Len Anderson wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

K4YZ wrote:
Lenof21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

You can always talk about DEFUNCT 30-year-past TV shows.

That has NOTHING to do with ham radio.

Neither do you.

Won't ruffle your overly
sensitive "feathers," will it?

What's with the "feathers" thing, Leonard? Too many years in your
Foghorn Leghorn persona?

Won't be about AMATEUR RADIO at all, but then what you really
want is a nice little cozy Chat Room where you be all gemutlich
in talking about whatever you PCTA extras want...and then you
can make nasty to anyone who objects to all the non-ham-radio
talk. You "own" this newsgroup because you are in it, right?

So far, the only person admitting to "making nasty" is you.


Tsk. Since you can't get others' opinions they way YOU like them,
or that of the PCTA extras, you want to make more nasty?

This is the output of a PROFESSIONAL wordsmith?


Tsk. Poor spoiled little babies. Can't make the world in your
imagined images.

You seem to be having a tough sell in making amateur radio in your
imagined image, Leonard.

I have yet to see Mike refr to you by anything other than your
expressed preferred names.

Remember, I did call him Lennie once. But he didn't like that, so I
went to calling him Len. My bad!

You should get "Yiddish for Dummies" and study it. That way you
can call your newsgroup opponents by four-letter names that
no one (you think) will understand...because you probably don't
understant Yiddish either.

I don't get it, Len. Because Mike hasn't referred to you as other than
"Len" or "Lennie", you suggest that he get "Yiddish for Dummies" and
study it? You want him to call you Yiddish names?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
Len Anderson wrote:

Remember, I did call him Lennie once. But he didn't like
that, so I
went to calling him Len. My bad!

You should get "Yiddish for Dummies" and study it. That way you
can call your newsgroup opponents by four-letter names that
no one (you think) will understand...because you probably don't
understant Yiddish either.

I don't get it, Len. Because Mike hasn't referred to you as other
than
"Len" or "Lennie", you suggest that he get "Yiddish for Dummies" and
study it? You want him to call you Yiddish names?

I believe Mike even apologized for it, having seen my use of it.

Unfortunately for Mike, Lennie never sees anyone doing "the right
thing". That way it always give him the "right" to claim victim
status.

And Lennie..For a guy who's always on other people's cases for
typos, I think you'd try harder to be more "undertanting". As for what
"putz" stands for, Lennie, I think it fits you like a glove...Or would
"like a condom" be a better analogy...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:39:23 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Wow! Talk about speculation! How about it, lurking, never-posting
readers of r.r.a.p? Let us know if you support the self-appointed
advocate for morse code test removal of the group. Tell us if you
believe his method is effective. Let us hear if you have been swayed by
his posts.

To take the three questions in order...

1. Yes, I support the contention that the code test should be removed.

2. No, I do not believe that his method is effective. However, I also
basically believe that no other method would be any more effective
than his, which is one of the reasons why I'm mainly a lurker here and
rarely post.

3. No, I have not been swayed by his posts. In fact, I already
believed it was time to do away with code testing back in the
mid-1970's, which was twenty years before I ever discovered this
newsgroup and its various inhabitants.

John Kasupski, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

All licensed radio amateurs; Techs, Generals and Extras; are your
superiors in that they have been issued amateur radio licenses.

I present my posterior to your superior... :-)



Posted 22 Jan 05

In article , John Kasupski
writes:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:39:23 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Wow! Talk about speculation! How about it, lurking, never-posting
readers of r.r.a.p? Let us know if you support the self-appointed
advocate for morse code test removal of the group. Tell us if you
believe his method is effective. Let us hear if you have been swayed by
his posts.

Hello John. :-)

The heavenly fodder wishes to both troll and make nasty to another
in his "asking of questions."

To take the three questions in order...

1. Yes, I support the contention that the code test should be removed.

I say Good on You!

2. No, I do not believe that his method is effective. However, I also
basically believe that no other method would be any more effective
than his, which is one of the reasons why I'm mainly a lurker here and
rarely post.

"Effective," e-schmective...

Da heavenly fodder hasn't come close to being effective in doing
anything but reinforcing his image of the prussian offizier busy
mouthing the party line of the Church of St. Hiram.


3. No, I have not been swayed by his posts. In fact, I already
believed it was time to do away with code testing back in the
mid-1970's, which was twenty years before I ever discovered this
newsgroup and its various inhabitants.

The same for me but a bit earlier....like two decades before.

Back when I volunteered for U.S. Army duty, I really believed
that "radio expertise" required morsemanship skills. Lucking
out in being assigned to a large Army HF communications
station - and finding out they did NOT use a bit of morse code
anywhere on HF - I learned better. [that was in the 1950s]

Perhaps an oddity, the OIC (Officer in Charge) of ADA trans-
mitters, Capt. William Boss (apt surname) was a ham and the
maintenance NCOIC had both radiotelephone and radiotelegraph
commercial operator licenses in addition to an amateur radio
license.

Oh, yes, such "isn't about ham radio, is it" as some say,
especially those who have never served their country in the
military or, if they did, never did any REAL communications
duty at a large HF station. [the Angle of Dearth is one of those]

War stories of military days seem to fall into two categories in
he Fanciful, non-detailed braggadoccio or sea-going "radio
room adventures." Nothing wrong with the latter as far as I'm
concerned, but they seldom have 30+ high-power HF transmitters
working at the same time on a ship, not even on a carrier.

A half-dozen teleprinters in a large radio room with steel walls,
deck, and overhead do indeed make a racket as Jim Hampton
wrote. Wait until you get 200+ teleprinters working in a medium-
sized torn-tape relay room. Now, THAT is NOISE...and that is
how it was on the 2nd floor of the Chuo Kogyo Control for Army
station ADA...and ADA was only the 3rd largest Army station at
the time. :-)

That was a half century ago in my experience. Since then, I've
never encountered any civilian, commercial, or government/military
station that used or required morse code mode communications...
other than some amateurs and a few ships. A decade ago, the
major communications modes for ships was voice, by VHF or
SSB, or by data-teleprinter.

The pro-code-test-advocates (PCTA) seem to think that morseman-
ship is soooooo necessary that the FCC *must* test for it in order
to get a ham license for use below 30 MHz. Well, it may BE a
necessity...all those morsemen need to have playmates on their
little reserved slices of ham bands...their sandboxes aren't full yet
and more and more have signed off permanently. :-)



Posted on 22 Jan 05

Len Anderson wrote:
In article , John
Kasupski
writes:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:39:23 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Wow! Talk about speculation! How about it, lurking, never-posting
readers of r.r.a.p? Let us know if you support the self-appointed
advocate for morse code test removal of the group. Tell us if you
believe his method is effective. Let us hear if you have been
swayed by
his posts.

Hello John.

The heavenly fodder wishes to both troll and make nasty to another
in his "asking of questions."

Oh, not "nasty" at all.

You perceive yourself as Don Quixote. We're just interested in
seeing if your rants actually have any support or if you're just the
slovenly, bile spitting idiot we all think you are.

So far, it seems "not".

To take the three questions in order...

1. Yes, I support the contention that the code test should be
removed.

I say Good on You!

Boy...isn't THAT a surprise...?!?!

2. No, I do not believe that his method is effective. However, I
also
basically believe that no other method would be any more effective
than his, which is one of the reasons why I'm mainly a lurker here
and
rarely post.

"Effective," e-schmective...

Da heavenly fodder hasn't come close to being effective in doing
anything but reinforcing his image of the prussian offizier busy
mouthing the party line of the Church of St. Hiram.

Lennie's ineffectiveness as a cheerleader is pretty well summed up
in the character of that paragraph.

3. No, I have not been swayed by his posts. In fact, I already
believed it was time to do away with code testing back in the
mid-1970's, which was twenty years before I ever discovered this
newsgroup and its various inhabitants.

The same for me but a bit earlier....like two decades before.

Uh huh...Was that before you allegedly learned code to 10 WPM or
after?

(I say it's yet another "LennieLie". I don't think you could tap
out SOS if it was etched in scars on your arms.

Back when I volunteered for U.S. Army duty...(SNIP)

More of his "I Was A Rear Area Radio Clerk War Hero" rants.

The pro-code-test-advocates (PCTA) seem to think that morseman-
ship is soooooo necessary that the FCC *must* test for it in order
to get a ham license for use below 30 MHz. Well, it may BE a
necessity...all those morsemen need to have playmates on their
little reserved slices of ham bands...their sandboxes aren't full
yet
and more and more have signed off permanently.

And we hope and pray YOUR QRT date is just around the same corner!
Steve, K4YZ

Len Anderson wrote:

In article , John Kasupski
writes:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:39:23 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Wow! Talk about speculation! How about it, lurking, never-posting
readers of r.r.a.p? Let us know if you support the self-appointed
advocate for morse code test removal of the group. Tell us if you
believe his method is effective. Let us hear if you have been swayed by
his posts.

Hello John. :-)

The heavenly fodder wishes to both troll and make nasty to another
in his "asking of questions."


When you ask questions, is it trolling or "making nasty"? You've
already admitted to deliberately "making nasty", haven't you?

I'm polling, not trolling.

To take the three questions in order...

1. Yes, I support the contention that the code test should be removed.

I say Good on You!

2. No, I do not believe that his method is effective. However, I also
basically believe that no other method would be any more effective
than his, which is one of the reasons why I'm mainly a lurker here and
rarely post.

"Effective," e-schmective...

Da heavenly fodder hasn't come close to being effective in doing
anything but reinforcing his image of the prussian offizier busy
mouthing the party line of the Church of St. Hiram.

He said that he didn't believe your method was effective, Len.

3. No, I have not been swayed by his posts. In fact, I already
believed it was time to do away with code testing back in the
mid-1970's, which was twenty years before I ever discovered this
newsgroup and its various inhabitants.

The same for me but a bit earlier....like two decades before.

Back when I volunteered for U.S. Army duty, I really believed
that "radio expertise" required morsemanship skills. Lucking
out in being assigned to a large Army HF communications
station - and finding out they did NOT use a bit of morse code
anywhere on HF - I learned better. [that was in the 1950s]

Perhaps an oddity, the OIC (Officer in Charge) of ADA trans-
mitters, Capt. William Boss (apt surname) was a ham and the
maintenance NCOIC had both radiotelephone and radiotelegraph
commercial operator licenses in addition to an amateur radio
license.

Oh, yes, such "isn't about ham radio, is it" as some say,
especially those who have never served their country in the
military or, if they did, never did any REAL communications
duty at a large HF station. [the Angle of Dearth is one of those]

War stories of military days seem to fall into two categories in
he Fanciful, non-detailed braggadoccio or sea-going "radio
room adventures." Nothing wrong with the latter as far as I'm
concerned, but they seldom have 30+ high-power HF transmitters
working at the same time on a ship, not even on a carrier.

A half-dozen teleprinters in a large radio room with steel walls,
deck, and overhead do indeed make a racket as Jim Hampton
wrote. Wait until you get 200+ teleprinters working in a medium-
sized torn-tape relay room. Now, THAT is NOISE...and that is
how it was on the 2nd floor of the Chuo Kogyo Control for Army
station ADA...and ADA was only the 3rd largest Army station at
the time. :-)

That was a half century ago in my experience. Since then, I've
never encountered any civilian, commercial, or government/military
station that used or required morse code mode communications...
other than some amateurs and a few ships. A decade ago, the
major communications modes for ships was voice, by VHF or
SSB, or by data-teleprinter.

The pro-code-test-advocates (PCTA) seem to think that morseman-
ship is soooooo necessary that the FCC *must* test for it in order
to get a ham license for use below 30 MHz. Well, it may BE a
necessity...all those morsemen need to have playmates on their
little reserved slices of ham bands...their sandboxes aren't full yet
and more and more have signed off permanently. :-)

He said he hadn't been swayed by your posts, Len. Did you treat him to
the several paragraphs of blather for a reason?

John has posted here quite a number of times so he hardly counts as a
lurker. He has previously made his views on morse testing known. If we
discount him, we're left with an army of.....hmmmm...precisely.....uh...
no lurkers who have spoken up to say that they support your methods or
that they've been swayed by your posts. If we do decide to count John,
he states that he does not support your methods and that he has not been
swayed by your posts.

The lack of response from lurkers seems to indicate that there are not
an many people reading and not commenting as you believe.

Dave K8MN

Len Anderson wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

All licensed radio amateurs; Techs, Generals and Extras; are your
superiors in that they have been issued amateur radio licenses.

I present my posterior to your superior... :-)

As far as I can tell, Len, you've been presenting your posterior here
for years. :-) :-) :-)

Dave K8MN

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Lenof21) writes:

Ever notice how Len avoids direct questions?

Ever notice how Miccolis does?

I do every day.

Yes, Brian and Len do avoid direct questions - every day.

No one is obliged to answer loaded questions.

However, J.P. has avoided a direct answer to HOW he "serves
his country" in the near-same way someone has in the
military. So has the coslonaut. All are supposed to "figure
that out."

Direct question avoided, sidestepped, disguised by mis-
direction onto other things.

Careful, Brian...remember that J.P. "serves his country" (by being
a super-special amateur morseman).

Well, if you think so. I don't recall ever claiming that.

So...how DO you "serve your country in other ways?" :-)


We pose valid arguments but you avoid them.

Tsk. FALSE. ERRONEOUS.

Your arguments in favor of retaining the morse code test have
been proven false.

You refuse to acknowledge that replies have truth in them.
You misdirect by the disguised ad hominem of saying the
PCTAs "are full of errors." :-)


Do we call you names? Tell you to shut up? Call you "anal-retentive" or
"Republican"?

Yes, you do. In another post you've named me as a "liberal."
Used that appelation as a pejorative as if only the political
conservatives were the good guys. Adding, in that unique (but
transparent) disguise of an ad hominem attack cum troll bait.

Or is that *your* game?

No "game." Seeing that reasonable discourse evaporated long
ago amidst the virtual snowstorm of all-subjects-are-suitable-for-
posting blog content in here, all that seems to continue is the
usual PCTA "superiority" pejoratives on the person of NCTAs.

In other words, you are receiving "return fire." Seeing as you
have "served your country in other ways," you should recognize
such military terms...shouldn't you? :-)

Poor baby. Can't take it, can you?

Suggestion: Fire up that state-of-the-art Type 7 and "work" some
contacts. Get on the air. Have fun with ham radio. Try to avoid
"resonable discourse" of the one-way kind by disguised ad
hominems in here...it is tough on conservative morsemen trying
to be oh-so-superior to NCTAs in here. PCTA feelings get hurt
easily.

Len Anderson wrote:
In article ,
PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,

(Lenof21) writes:

Ever notice how Len avoids direct questions?

Ever notice how Miccolis does?

I do every day.

Yes, Brian and Len do avoid direct questions - every day.

No one is obliged to answer loaded questions.

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Getting Lennie to answer "loaded questions" like "when are you
going to get that "Extra lite out of the box" is a LOADED
question...?!?!?!

It was YOUR assertion, Lennie!

And how about other questions like "What evidence do you have of
"dishonesty" of the ARRL BoD?

Which radio service is created by the FCC for "purely recreational
pursuits"?

Nor do we have a "retraction" or other acknowledgement of your
errors (yes..ERROR(S)) of Part 97...

BBWBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA
! ! ! ! ! ! !

However, J.P. has avoided a direct answer to HOW he "serves
his country" in the near-same way someone has in the
military. So has the coslonaut. All are supposed to "figure
that out."

Direct question avoided, sidestepped, disguised by mis-
direction onto other things.

He's answered those several times over.

So far, there is absolutely ZERO "direct" answer from YOU

Careful, Brian...remember that J.P. "serves his country" (by
being
a super-special amateur morseman).

Well, if you think so. I don't recall ever claiming that.

So...how DO you "serve your country in other ways?"

How do YOU serve, Lennie...?!?!

You make a point of asking others, but where's YOUR evidence of
having done ANYthing since 1956...?!?!

We pose valid arguments but you avoid them.

Tsk. FALSE. ERRONEOUS.

Your arguments in favor of retaining the morse code test have
been proven false.

No, they have not.

You refuse to acknowledge that replies have truth in them.
You misdirect by the disguised ad hominem of saying the
PCTAs "are full of errors."

To the contrary. Jim has repeatedly acknowledged what he thought
were "valid points" in your arguments.

So far all YOU have done is call him names, attempt to disparge
his character and experience, and avoid answering the same questions
when put to you!

Do we call you names? Tell you to shut up? Call you "anal-retentive"
or
"Republican"?

Yes, you do. In another post you've named me as a "liberal."
Used that appelation as a pejorative as if only the political
conservatives were the good guys. Adding, in that unique (but
transparent) disguise of an ad hominem attack cum troll bait.

No bait. No troll. Not when it's true.

Or is that *your* game?

No "game." Seeing that reasonable discourse evaporated long
ago amidst the virtual snowstorm of all-subjects-are-suitable-for-
posting blog content in here, all that seems to continue is the
usual PCTA "superiority" pejoratives on the person of NCTAs.

The "reasonable discourse" disappeared in a vail of smoke from
profanities and name calling delivered from the keyboard of Leonard H.
Anderson.

Google refers.

In other words, you are receiving "return fire." Seeing as you
have "served your country in other ways," you should recognize
such military terms...shouldn't you?

Ahhhhhhh! Lennie hoping no one remembers his "under fire" and
"under threat of the Russian Bear" posts.

The only "fire" Lennie was under was some Tiki lights of some
Japanese sushi bar just outside his rear area radio staion base.

Poor baby. Can't take it, can you?

Suggestion: Fire up that state-of-the-art Type 7 and "work" some
contacts. Get on the air. Have fun with ham radio. Try to avoid
"resonable discourse" of the one-way kind by disguised ad
hominems in here...it is tough on conservative morsemen trying
to be oh-so-superior to NCTAs in here. PCTA feelings get hurt
easily.

Here's something for YOUR feelings, Lennie....

LEONARD H. ANDERSON IS A KNOWN CHRONIC LIAR AND PROPRIETARY THIEF.





Putz.
Putz.

Steve, K4YZ