In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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

Takes at least two people to make a fight.

Not in computer-modem communications venues. :-)

Have to say I can't understand that one.

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



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

Tyson foods?

Tyson the ear-biter. :-)


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

Now your getting it!

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

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

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


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

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

new material. It's so old.

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

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


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

Michael Powell's gonna get us! ;^)

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

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


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

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.

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

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

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

Do you LIKE that sort of thing?

Life in the jungle, sir! 8^)

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

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

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

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

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

Should I name some more? :-)


Tsk. You mistake persistence for obsession. :-)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Tsk. NOT a "story." Documented fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant.

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

You've only just begun to learn.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Anything

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

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

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

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

Unless you can prove otherwise?

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

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

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

Hello?

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

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

You're in the liar mode again.

Nope.

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

It's still out there, Brain.

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

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

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

Then you need to work on your presentation.

Nope.

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

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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

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

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

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

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

Tsk.

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

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

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

I say enjoy the hobby.

Which one? I have several.

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

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

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

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

After all, it was *you* who wrote:

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

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

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

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

I say enjoy freedom.

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

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

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

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

I say try to keep up with the technology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that "bad mentality?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

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

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

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

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

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

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

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

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

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

If not, what's *your* problem?

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

What does that mean?

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

Agreed!

The denials are almost funny.

No. Tragic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, what's with that?

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

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

Yes, you did.

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

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

No, it isn't.

At worst, it might be a mistake.

But I don't think it is:

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


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

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

Why all the name calling, Len?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

btw, what is a "Scicilian" ?

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

Now see - there you go off-topic.

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

Yeah - what's up with that?

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

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

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

Is that an apology, Len?

Why not just call people by their names?

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

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

More OT....

What possible significance does that have?

And is that on topic for rrap? ;^)

;-) ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You *do* want to be the moderator.

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

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

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

OT?

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

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

So why did you bring it up?

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

Very OT

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

"So is claims"?

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

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

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

Yawningly OT

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

Then why do you comment on it?

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

"Moursemanship"?

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

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

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

Has Jimmie actually RIDDEN in a B-52?

No. Have you, Len?

What difference does it make to the discussion?

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

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

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

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

I think it would be fun.

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

Yes, they are.

Seems like it to me!

"Yawningly OT." Hi hi. :-)

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

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

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

Why does that bother you so much?

Notice how Len avoids the relevant questions...

What is the "relevant question?" :-)

Why the morse code test bothers you so much.

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

Just answer the question, please, Len.

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

Perhaps some do.

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

Why does that bother you so much, Len?

Hmmm?

Very "progressive." State of the Art.

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

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

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

Roger that!

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

"You can not answer a question with another question"

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

"Lecture?" :-)

Yes!

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

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

Or are you just guessing?

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

The only snit I see is from you, Len.

Random though mode on:

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

Mostly analog, really!

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

Yep.

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

Is recycling a bad thing, Len?

I like the old Yankee saying:

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

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

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

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

Who would that be, Len?

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

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

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

After all, it was *you* who wrote:

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

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

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

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

QUOTE:

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

K1From: Burt Fisher
K1Subject: CW the final solution

K1WHAT IS C W

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

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

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

SNIP AND UNQUOTE

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

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Jim...

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

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

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

Tsk, tsk.

It's true, true.

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

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

It's a plain, simple fact.

Tsk, wrong again. Error. Mistake.

What's the mistake?

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

How is it not correct?

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

Very very little.

Actually, quite a bit.

Wrong again. Quite wrong.

Your opinion.

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

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

Tsk.

It's true.

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

Depends on which law.

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

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

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

Wrong again, Len!

No. Not "wrong" in the real world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How would you know, Len?

The way the league wrote themselves up,

Where?

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

"hacking on the services of commercial telegraph providers"?

Nope.

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

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

Try actually reading them yourself, Len.

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

Wrong again, Len!

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

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

Such as?

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

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

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

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

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

And the US did not get involved until 1917.

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

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

You can't deal with a hypothetical situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tsk. Sneaky implied pejorative. :-)

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


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

I don't claim to be a mariner at all

Nor do I.

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

Then why do you mention it?

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

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

IOW, you're laughing at reality.

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

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

Defies common sense. :-)

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

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

In the case of Titanic, it's true.

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

Tsk. Persistence is not obsession.

You're obsessed.

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

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

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

That's a good thing!

Why is that "good?"

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

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

Did I do that in church?

No - right here.

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

Then whay are you here?

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

How is that at all relevant to amateur radio policy?

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

People's standards of "success" vary.

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

Me too!

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

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

What person are you referring to, Len?

Whomever. :-)

Can't call people by name, I see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What in the world does that mean?

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

"Peforate others and make some mild perjerous remarks"?

What *are* you talking about?

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

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

Is that wrong? Is it somehow not allowed?

One photo.

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

Doesn't go into much detail.

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

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

Six and a half chassis? Count again.

And what's the obsession with cabinets?

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

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

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

No transceivers on HF. :-)

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

As usual, you've wasted my time.

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

"N2EY" wrote


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


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

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

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

So much for "nationally prominent" before WW1.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

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

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

I think the statement needs correction.

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

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

So much for "nationally prominent" before WW1.

You are correct, sir!

It should read:

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

--

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

--

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

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


Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,




(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Has someone invited to join one?

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

Well, there you go then. Use that one.

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

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

Dave K8MN

On 28 Oct 2004 23:03:24 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:
snip

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

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

Now you can - check out Page 134 of the November 2004 issue of QST.
Bright, shiny badges (gold or silver plated) wirh your call and
license class proudly displayed - even has a big ol' eagle on
top........looks just like a real police badge (from a distance,
anyway!).

73, Leo

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

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...:-) ]

I'd think you'd be wary of Google biting you again. Don't forget that
all of your words are there too--the insults, the name calling--all of
it.


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]

Incorrect.

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

Incorrect. The League came into being in 1914 with U.S. entry into WWI
in 1917. QST resumed publication in mid-1919. The League was a
national organization before the United States entered the war.

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

"Wannabe" is right. None of the other amateur radio organizations were
ever serious competitors of the ARRL.

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.

Right. Five years before as "The Junior Wireless Club". The little New
England club grew and grew. The Radio Club of America was never very big
though it broadened its scope. Did you have a point?


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? :-)

Is that the only way we could have taken you at your word?

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

I believe you meant that you've seen what it takes to become an Extra
and such is not for you.

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.

Shall we go over some of the things which you've written about the
careers of others, you poor old fellow?

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.

Great! It sounds as if you can go right along doing those things.

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.
:-)

Is that some sort of regularity euphemism, Len?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are "jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?


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

You can talk about politics but that doesn't make you a politician.

You can talk about amateur radio but that doesn't make you a radio
amateur.

You can talk about running for office but there are requirements to be
met before you appear on the ballot. In the end, there is no guarantee
that anyone will vote for you. You could be laughed at and heckled.

You can talk about becoming a radio amateur but there are requirements
to be met before you'll receive a license. You can talk about changing
the requirements for becoming a radio amateur. In the end, there is no
guarantee that anyone will support your ideas. You could be laughed at
and heckled.

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

You've done that. This newsgroup is not government and you are offered
no protection from being laughed at or heckled. Pontificate at your own
risk. Insult others at your own risk.

Tsk. I might, at some future date, get an amateur radio license.

Hoooooooooooo! That's a GOOD one, Leonard.

Or maybe not. [one can't get too specific in this bunch of anal-
retentive prissy literalists, they think everything one says is some
kind of Religious Vow taken before God!]

Around here, a man is generally taken at his word...until he shows that
his word means little.

Why should I take the trouble to relearn morse code just for a
chance to get a low-cost federal merit badge?

Why? Because it is the price of admission to HF amateur radio
operation.

I don't need to
prove myself in anything to anyone on any endeavor.

So you won't be getting the amateur radio license?


Tsk. I was into HF radio communications without ANY sort of
license requirement from 1953 to 1956.

Fine and dandy. The circumstances are different and it is nearly fifty
years later.

Certainly not having any
sort of requirement to learn or use morse code. Not once did
that come up for the next half century of radio transmitting.

I follow you, Len. Now, back to amateur radio. For an HF license,
there is a 5 wpm simple morse test.


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

You know, it's funny that you mentioned that. That's just like it is in
amateur radio, Len. Those of us who have been in the game for a long
time have already run into fellows who blow smoke and "know all about
it".
We know when someone is trying to pass himself off as something he
isn't.
Why, a guy like that could get stewed in his own juices. I know of a
couple of fellows like that.


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

You hit it right on the head, Len. Do you know any fellows like that?

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

No need to go that far, Leonard. Just climb up on your personal cross
and tell the boys how you like to have the nails placed. I have a
feeling that the shebang is going to look like a piranha nailed to a
couple of boards.

Dave K8MN

In article , Leo
writes:

On 28 Oct 2004 23:03:24 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:
snip

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

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

Now you can - check out Page 134 of the November 2004 issue of QST.
Bright, shiny badges (gold or silver plated) wirh your call and
license class proudly displayed - even has a big ol' eagle on
top........looks just like a real police badge (from a distance,
anyway!).

Those things have been around for a couple of years, Leo. Advertised on a few
amateur-related websites, too. I can't imagine anyone with any sense actually
getting one! (IMHO)

Trivia question: Can you identify the equipment they chose to use on the badge?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are "jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?

True enough. The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/31/2004 7:53 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are "jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?

True enough. The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

There is no such thing as a "Farnsworth exam".

The FCC is required to ensure that all exams and exam materials used in
the conduct of exams on their behalf are appropriate.

To the best of my knowledge, not a single exam in service today has been
identified by the FCC as being inappropriate or not in confomance with FCC
requirements, nor has the FCC ever directed the removal from service of any
Morse Code exam as unacceptable.

Steve, K4YZ

William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are "jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?

True enough. The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

Farnsworth exams? I don't believe I've ever heard of any candidate for
an amateur radio license taking such an exam.

Dave K8MN

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/31/2004 9:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/31/2004 7:53 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are "jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?

True enough. The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

There is no such thing as a "Farnsworth exam".

Volunteer examiners will tell you otherwise.

And supposedly being a VE, you should know that.

I am a VE and I've never administered a "Farnsworth" examination.

They do not exist.

The FCC is required to ensure that all exams and exam materials used
in
the conduct of exams on their behalf are appropriate.

The FCC is required to ensure that what they enforce on Howard Stern
is also enforced on Oprah.

I suppose there was a point to this...?!?!

I said before the restructuring and I'll say it again, "What I fear
most about restructuring is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear
most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of enforcement."

Amateur Radio is now in it's 30th year of a lack of enforcement.

How would you know?

You've not been a licensed Amateur that long.

And Amateur Radio haas not had a lack of enforcement...they've had a lack
of ADEQUATE enforcement.

To the best of my knowledge,

Well there you go. You're basing your opinion upon your own limited
knowledge.

I dare say MY "limits" are far more expansive than yours. As a matter of
fact, I KNOW they are!

not a single exam in service today has been
identified by the FCC as being inappropriate or not in confomance with FCC
requirements, nor has the FCC ever directed the removal from service of any
Morse Code exam as unacceptable.

Nor would they. It is Morse Code that is specified in Part 97.
You're going to have to try a little harder to unseat my informed
opinion.

What "informed opinion"...???

You are talking about a "Farnsworth" exam which does not exist.

That's pretty STUPID, Brain, but then that's nothing new from you.

There's very little of ANYthing you've engaged in this forum that
indicates that you are "informed" at all...

Steve, K4YZ

Yeh, sure. Whatever.

Yeah..."Whatever"...

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

Farnsworth exams? I don't believe I've ever heard of any candidate for
an amateur radio license taking such an exam.

Farnsworth spacing is one way of sending Morse Code. It's been around for
decades and has been recognized by FCC and the ITU as meeting all the
requirements for the Morse Code test.

IOW, Farnsworth spacing is a subset of the set of ways to send Morse Code. So,
by definition, all Farnsworth-spaced Morse Code *is* Morse code, even though
all Morse Code is not Farnsworth-spaced.

73 de Jim, N2EY.

In article ,
(William) writes:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are "jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?

True enough. The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

The FCC still hasn't updated its regulations on U.S. amateur radio
(Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R) in regards to test element 1 on morse
code. The referenced CCIR document has been superseded by
the ITU. Neither is there a specific definition of "word rate" that is
clear and unambiguous.

A past FCC "decision" was the tacit "approval" of VECs to allow
Farnsworth spacing in testing, yet that has never been officially
approved (except by the ARRL, the other "officiating" body in U.S.
amateur radio) nor does it appear in any regulation errata or other
corrections. The appearance (on the surface) is that Farnsworth
spacing is "legal" simply because the FCC hasn't bothered to
correct its own regulations for over a dozen years.

"Dave" handles his emotional belief system in the barbarian's
way - either Believe in Him and His or be subject to all kinds of
heckling, cat-calling, personal insults, and the like. It is "Dave's"
Way or the highway. "Dave" is Boss. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/31/2004 7:53 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are "jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?

True enough. The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

There is no such thing as a "Farnsworth exam".

Volunteer examiners will tell you otherwise.

"Steve" says he's a VE and he's OK. :-)

And supposedly being a VE, you should know that.

Whatever "Steve" does is OK. Under "Steve Rulez."

The FCC is required to ensure that all exams and exam materials used in
the conduct of exams on their behalf are appropriate.

The FCC is required to ensure that what they enforce on Howard Stern
is also enforced on Oprah.

According to "Steve," the FCC pays a lot of attention to what a bunch
of radio hobbyists do in the service of their country...

In reality there is a difference story...but the fantasylanders don't
want to tarnish the patina of their embellishments.

I said before the restructuring and I'll say it again, "What I fear
most about restructuring is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear
most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of enforcement."

Amateur Radio is now in it's 30th year of a lack of enforcement.

Actually, longer. CB (on HF) became legal 46 years ago...NO
code test then to get on HF, not even a single test to take.

After a few years the "licensure" (token callsign on completion
of application) was removed.

To the best of my knowledge,

Well there you go. You're basing your opinion upon your own limited
knowledge.

True enough. But, "Steve" has LICENSURE and is "fully authorized"
to operate (radiating RF) within the boundaries of amateur radio
regulations. That's enough to make him imagine anything that he
wants is real, legal, and the Absolute Truth. [I still say it is all due
to some post-traumatic stress problem, perhaps from those "seven
hostile actions"]

not a single exam in service today has been
identified by the FCC as being inappropriate or not in confomance with FCC
requirements, nor has the FCC ever directed the removal from service of any
Morse Code exam as unacceptable.

Nor would they. It is Morse Code that is specified in Part 97.
You're going to have to try a little harder to unseat my informed
opinion.

The FCC still hasn't fully qualified its own definition of International
Morse Code in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Neither do they fully
and unambiguously define telegraphy "word rate."

However, "Steve" imagines he is still Boss NCO of the unit and
gives Orders as if everyone else were the recruits in the "corps."
As if...

Steve, K4YZ

Yeh, sure. Whatever.

Opus' Mayor Bill (the Cat) has the last word..."Pbthththth..." :-)

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 11/3/2004 1:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I am a VE and I've never administered a "Farnsworth" examination.

They do not exist.

Here's a hint: it's the default exam. The examinee must ask for the
real Morse Exam if they want to comply with Part 97.

There is no such thing as a Farnsworth exam.

And Amateur Radio haas not had a lack of enforcement...they've had a
lack
of ADEQUATE enforcement.

Hmmmm? I wonder what I meant by "lack?"

Your original statement was worded in such a way as to insinuate that
there'd been NO enforcement.

That was not tue.

MORE enforcement was what was needed then...And still true today.

To the best of my knowledge,

Well there you go. You're basing your opinion upon your own limited
knowledge.

I dare say MY "limits" are far more expansive than yours. As a matter
of
fact, I KNOW they are!

They may be. But if you didn't pay attention during your exposure,
then your knowledge and opinions will be found lacking.

So far, nothing you've been able to "bring up" has exceeded my skills,
knowledge or experience, Brain.

What "informed opinion"...???

You are talking about a "Farnsworth" exam which does not exist.

Then why would the ARRL and then the NCVEC make an announcement that
henceforth all of their default code exams would be Farnsworth? That
you could still take the real Morse exam if you knew to ask for it?

That's pretty STUPID, Brain, but then that's nothing new from you.

There's very little of ANYthing you've engaged in this forum that
indicates that you are "informed" at all...

That shows just how uninformed you are.

Not as of this moment.

You still are an idiot and you are still making unfounded and irrational
assertions.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

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:


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...

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

"Dr. Strangelove." :-)

No, that's not how it happened in the movie.

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... :-)

Ya never saw it, didja?

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

Depends on the application.

"Greenlee punch or Nibbler?"

Such relevant questions.

From two nonbuilders...

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

That's true.

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Your imagination is limited to what you see in the catalogs of new parts.

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.

Why would anyone go through all that?

That means BUYING chassis somewhere...or
snaffling ("swipe") them.

You mean steal? I don't do that.

Do you have a guilty conscience, Len?

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.

Except they weren't bought new out of catalogs. Which drastically reduces the
price paid.

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

How is that an "excuse", Len? It's the truth, in some cases. In others,
chassis, panels and other parts were recycled from other sources.

For example, the transmitter section is built in the case from a BC-191/375
tuning unit, with a new panel made from a piece of sheet aluminum. Total cost
about $2.

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

You mean like the guy who claimed to have handled X million messages per month
24/7 at a military radio station, but didn't bother to mention the 700+ other
personnel there at the time?

Or the guy who claims to have operated from T5 but cannot recall what bands,
modes, radios, or antennas were used?

In article ,
PAMNO (N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

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:


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...

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

"Dr. Strangelove." :-)

No, that's not how it happened in the movie.

I wasn't talking about a "movie," Jimmie.

Okay, big expert on the USAF and SAC, how do you get from
the crew compartment of any B-52 into the bomb bay (and
which one)? How does a 180 pound human jar loose a couple-
ton Special Weapons (of thermonuclear yield)?

And, speaking specifically about "radio," whatinhell is that "Gold
Code Receiver" pictured that clicks up little characters in a
supposed "digital display?" It was NEVER on any USAF radio
inventory list, public or secure-sensitive. [there ARE "gold codes"
but those are mathematical, and NOT specifically implemented
or implementable as secure cryptographic means]

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... :-)

Ya never saw it, didja?

Speak English, not baby talk, Jimmie.

I've seen several models of the B-52, even been IN a couple of them.
I've also been around Special Weapons, including the air-drop types.
I'm also fairly familiar with the past USAF radio communications
equipment, at least by sight. Knowing about "oil burner routes," and
some performance envelopes of that Big Ugly Fat 'Fornicator' (BUFF)
I also know that typical bomb-run airspeed is way too high to let
anyone ride on a "shape" (Special Weapons old term) and play rodeo
cowboy with their cowboy hat...airspeed is just too high.

Does make for a nice anti-war motion picture full of way-overdone
satire/sarcasm about the politics of the (then) Vietnam War plus
left-overs of the old-time Cold War (then still hot) of the 50s.

As a "professional" movie-maker and producer, you should KNOW
all that.

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

Depends on the application.

What in the world are you gabbling about?

"Greenlee punch or Nibbler?"

Such relevant questions.

From two nonbuilders...

Kiss my yes, Jimmie boy.

My hometown is where the Greenlee company IS and I've even been
in that part of Greenlee and SEEN those punches being made...in
1949. [that part of Greenlee is just two large rooms of punch-making
and grinding machinery, very very small compared to the Main
Building they are located in] For that matter, I've also seen part of
the GC Electronics operations when their wire-stripper line was still a
part of it...and known two who worked there (in 1956). [GC is now a
merge with Walsco and most of their 'products' are produced by others
on an OEM basis]

I have a small collection of Greenlee punches which have been
gathering rust and dust. About every 5 years or so I may take them
out, oil them and rub them with some steel wool. Haven't used them
for about 9 years or so. Vacuum tube socket hole cutouts aren't a
biggie among those NOT into boatanchors. [last time I used one was
to put in a larger chassis-mount electrolytic on a repair and refurbish
mini-project, took the 1 1/8" round punch]

I suppose next you will demand I show up at Dayton with the
"citations" to prove I do things? Harrrr!!!!


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

That's true.

Of COURSE it's "true." Jimmie SAID so. The "word" of a radio god
is solemn honesty, isn't it?

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Your imagination is limited to what you see in the catalogs of new parts.

Not MY imagination, Jimmie.

What do you do with those old chassis? Use all the old holes for the
"new design?" Make everything "fit" those existing holes?

bwahahahahahahahahaha!

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.

Why would anyone go through all that?

Didn't you? Something about "beating swords into plowshares" but
doing the analogue with all those old chassis?

That means BUYING chassis somewhere...or
snaffling ("swipe") them.

You mean steal? I don't do that.

Heavens, no! That would be a SIN and you'd still be mumbling
Hail Marys...

Do you have a guilty conscience, Len?

No. I DO have a conscience. Right now its wondering why I'm wasting
all this time writing a reply to an unrepentant PCTA-er who is bound
and determined to rationalize (one way or the other) that he is perfect
ham in every way.

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.

Except they weren't bought new out of catalogs. Which drastically reduces the
price paid.

Prove that. Show your work.

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

How is that an "excuse", Len? It's the truth, in some cases. In others,
chassis, panels and other parts were recycled from other sources.

Riiiighhhht.

For example, the transmitter section is built in the case from a BC-191/375
tuning unit, with a new panel made from a piece of sheet aluminum. Total cost
about $2.

Riiiiighhhht. :-)

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

You mean like the guy who claimed to have handled X million messages per month
24/7 at a military radio station, but didn't bother to mention the 700+ other
personnel there at the time?

U.S. Army radio station ADA sent 220 thousand TTY messages a
month in 1955 in 24/7 operations, radio circuits all over the Pacific
on HF. Pacific edition of the Stars & Stripes military newspaper had
that item in it ('Stripes' was and is still available to the military public
and to dependents). Each and every team supervisor at transmitters
was immediately responsible to keep those radio transmitters
operating when scheduled.

No brag at all. Just a description of duties. I did that as one of the
team supervisors. A long time ago. Many others of E-5 and up also
did that on other shifts [we were on a 12-day cycle, 3 on each shift
and 3 days off as the 4th part of that].

The Photographic Company was not involved in radio communications
yet was a part of the 8235th Army Unit then known as the FEC Sig
Svc Bn (that's "Far East Command Signal Service Battalion" to you
civilians). They worked in downtown Tokyo then in their own large
still-and-motion-picture lab...that rivaled that of the LIFE magazine
photo lab in NYC. Headquarters Company had the Outside Plant
Telephone crews...the ones who put up all the 30 to 70 foot poles
that held wire lines and the antennas for both receiving and trans-
mitting sites. 'Outside Plant' did not send or receive anything but
were needed. Control and Teletype Relay at Chuo Kogyo (outside,
near Camp Drake) were another group that did, respectively, the
radio and wireline circuit control and the torn-tape teletype relay
operations (latter from about 200+ chadless-punch printed tape
machines). I'm not counting those specifically doing microwave
radio relay ops & maintenance (which I also did) or the "Carrier
Equipment" necessary to multiplex several circuits on the same
voice channel (wire or radio).

"Carrier" operations would later morph into handling the terminal
equipment for the DSN-DCS which is now the mainstay for military
communications worldwide (primary, there are other routes by
other means as secondary). The old "carrier" duties now occupy
most of the 78th Bn still at Camp Zama, Japan.

Jimmie, I can get even MORE specific about all of that old stuff
because: (1). I was there; (2). I have documents to prove it;
(3). I have personal photographs as well as Signal Corps photos
(with mimeoed ID on the backs, as military standard then) from
those days; (4). I have other documents obtained as gifts from
a now-retired civilian engineer who was there at the time and stayed
with the station complex after the USAF took over in 1963 (he now
lives in California); (5). I have been in correspondence, both
written and telephone, with another who was there at the same time
as I, has been a amateur radio licensee for years; (6). The
Pacific Stars & Stripes did check out some of my material and
published it (article by staffer Rick Chernitzer who did the interview)
on 10 November 2002 (it's in the middle of that Sunday edition, a
"double truck" or two-page spread as the publishing folks sometimes
call it).

No, I don't have a TO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment)
which every battalion and up has. A TO&E would itemize all the
equipment and who is where in the organization. I don't see much
need to get one. I've been in correspondence with 5 others who were
there, in that battalion, at the same time I was. We might put one
together from memory, but WHY do you need to account for all
(approximately) 700?

Or the guy who claims to have operated from T5 but cannot recall what bands,
modes, radios, or antennas were used?

You will have to take that up with "him."

Of course, you WILL "correct" him when "he makes errors" because
YOU have done all that military and commercial civilian radio
communications and "know what it is like," don't you? Of course
you do...you READ about it in your various Janes books. You KNOW
what it is like to be within flying distance of nastyfolks who Have The
Bomb and want to "correct" others about NATO aircraft code names.

I'm wondering what YOU do "to serve your country" which is as good
of better than actually serving with the military? Come on, TELL US.
Show us your heroism and wonderful deeds that makes YOU so
superior you can denigrate those of us who DID serve in the military.

In article ,
(William) writes:

It is a sad state of affairs the the organization that specifies a
Morse Code Exam cannot define Morse Code. Usurpers of regulatory
authority took it upon themselves up the reduced 5 WPM rate to a
healthy 13-15 WPM rate in defiance of Part 97.

Well, in all honesty, the FCC does have a definition of it, but not an
exact one. They still reference an out-of-date (and no longer existing)
CCITT document and do not specifically state a word rate. Considering
all the technical things the FCC does, definitely, define and describe,
it is a wonder that they are so lax on International Morse Code.

We've both seen the numerous rationalizations of the "Farnsworth"
spacing but nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has seen that specifically
stated in any official version of Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. (which is
published every two years in October by the Government Printing
Office and made available for free at the GPO website).

What we got is an "interpretation" by the FCC that Farnsworth spacing
"is okay for VECs to use in testing." Not in any Part 97 and never even
left the Commission (except to the supreme court of the league).

Not to worry. With the re-election of the Administration there will be
"four more years" of the same "attention" to amateur radio affairs as
has been for the last 3 1/2 years, the same Commissioner in Chief,
and full speed (with lots of champagne) to BPL.

Lots of "incentive" to attract more newcomers into hamme raddio.
All that and those warm-hearted ghouls of the PCTA dissing and
cussing all those not wanting to emulate or recreate olde-tyme
radio.

Tsk. All those "professionals" in law-making and fund-raising and
membership-organization-running... :-)

In article ,
(William) writes:

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

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/31/2004 7:53 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

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

You have a point. There is no reasoning with emotional belief
systems.
Take a guy who believes that those tested in amateur radio are
"jumping
through hoops" or that the testing elements given today are the same
as
those in years past. How would you deal with such a guy?

True enough. The Volunteer Examiners are giving Farnsworth exams
rather than the FCC/Part 97 specified Morse Code exams.

There is no such thing as a "Farnsworth exam".

Volunteer examiners will tell you otherwise.

"Steve" says he's a VE and he's OK. :-)

And supposedly being a VE, you should know that.

Whatever "Steve" does is OK. Under "Steve Rulez."

The FCC is required to ensure that all exams and exam materials
used in
the conduct of exams on their behalf are appropriate.

The FCC is required to ensure that what they enforce on Howard Stern
is also enforced on Oprah.

According to "Steve," the FCC pays a lot of attention to what a bunch
of radio hobbyists do in the service of their country...

In reality there is a difference story...but the fantasylanders don't
want to tarnish the patina of their embellishments.

I said before the restructuring and I'll say it again, "What I fear
most about restructuring is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear
most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of enforcement."

Amateur Radio is now in it's 30th year of a lack of enforcement.

Actually, longer. CB (on HF) became legal 46 years ago...NO
code test then to get on HF, not even a single test to take.

After a few years the "licensure" (token callsign on completion
of application) was removed.

To the best of my knowledge,

Well there you go. You're basing your opinion upon your own limited
knowledge.

True enough. But, "Steve" has LICENSURE and is "fully authorized"
to operate (radiating RF) within the boundaries of amateur radio
regulations. That's enough to make him imagine anything that he
wants is real, legal, and the Absolute Truth. [I still say it is all
due
to some post-traumatic stress problem, perhaps from those "seven
hostile actions"]

not a single exam in service today has been
identified by the FCC as being inappropriate or not in confomance with
FCC
requirements, nor has the FCC ever directed the removal from service of
any
Morse Code exam as unacceptable.

Nor would they. It is Morse Code that is specified in Part 97.
You're going to have to try a little harder to unseat my informed
opinion.

The FCC still hasn't fully qualified its own definition of International
Morse Code in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. Neither do they fully
and unambiguously define telegraphy "word rate."

However, "Steve" imagines he is still Boss NCO of the unit and
gives Orders as if everyone else were the recruits in the "corps."
As if...

Steve, K4YZ

Yeh, sure. Whatever.

Opus' Mayor Bill (the Cat) has the last word..."Pbthththth..." :-)



Steve has an incredibly uninformed knowledge bank wrt Volunteer
Examining. Luckily for the ARS, he is busy being a volunteer for
numerous other organizations.

His "bank" has no interest. Come to think of it, I'm not much
"interested" in that "knowledge." :-)

Careful, "Steve" is going to "show you his 'citations' at Dayton!"
[I think his singular citation is swingting...as the saying goes]

I'm still curious as to "Steve's" citations for those 'seven hostile
actions' he claimed he had. Or the acknowledgement that DoD
really does run MARS and does so OUTSIDE the ham bands.
Or "Steve's" power (as a licensured health professional) to pick
up a phone and have just anyone "picked up" by the authorities.
That's just up in the top 3 of dozens of his claims. Ho hum.

In article ,
(William) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

Or the guy who claims to have operated from T5 but cannot recall what bands,
modes, radios, or antennas were used?

He recalls, but the green envy and the accusations ****ed him off.

But...but...but...Jimmie's "been there, done all that" and "knows
exactly what it is like!" Hi hi.

He owes N2EY no explanation, and N2EY will receive none.

Right on!

He hopes N2EY will understand.

Hah! Fat chance!

Jimmie thinks he is the "perfect ham" and can do NO wrong, always
"corrects" others who "make all those mistakes." That's been the
recurring underlayer in his postings here.

PCTAs never apologize...except in a blue moon (when their hair
mysteriously grows out...)

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 11/4/2004 5:39 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message
...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 11/3/2004 1:45 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I am a VE and I've never administered a "Farnsworth" examination.

They do not exist.

Here's a hint: it's the default exam. The examinee must ask for the
real Morse Exam if they want to comply with Part 97.

There is no such thing as a Farnsworth exam.

Denial.

Fact.

Show me a reference.

And Amateur Radio haas not had a lack of enforcement...they've had
a
lack
of ADEQUATE enforcement.

Hmmmm? I wonder what I meant by "lack?"

Your original statement was worded in such a way as to insinuate that
there'd been NO enforcement.

That was not tue.

MORE enforcement was what was needed then...And still true today.

Agreed. You're still on the loose.

Hardly.

Ovr 30 years of Amateur licensure nothing but commendations and
awards...The only "correspondence" I've ever receive from the FCC has been IRT
my renewals.

To the best of my knowledge,

Well there you go. You're basing your opinion upon your own limited
knowledge.

I dare say MY "limits" are far more expansive than yours. As a
matter
of
fact, I KNOW they are!

They may be. But if you didn't pay attention during your exposure,
then your knowledge and opinions will be found lacking.

So far, nothing you've been able to "bring up" has exceeded my skills,
knowledge or experience, Brain.

Apparently it has, on numerous occasions.

Such as...???

You mean that assinine assertion "Unlicensed devices play a major role in
emergency comms" you've made?

Sheeesh.

What "informed opinion"...???

You are talking about a "Farnsworth" exam which does not exist.

Then why would the ARRL and then the NCVEC make an announcement that
henceforth all of their default code exams would be Farnsworth? That
you could still take the real Morse exam if you knew to ask for it?

That's pretty STUPID, Brain, but then that's nothing new from you.

There's very little of ANYthing you've engaged in this forum that
indicates that you are "informed" at all...

That shows just how uninformed you are.

Not as of this moment.

You still are an idiot and you are still making unfounded and
irrational
assertions.

Steve, K4YZ

Denial.

You may deny all you care to.

Brian P. Burke remains a liar and an idiot. No Brag...Just Fact...

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


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...

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

"Dr. Strangelove." :-)

No, that's not how it happened in the movie.

I wasn't talking about a "movie," Jimmie.

That's what the discussion was about, Len. See the line about "Dr.
Strangelove"?

The character played by Slim Pickens goes down into the bomb bay to fix an
electrical problem that keeps the bomb bay doors from opening. He doesn't jar a
bomb loose.

How does a 180 pound human jar loose a couple-
ton Special Weapons (of thermonuclear yield)?

The character played by Slim Pickens goes down into the bomb bay to fix an
electrical problem that keeps the bomb bay doors from opening. He doesn't jar a
bomb loose. The bomb release (in the movie) is preset.

And, speaking specifically about "radio," whatinhell is that "Gold
Code Receiver" pictured that clicks up little characters in a
supposed "digital display?"

You mean the "CRM-114"?

It was NEVER on any USAF radio
inventory list, public or secure-sensitive.

How do you know for sure?

[there ARE "gold codes"
but those are mathematical, and NOT specifically implemented
or implementable as secure cryptographic means]

It's a wonderful invention called a "plot device". I would have thought you'd
know all about them, being from the alleged "Entertainment Capital of the USA".

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... :-)

Ya never saw it, didja?

Speak English, not baby talk, Jimmie.

I'm just following the lead you and "William" started here..Sounds like "do as
Len says, not as Len does". Again.

I don't think you ever saw the film "Dr. Strangelove"

(full title: "Dr. Strangelove - Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love
the Bomb"

I've seen several models of the B-52, even been IN a couple of them.
I've also been around Special Weapons, including the air-drop types.

Why is that important?

I'm also fairly familiar with the past USAF radio communications
equipment, at least by sight. Knowing about "oil burner routes," and
some performance envelopes of that Big Ugly Fat 'Fornicator' (BUFF)

Why is that important?

I also know that typical bomb-run airspeed is way too high to let
anyone ride on a "shape" (Special Weapons old term) and play rodeo
cowboy with their cowboy hat...airspeed is just too high.

Tell it to Kubrick.

Does make for a nice anti-war motion picture full of way-overdone
satire/sarcasm about the politics of the (then) Vietnam War plus
left-overs of the old-time Cold War (then still hot) of the 50s.

Did you know that the Air Force didn't help with the film at all? I wonder
why...

As a "professional" movie-maker and producer, you should KNOW
all that.

Where did I ever claim to be that?

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

Depends on the application.

What in the world are you gabbling about?

Aluminum is good for some applications, steel for others. Didn't you know that?

"Greenlee punch or Nibbler?"

Such relevant questions.

From two nonbuilders...

Kiss my yes, Jimmie boy.

What does that mean, Len?

You've admitted that you haven't homebrewed any HF transceivers. You refuse or
are unable to use the homepage facilities provided by AOL.

My hometown is where the Greenlee company IS and I've even been
in that part of Greenlee and SEEN those punches being made...in
1949. [that part of Greenlee is just two large rooms of punch-making
and grinding machinery, very very small compared to the Main
Building they are located in]

Why is that important?

For that matter, I've also seen part of
the GC Electronics operations when their wire-stripper line was still a
part of it...and known two who worked there (in 1956). [GC is now a
merge with Walsco and most of their 'products' are produced by others
on an OEM basis]

So?

I have a small collection of Greenlee punches which have been
gathering rust and dust. About every 5 years or so I may take them
out, oil them and rub them with some steel wool. Haven't used them
for about 9 years or so.

I'll give ya $5 each for them.

Vacuum tube socket hole cutouts aren't a
biggie among those NOT into boatanchors. [last time I used one was
to put in a larger chassis-mount electrolytic on a repair and refurbish
mini-project, took the 1 1/8" round punch]

How about that.

I suppose next you will demand I show up at Dayton with the
"citations" to prove I do things? Harrrr!!!!

None of us have seen anything you've built at home. None of your articles in
'ham radio' were construction articles. You've lots of criticism for others'
construction projects, but when asked to show what HF radio projects *you* have
built at home, with your own resources and on your own time, the result is a
big fat zero.

Len, you're all talk and no action. All show and no go. All sizzle and no
steak.

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

That's true.

Of COURSE it's "true." Jimmie SAID so.

Why would it be false? Do you have a guilty conscience, Len?

The "word" of a radio god
is solemn honesty, isn't it?

Talking about yourself?

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Your imagination is limited to what you see in the catalogs of new parts.

Not MY imagination, Jimmie.

Yes, it is, Len. I didn't buy any chassis or other metalwork from any of those
catalog outfits. Too expensive.

What do you do with those old chassis?

Reuse them, of course.

Use all the old holes for the
"new design?" Make everything "fit" those existing holes?

bwahahahahahahahahaha!

You really have no imagination when it comes to practical radio, Len.

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.

Why would anyone go through all that?

Didn't you?

Nope.

Something about "beating swords into plowshares" but
doing the analogue with all those old chassis?

An analogy, Len. Former weapons of war converted into peaceful use.

You really lack imagination, I see.

That means BUYING chassis somewhere...or
snaffling ("swipe") them.

You mean steal? I don't do that.

Heavens, no!

That's right.

Did you ever "snaffle" parts, Len?

That would be a SIN and you'd still be mumbling Hail Marys...

Do you think it's funny to insult other people's religions, Len? It's not.

Besides, I'm not Roman Catholic and I don't "mumble".

Do you have a guilty conscience, Len?

No.

You sure?

I DO have a conscience.

You sure?

Right now its wondering why I'm wasting
all this time writing a reply to an unrepentant PCTA-er who is bound
and determined to rationalize (one way or the other) that he is perfect
ham in every way.

I've never claimed to be perfect or god-like in anything, Len. I'm just a radio
amateur who has homebrewed some amateur radio stations over the past 37 years.
You haven't done any of that, yet you set yourself up in judgement.

Your reaction might just be your projection of your own inadequacies and
jealousy of my accomplishments. Of course I'm not a mental health care
professional but your behavior here says it all.

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.

Except they weren't bought new out of catalogs. Which drastically reduces
the price paid.

Prove that. Show your work.

Why?

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

How is that an "excuse", Len? It's the truth, in some cases. In others,
chassis, panels and other parts were recycled from other sources.

Riiiighhhht.

It's exactly right. Hamfests are good sources of parts. Back when I was
actively gatheirng parts, it was common to find NOS chassis and panels still in
the wrappings for very low prices. A little sad, really - stock from companies
gone out of business, estates of deceased amateurs, older hams going into
nursing homes or smaller places who had to unload a lifetime of stuff.

Often I was told "It's you or the dumpster, my friend, I can't take any of it
with me".

For example, the transmitter section is built in the case from a BC-191/375
tuning unit, with a new panel made from a piece of sheet aluminum. Total
cost about $2.

Riiiiighhhht. :-)

Yes, it is.

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

You mean like the guy who claimed to have handled X million messages per
month
24/7 at a military radio station, but didn't bother to mention the 700+
other personnel there at the time?

U.S. Army radio station ADA sent 220 thousand TTY messages a
month in 1955 in 24/7 operations, radio circuits all over the Pacific
on HF.

And there were how many personnel stationed there?

Pacific edition of the Stars & Stripes military newspaper had
that item in it ('Stripes' was and is still available to the military
public
and to dependents). Each and every team supervisor at transmitters
was immediately responsible to keep those radio transmitters
operating when scheduled.

It was their *job* and sole responsibility, right? For which they were trained,
fed, housed, clothed and otherwise cared for, right? Who paid for all that
radio equipment and supporting stuff, Len?

No brag at all. Just a description of duties. I did that as one of the
team supervisors. A long time ago. Many others of E-5 and up also
did that on other shifts [we were on a 12-day cycle, 3 on each shift
and 3 days off as the 4th part of that].

That's nice, Len. I'm happy for ya. But you've told us that story many, many,
many times.

What you haven't told is is why it's in any way significant to amateur radio
policy *today*.

The Photographic Company was not involved in radio communications
yet was a part of the 8235th Army Unit then known as the FEC Sig
Svc Bn (that's "Far East Command Signal Service Battalion" to you
civilians). They worked in downtown Tokyo then in their own large
still-and-motion-picture lab...that rivaled that of the LIFE magazine
photo lab in NYC. Headquarters Company had the Outside Plant
Telephone crews...the ones who put up all the 30 to 70 foot poles
that held wire lines and the antennas for both receiving and trans-
mitting sites. 'Outside Plant' did not send or receive anything but
were needed. Control and Teletype Relay at Chuo Kogyo (outside,
near Camp Drake) were another group that did, respectively, the
radio and wireline circuit control and the torn-tape teletype relay
operations (latter from about 200+ chadless-punch printed tape
machines). I'm not counting those specifically doing microwave
radio relay ops & maintenance (which I also did) or the "Carrier
Equipment" necessary to multiplex several circuits on the same
voice channel (wire or radio).

So you had a little help, huh?

"Carrier" operations would later morph into handling the terminal
equipment for the DSN-DCS which is now the mainstay for military
communications worldwide (primary, there are other routes by
other means as secondary). The old "carrier" duties now occupy
most of the 78th Bn still at Camp Zama, Japan.

Ah yes, the usual embellishments, the brags of greatness, the usual suspects.
:-)

Jimmie, I can get even MORE specific about all of that old stuff
because: (1). I was there; (2). I have documents to prove it;
(3). I have personal photographs as well as Signal Corps photos
(with mimeoed ID on the backs, as military standard then) from
those days; (4). I have other documents obtained as gifts from
a now-retired civilian engineer who was there at the time and stayed
with the station complex after the USAF took over in 1963 (he now
lives in California); (5). I have been in correspondence, both
written and telephone, with another who was there at the same time
as I, has been a amateur radio licensee for years; (6). The
Pacific Stars & Stripes did check out some of my material and
published it (article by staffer Rick Chernitzer who did the interview)
on 10 November 2002 (it's in the middle of that Sunday edition, a
"double truck" or two-page spread as the publishing folks sometimes
call it).

Nobody doubts that you were there, Len. Yet you get all defensive about it.

Here's a tip: Try to explain to us why your experience at ADA is in any way
relevant to amateur radio *today*.

No, I don't have a TO&E (Table of Organization and Equipment)
which every battalion and up has. A TO&E would itemize all the
equipment and who is where in the organization. I don't see much
need to get one. I've been in correspondence with 5 others who were
there, in that battalion, at the same time I was. We might put one
together from memory, but WHY do you need to account for all
(approximately) 700?

Point is, you talk about the operation as if you did it all yourself. Yet in
reality there were hundreds of people there, over a period of many years,
supplied with everything they needed to do the job.

Amateur radio isn't like that for the vast majority of us hams. We have to do
most of it by ourselves, pay for everything ourselves, and do it on our own
time. You just don't seem to get that.

Or the guy who claims to have operated from T5 but cannot recall what bands,
modes, radios, or antennas were used?

You will have to take that up with "him."

I have. He has refused to answer, saying the "questions are too hard". Yet he
asks me all kinds of questions and demands answers.

Of course, you WILL "correct" him when "he makes errors" because
YOU have done all that military and commercial civilian radio
communications and "know what it is like," don't you? Of course
you do...you READ about it in your various Janes books.

Where do you get all that nonsense, Len?

The T5 operation I asked about was supposedly an amateur radio operation. But
there are no details available.

btw, I haven't read any "Janes books".

You "correct" others when "they are wrong" about amateur radio because
YOU have done all that amateur radio communications and "know what it is like,"
don't you? Of course you do...you watched hams do it....

You KNOW
what it is like to be within flying distance of nastyfolks who Have The
Bomb a

Sure I do. I've lived almost my whole life within flying distance of other
countries with nuclear weapons systems. How long would it take a Soviet missile
to reach Philadelphia?

and want to "correct" others about NATO aircraft code names.

You're the one who underestimated the distance from Tokyo to Korea and the
Soviet Union, and who mentioned Soviet aircraft that weren't in service when
you were there....

google knows

I'm wondering what YOU do "to serve your country" which is as good
of better than actually serving with the military? Come on, TELL US.

Why?

We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both
military and nonmilitary government service. Like your classic "sphincter
post", the many times you put down K8MN for his State Department service, your
insults to a member of the Marine Corps, your denial of W3RV's work for the US
Navy, and many other examples. Like the "feldwebel" post.

Show us your heroism and wonderful deeds that makes YOU so
superior you can denigrate those of us who DID serve in the military.

Where have I "denigrated" anyone's military or other government service?

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 11/5/2004 6:02 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

I also know that typical bomb-run airspeed is way too high to let
anyone ride on a "shape" (Special Weapons old term) and play rodeo
cowboy with their cowboy hat...airspeed is just too high.

Tell it to Kubrick.

That's what I love about Sir Scumbag of Lanark...Always making snide
insinuations about how no one else but he seems to have a sense of humor...Then
clearly demonstrates he ahs neither humor OR imagination.

Steve, K4YZ