|
In article ,
(William) writes: Dave Heil wrote in message ... William wrote: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: What we got is an "interpretation" by the FCC that Farnsworth spacing "is okay for VECs to use in testing." Not in any Part 97 and never even left the Commission (except to the supreme court of the league). Yep. Sumbuddy said it was OK. You should certainly understand that concept, "William". It mirrors your amateur radio experience in Somalia. Dave K8MN Wow! Farnsworth testing is like Somalia. "Dave" knows all that. He was in the State Department! [that may explain some of the reasons why the rest of the world has some vexation with the U.S. of A. in foreign relations] :-) |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both military and nonmilitary government service. Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-) Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what they did or where. Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in the USAF, 1970-1971. Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-) Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry I was there? Did you throw away YOUR medals, too? Not my medals. Not my ribbons. When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency? Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Can you figure out how much longer I was in Viet Nam than John Kerry? [must have missed that part on the news...] I'm sure there's a lot you miss. What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail) (no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.) Yawn...snore Why do you feign sleep after asking? You made insulting remarks about it. I ran out of medals and pretty certificates (suitable for framing). You no more issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service than you participate in amateur radio. I wasn't claiming to "issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service (or Vietnam service)." Tsk. You are connecting unrelated sentences. :-) One of those sentences was directly under the other. You wrote both of them. If they aren't connected, what can the second one mean? :-) :-) Tsk. I'm just copying the style of the PCTA...all "heroes" if from their glowing self-styled words. Any NCTA never "really" served their country. You're actually just copying your own style. I can but I haven't. :-) I'm just copying the style of the PCTA... but without barfing their puke about morse code being the ultimate skill of an amateur. Are you sure you're not some kid, playing with his Mom's computer? "Dave" wants his State experiences enobled as wonderful radio acts for the nation or something. When was that ever claimed by me? It's in between just about every line you write... :-) You should get together with your fan base, "William". Both of you spend your time reading what isn't written instead of what is written. Tsk. YOU are the one trying to relate unrelated sentences. :-) You wrote them and placed one above the other. If they are truly unconnected, there is no reason to have written the second of them. It would have been totally out of place. By the way, Dave is my name. It needs no quotes. "William's" name isn't William. I thought you were "K8MN." Apparently that is the formal name that other PCTA use in referring to you. We radio amateurs are issued callsigns. We often use them instead of names. You may forgiven your ignorance since you're an outsider. Oh, thank you, thank you, Holy Father! No need for that, Leonard. My friends call me Dave or K8MN. You may call me Mr. Heil. Are we supposed to kiss your ring, too? If you did, I'd think you a little light in your loafers. "Dave" is your legal signature? It isn't "David?" Tsk. My bad. Is "Len" your legal signature? You recently told someone to call you "Len"...or ". Holy Father, I can't possibly tell a noble radio god what to do! Well? Can't you answer the question? You did tell someone to call you Len, didn't you? Is that your legal signature? Tsk. For years the U.S. Army Signal Corps has been assigned the task of providing communications for the President of the United States. That's wonderful news, Leonard. I'd have never known anything about WHCA if not for your insider information. Haw! The Department of State is not involved with POTUS communications. That's a growing problem in the Republican adminstration...they get the wrong information on the communications? I was there for the Clinton administration. They didn't change the policy on communications. Gosh, several Presidents of the U.S. of A. (both parties) have USED that "hotline" at various times to communicate directly with the USSR in Moscow. Guess that was "improper" or something, huh? Those fool adminstrations should have gone through "proper diplomatic procedures" through the State? Let's see, you've told us that the hotline was manned by military personnel. State Department personnel are not military personnel. The White House is not part of the Department of State. I see some gaps in your story. My involvement in the '97 Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki dealt with obtaining frequency clearances, obtaining permission to use repeater sites, obtaining a mini-switch and the requested number of telephone lines for the site hotel and obtaining a number of cellular telephones for the President's team. So, you were "involved" but, at the same time, "not involved" with POTUS (President of the United States) communications. Arranging the things described was strictly administrative in function. I handled no Presidential message traffic. POTUS travels with his own comm center. You are both ways. Anyplace else that is called "hypocrisy." Any place else and you'd have to have your ducks in a row, old fellow. When the "hotline" was operational (I don't know if it still is), it was manned by Signal Corps personnel at the Washington end. [public references are available for that information] And this information, relates to Department of State communications in what particular way? You tell us...(as you surely will, being the "expert" Man from State). I've told you. Last I looked the President had the ULTIMATE U.S. say on direct diplomatic communications, and general stuff like that. You say that isn't so? That State operates "independently?" Tsk. I've said no such thing. The words I wrote contained everything necessary for the average man to understand. The DSN is now the main communications means for all government communications, military and civilian alike. ...or so you apparently think. No, I don't "think" so. The U.S. government SAYS so. But, whathehell, a "seven hostile actions" veteran in here, another PCTA extra, said that "MARS IS amateur radio!" DoD says the DoD defines who is what on MARS. I'm not discussing MARS operation, Len. The Department of State doesn't handle MARS traffic. PCTA extras are "naturally" the most "correct" ones, right? What? Did you ever handle message traffic for the U.S. Department of State? The DSN is maintained by military personnel, usually by USA or USAF units depending on the territory. In all my days in Department of State communications, I never once dealt with military personnel as a part of normal operations. That was true whether the circuit was radio or leased line. Riiiiight. NEVER had any military officer at any embassy, correct? Ohhhhhhh. I see where you're going. You think that if some Colonel from the Defense Attache Office comes to the comm center and sez, "Any message traffic for me?", that constitutes military involvement in State Department communications? Is that where this is headed? There were NEVER any USMC guards at embassies (who had their own radios)? Sure, did you think the MSG's worked in the comm center? They had radios, but not their own. They had my radios and used them on my net. They never handled any State Department message traffic. Then again, in most embassies, every employee had hand-held radios. I see you've come up with a simplistic view of things. That might have led you to make some very incorrect assumptions. The President is OVER the CIA. The military does not run CIA communications. The President is OVER the Department of Energy. The military does not run Department of Energy communications. You're batting zip. Riiiiight..."Dave" says there is NO such thing as "chain of command." No, "William"....er, Len. I didn't say any such thing. If "Dave" says so, it IS so. Amen. Dave told it like it is. If you choose to retain your previous beliefs, your ignorance is your responsibility. The "hotline' (continuous TTY circuit, Washington to Moscow) served for at least three decades, all that time run at this end of the circuit by U.S. Army Signal Corps people. [one can see a couple photos of that in David Kahn's "The Codebreakers," NYT best-seller listing in the early 1960s] ...and this relates to the Department of State in what way? The fact is, you're completely incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. Well, heck and darn, neither does the U.S. government (except for Department of State) "know what it is talking about" since they released the information on that "hotline" and many other things. You keep trying to make the assertion that Department of State communications takes place through military channels. T'ain't so. If it is possible, you know less about Department of State communications than you know of amateur radio. Riiiight...both are highly classified, sensitive, SECRET things. Much of the information on the State Department is classified. I can't tell you. None of the information on amateur radio is classified. In the end, it makes no difference. Your ignorance of both is large. Or, as in the "Dave" definition "Ayes Only" classification ("correct" only if all others agree or say "Aye" to whatever "Dave" says). One can only speculate as to what that is supposed to mean. Is that what you call humor, Len? Yes, Steve made a statement. If I'm not mistaken, he viewed your attempt to associate yourself with those who died in battle as dishonoring them. Who is this "Steve?" Ask "William". Someone using that name keeps shouting that all who disagree with him are "penis heads" in Yiddish and saying they are "pathological liars!" [tsk...he's never been a qualified pathologist or psychiatric expert] All who disagree with him? I don't see it like that at all. I note that you snipped my remarks about your classici Sphincter post, the one in which you described what it feels like to be in battle. My remakrs ended with the line below: Your remarks NEVER end. They keep on dredging up old, old messages, you fighting them all over and over again. Hopefully you might "win" one if you keep barfing up old defeats? Your "Sphincter Post" describes what a man feels under battle. I can respost it if your memory is hazy. The problem is, the one hostile (you assume) shot aside, you weren't in battle. It can't be simpler than that. You fabricated out of whole cloth. Why? Were you shooting off your mouth about morse testing back then? No. Tsk. You've completely IGNORED what I've said about morse testing from my experience. You don't have any morse experience to speak of and yes, I've completely ignored it. Prior to being assigned at ACAN station ADA... Here we go again... That's all nice. Thanks for yet another irrelevant restatement of your knowledge of SINCGARS, IHFR and small unit military communications. I never served in a small unit nor do I need SINCGARS or IHFR in my amateur radio operations. Come to think of it, I never needed them in my Department of State communications. What DID you use? AN/FRC-93? :-) Keep guessing. Tsk. YOU don't know, do you? Or, you want to imply some kind of "secrecy" and therefore "don't want to say." :-) There are things which I can't tell you. There are things which I choose not to tell you. Amateurs may know the AN/FRC-93 as the commercial version of the Collins Radio KWM-2. :-) [Collins made two versions of that one, full crystal set for the commercial version - entire HF range - and a limited one for the amateur market] Uhhhhhhh, the commercial version of the KWM-2 was the KWM-2. Do you refer to the military version? After the KWM-2 came the KWM-2A. It has the second crystal deck, though one can't describe it as covering the entire HF range. Parts of the entire HF range could be covered in 200 KHz segments if you had the crystal packs. I have one sitting right here. According to the Army's Center for Military History, the FRC-93 had important work in Vietnam to do all those MARS contacts with the 'States (the other 50, not the Department). That's from the Signal Corps History of Vietnam operations. That's all swell, Len. It has nothing to do with the Department of State communications; nothing to do with amateur radio and nothing to do with my tour in Viet Nam. I did use some Collins KWM-2A units in Viet Nam and never had a thing to do with an FRC-93. The units I used bore the KWM-2A label and engravings. I wasn't in the Signal Corps nor was I in the Army. I never handled communications for the President of the United States in Viet Nam, even though we recognized that he had--how do you put it?--the ULTIMATE say. If he wanted us to do anything differently, he wasn't talking. Tsk. Department of State communications isn't REALLY relevant to U.S. amateur radio, is it? It is at least as relevant as your experience at ADA--a lot more recent too. Then again, you brought up my State Department service. I did? You mentioned your illustrious "foreign service" a long time ago...along with great tales of experiences in Africa at the cashew nut center of Guinea-Bisseau. Something about "doing good things with CW in the '80s where CW got through when nothing else did" (or words to that effect). :-) Yes, you did. I'm not talking about "a long time ago". I'm talking about just recently. Neither your manufactured quote nor words to that effect were used by me. "Bagedness"? This newsgroup has never seen your equal as a pontificating windbag. Trouble is, much of your information is just wrong. Well then, you should bring out your "fact" that the rest of the U.S. government and all sorts of journalism media are "wrong." I've not addressed the USG nor journalists. You, Len Anderson, are wrong. Show us the "truth" oh noble god of radio...set us straight and we will all bow down and kiss your ring in appreciation at the next Holy Service. I've shown you. You can lead either end of a horse to water to see which part drinks... The FCC is tasked to regulate all of U.S. civil radio. That has to be a tough assignment since, as you said, radio obeys only physical laws, not the laws of mankind. Just how does the Commission manage to make radio behave? Tsk, tsk, TSK. The FCC doesn't "make radio behave." It is supposed to make the PEOPLE who use civil radios behave. Then you'll want to edit your previous statement. Why'd you snip it? Now THAT was humor. Yup, you've got some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder going since you can't get simple civics lessons straight. Poor "Dave." Tsk, tsk. We haven't been having a civics lesson, Len. If you like, I can help you with your spelling after school. It isn't odd at all, Len. Let me paint your a pictu FCC: Regulates radio. Paid to do so. Involved in amateur radio. Radio Amateurs: Tested and licensed to use radio under Part 97 of FCC regs. Taking payment for providing radio service is prohibited. Involved in amateur radio. Len Anderson: Does not regulate amateur radio. Not licensed under Part 97 of FCC rules. Not involved in amateur radio. Bad "painting" "Dave." Technique is awful. Your paintings will not hang in any gallery...but "Dave" should not hang in a gallery, rather stuffed and mounted in an unnatural history museum as a species of Humus Morsemanus Ridiculum. According to "Dave" rules, the FCC is NOT INVOLVED because they aren't required to license themselves in the amateur radio service! You'd better go look at that picture, Len. I wrote that the FCC IS involved. Since the FCC is "not involved," that means they are paid for doing illegal work! Call the Supreme Court! Throw the rascals out! :-) You look silly when you spout off after not having read something correctly. You're a regular Emily Litella. "Dave" is a licensed amateur, "involved!" That's correct. I'm just a lowly pro in electronics engineering, You're right. ... a citizen of the USA, entitled to Rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. That's also right. "Dave" says that is insufficient, "no involvement!" It certainly isn't sufficient to make you knowledgeable about how amateur radio should be regulated. It isn't sufficient to make you a licensed radio amateur. The fact is, you aren't involved in amateur radio. "Dave" recently said "I show NO interest in radio" because I didn't get an amateur license FIRST!" Tsk. I should have gone through the ranks like He did...so that I could be both "interested" and "involved!" My bad. :-) You cannot at this time, do as I did. You could have earlier but you didn't. You could have met the current requirements for amateur radio licensing but you didn't. You don't have quite enough interest to actually get off your duff and take an exam for any class license. You are not involved. Dirty rotten scoundrels, those professionals! Don't know that they should respect and adore all those amateur morsemen! It reads like a bunch of sour grapes on your part, Len. You don't have to adore or respect any radio amateur. You aren't in the game. Dave K8MN |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: Dave Heil Date: 11/9/2004 11:56 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both military and nonmilitary government service. Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-) Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what they did or where. Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in the USAF, 1970-1971. Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-) Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry I was there? Did you throw away YOUR medals, too? Not my medals. Not my ribbons. When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency? Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Can you figure out how much longer I was in Viet Nam than John Kerry? [must have missed that part on the news...] I'm sure there's a lot you miss. What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail) (no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.) Yawn...snore Why do you feign sleep after asking? For the same reason I am sure Mrs Lennie feigns sleep...The prospect of having to face that kind of humiliation is unbearable.... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both military and nonmilitary government service. Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-) Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what they did or where. Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in the USAF, 1970-1971. Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-) Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry I was there? Did you throw away YOUR medals, too? Not my medals. Not my ribbons. When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency? Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Neither is Dubya. :-) I'm sure there's a lot you miss. Yes, but my aim is improving. What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail) (no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.) Yawn...snore Why do you feign sleep after asking? Your prussian schoolmaster tone is very tiring. Ah, but you TAP DANCED AWAY FROM ANSWERING! :-) You did NOT say in any detail WHAT you did. Tsk. Tell us, might warrior of in-country action, describe your herosim under fire, how you closed with and destroyed the enemy with your magnificant morsemanship. You made insulting remarks about it. I ran out of medals and pretty certificates (suitable for framing). You no more issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service than you participate in amateur radio. I wasn't claiming to "issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service (or Vietnam service)." Tsk. You are connecting unrelated sentences. :-) One of those sentences was directly under the other. You wrote both of them. If they aren't connected, what can the second one mean? :-) :-) Are you now teaching English? Are you going to "dismiss" some from your "class" if strict, absolute formalism isn't obeyed? Seig Heil! Tsk. I'm just copying the style of the PCTA...all "heroes" if from their glowing self-styled words. Any NCTA never "really" served their country. You're actually just copying your own style. I can but I haven't. :-) I'm just copying the style of the PCTA... but without barfing their puke about morse code being the ultimate skill of an amateur. Are you sure you're not some kid, playing with his Mom's computer? I am whatever your imagination conjurs up, bile-barf-master. "Dave" wants his State experiences enobled as wonderful radio acts for the nation or something. When was that ever claimed by me? It's in between just about every line you write... :-) You should get together with your fan base, "William". Both of you spend your time reading what isn't written instead of what is written. Tsk. YOU are the one trying to relate unrelated sentences. :-) You wrote them and placed one above the other. If they are truly unconnected, there is no reason to have written the second of them. It would have been totally out of place. Poor baby. Still demanding utter, strict formalism. Tsk. By the way, Dave is my name. It needs no quotes. "William's" name isn't William. I thought you were "K8MN." Apparently that is the formal name that other PCTA use in referring to you. We radio amateurs are issued callsigns. We often use them instead of names. You may forgiven your ignorance since you're an outsider. Oh, thank you, thank you, Holy Father! No need for that, Leonard. My friends call me Dave or K8MN. You may call me Mr. Heil. Yes, yer Lardship, beggin yer pardon. Are we supposed to kiss your ring, too? If you did, I'd think you a little light in your loafers. Sorry, I don't have court shoes with little LEDs in them. Aren't you NOBILITY or something? A divine messenger? "Dave" is your legal signature? It isn't "David?" Tsk. My bad. Is "Len" your legal signature? You recently told someone to call you "Len"...or ". Holy Father, I can't possibly tell a noble radio god what to do! Well? Can't you answer the question? You did tell someone to call you Len, didn't you? Is that your legal signature? Legal signature for what? Tsk. For years the U.S. Army Signal Corps has been assigned the task of providing communications for the President of the United States. That's wonderful news, Leonard. I'd have never known anything about WHCA if not for your insider information. Haw! The Department of State is not involved with POTUS communications. That's a growing problem in the Republican adminstration...they get the wrong information on the communications? I was there for the Clinton administration. They didn't change the policy on communications. What has that to do with amateur radio policy? Gosh, several Presidents of the U.S. of A. (both parties) have USED that "hotline" at various times to communicate directly with the USSR in Moscow. Guess that was "improper" or something, huh? Those fool adminstrations should have gone through "proper diplomatic procedures" through the State? Let's see, you've told us that the hotline was manned by military personnel. State Department personnel are not military personnel. The White House is not part of the Department of State. I see some gaps in your story. Tsk. No "gaps." Just a precis of official government information. We all understand that your thinking has the Department of State as a separate and distinct agency unrelated to the administration. My involvement in the '97 Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki dealt with obtaining frequency clearances, obtaining permission to use repeater sites, obtaining a mini-switch and the requested number of telephone lines for the site hotel and obtaining a number of cellular telephones for the President's team. So, you were "involved" but, at the same time, "not involved" with POTUS (President of the United States) communications. Arranging the things described was strictly administrative in function. I handled no Presidential message traffic. POTUS travels with his own comm center. We see gaps in your story. You are both ways. Anyplace else that is called "hypocrisy." Any place else and you'd have to have your ducks in a row, old fellow. Meaningless remark. Has nothing to do with amateur radio policy. Hunting newsgroup is on the 2nd floor, left. Check to see if ducks are in season before entering. When the "hotline" was operational (I don't know if it still is), it was manned by Signal Corps personnel at the Washington end. [public references are available for that information] And this information, relates to Department of State communications in what particular way? You tell us...(as you surely will, being the "expert" Man from State). I've told you. We detect gaps in your story. Last I looked the President had the ULTIMATE U.S. say on direct diplomatic communications, and general stuff like that. You say that isn't so? That State operates "independently?" Tsk. I've said no such thing. The words I wrote contained everything necessary for the average man to understand. Yes, of course, Holy Father. You condescend to give us lowly mortals your divine words. Uh huh. The DSN is now the main communications means for all government communications, military and civilian alike. ...or so you apparently think. No, I don't "think" so. The U.S. government SAYS so. But, whathehell, a "seven hostile actions" veteran in here, another PCTA extra, said that "MARS IS amateur radio!" DoD says the DoD defines who is what on MARS. I'm not discussing MARS operation, Len. The Department of State doesn't handle MARS traffic. According to one PCTA extra in here "MARS IS amateur radio!" Of course "State" doesn't handle "MARS traffic." [I wonder if they could handle diplomacy with Mars itself should that need arise...:-) ] PCTA extras are "naturally" the most "correct" ones, right? What? Did you ever handle message traffic for the U.S. Department of State? Yes, a few. :-) The DSN is maintained by military personnel, usually by USA or USAF units depending on the territory. In all my days in Department of State communications, I never once dealt with military personnel as a part of normal operations. That was true whether the circuit was radio or leased line. Riiiiight. NEVER had any military officer at any embassy, correct? Ohhhhhhh. I see where you're going. You think that if some Colonel from the Defense Attache Office comes to the comm center and sez, "Any message traffic for me?", that constitutes military involvement in State Department communications? Is that where this is headed? Where what is "headed?" Department of State is not about amateur radio policy. Why do you keep bring that up? There were NEVER any USMC guards at embassies (who had their own radios)? Sure, did you think the MSG's worked in the comm center? They had radios, but not their own. They had my radios and used them on my net. They never handled any State Department message traffic. Then again, in most embassies, every employee had hand-held radios. Did they all have ham licenses? Have to take tests on morsemanship to be legal on using those radios? I see you've come up with a simplistic view of things. That might have led you to make some very incorrect assumptions. The President is OVER the CIA. The military does not run CIA communications. The President is OVER the Department of Energy. The military does not run Department of Energy communications. You're batting zip. Riiiiight..."Dave" says there is NO such thing as "chain of command." No, "William"....er, Len. I didn't say any such thing. Try to keep straight on who you are trying to insult, "Dave." If "Dave" says so, it IS so. Amen. Dave told it like it is. If you choose to retain your previous beliefs, your ignorance is your responsibility. "Dave" told it like "Dave" thinks it is...and must take full responsibility for his own ignorance. The "hotline' (continuous TTY circuit, Washington to Moscow) served for at least three decades, all that time run at this end of the circuit by U.S. Army Signal Corps people. [one can see a couple photos of that in David Kahn's "The Codebreakers," NYT best-seller listing in the early 1960s] ...and this relates to the Department of State in what way? The fact is, you're completely incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. Well, heck and darn, neither does the U.S. government (except for Department of State) "know what it is talking about" since they released the information on that "hotline" and many other things. You keep trying to make the assertion that Department of State communications takes place through military channels. T'ain't so. Tsk. "Dave" is trying to put 2 and 2 together to make 19. Mathematical as well as linguistic ignorance is your own responsibility. If it is possible, you know less about Department of State communications than you know of amateur radio. Riiiight...both are highly classified, sensitive, SECRET things. Much of the information on the State Department is classified. I can't tell you. None of the information on amateur radio is classified. In the end, it makes no difference. Your ignorance of both is large. At your end it makes no difference. Or, as in the "Dave" definition "Ayes Only" classification ("correct" only if all others agree or say "Aye" to whatever "Dave" says). One can only speculate as to what that is supposed to mean. Is that what you call humor, Len? Call it anything you like...except you don't like it. :-) Yes, Steve made a statement. If I'm not mistaken, he viewed your attempt to associate yourself with those who died in battle as dishonoring them. Who is this "Steve?" Ask "William". Who is this "William?" Someone using that name keeps shouting that all who disagree with him are "penis heads" in Yiddish and saying they are "pathological liars!" [tsk...he's never been a qualified pathologist or psychiatric expert] All who disagree with him? I don't see it like that at all. You need an opthalmologist to examine your "see-ing" ability. You fabricated out of whole cloth. Tailor made. For an emperor. Why? Were you shooting off your mouth about morse testing back then? No. Tsk. You've completely IGNORED what I've said about morse testing from my experience. You don't have any morse experience to speak of and yes, I've completely ignored it. Your ignorance is your own responsibility. Prior to being assigned at ACAN station ADA... Here we go again... That's all nice. Thanks for yet another irrelevant restatement of your knowledge of SINCGARS, IHFR and small unit military communications. I never served in a small unit nor do I need SINCGARS or IHFR in my amateur radio operations. Come to think of it, I never needed them in my Department of State communications. What DID you use? AN/FRC-93? :-) Keep guessing. Tsk. YOU don't know, do you? Or, you want to imply some kind of "secrecy" and therefore "don't want to say." :-) There are things which I can't tell you. There are things which I choose not to tell you. Tsk. I know things which I can't tell you. There are things which I choose not to tell you. Lots of Title 18 USC stuff. :-) Amateurs may know the AN/FRC-93 as the commercial version of the Collins Radio KWM-2. :-) [Collins made two versions of that one, full crystal set for the commercial version - entire HF range - and a limited one for the amateur market] Uhhhhhhh, the commercial version of the KWM-2 was the KWM-2. Do you refer to the military version? I refer to what the TM says. You refer to what you think is there. Your ignorance is your own responsibility. After the KWM-2 came the KWM-2A. It has the second crystal deck, though one can't describe it as covering the entire HF range. Parts of the entire HF range could be covered in 200 KHz segments if you had the crystal packs. I have one sitting right here. According to the Army's Center for Military History, the FRC-93 had important work in Vietnam to do all those MARS contacts with the 'States (the other 50, not the Department). That's from the Signal Corps History of Vietnam operations. That's all swell, Len. It has nothing to do with the Department of State communications; nothing to do with amateur radio and nothing to do with my tour in Viet Nam. I did use some Collins KWM-2A units in Viet Nam and never had a thing to do with an FRC-93. The units I used bore the KWM-2A label and engravings. I wasn't in the Signal Corps nor was I in the Army. I never handled communications for the President of the United States in Viet Nam, even though we recognized that he had--how do you put it?--the ULTIMATE say. If he wanted us to do anything differently, he wasn't talking. Tsk. POTUS didn't fill you in? How terrible. I'll be he didn't QSL. You did ham radio in Vietnam (or Viet Nam)? Gosh. A rare one. Did you QSL? Tsk. Department of State communications isn't REALLY relevant to U.S. amateur radio, is it? It is at least as relevant as your experience at ADA--a lot more recent too. Then again, you brought up my State Department service. I did? You mentioned your illustrious "foreign service" a long time ago...along with great tales of experiences in Africa at the cashew nut center of Guinea-Bisseau. Something about "doing good things with CW in the '80s where CW got through when nothing else did" (or words to that effect). :-) Yes, you did. I'm not talking about "a long time ago". I'm talking about just recently. Neither your manufactured quote nor words to that effect were used by me. Twenty years plus ago is "just recently?" Must be "ham years" or something like that... "Bagedness"? This newsgroup has never seen your equal as a pontificating windbag. Trouble is, much of your information is just wrong. Well then, you should bring out your "fact" that the rest of the U.S. government and all sorts of journalism media are "wrong." I've not addressed the USG nor journalists. You, Len Anderson, are wrong. Your ignorance is your own responsibility. Show us the "truth" oh noble god of radio...set us straight and we will all bow down and kiss your ring in appreciation at the next Holy Service. I've shown you. You can lead either end of a horse to water to see which part drinks... Your knowledge of horsemanship is not related to morsemanship. The FCC is tasked to regulate all of U.S. civil radio. That has to be a tough assignment since, as you said, radio obeys only physical laws, not the laws of mankind. Just how does the Commission manage to make radio behave? Tsk, tsk, TSK. The FCC doesn't "make radio behave." It is supposed to make the PEOPLE who use civil radios behave. Then you'll want to edit your previous statement. Why'd you snip it? Now THAT was humor. Your humerous seems to be broken. Get it set. Yup, you've got some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder going since you can't get simple civics lessons straight. Poor "Dave." Tsk, tsk. We haven't been having a civics lesson, Len. If you like, I can help you with your spelling after school. True, you're trying to run a most-formal prussian schoolmasterish class on writing English. You don't have the qualifications for that but you vainly try. It isn't odd at all, Len. Let me paint your a pictu FCC: Regulates radio. Paid to do so. Involved in amateur radio. Radio Amateurs: Tested and licensed to use radio under Part 97 of FCC regs. Taking payment for providing radio service is prohibited. Involved in amateur radio. Len Anderson: Does not regulate amateur radio. Not licensed under Part 97 of FCC rules. Not involved in amateur radio. Bad "painting" "Dave." Technique is awful. Your paintings will not hang in any gallery...but "Dave" should not hang in a gallery, rather stuffed and mounted in an unnatural history museum as a species of Humus Morsemanus Ridiculum. According to "Dave" rules, the FCC is NOT INVOLVED because they aren't required to license themselves in the amateur radio service! You'd better go look at that picture, Len. I wrote that the FCC IS involved. They can't be. None of them are required to have ham licenses. You cannot at this time, do as I did. Nobody can. You broke the mould. You could have earlier but you didn't. I "should" have? Why? You could have met the current requirements for amateur radio licensing but you didn't. I "should have?" Why? Tsk. You would not accept that, either. :-) You don't have quite enough interest to actually get off your duff and take an exam for any class license. Right you are. Been a licensed professional too long. My bad. You are not involved. Right you are. I'm just a citizen of the USA, still active in electronics engineering design, and think ALL of radio-electronics is most interesting. I'm a professional and am very involved in that...as well as being a citizen of the USA. The one thing about radio that is not interesting is the group of self-righteous oafs who think they are some kind of radio gods and try (but fail) to put down those who don't honor and respect them for their mighty macho morsemanship. Those have amateur radio licenses and all seem to be PCTAs...as well as having way overblown egos thinking they are "superior" to those not thinking as they do. |
In article ,
(William) writes: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... For the same reason I am sure Mrs Lennie feigns sleep...The prospect of having to face that kind of humiliation is unbearable.... 73 Steve, K4YZ Interesting how Steve can claim knowledge about Len's wife that he couldn't possibly know. Tsk. That sort of PCTA extra behavior is condoned and even encouraged in here. All the PCTA extras can do is to turn on their insult machines and fabricate all sorts of LYING comments about spouses and family members. The PCTA extra have lost the ability to boost their morsemanship in open discussion and can only insult those who do not love morsemanship. Doesn't lend much credence to the FCC definition of "international good will" by amateurs, does it? Heh heh. My wife would never be that hard-up so as to "inform" the "pilot in command" of any private thoughts...about anything. Let the CAP ace live in his Brittney Spears daydreams. That's about all he has left now... |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: Dave Heil wrote in message ... William wrote: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: What we got is an "interpretation" by the FCC that Farnsworth spacing "is okay for VECs to use in testing." Not in any Part 97 and never even left the Commission (except to the supreme court of the league). Yep. Sumbuddy said it was OK. You should certainly understand that concept, "William". It mirrors your amateur radio experience in Somalia. Dave K8MN Wow! Farnsworth testing is like Somalia. "Dave" knows all that. He was in the State Department! And oozing with green envy. [that may explain some of the reasons why the rest of the world has some vexation with the U.S. of A. in foreign relations] :-) After that French 6M fiasco... Maybe the Air Force in Vietnam was on to something when they denied him amateur operating priveleges. |
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message .com... (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... Jimmie got as far as looking up Bear bombers in some book. Naw, just the Internet. Found out they weren't a threat to Len when he was in Japan. Sunuvagun! Sunnuvagun, indeed! Danged shame Lennie didn't get far with THAT rant, either. Jimmie knew Soviet air tactics like the back of your hand. Where did you get that idea, Len? He got it from his flailings at trying to discredit Brian Kelly, W3RV. Lenie can't keep his stories straight. He saw the film "Dr. Strangelove: etc." and that makes him an "expert" on SAC, TAC, Manny, Moe, and Jack. :-) Where have I ever claimed to be an expert on anything? Rest of your bile snipped. Can't deal with the facts, I see. And I've been saying that for...HOW LONG...?!?! You've said a lot more, too, Steve, Well, that bile has to go somewhere. Better here than polluting some PA community. :-) The bile on rrap comes from the three-way Steve/Len/Wiliam whizzing contest. You all must get something from it, because you sure put a lot of effort into it. C'mon, Jim! Don't count yourself out! You're a bit more civil about it, but you're right in there too! Don't be shy! You've jabbed me on several occassions about "not replying" to Lennie and Brainless, however your responses to Lennie outnumber mine in the last 6 months by a loooooong stretch! There's a difference, though. Do I call people names, or fling personal insults in those posts? Or do I simply offer observations of their behavior here? btw, Len, a little googling turned up the fun fact that Steve began calling you a putz back on August 6, 1999 - if not earlier. Of course you had previously made a habit of calling him "nursie" and other names, and referring to him by the wrong gender. Perhaps you need to try some new techniques if you want him to stop. But I don't think you want him to stop. I am a nurse, Jim. That he cares to feminize it is of no concern to me. In a workplace, such behavior could be construed to be sexual harassment. And he IS a putz. In 2004 as in 1999. It's the ONE thing he DOES have practical experience in. Does it do any good for you to keep calling him one? Your doing so hasn't made his behavior change in a positive direction. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: Jimmie got as far as looking up Bear bombers in some book. Naw, just the Internet. Found out they weren't a threat to Len when he was in Japan. Sunuvagun! Tsk. You seem to be saying there were NO Soviet bombers in range of Japan in the 1950s? That's wrong (again), Leonard. He is saying that Soviet "Bear" bombers could not have been a threat to you during your military service in Japan, despite what you indicated here. Here's exactly what Len wrote about "Bear" bombers: From: Len Over 21 ) Subject: 34 Years Ago Today Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy Date: 2002-12-08 21:01:08 PST "The distance between Chongjin, North Korea and Tokyo (where I was assigned) is about 500 air miles. The distance between Vladivostok, USSR, was about the same distance. That's about an hour's flight in a Bear (NATO name for a Soviet bomber). Less time of flight now with jet turbine aircraft." Note that Len doesn't actually say there were any Bear bombers in Vladivostok or Chongjin at the time, or that he ever saw any, etc. But the implication that he was in some sort of imminent danger from them is clear. Here's what I wrote in response: I think you missed some relevant points, Dave. Len's reference to the "Bear" bomber might lead the unsuspecting to think he was in some sort of danger from them while in Japan. However: - The airline distance from Chongjin, North Korea to Tokyo is at least 670 statute miles. The distance from Vladivostok to Tokyo is 663 statute miles. (Source: "Esso War Map III, Featuring The Pacific Theater", printed 1944). - For interesting info on the Tupolev TU-95, and its variants, known to NATO as the "Bear", see: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm which tells us that: - Development of the TU-95/"Bear" began in June, 1951. - First flight of the first prototype, November, 1952. - Production began January, 1956. - First deployment August, 1957. - Four turboprop engines driving counterrotating propellers. "Turboprop" refers to jet turbine engines driving propellers. - Len left Japan before any TU-95s were deployed. Therefore, they were no threat at all to him when he was in Japan. Also, the distances and flight times were greater than he stated. As with your well known "Sphincter Post", it leads some of us to question your character. It just leads me to question Len's grasp of objective reality. What's curious about the Sphincter Post is that it's a direct insult to the military service of a member of the Coast Guard, who served as a radioman in Hawaii and who described some experiences while serving. Yet Len was never in the Coast Guard and never did the kind of radio operating he criticizes. More telling, however, is Len's classic "Feldwebel Post" in which he told you (Dave) to "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel". In just one short sentence, Len manages to violate Godwin's Law, insult a branch of the US military, attempt to deny someone their First Amendment rights, uses a mild profanity, tries to act as the moderator of an unmoderated newsgroup, and arguably makes an ethnic slur in the mix. As we often say where I work: "Everybody's good at *something*. The bile on rrap comes from the three-way Steve/Len/Wiliam whizzing contest. You all must get something from it, because you sure put a lot of effort into it. Tsk. Rev. Jim is readying another Sermon on the Antenna Mount? Jim states a fact. Don't you have an acceptable response? Acceptable to whom? Len sees nothing unacceptable in his behavior, but finds the behavior of certain others to be unacceptable to him. In the above example, it is perfectly acceptable (to Len) for him to imply that he was in constant, imminent danger from TU-95s while he was in Japan, but completely unacceptable for me to point out that there were no TU-95s deployed anywhere until after he left. Rev. Jim "puts a lot of effort" into making SURE that all those he thinks need "corrections" get those "corrections!" QED. Takes very little effort on my part. Len makes so many mistakes here that I don't try to correct all of them. What has that to do with your whizzing contest? Nothing. btw, Len, a little googling turned up the fun fact that Steve began calling you a putz back on August 6, 1999 - if not earlier. Of course you had previously made a habit of calling him "nursie" and other names, and referring to him by the wrong gender. Tsk. You are still being Judge and Jury via Google, aintfcha? :-) Jim is? Not at all, Leonard. Your archived words and the dates on which you posted them are archived. It is proof of your actions. In this case, things didn't happen the way you claim they did. When Rev. Jim runs out of arguments in the present, he MUST resort to Googling to "prove" something. Len constantly rehashes the past, then is angered by and abusive of those who present conflicting information disproving his assertions. Most importantly, Len cannot seem to get Steve to stop calling him a putz. ...and it looks like the Google archives of newsgroup posts did just that. The archive seems to prove that version of events is not correct. Which is why Len switches to name-calling and excessive emoticons. He's been shown to be mistaken, which is simply unacceptable. Jimmie thinks he can "win" some past arguments by repeating and rehashing OLD ones? The facts speak for themselves. When you start the "Jimmie" stuff, it is obvious that he has zapped you good. You made a recent statement and issued it as a factual account of something which took place. The trouble is, the Google archives say otherwise. The amusing part is that Len talks about "the past" more than anyone else here, then gets angry when his version of events is shown to be somewhat unreliable or incomplete (to put it mildly). Of course...if for no other reason that Jimmie Must Be Right in his own mind. Subject itself be damned, concentrate on defaming the opponent in order to "win." Tsk. Posting of facts is "defaming the opponent"? Diversion on your part. If you didn't want to be batted around on this issue, you could have refrained from, "Well, HE started it". Perhaps you need to try some new techniques if you want him to stop. Ah...you must have run out of damp hankies to slap folk on the wrist as self-styled moderator! :-) When did it become Jim's job to regulate Steve? But I don't think you want him to stop. Doesn't really matter to me. There will ALWAYS be some yo-yo out there who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal insult thing in order to "win an argument." :-) Those are alleasy marks. Plenty of them. :-) If anyone would know, you'd know. You don't want anyone else doing what you do. Let's remember that phrase, shall we? "who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal insult thing in order to "win an argument." " That's pretty much a fair description of what Len does here. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/11/2004 4:35 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Does it do any good for you to keep calling him one? Your doing so hasn't made his behavior change in a positive direction. As opposed to how significantly he's changed due to yours, Jim? You treat him civilly. You show a modicum of respect to him. He walks over you like an old oriental rug. He's a scumbag bully. That's why his only "professional" publishing was in an Amateur Radio journal, and even then his work went unrecognized as it was of dubious usefulness to anyone. You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/11/2004 4:35 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Does it do any good for you to keep calling him one? Your doing so hasn't made his behavior change in a positive direction. As opposed to how significantly he's changed due to yours, Jim? Good point, Steve! You treat him civilly. You show a modicum of respect to him. I try to behave in a civil manner with all online parties, regardless of how they behave. He walks over you like an old oriental rug. How? Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. That's why his only "professional" publishing was in an Amateur Radio journal, and even then his work went unrecognized as it was of dubious usefulness to anyone. ?? You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. But you're still calling names, etc. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (N2EY) writes: We've already seen how you react to others who have served our country in both military and nonmilitary government service. Right...for making lots of brags and claims and implied "combat experience" as in "seven hostile actions." :-) Or those who were "in Vietnam" yet can't be specific about what they did or where. Can't be or won't be, Leonard? Fact is, I did a tour in Viet Nam in the USAF, 1970-1971. Wow! A whole year! See any "action?" :-) Yeah, a whole year. Care to figure out how much longer than John Kerry I was there? Did you throw away YOUR medals, too? Not my medals. Not my ribbons. When did you become a senator or run for the Presidency? Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Neither is Dubya. :-) Yes, he is. No hanging chad; no 500 Florida votes; no Supreme Court; no doubt of the popular vote; no problem with the electoral vote. End of story. You have four years to develop more believable conspiracy theories. I'm sure there's a lot you miss. Yes, but my aim is improving. That hasn't been apparent. What EXACTLY did you do? (you never mentioned that in detail) (no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.) Yawn...snore Why do you feign sleep after asking? Your prussian schoolmaster tone is very tiring. My "tone"? Can you actually hear me? Ah, but you TAP DANCED AWAY FROM ANSWERING! :-) I gave you an answer: "(no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.)" I can give you an answer though I'm not forced to do so. I don't guaranty that you'll like the answer. You did NOT say in any detail WHAT you did. Tsk. No, I don't believe I did. Task. Tell us, might warrior of in-country action, describe your herosim under fire, how you closed with and destroyed the enemy with your magnificant morsemanship. I don't believe I will, Leonard. You made insulting remarks about it. I ran out of medals and pretty certificates (suitable for framing). You no more issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service than you participate in amateur radio. I wasn't claiming to "issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service (or Vietnam service)." Tsk. You are connecting unrelated sentences. :-) One of those sentences was directly under the other. You wrote both of them. If they aren't connected, what can the second one mean? :-) :-) Are you now teaching English? I will if you like. Would you like to sign up for a remedial course? Are you going to "dismiss" some from your "class" if strict, absolute formalism isn't obeyed? Seig Heil! If you mean the absolute formalism of placing sentence which you claim are not related to other sentences immediately below them, yes you are dismissed. Give my regards to Godwin. Tsk. I'm just copying the style of the PCTA...all "heroes" if from their glowing self-styled words. Any NCTA never "really" served their country. You're actually just copying your own style. I can but I haven't. :-) I'm just copying the style of the PCTA... but without barfing their puke about morse code being the ultimate skill of an amateur. Are you sure you're not some kid, playing with his Mom's computer? I am whatever your imagination conjurs up, bile-barf-master. Then you are that kid from school wearing a plaid shirt. You have pants worn high enough so that you'd have to unzip 'em to blow your nose. You're an expert on all things and nobody wants to sit with you at lunch. Tsk. YOU are the one trying to relate unrelated sentences. :-) You wrote them and placed one above the other. If they are truly unconnected, there is no reason to have written the second of them. It would have been totally out of place. Poor baby. Still demanding utter, strict formalism. Tsk. Since we're being informal, Leonard. I'll place one word of a sentence here and there thoroughout my post. You find them, put them all together and make a sentence. Then you can try do decide where in the post they belong. Here's your first word: No Aren't you NOBILITY or something? We have no nobility, much less NOBILITY in the United States. A divine messenger? Well, I have been told that I'm cute. man Tsk. For years the U.S. Army Signal Corps has been assigned the task of providing communications for the President of the United States. That's wonderful news, Leonard. I'd have never known anything about WHCA if not for your insider information. Haw! The Department of State is not involved with POTUS communications. That's a growing problem in the Republican adminstration...they get the wrong information on the communications? I was there for the Clinton administration. They didn't change the policy on communications. What has that to do with amateur radio policy? Just as much as your comment (to which it is a direct response). is Gosh, several Presidents of the U.S. of A. (both parties) have USED that "hotline" at various times to communicate directly with the USSR in Moscow. Guess that was "improper" or something, huh? Those fool adminstrations should have gone through "proper diplomatic procedures" through the State? Let's see, you've told us that the hotline was manned by military personnel. State Department personnel are not military personnel. The White House is not part of the Department of State. I see some gaps in your story. Tsk. No "gaps." Just a precis of official government information. a We all understand that your thinking has the Department of State as a separate and distinct agency unrelated to the administration. We all? You speak for an "all"? I've never made any statement indicating that I believed that the Department of State in unrelated to the administration. I did inform you that, in direct refutation of your absurd claim, the Department of State does not depend upon the U.S. Army for communications personnel, facilities or means. My involvement in the '97 Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki dealt with obtaining frequency clearances, obtaining permission to use repeater sites, obtaining a mini-switch and the requested number of telephone lines for the site hotel and obtaining a number of cellular telephones for the President's team. total So, you were "involved" but, at the same time, "not involved" with POTUS (President of the United States) communications. loss; Arranging the things described was strictly administrative in function. I handled no Presidential message traffic. POTUS travels with his own comm center. We see gaps in your story. We? Do you have a Vibroplex in your pocket? You are both ways. Anyplace else that is called "hypocrisy." Any place else and you'd have to have your ducks in a row, old fellow. Meaningless remark. Has nothing to do with amateur radio policy. It has as much to do with amateur radio policy as your silly claims of Army involvement in State Department commo. I can well understand why you'd want to now change the subject. he Last I looked the President had the ULTIMATE U.S. say on direct diplomatic communications, and general stuff like that. You say that isn't so? That State operates "independently?" Tsk. I've said no such thing. The words I wrote contained everything necessary for the average man to understand. Yes, of course, Holy Father. You condescend to give us lowly mortals your divine words. Uh huh. I don't know about "divine", Leonard, but they're true. can The DSN is now the main communications means for all government communications, military and civilian alike. ...or so you apparently think. No, I don't "think" so. The U.S. government SAYS so. But, whathehell, a "seven hostile actions" veteran in here, another PCTA extra, said that "MARS IS amateur radio!" DoD says the DoD defines who is what on MARS. I'm not discussing MARS operation, Len. The Department of State doesn't handle MARS traffic. According to one PCTA extra in here "MARS IS amateur radio!" Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not discussing MARS operation. always PCTA extras are "naturally" the most "correct" ones, right? What? Did you ever handle message traffic for the U.S. Department of State? Yes, a few. :-) No, Len, you didn't. serve Department of State is not about amateur radio policy. Why do you keep bring that up? Actually, old boy, you keep bringing it up. as There were NEVER any USMC guards at embassies (who had their own radios)? Sure, did you think the MSG's worked in the comm center? They had radios, but not their own. They had my radios and used them on my net. They never handled any State Department message traffic. Then again, in most embassies, every employee had hand-held radios. Did they all have ham licenses? Have to take tests on morsemanship to be legal on using those radios? Would you like the kind of answer you deserve? a I see you've come up with a simplistic view of things. That might have led you to make some very incorrect assumptions. The President is OVER the CIA. The military does not run CIA communications. The President is OVER the Department of Energy. The military does not run Department of Energy communications. You're batting zip. Riiiiight..."Dave" says there is NO such thing as "chain of command." No, "William"....er, Len. I didn't say any such thing. Try to keep straight on who you are trying to insult, "Dave." I think I managed to nail two of you who like to read between the lines. horrible If "Dave" says so, it IS so. Amen. Dave told it like it is. If you choose to retain your previous beliefs, your ignorance is your responsibility. "Dave" told it like "Dave" thinks it is...and must take full responsibility for his own ignorance. There you go again, Len. No matter what work anyone has performed, you always claim to know more about it than he. It matters not whether the work was in the military, in other government service or in private enterprise. It is similar to what you attempt with licensed radio amateurs. You've never been a ham but you know better how amateur radio should be regulated. The term which describes one like you is "sidewalk superintendent". You know far better than any construction worker, how a building should be erected. The only problem is, you've never put up a building. You can describe the heat of battle, but you've never been in battle. You know all about how the Department of State handles its communications, but you've never been employed by the Department of State. example. The "hotline' (continuous TTY circuit, Washington to Moscow) served for at least three decades, all that time run at this end of the circuit by U.S. Army Signal Corps people. [one can see a couple photos of that in David Kahn's "The Codebreakers," NYT best-seller listing in the early 1960s] ...and this relates to the Department of State in what way? The fact is, you're completely incorrect. You don't know what you're talking about. Well, heck and darn, neither does the U.S. government (except for Department of State) "know what it is talking about" since they released the information on that "hotline" and many other things. You keep trying to make the assertion that Department of State communications takes place through military channels. T'ain't so. Tsk. "Dave" is trying to put 2 and 2 together to make 19. Mathematical as well as linguistic ignorance is your own responsibility. No, I've done no such thing. I've pointed out that I am in a position to know that the U.S. Army does not handle communications, despite your claim, for the United States Department of State. Show us the "truth" oh noble god of radio...set us straight and we will all bow down and kiss your ring in appreciation at the next Holy Service. I've shown you. You can lead either end of a horse to water to see which part drinks... Your knowledge of horsemanship is not related to morsemanship. Not a problem. Neither end of the horse in question is related to morsemanship. Tsk, tsk. We haven't been having a civics lesson, Len. If you like, I can help you with your spelling after school. True, you're trying to run a most-formal prussian schoolmasterish class on writing English. You don't have the qualifications for that but you vainly try. Have you mastered "bulimia" yet, "Atila"? How's your little "synchophant"? It isn't odd at all, Len. Let me paint your a pictu FCC: Regulates radio. Paid to do so. Involved in amateur radio. Radio Amateurs: Tested and licensed to use radio under Part 97 of FCC regs. Taking payment for providing radio service is prohibited. Involved in amateur radio. Len Anderson: Does not regulate amateur radio. Not licensed under Part 97 of FCC rules. Not involved in amateur radio. Bad "painting" "Dave." Technique is awful. Your paintings will not hang in any gallery...but "Dave" should not hang in a gallery, rather stuffed and mounted in an unnatural history museum as a species of Humus Morsemanus Ridiculum. According to "Dave" rules, the FCC is NOT INVOLVED because they aren't required to license themselves in the amateur radio service! You'd better go look at that picture, Len. I wrote that the FCC IS involved. They can't be. None of them are required to have ham licenses. Drop 'em a line. Tell them that they aren't involved. Tell 'em that you said so. You are not involved. Right you are. I'm just a citizen of the USA, still active in electronics engineering design, and think ALL of radio-electronics is most interesting. I'm a professional and am very involved in that...as well as being a citizen of the USA. Carry on then. You won't have to worry yourself over what mere amateur are doing. The one thing about radio that is not interesting is the group of self-righteous oafs who think they are some kind of radio gods and try (but fail) to put down those who don't honor and respect them for their mighty macho morsemanship. For a guy who find such things uninteresting, you spend a significant amount of your time addressing and responding to those you abhor. You might have a few things mixed up. Fact is, radio amateurs aren't going to be swept off their feet by your professional standing. Many of us have also worked in radio and electronics professionally. If you want in, you'll have to pass an exam. If you want HF access in amateur radio, better pass that tricky 5 wpm code exam. If you want respect, keep your transmissions short and keep the gain on your receiver on. Otherwise, nobody except other rank newbies will want to talk to you--until they wise up. Those have amateur radio licenses and all seem to be PCTAs...as well as having way overblown egos thinking they are "superior" to those not thinking as they do. I don't like your ego, Len. As far as amateur radio, I'm superior to you. I'm in. You're out. Should you ever become licensed, you'll be a neophyte at amateur radio. Dave K8MN |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/11/2004 6:59 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/11/2004 4:35 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Does it do any good for you to keep calling him one? Your doing so hasn't made his behavior change in a positive direction. As opposed to how significantly he's changed due to yours, Jim? Good point, Steve! You treat him civilly. You show a modicum of respect to him. I try to behave in a civil manner with all online parties, regardless of how they behave. He walks over you like an old oriental rug. How? How...?!?! =0 I know a good opthamologist, Jim! Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. That's why his only "professional" publishing was in an Amateur Radio journal, and even then his work went unrecognized as it was of dubious usefulness to anyone. ?? No "??" to it, Jim. Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. But you're still calling names, etc. Because he's still a putz. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! No comment? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: Mr. Kerry and I have something in common: Neither of us are President of the United States. Neither is Dubya. :-) Yes, he is. No hanging chad; no 500 Florida votes; no Supreme Court; no doubt of the popular vote; no problem with the electoral vote. End of story. You have four years to develop more believable conspiracy theories. The Supremes declared Mr. Bush to be the winner of the 2000 election, in accordance with the Constitution. The undisputed results of the 2004 election reelected him for another 4 years. Your prussian schoolmaster tone is very tiring. My "tone"? Can you actually hear me? Ah, but you TAP DANCED AWAY FROM ANSWERING! :-) I gave you an answer: "(no, I never mentioned that in detail. enjoy the suspense.)" I can give you an answer though I'm not forced to do so. I don't guaranty that you'll like the answer. You did NOT say in any detail WHAT you did. Tsk. No, I don't believe I did. Task. Tell us, might warrior of in-country action, describe your herosim "herosim"? under fire, how you closed with and destroyed the enemy with your magnificant morsemanship. I don't believe I will, Leonard. You made insulting remarks about it. I ran out of medals and pretty certificates (suitable for framing). You no more issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service than you participate in amateur radio. I wasn't claiming to "issue medals and certificates for Viet Nam service (or Vietnam service)." Tsk. You are connecting unrelated sentences. :-) One of those sentences was directly under the other. You wrote both of them. If they aren't connected, what can the second one mean? :-) :-) Are you now teaching English? I will if you like. Would you like to sign up for a remedial course? Are you going to "dismiss" some from your "class" if strict, absolute formalism isn't obeyed? Seig Heil! If you mean the absolute formalism of placing sentence which you claim are not related to other sentences immediately below them, yes you are dismissed. Give my regards to Godwin. I think you just missed something important, Dave. From his long experience in computer-modem communications, Len is clearly aware of Godwin's Law. In fact he will now probably regale us with a long boring lecture on Mr. Godwin and the origin of his famous Law, trying to divert and use up bandwidth. In any event, his above violation ("Seig Heil!") can hardly be accidental or involuntary. Of course Godwin's Law states that the first person in a discussion to revert to Hitler/Nazi references towards his opponent summarily forfeits. IOW, loses the whole thing. It is therefore clearly obvious that Len has lost this discussion, and that his Godwin violation is his indirect way of admitting defeat, since he can't or won't simply say so out in the open. Think of how many other times Len has done the same thing... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/11/2004 6:59 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/11/2004 4:35 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Does it do any good for you to keep calling him one? Your doing so hasn't made his behavior change in a positive direction. As opposed to how significantly he's changed due to yours, Jim? Good point, Steve! You treat him civilly. You show a modicum of respect to him. I try to behave in a civil manner with all online parties, regardless of how they behave. He walks over you like an old oriental rug. How? How...?!?! Yes, how? Has Len been able to force me to do anything? To do better than me in *any* amateur-radio-related activity? To convincingly show that *any* of my arguments here are flat-out wrong? =0 I know a good opthamologist, Jim! Look again. Between Len and me - who is in control, who acts mature, and who is acting out and being immature? Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. That's why his only "professional" publishing was in an Amateur Radio journal, and even then his work went unrecognized as it was of dubious usefulness to anyone. ?? No "??" to it, Jim. Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. But you're still calling names, etc. Because he's still a putz. That's a matter of opinion. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! No comment? Judge by my actions. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (N2EY) Date: 11/12/2004 4:04 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... He walks over you like an old oriental rug. How? How...?!?! Yes, how? Has Len been able to force me to do anything? To do better than me in *any* amateur-radio-related activity? To convincingly show that *any* of my arguments here are flat-out wrong? He keeps you coming back when you keep telling everyone else to "stop responding to him". =0 I know a good opthamologist, Jim! Look again. Between Len and me - who is in control, who acts mature, and who is acting out and being immature? That's not the point, Jim. The point is suggesting one course of actions to everyone else, yet continuing the same course of action yourself. It doesn't look right. Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. You do keep coming back. It does keep giving him a "raison de guerre" You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. Thankfully when she gets out of sorts, I can redirect her and she acts accordingly. There ae consequences for acting foolish, and she rarely transgresses. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. Everytime you respond to him, he wins. Someone in this NG taught me that...Now WHO could it be...?!?! Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Sir Scumbag had even ONE citeable use of ANY of his work in Amateur Radio, he'd have rubbed our noses in it by now. You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. But you're still calling names, etc. Because he's still a putz. That's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! No comment? Judge by my actions. I'll judge by your next response to one of Lennie's posts. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: (N2EY) Date: 11/12/2004 4:04 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... He walks over you like an old oriental rug. How? How...?!?! Yes, how? Has Len been able to force me to do anything? To do better than me in *any* amateur-radio-related activity? To convincingly show that *any* of my arguments here are flat-out wrong? He keeps you coming back when you keep telling everyone else to "stop responding to him". =0 I know a good opthamologist, Jim! Look again. Between Len and me - who is in control, who acts mature, and who is acting out and being immature? That's not the point, Jim. The point is suggesting one course of actions to everyone else, yet continuing the same course of action yourself. It doesn't look right. Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. You do keep coming back. It does keep giving him a "raison de guerre" You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. Thankfully when she gets out of sorts, I can redirect her and she acts accordingly. There ae consequences for acting foolish, and she rarely transgresses. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. Everytime you respond to him, he wins. Someone in this NG taught me that...Now WHO could it be...?!?! Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Sir Scumbag had even ONE citeable use of ANY of his work in Amateur Radio, he'd have rubbed our noses in it by now. You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. But you're still calling names, etc. Because he's still a putz. That's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! No comment? Judge by my actions. I'll judge by your next response to one of Lennie's posts. Steve, I have to agree with you here. While we all at times reply to Len, there isn't any point in telling each other not to. Jim, it probably isn't all that consistent of an approach to kvetch about Steve's postings to him. Granted you two have different approaches, but that isn't the point here. Its a newsgroup. There are sometimes nasty disagreeable people here. We reply to them because there is something in it for us. Sometimes its just plain fun! The guy on the other end is having fun too. So be it. - Mike KB3EIA - |
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: (N2EY) Date: 11/12/2004 4:04 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Look again. Between Len and me - who is in control, who acts mature, and who is acting out and being immature? That's not the point, Jim. The point is suggesting one course of actions to everyone else, yet continuing the same course of action yourself. It doesn't look right. That has been the crux of Steve's problem with his adversaries. He accuses them of being liars all the while lying himself. It just isn't right. |
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes: Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... From: (N2EY) Date: 11/12/2004 4:04 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... He walks over you like an old oriental rug. How? How...?!?! Yes, how? Has Len been able to force me to do anything? To do better than me in *any* amateur-radio-related activity? To convincingly show that *any* of my arguments here are flat-out wrong? He keeps you coming back when you keep telling everyone else to "stop responding to him". He doesn't "keep me coming back". I respond to him when it suits me to do so. =0 I know a good opthamologist, Jim! Look again. Between Len and me - who is in control, who acts mature, and who is acting out and being immature? That's not the point, Jim. I think it is one point. The point is suggesting one course of actions to everyone else, yet continuing the same course of action yourself. It doesn't look right. The difference (as I see it) is how we respond. But perhaps your point is valid also. Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. Just answer the question, Steve. Should I behave as Len does or not? You do keep coming back. Very true. It does keep giving him a "raison de guerre" If attention is all he wants, you have a very valid point. You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. Thankfully when she gets out of sorts, I can redirect her and she acts accordingly. There ae consequences for acting foolish, and she rarely transgresses. But that doesn't answer the question. If a child of yours throws a tantrum, do you do the same? I really don't think you do. However, if both are points are processed together, there's another fact that develops: If a child acts out simply to get attention, *any* attention is rewarding that behavior. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. It's a fact that it's an opinion! A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. Not as I see it. But that doesn't mean I should respond, because it may be rewarding the behavior regardless of the style of the response. At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. Everytime you respond to him, he wins. If attention is his goal, you're absolutely right. Someone in this NG taught me that...Now WHO could it be...?!?! I'm not quite sure... Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Sir Scumbag had even ONE citeable use of ANY of his work in Amateur Radio, he'd have rubbed our noses in it by now. You know...I never thought of that....and you're absolutely right. You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. But you're still calling names, etc. Because he's still a putz. That's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. Our opinions differ on that. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! No comment? Judge by my actions. I'll judge by your next response to one of Lennie's posts. Indeed. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: He keeps you coming back when you keep telling everyone else to "stop responding to him". He doesn't "keep me coming back". I respond to him when it suits me to do so. Coughcough...snickersnicker... Look again. Between Len and me - who is in control, who acts mature, and who is acting out and being immature? That's not the point, Jim. I think it is one point. I've said the same thing, Jim. Your counsel was the same. The point is suggesting one course of actions to everyone else, yet continuing the same course of action yourself. It doesn't look right. The difference (as I see it) is how we respond. But perhaps your point is valid also. Thank-you. But it was YOUR point, Jim, not mine! Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. Just answer the question, Steve. Should I behave as Len does or not? It's not a matter of how Lennie behaves or how you respond to it, Jim, it's THAT you respond after having offered counsel to others to NOT respond at all. You do keep coming back. Very true. It does keep giving him a "raison de guerre" If attention is all he wants, you have a very valid point. What else can he want, Jim? He doesn't have nor does it seem he really wants a license. It could have been his decades ago if he wanted it. He could be a part of the same fraternity you and I are and be making his mark amongst them if he so chose to do so. Instead he's the King with his New Clothes. You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. Thankfully when she gets out of sorts, I can redirect her and she acts accordingly. There ae consequences for acting foolish, and she rarely transgresses. But that doesn't answer the question. If a child of yours throws a tantrum, do you do the same? I really don't think you do. However, if both are points are processed together, there's another fact that develops: If a child acts out simply to get attention, *any* attention is rewarding that behavior. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. It's a fact that it's an opinion! It's a fact that he IS a scumbag bully. There's just too much documentation to the contrary. A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. Not as I see it. But that doesn't mean I should respond, because it may be rewarding the behavior regardless of the style of the response. Yep. Regardless of whether you threw the dog the bone, or whether he tore it off the postman's leg, he gets it. I say leave him chained up and let him starve. At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. Everytime you respond to him, he wins. If attention is his goal, you're absolutely right. Someone in this NG taught me that...Now WHO could it be...?!?! I'm not quite sure... Coughcough snickersnicker.... =) Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Sir Scumbag had even ONE citeable use of ANY of his work in Amateur Radio, he'd have rubbed our noses in it by now. You know...I never thought of that....and you're absolutely right. Thanks again. Can I frame this post? You've told me to set the example, Jim. I only comment on a LennieRant on rare occassion now, and usually only when commenting second hand because someone else quoted him, usually either you or Dave. But you're still calling names, etc. Because he's still a putz. That's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. Our opinions differ on that. A bit of your own medicine, Kind Sir! Stop responding to him! No comment? Judge by my actions. I'll judge by your next response to one of Lennie's posts. Indeed. Indeed indeed! =) 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: The difference (as I see it) is how we respond. But perhaps your point is valid also. Thank-you. But it was YOUR point, Jim, not mine! So I'm correct all around! Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. Just answer the question, Steve. Should I behave as Len does or not? It's not a matter of how Lennie behaves or how you respond to it, Jim, it's THAT you respond after having offered counsel to others to NOT respond at all. I agree, now that you've pointed it out. Still, you've avoided my question: - Should I behave as Len does or not? You do keep coming back. Very true. It does keep giving him a "raison de guerre" If attention is all he wants, you have a very valid point. What else can he want, Jim? Perhaps he really does think that his antics can lead to a better ARS. Or maybe he wants the ARS as we know it destroyed. He doesn't have nor does it seem he really wants a license. That was clear years ago. It could have been his decades ago if he wanted it. He could be a part of the same fraternity you and I are and be making his mark amongst them if he so chose to do so. Instead he's the King with his New Clothes. I seem to recall someone's actions here being described as "pointing out that Emperor Len has no logical clothes".... You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. Thankfully when she gets out of sorts, I can redirect her and she acts accordingly. There ae consequences for acting foolish, and she rarely transgresses. But that doesn't answer the question. If a child of yours throws a tantrum, do you do the same? I really don't think you do. Hmmm? However, if both are points are processed together, there's another fact that develops: If a child acts out simply to get attention, *any* attention is rewarding that behavior. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. It's a fact that it's an opinion! It's a fact that he IS a scumbag bully. There's just too much documentation to the contrary. It's an opinion as to what constitutes documentation. A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. Not as I see it. But that doesn't mean I should respond, because it may be rewarding the behavior regardless of the style of the response. Yep. Regardless of whether you threw the dog the bone, or whether he tore it off the postman's leg, he gets it. I say leave him chained up and let him starve. Arf! At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. Everytime you respond to him, he wins. If attention is his goal, you're absolutely right. Someone in this NG taught me that...Now WHO could it be...?!?! I'm not quite sure... Coughcough snickersnicker.... =) You need a good ENT person? Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Sir Scumbag had even ONE citeable use of ANY of his work in Amateur Radio, he'd have rubbed our noses in it by now. You know...I never thought of that....and you're absolutely right. Thanks again. Can I frame this post? I thought you printed out and framed all my posts. ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message om...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: He keeps you coming back when you keep telling everyone else to "stop responding to him". He doesn't "keep me coming back". I respond to him when it suits me to do so. Coughcough...snickersnicker... The "Master/Stooge" relationship deteriorates. |
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 11/14/2004 11:32 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: The difference (as I see it) is how we respond. But perhaps your point is valid also. Thank-you. But it was YOUR point, Jim, not mine! So I'm correct all around! Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. Just answer the question, Steve. Should I behave as Len does or not? It's not a matter of how Lennie behaves or how you respond to it, Jim, it's THAT you respond after having offered counsel to others to NOT respond at all. I agree, now that you've pointed it out. Still, you've avoided my question: - Should I behave as Len does or not? And I have answered it, Jim. It's not about "acting like Lennie". It's a fact that he IS a scumbag bully. There's just too much documentation to the contrary. It's an opinion as to what constitutes documentation. I am quite satisfied that Google's archives do that nicely. A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. Not as I see it. But that doesn't mean I should respond, because it may be rewarding the behavior regardless of the style of the response. Yep. Regardless of whether you threw the dog the bone, or whether he tore it off the postman's leg, he gets it. I say leave him chained up and let him starve. Arf! Arf arf! Thanks again. Can I frame this post? I thought you printed out and framed all my posts. ;-) I can't afford that much paper! =) 73 Steve, K4YZ |
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: The difference (as I see it) is how we respond. But perhaps your point is valid also. Thank-you. But it was YOUR point, Jim, not mine! So I'm correct all around! Of course. Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. Just answer the question, Steve. Should I behave as Len does or not? It's not a matter of how Lennie behaves or how you respond to it, Jim, it's THAT you respond after having offered counsel to others to NOT respond at all. I agree, now that you've pointed it out. Still, you've avoided my question: - Should I behave as Len does or not? Better yet, should you behave as Steve does, or not? You do keep coming back. Very true. It does keep giving him a "raison de guerre" If attention is all he wants, you have a very valid point. What else can he want, Jim? Perhaps he really does think that his antics can lead to a better ARS. Or maybe he wants the ARS as we know it destroyed. Maybe. Ask him. He doesn't have nor does it seem he really wants a license. That was clear years ago. Really? It could have been his decades ago if he wanted it. He could be a part of the same fraternity you and I are and be making his mark amongst them if he so chose to do so. Instead he's the King with his New Clothes. I seem to recall someone's actions here being described as "pointing out that Emperor Len has no logical clothes".... Oh, my! That must be where the fixation on Len's genitalia began. You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. You should leave Steve's family out of the fray. Thankfully when she gets out of sorts, I can redirect her and she acts accordingly. There ae consequences for acting foolish, and she rarely transgresses. But that doesn't answer the question. If a child of yours throws a tantrum, do you do the same? I really don't think you do. Hmmm? Hmm? However, if both are points are processed together, there's another fact that develops: If a child acts out simply to get attention, *any* attention is rewarding that behavior. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. It's a fact that it's an opinion! It's a fact that he IS a scumbag bully. There's just too much documentation to the contrary. It's an opinion as to what constitutes documentation. Indeed. Steve is the documented bully. A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. Not as I see it. But that doesn't mean I should respond, because it may be rewarding the behavior regardless of the style of the response. Yep. Regardless of whether you threw the dog the bone, or whether he tore it off the postman's leg, he gets it. I say leave him chained up and let him starve. Arf! At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. Everytime you respond to him, he wins. If attention is his goal, you're absolutely right. Someone in this NG taught me that...Now WHO could it be...?!?! I'm not quite sure... Coughcough snickersnicker.... =) You need a good ENT person? Has Steve ever learned a lesson? He shouts names and absurd accusations at every opportunity. Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Sir Scumbag had even ONE citeable use of ANY of his work in Amateur Radio, he'd have rubbed our noses in it by now. You know...I never thought of that....and you're absolutely right. Thanks again. Can I frame this post? I thought you printed out and framed all my posts. ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY Indeed he does. |
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: The difference (as I see it) is how we respond. But perhaps your point is valid also. Thank-you. But it was YOUR point, Jim, not mine! So I'm correct all around! Of course. He always is, by His definition. Len calls me name, posts things that aren't true and attempts to insult me. In general he behaves like an out-of-control child here. Does that mean I should do the same? Hmmm? "Hmmm?" indeed, Jim. Just answer the question, Steve. Should I behave as Len does or not? It's not a matter of how Lennie behaves or how you respond to it, Jim, it's THAT you respond after having offered counsel to others to NOT respond at all. I agree, now that you've pointed it out. Still, you've avoided my question: - Should I behave as Len does or not? Better yet, should you behave as Steve does, or not? Tsk. I called "Jim" by the NAME "Jim." He wanted me to change it from "Jim" to "Jim." That is what he terms "calling him names." You do keep coming back. Very true. It does keep giving him a "raison de guerre" If attention is all he wants, you have a very valid point. What else can he want, Jim? Perhaps he really does think that his antics can lead to a better ARS. Or maybe he wants the ARS as we know it destroyed. Maybe. Ask him. Tsk. He can't ask directly...or he loads it so that any answer will be fuel for more negative criticism. He doesn't have nor does it seem he really wants a license. That was clear years ago. Really? Tsk. I stated my intentions clearly from the beginning. That hasn't changed. OTHERS keep wanting to change it...as if... It could have been his decades ago if he wanted it. He could be a part of the same fraternity you and I are and be making his mark amongst them if he so chose to do so. Instead he's the King with his New Clothes. I seem to recall someone's actions here being described as "pointing out that Emperor Len has no logical clothes".... Oh, my! That must be where the fixation on Len's genitalia began. Tsk. I don't dare show. It would cause so much envy they would go berserk. :-) You have children, Steve. If one of them acts like a child, do *you* do the same? I doubt it very much. You should leave Steve's family out of the fray. No, such misdirects are perfectly OK for the PCTA extra. Anything which can become a winning message point for them is okay. Thankfully when she gets out of sorts, I can redirect her and she acts accordingly. There ae consequences for acting foolish, and she rarely transgresses. But that doesn't answer the question. If a child of yours throws a tantrum, do you do the same? I really don't think you do. Hmmm? Hmm? However, if both are points are processed together, there's another fact that develops: If a child acts out simply to get attention, *any* attention is rewarding that behavior. He's a scumbag bully. Well, that's a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. It's a fact that it's an opinion! It's a fact that he IS a scumbag bully. There's just too much documentation to the contrary. It's an opinion as to what constitutes documentation. Indeed. Steve is the documented bully. ...and pathological. :-) A "bully" is someone who gets others to do his/her bidding by force or intimidation. When has Len been able to do that to me? Everytime you respond to him, Jim...EVERY time. Not as I see it. But that doesn't mean I should respond, because it may be rewarding the behavior regardless of the style of the response. Yep. Regardless of whether you threw the dog the bone, or whether he tore it off the postman's leg, he gets it. I say leave him chained up and let him starve. Arf! At best, Len is a bully-wannabe. Everytime you respond to him, he wins. If attention is his goal, you're absolutely right. Someone in this NG taught me that...Now WHO could it be...?!?! I'm not quite sure... Coughcough snickersnicker.... =) You need a good ENT person? Has Steve ever learned a lesson? He shouts names and absurd accusations at every opportunity. Perfectly okay for PCTA extras. Can you cite a single project or program that incorporates a SINGLE reference to any of Lennie's "Ham Radio" writings? Nope. But then again, I haven't read every issue of "ham radio", "CQ" or "73". Nor have I visited every amateur radio website in existence. There may exist, somewhere out there, a reference to Len's articles in "ham radio" magazine. Besides, what does it matter? Len's most recent article in "ham radio" was published over 22 years ago IIRC. And you can bet your bottom dollar if Sir Scumbag had even ONE citeable use of ANY of his work in Amateur Radio, he'd have rubbed our noses in it by now. You know...I never thought of that....and you're absolutely right. Thanks again. Can I frame this post? I thought you printed out and framed all my posts. ;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY Indeed he does. Welp, there goes another forest... |
In article ,
(William) writes: The point is suggesting one course of actions to everyone else, yet continuing the same course of action yourself. It doesn't look right. That has been the crux of Steve's problem with his adversaries. He accuses them of being liars all the while lying himself. It just isn't right. No problem. PCTA extras have complete freedom of hypocrisy. In here. NCTAs must be absolutely, positively "correct" (according to the PCTA extra code of ethics) or they are riverbottom scum (or other nasty pejoratives). In here. |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... Still, you've avoided my question: - Should I behave as Len does or not? Better yet, should you behave as Steve does, or not? Tsk. I called "Jim" by the NAME "Jim." He wanted me to change it from "Jim" to "Jim." That is what he terms "calling him names." He still thinks you are calling him "Jimmy." How awful. We should call him "James" as he gave his name as "James" to the FCC. |
|
In article ,
(William) writes: (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (William) writes: (N2EY) wrote in message ... Still, you've avoided my question: - Should I behave as Len does or not? Better yet, should you behave as Steve does, or not? Tsk. I called "Jim" by the NAME "Jim." He wanted me to change it from "Jim" to "Jim." That is what he terms "calling him names." He still thinks you are calling him "Jimmy." How awful. We should call him "James" as he gave his name as "James" to the FCC. In the past I have called "Jim" (or "Jim") by "Jimmie" or "Rev. Jim." Both of those forms are "insulting" to him. Tsk. No more the use of "Rev. Jim" despite his Sermons on the Antenna Mount. No more calling "Jim" (or "Jim") "Jimmie." Can't be "insulting" any of the high-level radio gods by getting familiar. No sir! All shall be FORMAL. NO familiarity use by ordinary mortals! I might even use "James P." On second thought, that might also be "insulting." :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com