The FCC
 

The FCC

FROM N9OGL'S BLOG

http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/


The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are below
slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against the
FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998 when
I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which has
no local television service. The FCC dismissed the application and
waivers because they weren't filed during the filing window(although
the courts had ruled that the FCC must consider waivers and waivers can
be filed at anytime). As I stated to John Shimkus (who's on the House
Sub Committee on Telecommunication) why should I or anyone else
continue to apply for a license if the FCC won't consider an
application or waiver. It is in fact a waste of time and MONEY to
continue to try to get a license, and the ones who hurt the most is the
community. Here in central Illinois there are not that many TV
stations, so there is a number of television frequency available. So by
not consider my application and waiver the FCC hurt the public interest
because the community of Taylorville still has no local TV service. So
after applying six times I decide to go on the air without a license
because it was a waste of time to apply. In 1999 my group applied for a
low power FM license and again the FCC and Congress ****ED me, my group
and the community out of a valuable resource. Now, I'm going to
enlighten the ham community with my knowledge and I'm not going to let
some licensed CB operator screw me out of that....So let the fight
begin!

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
The FCC

FROM N9OGL'S BLOG

http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/


The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are
below
slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against
the
FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998
when
I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which
has
no local television service.

It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
"character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not as
strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.

The following quotes from your "blog" is pretty explanatory as to
why they do that:

The FCC dismissed the application and
waivers because they weren't filed during the filing window(although
the courts had ruled that the FCC must consider waivers and waivers
can
be filed at anytime). As I stated to John Shimkus (who's on the House
Sub Committee on Telecommunication) why should I or anyone else
continue to apply for a license if the FCC won't consider an
application or waiver.

You obviously missed the "Idiot Exclusionary Rule".

You met THAT criteria.

It is in fact a waste of time and MONEY to
continue to try to get a license, and the ones who hurt the most is
the
community.

Maybe you haven't quite gotten the picture yet, Todd. YOU haven't
proven to the FCC that you can meet the standards of being a
licensee...ESPECIALLY in the broadcast services.

Here in central Illinois there are not that many TV
stations, so there is a number of television frequency available. So
by
not consider my application and waiver the FCC hurt the public
interest
because the community of Taylorville still has no local TV service.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you'e an incometent idiot who hasn't
met the criteria for licensure?

So after applying six times I decide to go on the air without a
license
because it was a waste of time to apply.

And you wonder why the FCC wouldn't give you a broadcast license?

You're violating the regulations of the one radio service you ARE
a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
regulations...???

In 1999 my group applied for a
low power FM license and again the FCC and Congress ****ED me, my
group
and the community out of a valuable resource.

A "valuable resource" to whom?

And the FCC and Congress didn't **** you out of anything, Todd.

You didn't qualify to be an FCC licensee for the service you were
requesting then...You don't qualify now.

Now, I'm going to
enlighten the ham community with my knowledge and I'm not going to
let
some licensed CB operator screw me out of that....So let the fight
begin!

What fight?

You're making a fool out of yourself. (It appears it's an
on-going proceess)

You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a bank
of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after this
episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
bankruptcy.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
The FCC

FROM N9OGL'S BLOG

http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/


The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are
below
slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against
the
FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998
when
I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which
has
no local television service.

It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
"character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not as
strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.

Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE. The FCC Low
Power TV division in the Mass Media Bureau wasn't posting the filing
windows like their suppose to, that's what it comes down to. I suggest
you and your buddies on here stick with ham radio. At any rate the FCC
may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
"the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
window or not. again I suggest you and your buddies stick with ham
radio.


The following quotes from your "blog" is pretty explanatory as
to
why they do that:

The FCC dismissed the application and
waivers because they weren't filed during the filing
window(although
the courts had ruled that the FCC must consider waivers and waivers
can
be filed at anytime). As I stated to John Shimkus (who's on the
House
Sub Committee on Telecommunication) why should I or anyone else
continue to apply for a license if the FCC won't consider an
application or waiver.

You obviously missed the "Idiot Exclusionary Rule".

You met THAT criteria.

It is in fact a waste of time and MONEY to
continue to try to get a license, and the ones who hurt the most is
the
community.

Maybe you haven't quite gotten the picture yet, Todd. YOU
haven't
proven to the FCC that you can meet the standards of being a
licensee...ESPECIALLY in the broadcast services.

Here in central Illinois there are not that many TV
stations, so there is a number of television frequency available.
So
by
not consider my application and waiver the FCC hurt the public
interest
because the community of Taylorville still has no local TV service.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you'e an incometent idiot who
hasn't
met the criteria for licensure?

So What? are you saying people mentally handicap can't or shouldn't
give a license, because if the FCC IS doing that it is a violation of
ADA (American Disabilities Act)and I'll be sure to past that on to the
Telecommunications Sub Committee. I'll be the first one to file a
lawsuit against the FCC.

So after applying six times I decide to go on the air without a
license
because it was a waste of time to apply.

And you wonder why the FCC wouldn't give you a broadcast
license?

You're violating the regulations of the one radio service you
ARE
a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
regulations...???

Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed sinced
1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter. In my
opinion G.I. JOE you don't know what the **** your talking about.

In 1999 my group applied for a
low power FM license and again the FCC and Congress ****ED me, my
group
and the community out of a valuable resource.

A "valuable resource" to whom?

And the FCC and Congress didn't **** you out of anything, Todd.

You didn't qualify to be an FCC licensee for the service you were
requesting then...You don't qualify now.

Now, I'm going to
enlighten the ham community with my knowledge and I'm not going to
let
some licensed CB operator screw me out of that....So let the fight
begin!

What fight?

You're making a fool out of yourself. (It appears it's an
on-going proceess)

You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a
bank
of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after this
episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
bankruptcy.

I have a little bit more money and power then what you think G.I. JOE,
So keep lying to yourself.


Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
"character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not
as
strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.

Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE.

Who's "GI Joe"...???

And yes, character is very much a part of FCC licensure,
especially in the broadcast services.

The FCC Low
Power TV division in the Mass Media Bureau wasn't posting the filing
windows like their suppose to, that's what it comes down to. I
suggest
you and your buddies on here stick with ham radio. At any rate the
FCC
may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
"the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
window or not. again I suggest you and your buddies stick with ham
radio.

Then I suggest YOU take your silly diatribe to
"alt.wannabe.broadcaster.abusing.ham.radio", Todd...Other than the
obvious abuse of priviledge, your rantings have nothing to do with
Amateur Radio.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you're an incometent idiot who
hasn't
met the criteria for licensure?

So What? are you saying people mentally handicap can't or shouldn't
give a license, because if the FCC IS doing that it is a violation of
ADA (American Disabilities Act)and I'll be sure to past that on to
the
Telecommunications Sub Committee. I'll be the first one to file a
lawsuit against the FCC.

Toddie, Toddie, Toddie...

You try to toggle "incompetence" with "handicap". They are NOT
the same.

Steven Hawking, for example, has one of the most severe physical
handicaps ever known to man, but he is eminently competent in all other
respects.

You, on the otherhand, have all of the physical facilities a
"normal" human being enjoys, however cannot understand even simple
regulatory process or express yourself "effectively" without liberal
use of profanity and insult.

E V E R Y rule, regulation and statute of law at every level
requires that a person be "competent" in order to be a functioning
citizen.

Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION from cerain rights
and priviledges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure by the Federal
Communications Commission.

Since you've apparently admitted that you ARE incompetent, Todd,
perhaps we should make sure that a copy of this exchange makes it to
any public hearing wherein your application for a broadcast license is
subject.

And we can include a copy of your "The FCC is Slime" diatribe from
your "blog". It would certainly lend credence to the argument that you
would be an enforcement risk if a broadcast license were issued to you.

You certainly take liberties with Amateur regulations. What makes
anyone believe you'll comply with commercial ones?

You're violating the regulations of the one radio service you
ARE
a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
regulations...???

Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed sinced
1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter.

I go 70MPH on the freeway in places where it's marked 65MPH and
never gotten a speeding ticket.

So what?

In my
opinion G.I. JOE you don't know what the #### your talking about.

(1) Who is "GI Joe"...???

(2) P L E A S E don't tell me this vaunted college you're about
to graduate from is bestowing a degree in English upon you, Todd,
because your comprehension, construction and application suck.

You're a prime example of why this nation is in dire straits...Our
schools, primary, secondary and post graduate, are failing.

I'd be humiliated to be a member of the Board of the institution
about to bestow ANY level degree upon a person who can't express
themselves more effectively than what you've demonstrated here.

You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a
bank
of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after this
episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
bankruptcy.

I have a little bit more money and power then what you think G.I.
JOE,
So keep lying to yourself.

Who's "G.I. Joe"...???

And you obviously have squat for "power" since you have to resort
to broadcasting via Amateur Radio rather than with the appropriate
commercial licnese, Todd.

As for money...well...if you had spent your (imaginary) funds on a
decent communication's lawyer, you would, in all likelyhood, already
have the broadcast license you so passionately covet.

Instead, you resort to a pontificating, self-promoting "blog" that
is verbally abusive, insulting, and absolutely innefective and useless
for obtaining said licensure. It is, in fact, counter productive to
it.

The only person lying to themselves here, Todd, is you.

Enjoy. It's your fantasy.

Steve, K4YZ

Rabbi Phil wrote:

Ahhhhhhhhhh SHUT-UP Robeson! a.k.a. Hot Air & B.S. Boy

Yet another anonymous coward...No guts...no spine...no idea who his
parents were...

Pity him.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
"character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not
as
strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.

Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE.

Who's "GI Joe"...???

And yes, character is very much a part of FCC licensure,
especially in the broadcast services.

Well your wrong, the ONLY reason the FCC dismissed the applications
were because they weren't filed during the Filing Window. If you want I
post the cover letter on my webpage and you read it for
yourself...that's if you can read.



The FCC Low
Power TV division in the Mass Media Bureau wasn't posting the
filing
windows like their suppose to, that's what it comes down to. I
suggest
you and your buddies on here stick with ham radio. At any rate the
FCC
may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
"the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
window or not. again I suggest you and your buddies stick with ham
radio.

Then I suggest YOU take your silly diatribe to
"alt.wannabe.broadcaster.abusing.ham.radio", Todd...Other than the
obvious abuse of priviledge, your rantings have nothing to do with
Amateur Radio.

No but you loosers have to deal with it.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you're an incometent idiot who
hasn't
met the criteria for licensure?

So What? are you saying people mentally handicap can't or shouldn't
give a license, because if the FCC IS doing that it is a violation
of
ADA (American Disabilities Act)and I'll be sure to past that on to
the
Telecommunications Sub Committee. I'll be the first one to file a
lawsuit against the FCC.

Toddie, Toddie, Toddie...

You try to toggle "incompetence" with "handicap". They are NOT
the same.

Steven Hawking, for example, has one of the most severe physical
handicaps ever known to man, but he is eminently competent in all
other
respects.

There is a difference between physical handicap and mental
handicap...Hawkings as you stated above has a Physical Handicap.

You, on the otherhand, have all of the physical facilities a
"normal" human being enjoys, however cannot understand even simple
regulatory process or express yourself "effectively" without liberal
use of profanity and insult.

E V E R Y rule, regulation and statute of law at every level
requires that a person be "competent" in order to be a functioning
citizen.

Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION from cerain
rights
and priviledges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure by the Federal
Communications Commission.

OH STEVE, THERE YOU GO AGAIN SAYING I'M IN VIOLATION OTHE
RULES.....YET, HAVE YOU HEARD MY BULLETINS????

Since you've apparently admitted that you ARE incompetent, Todd,
perhaps we should make sure that a copy of this exchange makes it to
any public hearing wherein your application for a broadcast license
is
subject.
NO, I JUST LIKE ASSHOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL

And we can include a copy of your "The FCC is Slime" diatribe
from
your "blog". It would certainly lend credence to the argument that
you
would be an enforcement risk if a broadcast license were issued to
you.

Turst me, i've called the FCC a lot worst to their faces.

You certainly take liberties with Amateur regulations. What
makes
anyone believe you'll comply with commercial ones?

You're violating the regulations of the one radio service
you
ARE
a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
regulations...???

Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed
sinced
1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter.

I go 70MPH on the freeway in places where it's marked 65MPH and
never gotten a speeding ticket.

no my point is your Claiming i'm violating the rules yet you don't have
the balls to back up your statement. yet, you've never heard my
transmission, nor, do you have the balls to explain what rules I'm
"suppose" to be violation. i have two forums here and my blog which you
can make your case yet you fail to do so.

So what?

In my
opinion G.I. JOE you don't know what the #### your talking about.

(1) Who is "GI Joe"...???

(2) P L E A S E don't tell me this vaunted college you're
about
to graduate from is bestowing a degree in English upon you, Todd,
because your comprehension, construction and application suck.

You're a prime example of why this nation is in dire
straits...Our
schools, primary, secondary and post graduate, are failing.

I'd be humiliated to be a member of the Board of the institution
about to bestow ANY level degree upon a person who can't express
themselves more effectively than what you've demonstrated here.

You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a
bank
of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after
this
episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
bankruptcy.

I have a little bit more money and power then what you think G.I.
JOE,
So keep lying to yourself.

Who's "G.I. Joe"...???

And you obviously have squat for "power" since you have to
resort
to broadcasting via Amateur Radio rather than with the appropriate
commercial licnese, Todd.

As for money...well...if you had spent your (imaginary) funds on
a
decent communication's lawyer, you would, in all likelyhood, already
have the broadcast license you so passionately covet.

Instead, you resort to a pontificating, self-promoting "blog"
that
is verbally abusive, insulting, and absolutely innefective and
useless
for obtaining said licensure. It is, in fact, counter productive to
it.

The only person lying to themselves here, Todd, is you.

Enjoy. It's your fantasy.

Steve, K4YZ

Sorry...coorection

NO, I JUST DONT LIKE ASSHOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL

N9OGL wrote:
Sorry...coorection

NO, I JUST DONT LIKE ASSHOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY
ILL

What's a "coorection"...?!?!

Who's discriminating against the mentally ill?

Steve, K4YZ

You know steve, your an asshole, who ever gave you the title
"HAM-RADIO" needs to be shot. because frankly you don't deserve that
title. As for my writing skills, as I've probably stated before I'm not
a writer. but I sure as hell can write a lot better then some amateurs
around here.. Hell, some of letter's In the past that I've got from the
FCC when they responded to a question was a hell of lot worse then what
I write. FInally I think people who keep bitching about someone writing
skills are trying to envade the questions being asked. Now I know your
probably going to say, well if the person could write so we could
understand them....well read the unstructured text and try to make
sense of it....or is it too much like work.... have fun on t newsgroup
Mr "Hate Radio"

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:

Sorry...coorection

NO, I JUST DONT LIKE ASSHOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL

FCC actions against Todd: Thousands of dollars

Reading a "coorection" from Todd: Priceless

Dave K8MN

N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains
certain
"character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously)
not
as
strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission
licensee.

Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE.

Who's "GI Joe"...???

And yes, character is very much a part of FCC licensure,
especially in the broadcast services.

Well your wrong, the ONLY reason the FCC dismissed the applications
were because they weren't filed during the Filing Window. If you want
I
post the cover letter on my webpage and you read it for
yourself...that's if you can read.

Sure I can read. It's just that trying to wade through your poor
grammar, incoherant rants and frequent profanities that a challenge
exists.

And you didn't answer my question. Very rude.

Then I suggest YOU take your silly diatribe to
"alt.wannabe.broadcaster.abusing.ham.radio", Todd...Other than the
obvious abuse of priviledge, your rantings have nothing to do with
Amateur Radio.

No but you loosers have to deal with it.

What's a "looser"...?!?!

Deal with what? Your immaturity? Your silly behaviour? Your
rantings? Your misconceptions about applicability of certain Amateur
regulations?

Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION from cerain
rights
and priviledges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure by the Federal
Communications Commission.

OH STEVE, THERE YOU GO AGAIN SAYING I'M IN VIOLATION OTHE
RULES.....YET, HAVE YOU HEARD MY BULLETINS????

Todd...I didn't say you were violating any rule.

I said you're incompetent.

Here it is again: "Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION
from certain rights and privileges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure
by the Federal Communications Commission."

In asserting that I said you were violating rules when that is NOT
what I said clearly demonstrates YOUR incompetence with English
comprehension.

FCC rules and regulations require certain fluency and competency
in English. Obviously there's just one more thing that makes you
ineligible for licensure in the broadcast services.

Since you've apparently admitted that you ARE incompetent,
Todd,
perhaps we should make sure that a copy of this exchange makes it
to
any public hearing wherein your application for a broadcast license
is
subject.

NO, I JUST LIKE ***HOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL.

So who's discriminating, Todd?

So far, the only ***hole I see is the one who can't express
himself without all the profanity and yelling...which would be you,
Todd.

And by the way, Todd, "incompetence" is STILL a legally defensible
EXCLUSION from certain rights and privileges. It is not
"discrimination". Many laws exist for the SPECIFIC purpose of
preventing the incompetent from causing harm.

So far, you're making a pretty good case for limiting your access
to the airwaves to Amateur Radio...God protect us...

And we can include a copy of your "The FCC is Slime" diatribe
from
your "blog". It would certainly lend credence to the argument that
you
would be an enforcement risk if a broadcast license were issued to
you.

Turst me, i've called the FCC a lot worst to their faces.

"Turst" you?

"...a lot worst"...?!?!

Maybe your behaviour "to their faces" is one of the reasons you're
having to resort to broadcasting on frequencies that are illegal for
broadcasting...?!?!

I "turst" you've made a lasting impression on the Commission,
Todd...One that will, hopefully, prevent you from ever having a
broadcast license.

You certainly take liberties with Amateur regulations. What
makes
anyone believe you'll comply with commercial ones?

You're violating the regulations of the one radio service
you
ARE
a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
regulations...???

Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed
sinced
1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter.

I go 70MPH on the freeway in places where it's marked 65MPH
and
never gotten a speeding ticket.

no my point is your Claiming i'm violating the rules yet you don't
have
the balls to back up your statement.

I've already done it, Todd. Your own words are evidence that
you're violating both the spirit and the letter of the law as it
pertains to broadcasting on the Amateur Radio service.

You're "producing a show"...YOUR words. A "show" is for
entertainment. A "bulletin" is for disseminating timely
news,information and announcements.

yet, you've never heard my
transmission, nor, do you have the balls to explain what rules I'm
"suppose" to be violation.

You've never been to my home, Todd, so how do you know what I have
or have not heard or done?

I know you're doing your best to lose your Amateur license.

i have two forums here and my blog which you
can make your case yet you fail to do so.

There's no "case" for ME to make, Todd. You do it yourself.

You have acknowledged that you are producing a "show" which you
air on a frequency allocated to the Amateur Radio service, and that
this "show" incudes commentary colored with your own opinion.

That takes it out of the realm of a "news bulletin", Todd.

Ask any first year journalism student.


Steve, K4YZ

Again, NO WHERE, in the FCC rules and regulations does it state and
information bulletin can not be opinionated. A information bulletin is
a vague word. But hey, I there and will propbably be there a
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TIME so enjoy.

Todd N9OGL

CORRECTIONS.....

Again, NO WHERE, in the FCC rules and regulations does it state an
information bulletin can not be opinionated. A information bulletin is
a vague word. But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG=ADGGG TIME so enjoy the show!!!!!!!!


Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote: (and again violates "nettiquete" by not citing his
attributions)

CORRECTIONS.....

Again, NO WHERE, in the FCC rules and regulations does it state an
information bulletin can not be opinionated.

An "information bulletin" colored by opinion ceases to be an
"information bulletin" and becomes editorial.

A information bulletin is
a vague word.

"AN" information bulletin" mya be a vague TERM, Todd.

However that will be up to the Engineer in your FCC District to
decide upon.

But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG=ADGGG TIME so enjoy the show!!!!!!!!

If it's a "show", you're violating the law.

Steve, K4YZ

It's an informational broadcast bulletin show. Aye, matey, toss off
yee scurvy dogs and man the guns!!! There's piratin' ta do!!!" Arrg.

K4YZ wrote:

N9OGL wrote: (and again violates "nettiquete" by not citing his
attributions)

A information bulletin is
a vague word.

"AN" information bulletin" mya be a vague TERM, Todd.

Not to be picking nits, Steve, but "information bulletin" is two words.

However that will be up to the Engineer in your FCC District to
decide upon.

But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG*GGG TIME so enjoy the show!!!!!!!!

If it's a "show", you're violating the law.

This guy obviously has some issues, Steve. Tread lightly lest you be
accused under the ADA with cruelty to the mentally handicapped.

Todd's claims to inventions, to a recent state administered IQ test, his
inability to put together a properly constructed sentence, his inability
to spell, his lurches back and forth between upper/lower case
dim-wittedness and PROFANE UPPER CASE RANTING and his delusions about
the FCC being out to get him, all mark him as someone who is not quite
right.

I doubt that Todd is airing any informational bulletins/broadcasts/shows
at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.

As to his blog: Who's reading it?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

N9OGL wrote: (and again violates "nettiquete" by not citing his
attributions)

A information bulletin is
a vague word.

"AN" information bulletin" may be a vague TERM, Todd.

Not to be picking nits, Steve, but "information bulletin" is two
words.

Hi Dave...You and I know that, but Todd doesn't. That's why I said
"term", rahter than "word".

Any just-about-to-be-graduated-from-third-grader wouldn't have
taht mistake...But Todd did.

However that will be up to the Engineer in your FCC District
to
decide upon.

But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG=ADGGG TIME so enjoy the
show!!!!!!!!

If it's a "show", you're violating the law.

This guy obviously has some issues, Steve. Tread lightly lest you be
accused under the ADA with cruelty to the mentally handicapped.

Mark Morgan tired that with me...remember! Didn't work then,
either!

Todd's claims to inventions, to a recent state administered IQ test,
his
inability to put together a properly constructed sentence, his
inability
to spell, his lurches back and forth between upper/lower case
dim-wittedness and PROFANE UPPER CASE RANTING and his delusions about
the FCC being out to get him, all mark him as someone who is not
quite
right.

Thereby providing even MORE justification for the FCC from
preventing his ascendency to commercial broadcasting.

I doubt that Todd is airing any informational
bulletins/broadcasts/shows
at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.

He still doesn't get it...

His "opinion" doesn NOT meet the test of an "information
bulletin", no matter HOW impressed he is with the sound of his own
voice.

As to his blog: Who's reading it?

I can't say I "read" it, however what parts I did read were
rambling, paranoid and accusatory.

What an idiot.

Good to see you, Dave...How's things?

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:

Good to see you, Dave...How's things?

Working on some antenna projects and chasing a little DX here. I spend
some of the rest of my time pondering the antics of Leonard H. Anderson
and they boy broadcaster.

Oh, and so Leonard won't have ammunition for his "chat room" rants,
I support retention of the measly five word per minute morse code test
in amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

Hey Steve....ya think this guy is kin to K1MAN?

Dan/W4NTI

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
"character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not
as
strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.

Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE.

Who's "GI Joe"...???

And yes, character is very much a part of FCC licensure,
especially in the broadcast services.

The FCC Low
Power TV division in the Mass Media Bureau wasn't posting the filing
windows like their suppose to, that's what it comes down to. I
suggest
you and your buddies on here stick with ham radio. At any rate the
FCC
may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
"the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
window or not. again I suggest you and your buddies stick with ham
radio.

Then I suggest YOU take your silly diatribe to
"alt.wannabe.broadcaster.abusing.ham.radio", Todd...Other than the
obvious abuse of priviledge, your rantings have nothing to do with
Amateur Radio.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you're an incometent idiot who
hasn't
met the criteria for licensure?

So What? are you saying people mentally handicap can't or shouldn't
give a license, because if the FCC IS doing that it is a violation of
ADA (American Disabilities Act)and I'll be sure to past that on to
the
Telecommunications Sub Committee. I'll be the first one to file a
lawsuit against the FCC.

Toddie, Toddie, Toddie...

You try to toggle "incompetence" with "handicap". They are NOT
the same.

Steven Hawking, for example, has one of the most severe physical
handicaps ever known to man, but he is eminently competent in all other
respects.

You, on the otherhand, have all of the physical facilities a
"normal" human being enjoys, however cannot understand even simple
regulatory process or express yourself "effectively" without liberal
use of profanity and insult.

E V E R Y rule, regulation and statute of law at every level
requires that a person be "competent" in order to be a functioning
citizen.

Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION from cerain rights
and priviledges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure by the Federal
Communications Commission.

Since you've apparently admitted that you ARE incompetent, Todd,
perhaps we should make sure that a copy of this exchange makes it to
any public hearing wherein your application for a broadcast license is
subject.

And we can include a copy of your "The FCC is Slime" diatribe from
your "blog". It would certainly lend credence to the argument that you
would be an enforcement risk if a broadcast license were issued to you.

You certainly take liberties with Amateur regulations. What makes
anyone believe you'll comply with commercial ones?

You're violating the regulations of the one radio service you
ARE
a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
regulations...???

Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed sinced
1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter.

I go 70MPH on the freeway in places where it's marked 65MPH and
never gotten a speeding ticket.

So what?

In my
opinion G.I. JOE you don't know what the #### your talking about.

(1) Who is "GI Joe"...???

(2) P L E A S E don't tell me this vaunted college you're about
to graduate from is bestowing a degree in English upon you, Todd,
because your comprehension, construction and application suck.

You're a prime example of why this nation is in dire straits...Our
schools, primary, secondary and post graduate, are failing.

I'd be humiliated to be a member of the Board of the institution
about to bestow ANY level degree upon a person who can't express
themselves more effectively than what you've demonstrated here.

You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a
bank
of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after this
episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
bankruptcy.

I have a little bit more money and power then what you think G.I.
JOE,
So keep lying to yourself.

Who's "G.I. Joe"...???

And you obviously have squat for "power" since you have to resort
to broadcasting via Amateur Radio rather than with the appropriate
commercial licnese, Todd.

As for money...well...if you had spent your (imaginary) funds on a
decent communication's lawyer, you would, in all likelyhood, already
have the broadcast license you so passionately covet.

Instead, you resort to a pontificating, self-promoting "blog" that
is verbally abusive, insulting, and absolutely innefective and useless
for obtaining said licensure. It is, in fact, counter productive to
it.

The only person lying to themselves here, Todd, is you.

Enjoy. It's your fantasy.

Steve, K4YZ

K1MAN has been on he air for a long time....So will I hehehehehe

Not to be picking nits, Steve, but "information bulletin" is two words.


Information can be gathered through facts as well as opinions.

I doubt that Todd is airing any informational
bulletins/broadcasts/shows
at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.


I would count on it....I am on. As for material is "consisting solely
of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur service"

Todd N9OGL

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN has been on he air for a long time....So will I hehehehehe


Really? I haven't heard your hero in several weeks, in fact the word has
it he is gone.

Dan/W4NTI

N9OGL wrote:

The FCC

FROM N9OGL'S BLOG

http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/


The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are below
slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against the
FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998 when
I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which has
no local television service.

So because you can't write a proposal that shows you have an education
above 6th grade, and there is a no need for your local television
service, the FCC dismisses it and they are slime.
Just because you request something isn't an automatic guarantee you will
get it. The FCC doesn't exists just to grant your childish wishes.
Grow up toddyboy.

Now, I'm going to
enlighten the ham community with my knowledge

That shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. Grow up toddyboy.

N9OGL wrote:


At any rate the FCC
may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
"the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
window or not.

But it doesn't say they must grant them.
Grow up toddyboy.

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Hey Steve....ya think this guy is kin to K1MAN?

Dan/W4NTI

Maybe it MAN's son! They do act a somewhat alike.

If he was removed by the FCC they would of announce it......someone
must of cut his coax.



Todd N9OGL

Aye, matey, toss off ye scurvy dogs and man the guns!! There's
piratin' ta do!! Arrrg!!

N9OGL wrote: (and once again violates nettiquette by not making
attributions)

K1MAN has been on he air for a long time....So will I hehehehehe

Yes, he has...

He also has a huge legal bill. He also has a history of federal
fines and charges.

So will you. Hope it's worth it, Toddie!

Steve, K4YZ

N9OGL wrote (without attributing his quotes):

Not to be picking nits, Steve, but "information bulletin" is two
words.

Hey...no kidding, Toddie. WHERE did I say OTHERWISE...?!?!

Information can be gathered through facts as well as opinions.

You can call it blue polka dotted hen feathers for all I care,
Toddie. The results will be the same.

I doubt that Todd is airing any informational
bulletins/broadcasts/shows
at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.


I would count on it....I am on. As for material is "consisting solely
of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur service".

If it's tainted with your opinion, it ceases to be "information"
and is highly unlikely to be of any interest to "the amateur service".

Steve, K4YZ

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Hey Steve....ya think this guy is kin to K1MAN?

Hey Dan...I dunno...can any two "human beings" have that little
supporting DNA and still maintain life? If he is, he comes from an
already shallow gene pool!

73

Steve, K4YZ

N9OGL wrote:
If he was removed by the FCC they would of announce it......someone
must of cut his coax.

Uhhhhh...Mr Information Bulletin Man...HOW LONG do you thing that
OTHER idiot was going to be able to keep dodging the legal bullet
before succumbing to the will of the courts?

And if I were you I'd take your own "cut coax" comment to heart.

Some folks are very skilled at getting in and out of places in the
middle of the night and creating mayhem along the way. Sure would be a
shame if your arrogance caused to you lose your ability to radiate RF,
now wouldn't it...???

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

N9OGL wrote: (and once again violates nettiquette by not making
attributions)

K1MAN has been on he air for a long time....So will I hehehehehe

Yes, he has...

He also has a huge legal bill. He also has a history of federal
fines and charges.

So will you. Hope it's worth it, Toddie!

Steve, K4YZ



Post proof that MAN has ever *once* been sanctioned by the FCC.
And his legal work is being done pro bono publico by long time
professional associates of his.
YOU ARE FULL OF ****, as usual.


73,

Lloyd

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO
Saw this on a Tee-shirt:
"I am a bomb technician. If you see
me running, try to keep up





"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

N9OGL wrote:
If he was removed by the FCC they would of announce it......someone
must of cut his coax.

Uhhhhh...Mr Information Bulletin Man...HOW LONG do you thing that
OTHER idiot was going to be able to keep dodging the legal bullet
before succumbing to the will of the courts?

And if I were you I'd take your own "cut coax" comment to heart.

Some folks are very skilled at getting in and out of places in the
middle of the night and creating mayhem along the way. Sure would be a
shame if your arrogance caused to you lose your ability to radiate RF,
now wouldn't it...???

Steve, K4YZ

I agree. I have the same concern with my coax run. Here's a pic of it, any
suggestions?

http://img178.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...can00032co.jpg

Lloyd wrote:



Post proof that MAN has ever *once* been sanctioned by the FCC.
And his legal work is being done pro bono publico by long time
professional associates of his.
YOU ARE FULL OF ****, as usual.

Who are these professionsl associates that are doing this pro bono
stuff? I think we know who is full of it.

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
Lloyd wrote:



Post proof that MAN has ever *once* been sanctioned by the FCC.
And his legal work is being done pro bono publico by long time
professional associates of his.
YOU ARE FULL OF ****, as usual.

Who are these professionsl associates that are doing this pro bono stuff?
I think we know who is full of it.



Suppose we address things in the order they were brought up ok?
First the proof that MAN was ever sanctioned by the commission?


73,

Lloyd

He's been question a few times, but that's about it. I remember reading
an articles about the FCC going to his house and comfiming that he was
in compliance with Part 97. I think right now their question him about
not being at the control point. But as far as his opinionated program
the FCC has stated a number of times that it is in compliance with Part
97. The problem is many ham operator can't deal with that fact.

Todd N9OGL

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
He's been question a few times, but that's about it. I remember reading
an articles about the FCC going to his house and comfiming that he was
in compliance with Part 97. I think right now their question him about
not being at the control point. But as far as his opinionated program
the FCC has stated a number of times that it is in compliance with Part
97. The problem is many ham operator can't deal with that fact.

Todd N9OGL



The commission has corresponded with MAN via official U.S. mail and
has inspected his station. The commission has *NEVER* sanctioned
MAN. Big difference, a difference which has the societal misfits in this
forum frothing at their collective mouths. ROTFLMAO!

Nick
CB operator

Dam right!!! You've got to remeber Nick that most of these morons in
this group and big fans of QRZ, a website that kick K1MAN off their
site. Me, I would say I'm a K1MAN, he's want got me intrested in
starting my own "opinoinated" bulletins on HF

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
If he was removed by the FCC they would of announce it......someone
must of cut his coax.



Todd N9OGL


A few years back, when the FCC was breathing down his throat, MAN took a
very sudden hiatus, he claimed it was because he took a teaching job. I
figure he did the same thing again. Unfortunately for him there is enough
documentation at the FCC for his crap over the last many years that he will
be history when its renewal time.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...

K1MAN has been on he air for a long time....So will I hehehehehe



Really? I haven't heard your hero in several weeks, in fact the word has
it he is gone.

Dan/W4NTI


Unfortunately Dan I just heard him start up on 75 AM - as usual right on

top of a station already on the frequency.
73
John