-)

Yes, Len. You have that problem.

Not much show-biz action in PA...but there is in this neck o' the woods.

And the importance of that is?

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? ;^)

Tsk. More PCTA extra Double Standard.

How? Just asking a question.

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

Why do you wish to continue talking about Linda Hamilton?

Why not? She was very good in "Mr. Destiny"

Well you brought her to the conversation. 8^)

Does she have a ham license? [pun intended]

[just think what fun the ARRL news page would have with...drum
roll...HAM ACTOR! :-)

Like Andy Devine...

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

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

How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy?

You guys just can't focus! :-)

Not a matter of focus. Just some discussion among friends. And the
discussions among friends tend to go where they will.

Free speech. What a concept.

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

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.

So...this is now a FLYING newsgroup?

No, but there are some on Netnews, I'm sure.

Or are you PCTAs just "high?"

Ick, getting high is a sure fire method of wasting one's life.

Remember "8 Miles High"?

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

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

For maybe, 1913... :-)

For 2004.

I took the tests recently, all within the past 5 years, and a couple
within 3 years. They are up to date enough, covering satellite ops, all
manner of relevant band and technical questions dealing with present day
equipment. They are up to date for at least mid 2001.

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?

Tsk. Doesn't bother me much.

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

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

That's a good thing!

Why should I sell my soul for some high-rate morsemanship? :-)

"Sell your soul"? One cannot sell what one does not posess. ;-)

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

Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just
study the material. I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation,
but it didn't do me a bit of damage. Here I am, soul intact , and just
as fat dumb and happy as ever! 8^)

Thoroughly modern, too!

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.

Jimmie Who do.

What person are you referring to, Len?

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

Only because THEY had to do it...therefore everyone else has to
do the same! :-)

Nope. They think it's a good idea for other reasons.

Nahh, I think they should take it because that is the rule at present.

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Why is Jimmie so bothered that he has to keep asking that?

"You can not answer a question with another question"

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

Oh, Bother..... W.T. Pooh

Yup!

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?

Far more modern in all respects on all items compared to 1912. :-)

In other words: No to all of the above.

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

Yep.

Tsk. Bad grammar to boot...up.

Yup, kind of illustrating the point that many people seem to think that
they are some kind of high tech wizard because they own a PC or cell
phone, or other such icons.

Well done, Mike!

Try "If we own PCs, we are not state of the art." :-)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I kind of like the other way if you
don't mind. 8^)

Your English syntax and grammar is NOT state of the art...

Oh, but they are as necessary!

Exactly!

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.

Tsk. Jimmie have loss of memory. Poor fella.

To whom do you refer?

Has to "recycle" all his
radio construction in order to do "state of the art" TUBE designs in the
1990s. Tsk. With a double degree... :-)

Doesn't "have to". Chooses to.

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

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

Despite their virtual obsolescence, hollow state technology is quite
interesting, at least to me.

I find it very interesting, too. Very useful, too.

Random though mode on:

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

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

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

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

Random thought mode off.......

Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like
Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-)

AM never really appealed to me. Takes a lot of energy for all you get
out of it. But I do like historical processes and equipment as a
diversion after working all day with much more modern techniques. Kinda fun.

I've done AM on 75 meters, and it's a lot of fun when the band isn't crowded.
Been in some really nice roundtables where the other folks know how to develop
an idea and express their views.

Wow! "State of the Art!"

I suppose at one time it was!

Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires
for at least 10 miles! :-)

Hehe, AM is probably just about at the bottom of the heap (with
apologies to all the AM'ers out there)

It's another tool in the toolbox.

Have a Happy, your Grinchness...

You also, Lenover21.



I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"?

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?

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


Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.


TSK. NO. VERY SERIOUS! Might be better than World Serious!

This newsgroup is all about certain PCTAs needing a private chat
room to damn the NCTAs to eternal hell for not loving morse.


Remember, all of us are going to hell in somones religion! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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:


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

Try a quartet. :-)

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

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.


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. Steve and mayself don't get
into verbal battles. And I'm certainly not afraid of him. If I disagree,
I'll tell him so. And despite what "William" wants me to do, I'm not
going to step into one of you three's battles and slap his hand. You are
all big boys now, and responsible for your own behavior!


It's all been public. Nursie is eager and chomping at the bit
to FIGHT with anyone.

Okay, if you and Brian aren't, then show it. But you enjoy it, IMO, so
why defend it. If you like having verbal sparring matches with Steve
(the boys down at the shop used to call 'em whizzing contests) then have
at it. Want to have a nasty toned battle of wits? Enjoy! 8^)

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.


I just call them as everyone else can see them.

Wouldn't it be better to shed light on what others may not be able to

see?

Tsk. See that opthalmologist.

Warning: You could be a victim of presbyopia and not know it...


Or, as someone else wrote, "the replies just seem to write themselves!"

Heh heh heh.


Gosh...wonder who wrote that original phrase? :-)

It wasn't Mike Coslo. It wasn't nursie. It wasn't Brian. It wasn't Rev.
Jim, our Artist of the State. It wasn't Kellie. It wasn't Hans. It
wasn't Dieter. It wasn't Jim Hampton. It wasn't Dee. It wasn't Kim.
OK, that about exhausts the regulars in here. :-)



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, NONE.

However, the Titanic disaster is a favorite subject of his lordship,
Sir James. As Lord High Admiral of the newsgroup (sailing these
turbid waters every day), he has decreed the Titanic disaster IS a
worthy subject for amateur radio policy.

There we have it.

I enjoy talking on any subject with Jim.



When one would have been sufficient. Respect doesn't make a person a
"bleeding heart".


True enough. But only in the literal sense.

Hello? Can you see some sarcasm in my remarks? :-)

Of course. And there was some kind of something in my retort (limited
retort?) 8^)

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

As Yogi Berra said "If you don't go to your friend's funerals, they
won't go to yours!"




How did Bill Boeing's company get into ham radio policy?

You guys just can't focus! :-)

Not a matter of focus. Just some discussion among friends. And the
discussions among friends tend to go where they will.


So...you've joined the Society of Friends?

We quake at the thought...

Good people, all the Quakers I met.



But, of curse, you regulars all OWN this newsgroup. Despite it going
wherever the Internet carries it. What you dictate as Right and Proper
MUST be observed at all times!





Or are you PCTAs just "high?"

Ick, getting high is a sure fire method of wasting one's life.


I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed.

Been a lonnng time since I heard that one!


Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts.


Never had a Morse code fantasy in my life.

Linda Hamilton has entered my thoughts on an occasion or two! ;^)

:-)

8^)



I took the tests recently, all within the past 5 years, and a couple
within 3 years. They are up to date enough, covering satellite ops, all
manner of relevant band and technical questions dealing with present day
equipment. They are up to date for at least mid 2001.


You missed my point on that.

The present-day U.S. amateur regulations are just fine and dandy
to those who want to keep the morse code test for a license
examination.

You seem to give the Morse test the same amount of weight as
Pseudo-Conservatives give to the mythical "Liberal". This critter is
responsible for all the ills in the country, despite there being almost
no liberals left. Somehow, some way, the one or two liberals left manage
to gum everything up.


Other than to this circle of "friends," somewhere in the neighborhood
of 700 thousand (give or take) licensed amateurs MIGHT have some
disagreement with that "up to date."

There are presently 18 ("count 'em, 18") petitions for consideration
on changes to U.S. amateur radio regulations made public by the
FCC. It should be obvious (except to the oblivious) that all is NOT
"up to date" in those regulations.



Ahh, maybe there is the problem. You don't have to sell your soul, just


study the material.


Why? :-)

Each person must answer their own "Why". I figured that since I only
have so many years on this earth, I would take the time and learn Morse
code. Spent 6 months of an hour or so a day. The rewards have been that
I have had my (Morse code tested) license for 3 years now. That's three
years out of my life that I wouldn't have had it if I refused to learn it.

YMMV

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.

That's okay. If you don't want to be a Ham, no one is can stop you. Or
even a hamme! ;^)


I'm really only interested in ending the U.S. amateur radio license exam
morse code test.

I do NOT need to "study material on morsemanship" to do that.

Nope, you don't have to. Purely voluntary stuff.

I do NOT need to "study material on any other test element" just to
get a federal merit badge saying I am "authorized" something or
other.

Purely voluntary stuff there.



You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and
correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three
decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY
requirement to "study morsemanship material."

I could never forget! 8^)

Of course if you are happy, then that is great. I've only been on HF
for a few years now. Enjoying every minute of it.

I must confess I don't personally compartmentalize it into HF or Not
HF. It's all good, MF, HF, VHF, UHF!



I had great difficulty with Element 1 preparation,
but it didn't do me a bit of damage.


I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time.


Good job, that! 8^)





I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.


What do you see on my "signature" line?

I've seen

I've seen LHA / WMD

I've seen LHA

Sometimes nothing

My Newsreader wants to call you Len Over 21




Tsk. If you can't understand my preferences, then that trip to an
opthalmologist for you is necessary. [remember, watch out for
presbyopia...]


Which of your preferences?

If you pick up an IEEE Membership Directory, you wil see my legal
name in there. Been in there since 1973. That's the formal version.

So is that what you want to be called?


Or you can call me any name, nasty or otherwise, that you care to
use. Even enclose it in quote marks as "Dave" does it. Just don't
call me late for dinner.

I don't call people nasty names. Just what they prefer to be called.
that's why I asked


Shirley you jest. Roger that. Go to the John. Etc.

N2EY wrote:

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?



I take it you saw his answer to me. It appears there is a great deal of
sensitivity on the subject.

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.


- mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 10/26/2004 12:32 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.

"Putz" takes up less bandwidth and is to-the-point!

73

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote:




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.

I saw a picture of an Air Force plane that was about to
fly right into the ground at their airport. Seems the
pilots were doing some silly frat boy stunt (mooning the
guys in the control tower) and lost control. It was a
plane similar if not in fact a B52. This happened years
ago.



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


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

Once a model of a PC hits the stores, it's already
obsolete.



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.


Random though mode on:

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

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

Radios age much better than PCs.

Tsk. Nice troll cast, but inaccurate.

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

The Titanic was cited as an example that sometimes "Professionals"
screw up. In connection to that TV/DVD/VCR that QRMed the
emergency frequencies. That "professionals" designed that.

On 26 Oct 2004 04:54:56 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

snip

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

It does indeed. And my BC-221 is still intact. (my BC-221-AA
actually, made by Philco in 1942, with a big WWII-vintage Royal
Canadian Signal Corps decal on its side - pretty neat!).

As it should be. :)

snip



73, Leo

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody,

and is told more often than anybody that he is OT.

...by those who are so "OT" they are older than dirt. :-)

Hey, gang, let's all make the Titanic disaster of 1912 the
principle topic of this newsgroup!!!

Hey, gang, let's all play like civil engineers and architects
to indict the designers of the WTC!!!

Hey, gang, let's all be Pilots In Command and talk all about
flying!!!

Hey, gang, let's all make sure Jimmie Who gets all that praise
and respect for vacuum tube kluges which are State of the Art!!!

All of which is vastly important to the few regulars in here who
can't figure out how to start their own private Internet chat room
so that they can all call the NCTAs nasty names behind their
backs and be King of the Ham Hill!

bwahahahahah small snicker in place of "hi hi"

You forgot one, Leonard: Why not hang out in an amateur radio newsgroup
and pretend to be one of the crowd!

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

TSK. NO. VERY SERIOUS! Might be better than World Serious!

This newsgroup is all about certain PCTAs needing a private chat
room to damn the NCTAs to eternal hell for not loving morse.

Remind us again of your connection to the world of amateur radio.



Dave

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

What do you see on my "signature" line?

Tsk. If you can't understand my preferences, then that trip to an
opthalmologist for you is necessary. [remember, watch out for
presbyopia...]

If you pick up an IEEE Membership Directory, you wil see my legal
name in there. Been in there since 1973. That's the formal version.

Or you can call me any name, nasty or otherwise, that you care to
use. Even enclose it in quote marks as "Dave" does it. Just don't
call me late for dinner.

Are you really the person posting as "William"? I don't recall using
"Len", "Leonard" or "Foghorn Lenhorn" when addressing you. I typically
refer to you as Len or Leonard until you start using the cutesy names.
That's when you become Foghorn.



Okay,

Per N2EY's query, why do you find it difficult to use another's given
name?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

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 don't recall needing your approval to do so.

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 see any testing which is archaic or imaginary. I don't see any
testing done because old timers had to do it.

I say enjoy freedom.

Freedom doesn't mean reduced regulation or no regulation.

I say try to keep
up with the technology. I say the technology isn't restricted solely
to what the ARRL publishes.

It surely isn't. I know the League has never made such a statement.
How are you coming along with brushing up on phase noise?


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.

So a call for you to actually use the names of people you address or to
whom you refer is "highbrow"? Thanks for the illustration of a point.


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?

Who cares?

Apparently you did. After all, you asked.

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

Are you gonna bring back your classic "sphincter post", Leonard?


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, painfully windy, pontificating lectures.

Tsk, tsk, TSK! I have an R-70. Leo has an R-70. Both still work to
specifications...

....but the R-70 certainly can't be considered "state of the art".

(which are quite good).

They aren't good today, Len. They weren't as good as much other gear
made in the same period.

Dave K8MN

robert casey wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:




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.

I saw a picture of an Air Force plane that was about to
fly right into the ground at their airport. Seems the
pilots were doing some silly frat boy stunt (mooning the
guys in the control tower) and lost control. It was a
plane similar if not in fact a B52. This happened years
ago.

Even smart people can do really stupid things!



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



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


Once a model of a PC hits the stores, it's already
obsolete.

Yup, One of these days that will have to stop.




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.



Random though mode on:

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

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

Radios age much better than PCs.

Yep, I can't envision myself ever wanting to use or to buy sa a TRS-80,
which is the first PC I ever used, but I could envision using and buying
lots of old radios.

And it's not even nostalgia, since I wasn't around when those radios
were. They are simply cool!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:



I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

What do you see on my "signature" line?

Tsk. If you can't understand my preferences, then that trip to an
opthalmologist for you is necessary. [remember, watch out for
presbyopia...]

If you pick up an IEEE Membership Directory, you wil see my legal
name in there. Been in there since 1973. That's the formal version.

Or you can call me any name, nasty or otherwise, that you care to
use. Even enclose it in quote marks as "Dave" does it. Just don't
call me late for dinner.


Are you really the person posting as "William"? I don't recall using
"Len", "Leonard" or "Foghorn Lenhorn" when addressing you. I typically
refer to you as Len or Leonard until you start using the cutesy names.
That's when you become Foghorn.





Okay,

Per N2EY's query, why do you find it difficult to use another's given
name?

I want to know why asking a person what they wish to be called
garnishes a lecture! Oh well, I'm a big boy.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote in message . ..
On 26 Oct 2004 04:54:56 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

snip

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

It does indeed. And my BC-221 is still intact. (my BC-221-AA
actually, made by Philco in 1942, with a big WWII-vintage Royal
Canadian Signal Corps decal on its side - pretty neat!).

As it should be. :)

snip



73, Leo

Careful that Kelly doesn't tell you to put the wrong voltage across the input.

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/26/2004 3:37 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/26/2004 5:04 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Yes, you DARE say it, Sir Putzy Jr!.

I have never chastised Sir Scumbag about being "off topic" except when
HE
is chastizing others for doing exactly the same thing HE does.

"I HAVE NEVER..."

Hi, hi!

Then you always say "EXCEPT WHEN I DID."

More Hi, hi's!

An educated person (meaning other than yourslef) could read the sentence I
wrote and understand it, Brain.

My bust for assuming you MIGHT.

By Golly, I guess you really DiDit!

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Oh...You mean the SAME "double standard" that YOU just exercised here?

Steve, K4YZ

No double standard. I did not chastise. I pointed out a fact. A
fact that you don't like. Too bad.

Yes, you HAVE been chastising others, myself included.

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

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

Nor have you kept pace with your own rhetoric.

Steve, K4YZ

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"...?!?!

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

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.

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

Period.

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...???

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Yeh. Hmmm? Nothing like siding with the terrs.

Children should be seen but not heard. Now go to your room.

They can't. Your in it. :-)

In article ,
(William) writes:

The Gang of Four have spoken. You must extinguish your RRAP torch.
Steve will now blow the Conch Shell. Sayonara Baby. Hi, hi!

Or tell them to get bent. large snicker turning to a guffaw

The "four" have long since been bent. All by themselves. :-)

In article ,
(William) writes:

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

(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! :-)

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.

Steveism:

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

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

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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... :-)

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.


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!

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. :-)

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.

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... :-)

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! :-)

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.

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.

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...

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. :-)

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... :-)

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...

"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.

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.

In article , Leo
writes:

On 26 Oct 2004 04:54:56 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

snip

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

It does indeed. And my BC-221 is still intact. (my BC-221-AA
actually, made by Philco in 1942, with a big WWII-vintage Royal
Canadian Signal Corps decal on its side - pretty neat!).

As it should be. :)

Right on! :-)

But...I've got you beat on who made what...the Lewyt Vacuum
Cleaner Company made a bunch of 7-foot tall BC-339 trans-
mitters for the USA Signal Corps during WW2. Said so on the
little nameplate. I suppose some (who weren't born yet until a
decade after that war) will say "those suck!" :-)

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:


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

Try a quartet. :-)

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

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.


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. :-)

Steve and mayself don't get into verbal battles.

Not yet. :-)

And I'm certainly not afraid of him.

Oooooo! :-) Is someone afraid of the big bad wolf? :-)

If I disagree, I'll tell him so.

That's all it takes to start a fight with nursie. :-)

And despite what "William" wants me to do, I'm not
going to step into one of you three's battles and slap his hand.

The avenging angel of rrap is unshutupable. :-)

He putz me to sleep sometimes. :-)

You are
all big boys now, and responsible for your own behavior!

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


Okay, if you and Brian aren't, then show it.

Show what?

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

I've stopped that. You haven't noticed.

But you enjoy it, IMO, so why defend it.

I don't enjoy it. It's tiring because his emotional tirades are repetitive,
sometimes mirroring what I've said about him in the past.

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.

If you like having verbal sparring matches with Steve
(the boys down at the shop used to call 'em whizzing contests) then have
at it.

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

Want to have a nasty toned battle of wits? Enjoy! 8^)

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

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.

So...do the "boys down at the shop" call you "penis head?"

In any language or dialect? :-)

Do you LIKE that sort of thing?


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. :-)


I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed.

Been a lonnng time since I heard that one!

It's still true.

Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts.

Never had a Morse code fantasy in my life.

Others DO. "Try it, you'll like it!" :-)


You seem to give the Morse test the same amount of weight as
Pseudo-Conservatives give to the mythical "Liberal". This critter is
responsible for all the ills in the country, despite there being almost
no liberals left. Somehow, some way, the one or two liberals left manage
to gum everything up.

Tsk. You mistake persistence for obsession. :-)

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.


Each person must answer their own "Why". I figured that since I only
have so many years on this earth, I would take the time and learn Morse
code. Spent 6 months of an hour or so a day. The rewards have been that
I have had my (Morse code tested) license for 3 years now. That's three
years out of my life that I wouldn't have had it if I refused to learn it.

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."

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. One PCTA extra considers that on-par with
remedial "night school" classes held for immigrants and such. :-)
Of course, the same individual considers the University of Illinois
or the University of Wisconsin as "correspondence schools!" Hi hi.

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. :-)

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.
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. Such federal licenses make some folks think
they are real big shots (stretch that O vertically). Not me. Just a
piece of paper.


You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and
correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three
decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY
requirement to "study morsemanship material."

I could never forget! 8^)

Of course if you are happy, then that is great. I've only been on HF
for a few years now. Enjoying every minute of it.

Enjoy, enjoy.

I must confess I don't personally compartmentalize it into HF or Not
HF. It's all good, MF, HF, VHF, UHF!

You MUST compartmentalize in THIS newsgroup. Tested
morsemanship is "necessary" to operate on HF ham bands!
Absolutely! :-)

I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time.

Good job, that! 8^)

The trick to that is staying away from downtown Transylvania...


My Newsreader wants to call you Len Over 21

If your newsreader is licensed, have it call my Internet software
on 9015 KHz USB. They can do electronic lunch.


I don't call people nasty names. Just what they prefer to be called.
that's why I asked

"Putz" (penis head in Yiddish) is not "nasty" to another PCTA extra
in here. It is very nasty along Maxwell Street in Chicago. Another
in here just calls me "wrong" and "incorrect." :-)

You can call me anything...but that would be incorrect. :-)

You can't figure out from my "signature" what a preferred short form
given name of mine should be? Tsk.

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:

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

Try a quartet. :-)

Naw, the three of them do enough.

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

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

Tsk, tsk. 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...:-) ]


It's a plain, simple fact.

Tsk, wrong again. Error. Mistake.

Worse yet, you use "fact" interchangeably with Your Personal
Opinion. 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.

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

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

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.

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. 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.

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. :-)

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.

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]

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. :-)

The way the league wrote themselves up, they began as a local
club using their ham sets to what was essentially hacking on the
services of commercial telegraph providers. [see the details on the
league's web site and in other published works by them]

ARRL did not spring into national prominence until AFTER World
War 1, at least 8 years AFTER the Titanic sinking. Even so, the
league was very busy with competition from OTHER wannabe
national amateur organizations. 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.

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. :-)

I could "connect the dots" like you so cavalierly like to do with dates
and say there is a "relationship" in the above...but I won't. Its just
a chronological coincidence.

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.

Rev. Jim is sermonizing from the league's version of the good book.

If Aitken's book is too scholarly (it actually reads well), then there
is the more readily available Thomas H. White's website:

http://earlyradiohistory.us/index.html

"White pages" cover the period 1897 to 1927 and are not biased to
amateur radio subjects. [that may be objectionable to PCTAs]

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.

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.

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


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. :-)

I don't claim to be a mariner at all 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.
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"!

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."
Defies common sense. :-)

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

Enormous good luck on ever passing any ship's masters exam,
sailor...


Yes, Len. You have that problem.

Heh heh heh. My only "problem" is taking your trolling bait, grabbing
the line, and then tying you all up with that line. You had best swim
head-on into the dock in order to stay above water. :-)


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

Tsk. Persistence is not obsession.

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

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

That's a good thing!

Why is that "good?"

Are you in fear that your Eliteness in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society will be diminished? :-)


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

Did I do that in church? Laying down in the nave, forming a code key
with my body and taking absolute Vows? :-)

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

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

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

What person are you referring to, Len?

Whomever. :-)


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

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

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. 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).

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).

You want to keep the ARS in your version of pure, pristine, and
prissy-literally and don't (now) hesitate to pejorate others and
make some mild perjerous remarks to "reinforce" your opinions
(which you call "facts").


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.

One photo. Doesn't go into much detail. Six and a half cabinet-less
chassis with lots of vacuum tubes. No schematics. No descriptions
in detail that you claim visitors are astounded about. :-)

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

No transceivers on HF. :-)

Tsk. Getting puerile with the "challenges" there, Jimmie.

As usual, you've wasted my time. But...I was sitting around waiting
for the big brown truck to show up as promised on the tracking info.
:-)

Tsk. Is it a new "world serious" game you want to play, complete
with recycled "body parts" (radio bodies, that is) and "scoring" of
how many HF transceivers everyone has "homebrewed?" :-)

Sorry, Jimmie, not a game I want to play. I'll just watch Boston
and St. Louis on live color television and cheer the Red Sox when
they win. They are all PROFESSIONAL players! :-)








Didn't have computerized package tracking in 1912. Didn't have UPS
FedEx, or DHL then, either and the USPS was just the "post office"
and they never guaranteed overnight delivery across the country in
1912.




Despite their virtual obsolescence, hollow state technology is quite
interesting, at least to me.

I find it very interesting, too. Very useful, too.

Random though mode on:

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

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

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

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

Random thought mode off.......

Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like
Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-)

AM never really appealed to me. Takes a lot of energy for all you get
out of it. But I do like historical processes and equipment as a
diversion after working all day with much more modern techniques. Kinda fun.

I've done AM on 75 meters, and it's a lot of fun when the band isn't crowded.
Been in some really nice roundtables where the other folks know how to
develop
an idea and express their views.

Wow! "State of the Art!"

I suppose at one time it was!

Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires
for at least 10 miles! :-)

Hehe, AM is probably just about at the bottom of the heap (with
apologies to all the AM'ers out there)

It's another tool in the toolbox.

Have a Happy, your Grinchness...

You also, Lenover21.



I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"?

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you
answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?

In article ,
(William) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
William wrote:
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...

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,


and is told more often than anybody that he is OT.

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Heh heh. One of those offenders claims to be a working
professional (i.e., performs electronics work for monetary
compensation) electronics engineer...who implies that
"professionals" don't do good work, make mistakes, etc.
That one hasn't identified his employer on the basis of
"other reasons." :-)

All because of not loving his favorite radio mode, morse
code. :-)

The gist of what the PCTAs in here rant about is the attempts
to demonize all the NCTAs for not believing as they do. They
can't make a good case to keep the code test so they resort
to personal insults, pejoratives againt the NCTAs. NOT a good
case to present for retaining any code test...or even to show
the amateur radio hobby in a good light.

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.

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.

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 have failed to acknowledge your errors or apologize for YOUR false
accusations.

Sooooooooo....Brian P. Burke is and remains an unashamed liar.

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".

Brain P. Burke is and remains an unashamed liar.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you
answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?

I take it you saw his answer to me. It appears there is a great deal of
sensitivity on the subject.

But not a clear answer to a simple question.

Ask Len the time, he'll tell you how to get to Boulder and give a long boring
lecture on the development of time standards.

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.

You mean "ieee.org". Like arrl.org...

still has that problem of not being able to call other
people by their names, though. What's up with that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Ask Len the time, he'll tell you how to get to Boulder and give a long boring
lecture on the development of time standards.

Nope. Mapquest or the AAA free maps will do that.

But, I DO know the Way to San Jose.

Should I hum a few bars so you can join in? :-)

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:


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

Try a quartet. :-)

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

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.


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.


Steve and mayself don't get into verbal battles.

Not yet. :-)

And I'm certainly not afraid of him.


Oooooo! :-) Is someone afraid of the big bad wolf? :-)


If I disagree, I'll tell him so.


That's all it takes to start a fight with nursie. :-)


And despite what "William" wants me to do, I'm not
going to step into one of you three's battles and slap his hand.


The avenging angel of rrap is unshutupable. :-)

He putz me to sleep sometimes. :-)


You are
all big boys now, and responsible for your own behavior!


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

Tyson foods?


Okay, if you and Brian aren't, then show it.


Show what?



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!

I've stopped that. You haven't noticed.

But you enjoy it, IMO, so why defend it.

I don't enjoy it. It's tiring because his emotional tirades are repetitive,
sometimes mirroring what I've said about him in the past.

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.


If you like having verbal sparring matches with Steve
(the boys down at the shop used to call 'em whizzing contests) then have
at it.

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

Michael Powell's gonna get us! ;^)


Want to have a nasty toned battle of wits? Enjoy! 8^)

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

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.


So...do the "boys down at the shop" call you "penis head?"

In any language or dialect? :-)

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.

Do you LIKE that sort of thing?

Life in the jungle, sir! 8^)

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. :-)



I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed.

Been a lonnng time since I heard that one!


It's still true.


Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts.

Never had a Morse code fantasy in my life.


Others DO. "Try it, you'll like it!" :-)



You seem to give the Morse test the same amount of weight as
Pseudo-Conservatives give to the mythical "Liberal". This critter is
responsible for all the ills in the country, despite there being almost
no liberals left. Somehow, some way, the one or two liberals left manage
to gum everything up.


Tsk. You mistake persistence for obsession. :-)

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

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.


Each person must answer their own "Why". I figured that since I only
have so many years on this earth, I would take the time and learn Morse
code. Spent 6 months of an hour or so a day. The rewards have been that
I have had my (Morse code tested) license for 3 years now. That's three
years out of my life that I wouldn't have had it if I refused to learn it.


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."

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. One PCTA extra considers that on-par with
remedial "night school" classes held for immigrants and such. :-)
Of course, the same individual considers the University of Illinois
or the University of Wisconsin as "correspondence schools!" Hi hi.


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.

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.

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.

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

Such federal licenses make some folks think
they are real big shots (stretch that O vertically). Not me. Just a
piece of paper.



You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and
correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three
decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY
requirement to "study morsemanship material."

I could never forget! 8^)

Of course if you are happy, then that is great. I've only been on HF
for a few years now. Enjoying every minute of it.


Enjoy, enjoy.

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!


I must confess I don't personally compartmentalize it into HF or Not
HF. It's all good, MF, HF, VHF, UHF!


You MUST compartmentalize in THIS newsgroup. Tested
morsemanship is "necessary" to operate on HF ham bands!
Absolutely! :-)


I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time.

Good job, that! 8^)


The trick to that is staying away from downtown Transylvania...



My Newsreader wants to call you Len Over 21


If your newsreader is licensed, have it call my Internet software
on 9015 KHz USB. They can do electronic lunch.



I don't call people nasty names. Just what they prefer to be called.
that's why I asked


"Putz" (penis head in Yiddish) is not "nasty" to another PCTA extra
in here. It is very nasty along Maxwell Street in Chicago. Another
in here just calls me "wrong" and "incorrect." :-)


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.

You can call me anything...but that would be incorrect. :-)

HAH! Good segue. 8^)

You can't figure out from my "signature" what a preferred short form
given name of mine should be? Tsk.

ORG? Just kidding! Okay, talk to you later, Len.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:


Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you

answer

with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?


I take it you saw his answer to me. It appears there is a great deal of
sensitivity on the subject.


But not a clear answer to a simple question.

Ask Len the time, he'll tell you how to get to Boulder and give a long boring
lecture on the development of time standards.

Nist, Nist, Nist!

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.


You mean "ieee.org". Like arrl.org...

Why would I call him ieee.org! Hehe, just kidding. Although thatwould
sound odd to say!

I guess I'll call him Len.



still has that problem of not being able to call other
people by their names, though. What's up with that?

Some people have a public name and a sacred name. Maye it's a sign of
respect?

- Mike KB3EIA -