| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer. Too much caffeine? More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does it matter? He's a putz either way. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer. Too much caffeine? More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does it matter? He's a putz either way. These demented rants of his grow more strange by the week. His factual errors are numerous. The legion of lurkers which he claimed would rise to the defense of his ideas never materialized and he's irrelevant to amateur radio in this country. Leonard really needs a new cause. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in news:4229580A.BDD9A351
@earthlink.net: K4YZ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer. Too much caffeine? More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does it matter? He's a putz either way. These demented rants of his grow more strange by the week. His factual errors are numerous. The legion of lurkers which he claimed would rise to the defense of his ideas never materialized and he's irrelevant to amateur radio in this country. Leonard really needs a new cause. Dave K8MN I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "Dee Flint" wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . Michael Coslo wrote in : [snip] It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those licences and upgrading them. Alun N3KIP Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a certain date? It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. Those who don't care won't be any great loss. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices that would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are any active Novices? 73 de Alun, N3KIP There are a few though they are very few. I was looking at vanity call signs recently issued on some site or another and there was even a Novice who had received a vanity call. Since he/she was restricted to a 2x3 call there must have been some other reason that they wished a new call. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote in message ups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . Michael Coslo wrote in : [snip] It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those licences and upgrading them. Alun N3KIP Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a certain date? Like the old Novice.. It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. I still remember the screaming from 1968 when "incentive licensing" went back into effect. What you propose would be worse. They wouldn't be screaming any louder than those opposed to automatic upgrades would be. Any change from the current will cause major screaming other something like closing the classes to new licenses as was done in 2000. Personally I happen to think leaving the classes alone is the best thing. Those who don't care won't be any great loss. There's also the group who don't know. It's almost 5 years since restructuring and I still read/hear questions from hams about what the license structure and test requirements are, particularly from inactive or narrow-focused hams. Well the FCC expects hams to keep up with the rules or they send them greeting cards if the violate the new ones. This wouldn't be any worse. It could be handled by specifying that they must upgrade by their next renewal. If they forget to renew, they loose their license anyway. Those who do attempt to renew could get a form stating that they must upgrade instead. Afterall, they will have the remainder of their term plus the grace period (which I would keep) to use their existing license for the appropriate elements. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have. What good would that really do, Dee? If nothing else, it would give folks like the BPL companies ammunition against us. 73 de Jim, N2EY It makes no less and no more sense than "auto upgrades." I don't particularly put it forth as a serious suggestion. Too many people are simply yakking on about the "burden" and "confusion" engendered by retaining these close classes so chose to describe an alternative. I just threw in the "deadwood" part since some people are so worried about the number of hams and the accuracy of the numbers. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in news:4229580A.BDD9A351 @earthlink.net: K4YZ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer. Too much caffeine? More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does it matter? He's a putz either way. These demented rants of his grow more strange by the week. His factual errors are numerous. The legion of lurkers which he claimed would rise to the defense of his ideas never materialized and he's irrelevant to amateur radio in this country. Leonard really needs a new cause. Dave K8MN I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. "Satirical comments"...?!?! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! Lennie left "over the top" years ago and went straight to "over the edge". Lennie Anderson has been REPEATEDLY proven to be a L I A R, Alun. Not "wrong"..."Wrong" is when you make a mistake, and when it's pointed out to you why it's wrong, you acknowldege it and move on. Leonard H. Anderson of Sun Valley Californis is a liar. Period. He's NOT a satirist, and there's nothing comical about his insults and deceptions. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Geeze...I hope not. Alun's previously impressed me as being pretty balanced. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... Michael Coslo wrote in : [snip] It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those licences and upgrading them. Alun N3KIP Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a certain date? It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. Those who don't care won't be any great loss. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices that would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are any active Novices? 73 de Alun, N3KIP I know of three local novices that are on ten meters every night. That's all they want. They have no need for VHF and are just happy with what privileges they have now. |
"K4YZ" wrote in
oups.com: Dave Heil wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. "Satirical comments"...?!?! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! Lennie left "over the top" years ago and went straight to "over the edge". Lennie Anderson has been REPEATEDLY proven to be a L I A R, Alun. Not "wrong"..."Wrong" is when you make a mistake, and when it's pointed out to you why it's wrong, you acknowldege it and move on. Leonard H. Anderson of Sun Valley Californis is a liar. Period. He's NOT a satirist, and there's nothing comical about his insults and deceptions. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Geeze...I hope not. Alun's previously impressed me as being pretty balanced. 73 Steve, K4YZ Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here seem to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of truth to it. Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. |
whoever whoever@wherever wrote in
: Alun L. Palmer wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message 0... Michael Coslo wrote in : [snip] It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from eliminating those licences and upgrading them. Alun N3KIP Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam by a certain date? It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade. Those who don't care won't be any great loss. Let's shake the dead wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices that would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are any active Novices? 73 de Alun, N3KIP I know of three local novices that are on ten meters every night. That's all they want. They have no need for VHF and are just happy with what privileges they have now. So that's where they are! Let them have Tech privileges and they'll stay right where they are anyway, right? Actually, I think there should be as few different licences as possible, and that inevitably involves merging licences. I don't think that 'automatic upgrades' are a problem, as those affected all have 'time in grade'. On reflection, I don't favour downgrades. |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... [snip] Actually, I think there should be as few different licences as possible, and that inevitably involves merging licences. I don't think that 'automatic upgrades' are a problem, as those affected all have 'time in grade'. On reflection, I don't favour downgrades. There is nothing inevitable about it. Time will take care of the matter. There is no reason for either automatic upgrades or downgrades. It is no particular additional burden to anyone to leave it as it is. There are only three possible classes for new or upgrading hams. That seems about right to me. Even when I originally licensed and passed through all five levels, I thought three would be more appropriate. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in oups.com: Dave Heil wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. "Satirical comments"...?!?! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! Lennie left "over the top" years ago and went straight to "over the edge". Lennie Anderson has been REPEATEDLY proven to be a L I A R, Alun. Not "wrong"..."Wrong" is when you make a mistake, and when it's pointed out to you why it's wrong, you acknowldege it and move on. Leonard H. Anderson of Sun Valley Californis is a liar. Period. He's NOT a satirist, and there's nothing comical about his insults and deceptions. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Geeze...I hope not. Alun's previously impressed me as being pretty balanced. 73 Steve, K4YZ Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here seem to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of truth to it. Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. Of course he places me in that group also. Solely on my support for the Element 1 test. The picture he paints of me is nowhere near the truth. But broad brushes paint broad swaths, and apparently if a person is in favor of a Morse code test, it is then mandatory that they are a Morsodist, an "Olde Tyme Hamme" and in favor of the "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society, right? No other possibility exists? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: Dave Heil wrote in news:4229580A.BDD9A351 @earthlink.net: K4YZ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer. Too much caffeine? More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does it matter? He's a putz either way. These demented rants of his grow more strange by the week. His factual errors are numerous. The legion of lurkers which he claimed would rise to the defense of his ideas never materialized and he's irrelevant to amateur radio in this country. Leonard really needs a new cause. Dave K8MN I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't. It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio either then. Dave K8MN |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here seem to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of truth to it. Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. Are you planning to change your mind on that minimum age thing? Dave K8MN |
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Mar 5 2005 5:32 pm:
"K4YZ" wrote in roups.com: Dave Heil wrote: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. "Satirical comments"...?!?! BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! Lennie left "over the top" years ago and went straight to "over the edge". Lennie Anderson has been REPEATEDLY proven to be a L I A R, Alun. Not "wrong"..."Wrong" is when you make a mistake, and when it's pointed out to you why it's wrong, you acknowldege it and move on. Leonard H. Anderson of Sun Valley Californis is a liar. Period. He's NOT a satirist, and there's nothing comical about his insults and deceptions. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Geeze...I hope not. Alun's previously impressed me as being pretty balanced. Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here seem to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of truth to it. Alun, you must understand that Robeson's name-calling is a long- established habit of his, his own defense against not having a valid opinion/comeback on the subject in a thread. He goes for the Personal Attack and then loses his objectivity in his own insults while manufacturing "issues" that aren't there. I could post my own reasons for advocating the elimination of the morse code test every week and the opponents (PCTA extras all) would simply say I am "lying" and have "ulterior motives." The PCTA extras do that ANYWAY! :-) This "charge" that "I advocate a minimum age for amateur radio" comes out of my Comment on docket 98-143 that was filed at the FCC on 13 January 1998. [still on file there in the ECFS] I submitted it via surface mail (appropriate copies per instructions) and then didn't follow it up. My Comment was 14 pages long and that item was on the last page. Over a year after that filing, one in here tried to make that a "cause celebre" as if it were tantamount to Treason against the State! :-) Tsk, tsk. Once that is done, some want to use that capital-crimes charge when they can't think up enough false charges of damnation. :-) By the way, that "charge" came out of a news item on the ARRL web page which featured "the youngest hams," two SIX YEAR OLDS who "passed their written exams" for Novice and Technician classes, respectively. Uh huh. :-) Uproar from the PCTAs followed, a whole fantasy scenario of child prodigies (if they took ham exams) and a lot of sub- threads of how the PCTA's children were also superior. :-) FANTASY is a very big thing among the PCTA. All seem to think they are somehow "pioneering" the airwaves by using morse code...well after the actual pioneering was done before their time. Morse code is demanded of all newcomers on some imaginary need of "showing dedication and committment to the amateur community!" :-) That continues with labels of "Real" hams know morse! Those hams who haven't been federally tested for morse code are "inferior" and apparently do not deserve their licenses. :-) Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. My "expression" in here without the false facade of gratuitous complements to the "superiority" of the olde-tymers. :-) They cannot stand anyone who's been deep into radio for a long time, done a lot, yet doesn't subscribe to their fantasies. Robeson has seemingly real fantasies (to him its not an oxymoron) and imagines conditions which didn't exist with others, then he expands on those as if it were reality. It isn't. A case example is his claim that he can simply lift a telephone, call authorities, and have anyone picked up on the strength of his professional qualifications in medicine! That's absurd. Few physicians have such power. Nurses do not. Yet Robeson insisted in here that he could have Brian Burke put away with such a call. Tsk. Such exaggeration carried braggadoccio over the brink into some sort of mental imbalance due to its irrationality. [just one example out of many] Another syndrome is his "mirror" postings. If he is called on some of his charges (such as constant name-calling as a message ending salutation), he turns around and accuses those who called him on his charges for doing the same thing! That is on-going in here, the "mirror" postings delayed by perhaps a week or slightly more, but they DO appear. In one way, interesting to watch the psychosis develop. Sort of a field example in psychology classes. Heil is guilty of some of the same, although he may just be trolling for word-fighting. Both Heil and Robeson MUST triumph in the word-fights, will never ever admit to any wrong-doing and always try to turn around things so the other party is at fault. It's always about personalities and the subjects are "right" if they mirror the ARRL words, "wrong" if they are contrary to the holy ARRL words. :-) The pro-code-test-advocates are simply Believers in their self-righteous attitudes, long ago brainwashed into their little world of radio fantasy. They are fanatics, almost as fedayin ready to suicide-bomb anyone who speaks against their idolatrous ideals. Perhaps their fanaticsm makes them so angry and hateful? Their anger and hate does not bode well for a hobby, an avocation, something done for personal enjoyment. They don't realize that since their self-righteousness blinds them. There's a morbid fascination about their actions. :-) |
|
Dave Heil wrote in
: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: Dave Heil wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: Dave Heil wrote in news:4229580A.BDD9A351 @earthlink.net: K4YZ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: It's been nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed, noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!" :-) You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer. Too much caffeine? More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does it matter? He's a putz either way. These demented rants of his grow more strange by the week. His factual errors are numerous. The legion of lurkers which he claimed would rise to the defense of his ideas never materialized and he's irrelevant to amateur radio in this country. Leonard really needs a new cause. Dave K8MN I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't. It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio either then. Dave K8MN What kind of question is that? I don't think issuing licences to children makes much difference from that angle. When someone is on the air they are in a public place. |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: Dave Heil wrote in Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't. It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio either then. What kind of question is that? I don't think issuing licences to children makes much difference from that angle. When someone is on the air they are in a public place. It's mathematics, Alun.... A = B = C. You made statements approving of Lennie's "satirical" comments. Lennie approves of a minimum age for Amateurs and has made (very poorly worded) statements that appear to suggest he approves of pedophiles in Amateur Radio. (I doubt he supports pedophilia, however he WOULD support ANYthing that could blacken Amateur Radio's public perception...) Therefore you approve of a minimum age and pedophiles in Amateur Radio. I have every reason to doubt that you do support a minimum age for Amateurs and I'd be shocked if you support pedophilia, however this is a very clear example of why it is NOT possible to "have your cake and eat it too" with regards to "free speech". Lennie made some really idiotic comments vis-a-vis the presence of pedophiles in Amateur Radio. I would HOPE that he didn't mean for things to come out the way he said, although it's NOT in his nature to back away from even the stupidest things he's done. Lennie has also out-and-out lied over and over again vis-a-vis Amatuer Radio and his personal "achivements". And again, YOU stated that his comments were "over the top", but were right on spot. So....Would YOU care to retract or modify any part of your declaration of "support" for Leonard, or was it indeed your intent to "support" his mistruths, outright deceit, poor grammar and verbal mayhem upon Amateur Radio...??? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
"K4YZ" wrote in news:1110115499.953580.314740
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: Dave Heil wrote in Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't. It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio either then. What kind of question is that? I don't think issuing licences to children makes much difference from that angle. When someone is on the air they are in a public place. It's mathematics, Alun.... A = B = C. You made statements approving of Lennie's "satirical" comments. Lennie approves of a minimum age for Amateurs and has made (very poorly worded) statements that appear to suggest he approves of pedophiles in Amateur Radio. (I doubt he supports pedophilia, however he WOULD support ANYthing that could blacken Amateur Radio's public perception...) Therefore you approve of a minimum age and pedophiles in Amateur Radio. I have every reason to doubt that you do support a minimum age for Amateurs and I'd be shocked if you support pedophilia, however this is a very clear example of why it is NOT possible to "have your cake and eat it too" with regards to "free speech". Lennie made some really idiotic comments vis-a-vis the presence of pedophiles in Amateur Radio. I would HOPE that he didn't mean for things to come out the way he said, although it's NOT in his nature to back away from even the stupidest things he's done. Lennie has also out-and-out lied over and over again vis-a-vis Amatuer Radio and his personal "achivements". And again, YOU stated that his comments were "over the top", but were right on spot. So....Would YOU care to retract or modify any part of your declaration of "support" for Leonard, or was it indeed your intent to "support" his mistruths, outright deceit, poor grammar and verbal mayhem upon Amateur Radio...??? 73 Steve, K4YZ It should be apparent even to an idiot that I was referring to a particular comment of Len's, not to everything he has ever said! |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in : "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: Dave Heil wrote in : I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem to be right on the money. Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the Len Anderson Fan Club. Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't. It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio either then. What kind of question is that? "Can't have any pedophiles in ham radio, no sir!" --Len Anderson March 4, 2005 That kind of question. I don't think issuing licences to children makes much difference from that angle. When someone is on the air they are in a public place. I don't believe you are keeping up, Alun. I don't see a single problem necessitating the need for a minimum age for amateur radio licensing. Len does. His comments to the FCC are there to see. His latest comment about pedophiles is certainly "over the top". I'd be careful before writing "Lennie is right" unless you know everything Len has stated--also because he deplores being called "Lennie", never mind all the things he has called others. Dave K8MN |
From: Mike Coslo who, unable to quite reach the edges of space
(at least today), inflated the following balloon on Sat, Mar 5 2005 9:50 pm Alun L. Palmer wrote: Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here seem to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of truth to it. Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong. Of course he places me in that group also. Tsk. I "placed you in that group?" NO. Coslo was NOT mentioned by name. Coslo, seeming to be super-sensitive, placed HIMSELF in that "category." :-) Solely on my support for the Element 1 test. Tsk. More over-sensitivity. Uber-sensitivity maybe... The picture he paints of me is nowhere near the truth. More tsk. Had I painted your picture, it would be accurate. Illustrators paint pictures (or draw them) as they are. But broad brushes paint broad swaths, and apparently if a person is in favor of a Morse code test, it is then mandatory that they are a Morsodist, an "Olde Tyme Hamme" and in favor of the "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society, right? Tsk. Lack of knowledge on the tools of the illustrator. "Broad brushes" (used by illustrators) can, indeed, paint little lines or points. That's called "technique with the medium." Coslo, what you have done is merely to fall face-down on a palette-plate of wet paint and gotten yourself dirty. If you can't watch where you are stepping, don't blame others for your falling. Wipe yourself off and try again. No other possibility exists? Not in THIS newsgroup! :-) PCTA fantasy is: "Real" hams know code! CB is evil, wicked, mean, and nasty, full of "illegals" and "law violators," every one of them! NO ONE may say anything against the ARRL for any reason for feer of invoking lightning from the gods! The only ones "qualified" to operate radio transmitters below 30 MHz are those who passed a federal test for morse code cognition! This newsgroup is a Chat Room for the PCTA, where they can hang and make a group blog on the whichness of the what (the what not necessarily related to radio). Above all, NO ONE may say anything in here (or to the government) about amateur radio without a valid amateur radio license! [the "new" Bill of Rights] That SO upsets all those olde-tyme hammes who "rule" the world of ham just from tenure in that lifestyle. :-) |
Dave Heil, wearing his invisible royal robes as Archbishop of
the Church of St. Hiram, turned livid with apoplexy and blurted out the following personal anguish on wrote on Sun, Mar 6 2005 6:06 am: Alun, you must understand that Robeson's name-calling is a long- established habit of his, his own defense against not having a valid opinion/comeback on the subject in a thread. He goes for the Personal Attack and then loses his objectivity in his own insults while manufacturing "issues" that aren't there. "Big badass Dave" Tsk. NO ONE can tell big badass Dave what to do! :-) "not wearing the SS uniform with twin lightning bolts but otherwise acting like a downsized Gestapo veteran" Tsk. The Waffen SS had to go...try to accept downsizing with SOME semblance of grace and dignity. Return the uniform to Central Casting...the rental fee is overdue. "The Avenging Angle" "concerning the Avenging Angle's further adventures in 'waste of time'" Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did big badass Dave have "seven hostile actions, TOO? Temper fry... "Jimmy Who and cronies" You know who... :-) This sampling from the past couple of weeks of r.r.a.p. were all written by Leonard Anderson, the guy who "goes for the Personal Attack and then loses his objectivity in his own insults while manufacturing 'issues' that aren't there". Poor big badass Dave, another uber-sensitive PCTA extra who pretends to "rule" in amateur radio. All fully of hissies today. Can't take return fire like a seasoned combat veteran of Vietnam in-country? Tsk, tsk, tsk. It matters not when it was written nor does it matter that you didn't follow it up. It matters that you wrote it. Oh, my! "Once written, twice wry!" :-) There are legal procedures for big badass Dave to take in forcing the FCC to disregard what I wrote. I would suggest a good attorney for consultation into filing charges of felony mindslaughter and violation of the "new" Bill of Rights in regards to amateur radio! Hurry! The statute of limitations may run out soon! [statute in this case has clay feet, doesn't run fast] You've never disavowed it or asked that the FCC disregard it. Why should I? :-) The charge was made because it is absolutely true. We ARE in agreement! ARRL news featured the story of two adorable young children becoming, possibly, the "youngest hams" at age 6. :-) You tap danced then as you are tap dancing now. Never professionally! :-) Not even in an amateur production! I used to date a professional dancer a long time ago (a "gypsy" in the TV biz). We never danced vertically. I did get to put on some Haney Plates though, learned a few time-steps. :-) Nice of you to remind me of days long ago... Now you wouldn't want to be presented with any facts that would give lie to the statement above, would you? Irrelevant. PCTA extras in here don't recognize reality or the real differences between right and wrong...anything said against any PCTA extra is autormatically a "lie." Sometimes it looks like PCTA extras bathe in Lie Soap. I don't know of a single soul here who has ever made that claim or anything near it. No need for you to do that. You RULE amateur radio. Those who RULE need not have any precedent for their statements. [they are "precedent for life?"] Don't worry about it too much, Leonard. You don't have an amateur radio license to deserve. Tsk. I have a commercial radio license, had one for a long time. I've had a long career IN radio-electronics beginning in radio in early 1953...which is ten years longer than big badass Dave and his first teen-age amateure Novice thingy. :-) I'll grant you that anytime you show up, it is deep. ...and cold, too! :-) Let me ask you a couple of plain question to see if I can get some straight answer from you, Len. What, and take all the joy out of your compulsive-obsessive behavior in here to attempt word-triumph over selected writers? :-) When is the last time that you ever admitted to any wrongdoing in here? According to newsgroup RULEZ (written by PCTA extras) it was the very last posting I made...ANY posting. :-) ALL postings, in fact. According to those RULEZ, NO "unlicensed" (in the amateur radio service) poster has "any business saying anything about amateur radio!" :-) [of course, amateur radio is, by definition, NOT about any business, is it? :-) ] Further, the RULEZ say that ALL PCTA extras can make any charges, ask questions which NCTAs MUST answer! The "penalty" for not answering - as the PCTA extras expect - is seve Many many posts and quotes from Google DEMANDING answers sufficient to satisfy those PCTA extra gods of radio. Woe to all when the PCTA extras' wounds still fester and grow gangrenous! I don't need the ARRL's input to tangle with the likes of you. Tsk. ARRL is not involved in my "likes." :-) Do you believe in your self-righteous attitudes, Len? Ennumerate those "attitudes," big badass Dave. Show your work. [which is going to be lines and lines and lines and lines of Google quotes...:-) ] I have this funny belief in FREEDOM, a wonderful thing about freedom of expression and the freedom of being able to communicate with my government to make changes. [that must not be in big badass Dave's world...] That FREEDOM used to be guaranteed to all U.S. citizens. However, NOT in U.S. amateur radio where ONLY the PCTA extras want to RULE. Tsk. Are you demented? No. :-) I'm just a work professional in radio- electronics who has had a hobby of all electronics longer than I've been a professional. I'm terribly fascinated by the outrage and hatred presented by some self-righteous knowitalls who pretend to RULE an activity - especially a hobby - just because they think they RULE. :-) How much of a fanatic would one have to be to spend years in jousting with participants in an avocation in which you have no part? Tsk. Look in the mirror, big badass Dave. If you actually have a reflection, ask your image why he persists in the compulsive-obsessive action against only certain individuals, trying to attack their person constantly. :-) |
From: Dave Heil , another poor baby
outraged and can't take it anymore shouted into his keyboard on Sun, Mar 6 2005 1:17 pm: , picturing another wearing invisible robes, wrote: Dave Heil, wearing his invisible royal robes as Archbishop of the Church of St. Hiram, turned livid with apoplexy and blurted out the following personal anguish on Does it please you to think of me wearing something invisible, Len? Tsk. From the old folk fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes." The emperor (that's you) got talked into some expensive NEW clothes (which didn't exist) and in vanity insisted on wearing them in public to show off his finery. Self-delusion. So YOU. Tsk. NO ONE can tell big badass Dave what to do! :-) Can anyone tell you what to do, little wizened Leonard? Big badass Dave thinks he can. :-) "Little?!?" "Wizened?!?" Tsk. Another PCTA Double Standard displayed for all to see. I don't belong to the Waffen SS, Leonid. First it is invisible robes and now, make believe uniforms. The Waffen SS never existed? The Holocaust never existed? Tsk, big badass dave wants to act just like an SS man, complete with "show your papers!" orders and other typical bullying tactics. Hissies? No, I simply pointed out that you continue to do that which you accuse others of doing. You do it frequently. Tsk, tsk. You do it to others and bitch and whine when someone does it right back on you! Poor baby. Does it somehow bother you that I'm a Vietnam combat veteran? "Combat?!?" Ho ho! :-) You made the statement to the FCC. The Commission has taken no steps to implement your idea. It likely never will. Common sense prevails. Tsk. FCC took no steps to implement what the ARRL wanted. "Common sense prevails!" Would you like to be reminded of what you wrote in the wake of the heat you took over the issue? If you want to **** off others with many and varied Google quotes, go right ahead. [you'd be wasting your time...and others' time] Tsk. I took no "heat" on that single small part of my Comment for nearly a year after the FCC filed it. Then it was brought up in an effort to attack me personally...which is the standard mode of PCTA extras' so-called "debate." PCTA extras in here don't recognize reality or the real differences between right and wrong...anything said against any PCTA extra is autormatically a "lie." Well, a lie is certainly a lie. You've lied. Nope. PCTA extras do the "1984" thing with "Truthspeak," turning around Right and Wrong to suit their own brainwashing. You RULE amateur radio. Those who RULE need not have any precedent for their statements. [they are "precedent for life?"] That's funny. I don't recall ever making a comment to the effect that I rule amateur radio. Can you come up with it from an archive? You RULE by forbidding open discussion on amateur regulation issues with the usual bullying tactics against NCTAs. Plain. No "archives" need be quoted. You RULE based on the delusion of "seniority/tenure" in amateur radio, as if those four decades of keeping your ham license had some regulatory impact. Doesn't work that way, senor, amateur radio is a hobby, not a job, not a guild, not an association. Never was except in the minds of a few. The FCC doesn't require any Commissioners or staff to hold amateur radio licenses in order for them to REGULATE ALL of amateur radio law. You are NOT an FCC Commissioner. You are NOT an FCC staffer. You ARE a big loudmouth. This isn't a commercial radio newsgroup. True...it's a BLOG for PCTA extras to vent their upset... :-) I've had a long career IN radio-electronics beginning in radio in early 1953 How nice for you. Yes. it was and continues to be nice! :-) Still profitable. Interesting, fascinating as well! Nope that wasn't a straight answer. When is the last time you ever admitted to any wrongdoing in here? According to newsgroup RULEZ (written by PCTA extras) it was the very last posting I made...ANY posting. :-) ALL postings, in fact. According to those RULEZ, NO "unlicensed" (in the amateur radio service) poster has "any business saying anything about amateur radio!" :-) No straight answer here. When was the last time you admitted to any wrongdoing here? According to newsgroup RULEZ (written by PCTA extras) it was the very last posting I made...ANY posting. :-) ALL postings, in fact. According to those RULEZ, NO "unlicensed" (in the amateur radio service) poster has "any business saying anything about amateur radio!" :-) I don't see a straight answer here. When was the last time you admitted to any wrongdoing here. According to newsgroup RULEZ (written by PCTA extras) it was the very last posting I made...ANY posting. :-) ALL postings, in fact. According to those RULEZ, NO "unlicensed" (in the amateur radio service) poster has "any business saying anything about amateur radio!" :-) Not a sign of a straight answer. When was the last time you admitted to any wrongdoing here? According to newsgroup RULEZ (written by PCTA extras) it was the very last posting I made...ANY posting. :-) ALL postings, in fact. According to those RULEZ, NO "unlicensed" (in the amateur radio service) poster has "any business saying anything about amateur radio!" :-) Do you believe in your self-righteous attitudes, Len? Ennumerate those "attitudes," big badass Dave. Don't you know what your own self-righteous attitudes, little wizened Len? You've just made an accusation about the "self-righteous attitudes" of others. You didn't "ennumerate" them. Tsk. I don't have to list them. They are in plain sight. :-) PCTA extras have the "truth" (as they believe it). I have this funny belief in FREEDOM, a wonderful thing about freedom of expression and the freedom of being able to communicate with my government to make changes. [that must not be in big badass Dave's world...] You seem to believe in FREEDOM for yourself, but not for others with ideas at odds with yours. Tsk, tsk. I believe in freedom for all. You must think that is "wrong" in amateur radio...you RULE it the old-fashioned way, you bully it with others. :-) You've commented. Nobody applauded. Some laughed. Some ridiculed. Some argued. You have no guarantee that those things won't happen. Your freedoms don't trump anyone else's freedoms. That's just the way it works. Is it? Morse code testing remains for amateur radio licenses, long after it served its usefulness to the government agency regulating amateur radio. It has been lobbied for by the ARRL (a minority group) through the insistence of the olde-tyme board of directors' voting and the tradition of maintaining the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society, a living museum of old radio skills. That's a dictatorship by a minority group, very UN-democratic. But, big badass dave managed to pass the "CW" test and so have other PCTA extras. They LIKE being dictators and pushing others around. That makes them "somebody" and that seems to be very important to them. NOT "freedom." Except to the PCTA extras who have theirs and screw all the others, the newcomers. Nice attitude of theirs? No Nice democratic thing? No. Big badass dave, you have this nice shiny Orion, don't you? Why don't you go play with your Orion toy on the radio spectrum, work DX on HF with CW. Quit trying to play Boss. [the best you've done is to do a bad imitation of Boss Hogg...] |
|
|
|
Phil Kane wrote: On 3 Mar 2005 19:22:34 -0800, wrote: You've got to go back years and years to find another enforcement action of similar magnitude against a ham using Morse Code. We;ve had several actions over the years where a licensed ham was caught interfering with other stations by sending Morse over a DTMF pad....usually the letters "F" and "U"......including one where the interferer was trying to cover up a known jammer. We caught the first one first.... Fascinating, Phil! Was that on HF or VHF/UHF? The use of the DTMF pad makes it sound like a repeater thing. Several actions over the years works out to one every few years or so. Still a lot less than in voice modes, but more than "you've got to go back years and years". -- On the guy transmitting "code practice" 24/7: It is my understanding that there's no hard rule against doing what he did, *if* the practice is done on a published schedule and *if* station control and ID meet FCC regs. IOW, it's theoretically possible for a ham station to legally transmit code practice consisting of Bible texts 24/7. My take on the violation was that 1) There were questions about the station control. 2) There was no response to FCC's repeated requests for information on the station operation (primarily about 1)). Both of which lead to the NAL. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
Phil Kane wrote: On 7 Mar 2005 06:10:27 -0800, wrote: We;ve had several actions over the years where a licensed ham was caught interfering with other stations by sending Morse over a DTMF pad....usually the letters "F" and "U"......including one where the interferer was trying to cover up a known jammer. We caught the first one first.... Fascinating, Phil! Was that on HF or VHF/UHF? The use of the DTMF pad makes it sound like a repeater thing. 2 meters. In fairness to the facts, it was about 20 years ago. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Must have been one of those real, real, real early no-coders. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com