RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Lest We Forget (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/68819-lest-we-forget.html)

KØHB April 19th 05 04:40 AM


wrote in message
ups.com...

Sorry, can't think of any fancy names applied to
any of the land-based systems. :-) Guess it isn't
as romantic as what the Navy had with names like
ADONIS or JASON (if you like horror that one might
be considered "romantic" - :-] ).


Land based/sea based all have the same names. They were assigned by NSA (who
ultimately controls all US Government crypto systems), and were based on names
from Greek mythology, ie., ADONIS, BACCUS, JASON, NESTOR, ORESTES, PONTUS, etc.
By convention they are always written in "all caps".

Sunuvagun!

73, de Hans, K0HB







Mike April 19th 05 04:40 AM


Phil Kane wrote:

As well as the NSA/USN brass who, when queried by the Israelis,
adamantly denied that the Liberty was a U S Naval vessel even after
being told that the vessel wiil be blown out of the water if it
wasn't a US Naval vessel.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) has ever made
such a claim.

The Israelis had every reason to believe
that the Egyptians or their mentors, the Soviets, would fly the US
flag to avoid destruction if they could get away with it.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) have ever made
such a claim at stated here.

And the NSA kept denying...


And the GOI has never made the above claim ...

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 04:42 AM


Phil Kane wrote:

As well as the NSA/USN brass who, when queried by the Israelis,
adamantly denied that the Liberty was a U S Naval vessel even after
being told that the vessel wiil be blown out of the water if it
wasn't a US Naval vessel.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) has ever made
such a claim.

The Israelis had every reason to believe
that the Egyptians or their mentors, the Soviets, would fly the US
flag to avoid destruction if they could get away with it.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) have ever made
such a claim at stated here.

And the NSA kept denying...


And the GOI has never made the above claim ...

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 04:53 AM


anon wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message


YOU ARE A LIAR! You were not there. You have no information.
You are just repeating hearsay from some Jew. There are USS Liberty
survivors who have described what happened many times.


And what follows is suppose to be that? Try instead:

http://libertyincident.com/USNcourt.htm

for the complete record; or he

http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.txt

for just the sworn testimony transcript.

The Jews


You mean Israelis of course. Must be a "slip on the tongue"

NEVER queried the U.S for the identity of the Liberty, but the Jews

did
recon the Liberty for almost a day prior to the attack, during which

time
the
Liberty was flying an oversized American flag, a holiday ensign.


What BS, even Ennes doesn't make that claim about the size of the flag!

"Like any Navy ship, we flew our standard five-foot by eight-foot
American flag."

And of course there's mo

start
=EF=BB=BFLIBERTY flew a size 9 (approx 5 feet by 8 feet) U.S. ensign from h=
er
foremast throughout the morning of 8 June and until it was shot down by
the Israeli air attack. At least 5 minutes prior to the torpedo attack
a size 7 ensign (approx 7 feet by 13 feet) was hoisted at the main
yardarm.
end

That comes from direct, sworn testimony by Liberty crewmembers.

Do bone up on the FACTS ...

Remaining nonsense snipped ...

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 05:00 AM

"Admiral Kidd declared emphatically that there was 'no hard U.S.
evidence ...
absolutely nothing to support the conclusion that the attack was
intentional.' He declined to elaborate."

Baltimore Evening Sun
September 26, 1982


Mike April 19th 05 05:01 AM

twf wrote:
=EF=BB=BF "Phil Kane" wrote in message
snip

Jew hearsay. You were not there. The eyewitnesses on board
the USS Liberty were there, being attacked.


Ah, that only means that they were victims, not that they have any
special knowledge as claimed by the following myth.

Israeli high-command
ordered the attack, full well knowing they were attacking an
American ship in International waters. Liberty intercept operators
recorded Israel high command orders to attack the *American*
ship.


Wow! That's quite a piece of myth-saying; especially when, as a FACT,
there is:

start
Looking back on the Liberty incident, one perhaps should fault the
cryptologic organization for not assuring the presence on board of
qualified
Hebrew linguists for on-station examination of Israeli voice
communications uncovered in the intercept from the nonmorse search and
development mission and for not even having a token mission on Israeli
voice communications. It turned out that Hebrew language tapes produced
by USN-855 from the search and
development mission on the morning of 8 June did not contain
information on the forthcoming Israeli attack, but NSA did not learn
this until it had received these tapes and had processed them several
days after the event. For all NSA and USN-855 knew at the time,
information on Israeli intentions towards the ship might well have been
on those tapes.
end

Available to any SERIOUSLY INTERESTED individual at:

http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/index.cfm

all part of the NSA report on the incident.

U.S. submarines in the area filmed the entire deliberate attack.


Wow!! "They" did? Just which U.S. subs would that be? They have names
you know, and of course then there's the film ...

IOW, what a bucnh of ...

You are *still* a liar and you *still* don't have a clue as to what

you are
talking about.


That's not really a claim you should be stating about others, you
think? ...


www.ussliberty.org read it fool,


Read instead:

http://libertyincident.com/index.htm

you might learn the truth!


Yeah, the truth just might be at:

http://libertyincident.com/index.htm

Then read Jim Ennes's Book.


Nah, read instead:

http://libertyincident.com/book.htm

Ennes *does* know what he is
talking about, unlike you, because Ennes is a USS Liberty
survivor.


And yet Ennes would appear to have many, many problems with his story
telling:

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/JExxindex.html

And how about some FACTS, instead of your lame retort
"I was there."


Yeah, how about some FACTS indeed.

Will you go toe to toe here with Liberty survivors, if I can get one
or more to come on board here?


toe-to-toe? Must be a new dance step ...

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 05:07 AM

From the viewpoint of one who was on board the Liberty at the time of
the attack, your account
leaves little doubt that the attack was the result of a series of
confused decisions, made in a war
setting. Error seems to compound error both on the part of the Israelis
and the U.S. Perhaps your
account will lay to rest the many conspiracy theories which have
plagued us all these last 30 off
years.

Commander Maurice Bennett, USN (Ret.)
Former USS Liberty crewmember

http://libertyincident.com/

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 05:11 AM

Oliver Kirby, a former deputy director of the National Security Agency
who took part in the investigation, said he needs more proof before he
can say that the attack was deliberate. The 83-year-old from
Greenville, Texas, said that he never understood the attack's intent.

AP reporter Jean Ortiz
Nebraska City, Neb., 5/22/2004 by-line

http://libertyincident.com/

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 05:17 AM

The weight of the evidence is that the Israeli attacking force
originally believed their target was Egyptian.

The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli
high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American.

Clark Clifford
Chairman, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

in his report to President Johnson
July 18, 1967

http://libertyincident.com/index.htm

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 05:21 AM

Yesterday, an NSA spokesperson questioned a point made in the book
about the USS Liberty. "We do not comment on operational matters,
alleged or otherwise; however, Mr. Bamford's claim that the NSA
leadership was 'virtually unanimous in their belief that the attack was
deliberate' is simply not true," the spokesperson said.

Baltimore Sun
April 24, 2001
by Scott Shane and Tom Bowman

Mike


[email protected] April 19th 05 05:44 AM

From: "bb" on Mon,Apr 18 2005 6:30 pm

wrote:
From: "bb" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 4:37 pm

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:


The old, "two wrongs makes a right" defense.


I have to disagree.


I wasn't implying that you were wrong, only that Robeson views you as
wrong, and thusly, he can be as wrong as he needs to be with complete
immunity.


I understand perfectly and agree with that.

In they typical liberal fashion, any means to achieve the
desired end is "good." Like lying about what ARES needs.


"Liberal" Robeson is NOT. :-)

Robeson is so caught up in his personal
hatred of me that he cannot possibly discuss anything
rationally...or even act rationally. He is the constant
antagonist of ANYONE who disagrees with him.


Indeed. The moron even harangued me for not giving Coslo grief over
his aborted near-space balloon project. I was characterized as an
antagonist for not exhibiting antagonistic behavio[u]r. Hi. Hi, hi!
What an idiot.


It matters not what the subject is, ANYONE disagreeing
with him (even in the slightest) becomes his "enemy"
and is dealt with in barbaric terms. See his treatment
of Dieter Stussy, Todd, even Hans who outranked him in
experience as well as rank in the Navy.

The interesting part is that he does the "mirror"
thing on people who respond to him more than once.
He turns around and accuses the accuser of doing
things he does. Such as (lately) being an
"antagonist." It's obvious that HE is the antagonist
but he will not, possibly can not accept that.

To me he has tried to be "on my case" even in
comments to others, having nothing to do with
Robeson. He seems to desperately seek attention
by trying to turn every thread into his own
battleground.


And so his sickness manifests itself.

That's quite sick. Irrational. Opinions are just
opinions.


Robeson is quite sick, irrational.


We fully agree on that!


I'm just glad that Ed McMahon didn't knock on my door saying that I

won
a vacation to Stevieworld.


:-)



Robeson is an EXAMPLE of a modern U.S. Amateur Extra.


Unfortunately. Yet most other Extra's on RRAP are good with Robeson's
behavio[u]r. Steve farts in church and we're to believe it's incense.


...and gets BLESSED! :-)




Mike April 19th 05 05:52 AM

"In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it was the conclusion of the
investigatory body headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have
great confidence that the attack was not intentional. I read the record
of the investigation, and I support that conclusion"

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara

"[A]t eleven o?clock we learned that the ship had been attacked in
error by Israeli gunboats and planes. ... This heartbreaking episode
grieved the Israelis deeply, as it did us."

President Lyndon Johnson

From Dean Rusk also (in the 1987 Thames TV production):


start
Dean Rusk: We did insist upon a full inquiry by the Israelis, and we
had our own naval board of investigation but what do you do with it?
The Israelis paid damages to the crew and their families.

Narrator: They [the LVA] say, Mr. Rusk, that there's been a cover up
for 20 years on behalf of successive American administrations to
examine and explore the affair.

Dean Rusk: Oh, I don't think so, I think it's simply that the feeling
that once something like this has happened you have to continue to work
toward constructive ends, and you don't allow an incident of this sort
to poison the entire relationship.
end

http://libertyincident.com/

Mike


Mike April 19th 05 05:55 AM

anon wrote:
USS Liberty survivors quickly will set forth facts which they were
*EYE WITNESS* to, ...


Already done. It's he

http://libertyincident.com/USNcourt.htm

for the complete record, or for just a transcript, try:

http://www.ussliberty.org/nci.txt

Mike


[email protected] April 19th 05 10:35 AM


wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:03 pm


- Any attempt to engage Len in debate results in him insulting

others
with invectives like "Gunnery Nurse," "Katapult King," "Macho
Morsemen," and "A believer in the Church of St. Hiram."


AFTER I had been personally insulted a number of ways,
i.e., called a "PUTZ," "LIAR," "deceitful," AND had
members of my family (alive or dead), especially my
wife, insulted in public...I decided to "return fire"
in the same way.


The problem is that Len responds that same way to everyone
who disagrees with him - even if the disagreeing person
has done none of the things described above. He interprets
any disagreement or unflattering observation as an "insult".

The mere act of disagreeing with Len's position on Morse
Code testing, or pointing out errors in his facts or
arguments, will result in him insulting you.

Civility in opposition to anything
I wrote was not "discussion" but a series of personal
insults and harrassment actions, both on and off the
newsgroup.


But even if a person does none of those things, Len will
behave as if the person has. Len seems to think that all
who disagree with him are equally responsible for what any
who disagree have done.


K4YZ April 19th 05 12:16 PM


wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Apr 18, 2:31 pm



There's NO such member at the IEEE. IEEE is a worldwide
professional association. I first joined them in 1973
and am a Life Member. You can check that in the annual
Membership Directory.


I am sure Lennie Anderson is on the rolls.

I am also sure he's a putz. He's proven it over and over.

Tsk, tsk. You mean like calling others "PUTZ"
or "LIAR" or "DECEITFUL?" I don't think I've
done that.


Then you'[ve proven that you have a perception problem, Lennie.

I guess the reams of exchanges of others taking you to task for
your deceitful posts, mistruthful assertions, and blatant lies was not
clue?

Seems to me that little STEVIE does that on a regular basis!


I am sure you see it that way.





Steve, K4YZ


Paul W. Schleck April 19th 05 06:38 PM

In .com writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:03 pm


In . com

writes:

wrote:
From:
on Apr 12, 8:00 pm
wrote:
From: N2EY on Apr 12, 4:20 pm


*snip!*

Yet you make this BIG THING about morse code
in a window display...

Is it wrong to mention an interesting architectural feature?

Morse code is NOW an "interesting architectural feature?"


The windows are an interesting architectural feature.



Way back in Usenet history(early 90's), there were posts signed by an
author named "Serdar Argic" who repetitively posted about the Armenian
murders of Turks in 1918:

http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/zumabot.html

(Reputable historians agree that the killing was the other way

around.)

Some interesting similarities to Len:


1. My ancestry is Scandinavian, not of the Middle East.


2. I have NO disputes on either Armenia or Turkey.


3. I have no "home page" on the Internet, nor am I a
registered domain user on same.


4. Why do you insist there are "similarities" to
anything in or near the Middle East? I have
NEVER used a screen name of "Serdar Argic."


By taking things too literally, you have missed the point (and also
further proving you have no sense of irony, humor, or self-deprecation,
all important examples of human emotional intelligence that, by the way,
could be detected by, oh, I don't know, a Turing Test maybe?).

I, of course, do not think that you are 100% Serdar Argic. I'm happy to
clarify that for you. Rather, you act very much like Serdar Argic in
many ways, and I thought the newsgroup readers would be amused by my
pointing that out. I figured that you would not be amused. I didn't
figure that you wouldn't understand why WE were amused.

- Serdar responded to each and every mention of "Turkey" or "Armenia,"
no matter the context, with long harangues about his interpretation

of
history.

- Len responds to each and every mention of "Morse Code," no matter

the
context, with long harangues about his interpretation of history.


Explain my "interpretation." As one who was IN
communications for a long time, IN the electronics
industry for a long time, HAVE extensive backup
literature on communications methods, I'm not
"interpreting" anything.


Here's just a few examples that I could find in the few minutes that I
searched in Google (try the query "wrong Len
group:rec.radio.amateur.policy" at http://groups.google.com):

- The MARS program does not rely on radio amateurs (it does)

- Dave Heil, K8MN, does not appear on any official list of staff at a
U.S. Embassy (he does)

- Steve Robeson, K4YZ, did not serve in Marine Corps, or if he did, he
did not serve honorably (he did serve, and serve honorably).

- Any claim of an amateur balloon going to 100,000 feet is suspect, as a
latex weather balloon will burst at 50,000 feet (Kaymont makes one
rated at 100,000 feet that is affordable to amateurs).

- All amateur radio licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating
in their grace period (only if they renewed before expiration).

- Collins Radio did very little innovation in SSB (What about the
Permeability Tuned Oscillator, PTO, or their 1930's patent for a
phasing transmitter, or just the fact that they were able to put it
all together into a rugged, compact, and reliable package that was
just what the USAF needed, and was available at just the right time,
not theoretically, or only in a patent application, or only on a
blueprint, or in a better implementation that wouldn't be available
until years in the future, and we only realize now after decades of
20/20 hindsight?).

I characterize these as interpretations either because they are wrong
(can be rebutted by facts), or are expressions of opinions (usually
sweeping, black-and-white assumptions that can be counter-argued into
many shades of gray).

- Any attempt to engage Serdar in debate resulted in him insulting
others with invectives like "Gum Brain," "Wieneramus," "your
Criminal Armenian Grandparents" (even others who were, say, ethnic
Japanese), and "A mouthpiece for the fascist x-Soviet Armenian
Government."

- Any attempt to engage Len in debate results in him insulting others
with invectives like "Gunnery Nurse," "Katapult King," "Macho
Morsemen," and "A believer in the Church of St. Hiram."


AFTER I had been personally insulted a number of ways,
i.e., called a "PUTZ," "LIAR," "deceitful," AND had
members of my family (alive or dead), especially my
wife, insulted in public...I decided to "return fire"
in the same way. Civility in opposition to anything
I wrote was not "discussion" but a series of personal
insults and harrassment actions, both on and off the
newsgroup.


What I have seen is something like Israel/Palestine, or Serbia/Bosnia,
where the conflict has been ratcheted up incrementally until it becomes
personal on both sides. You have certainly done your share of
escalation, spoiling for fights, and picking new fights. You remind me
of the type of person that the police regularly drag out of barroom
brawls, or that school principals separate on the elementary school
playground, and usually with both sides screaming, "But HE started
it!!!!" At that point, it doesn't matter who started it, because you
have what are called "unclean hands," and thus garner no sympathy from
me, or others.

Your spoiling for a fight caused you to lash out at Jim, N2EY, in a
situation where you were not directly attacked, your basic arguments
about Morse Code were not explicitly contradicted, and you chose to
reply (post #2, in response to his post #1 in the thread) in a manner
that was completely off-topic and ad-hominem. I might have even given
you a pass (by not replying) if you had argued something like, "Well, I
don't think that Morse Code deserves such architectural worship in a
World War II exhibit by implying that it has the same status as, say,
Egyptian Hieroglyphics in an exhibit about Egyptology." Instead, you
ripped into Jim with an accusation that he didn't have military service
(an off-topic, ad-hominem attack that could only be replied with,
"Yes/No/Maybe/So What?"), then tried to drag him into some silly
argument over whether Morse Code could be an "interesting architectural
feature." That's when I dropped in on the thread.

Jim and I have disagreed on many things, but I don't like to see a
fellow ham attacked in that way. As you can see, the ham community will
close ranks and will defend each other vigorously if that happens.
That's not a threat, merely a pragmatic observation that you are not
winning friends or influencing people here. Whatever merit you may have
originally had is now completely wasted, and falls on deaf ears.

- While somewhat amusing at first, with posters able to easily rebut
Serdar, even writing parodies mocking the overwrought style of the
posts, the amusement turned to annoyance when the sheer volume of

his
posts overwhelmed any on-topic discussion.

- While somewhat amusing at first, with posters able to easily rebut
Len, even writing parodies mocking the overwrought style of the

posts,
the amusement turned to annoyance when the sheer volume of his posts
overwhelmed any on-topic discussion.


"Overwrought?" :-) Merely responses in kind.


"Sheer volume of posts?" Have you examined the Google
statistics for individual messagers or actually
EXAMINED the CONTENT of the newsgroup postings?


What a silly question. Of course, I have examined the record, that's
why I have come to the conclusions that I have. According to Google
Groups (search for " at
http://groups.google.ca, as the Beta version at groups.google.com still
has a number of serious bugs), you have posted as "
about 6,230 times since December of 2000. That's an average of 3-4
posts *per day* for almost 5 years. Surely you must be repeating
yourself. Not even John Updike or James Michener could generate that
much output and still be original. I used the principal address you
used over the years. If I threw in your recent switch to
" (probably due to AOL shutting down news service),
and any other address you used earlier (you previously said you have
been posting to the newsgroups for about 7 years), I'm sure the
statistics would be even higher.

Furthermore, most recent threads show you replying, and
counter-replying, and counter-counter-replying, and ..., doing more than
your share of contributing to run-on arguments. In this most recent
thread, you have made about 21 out of the 141 posts to date, and will
probably make many more. Do you really need the last word that badly?
("But HE started it!" is not a defense.)

Apparently NOT. Or, the "authority" is rather biased.


The following response of yours exhibiting your obvious persecution
complex is a perfect example of your overwrought replies:

In the past, I've given what was thought to be some
examples of communications modes and methods that I
was a party to, knew about, or could double-check
through disinterested third parties. What I got in
response was the usual personal insults for NOT
adhering to the "authority" on amateur radio as
stated by the ARRL...or NOT adhering to the pet
desires of individuals whose personal views were
taken as "applying to ALL in amateur radio." [those
did not, but that was irrelevant to such posters]


- Serdar failed his Turing Test for human intelligence when it became
clear that he could not distinguish between Turkey, the country, and
Turkey, the meat. For example, his postings went up dramatically in
the first two weeks preceding American Thanksgiving, strongly
suggesting that the posts were written and posted by some kind of AI
or "bot."

- Len's sentience, and ability to pass the Turing Test, is left as an
exercise for the reader. As a first test, Len is invited to guess

my
positions on Morse Code.


The following response of yours about the "Turing Test" joke is a perfect
example of your overwrought replies:

WHAT "Turing Tests" apply in here? Are you implying
(which is transparently obvious on reading) that I am
some kind of "Artificial Intelligence?" Is everyone
required to "pass a test" to perform as a robot and
mechanically utter all the quaint "standards" of
yesteryear? Are all robots in here "supposed" to
obey - without question - what the ARRL commands?


Alan Turing was considered a genius at cryptography
and methods of attack (solutions to cryptographic
problems). Alan Turing was also a homosexual and,
when exposed, took his own life. That was long ago.


Are you homosexual, Len? Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you if so
("Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Seinfeld would say).
However, you did bring it up, and past persecution would explain the
persecution complex you display today. I, and others, might even feel
some degree of sympathy for you if you were. I figured you brought the
subject up either because you were homosexual, or wished to characterize
all hams as homophobic, or are even presuming to raise your persecution
to the degree that Turing suffered.

Suddenly, for some odd reason, I am implied as
"failing" a "Turing Test" by NOT ACCEPTING old,
antiquated standards in an amateur radio hobby
activity!?! So be it. I am NOT a robot. I am
NOT artificial (all natural ingredients).


If there is any "failing" of a "Turing Test," then
I would judge the "authority of the newsgroup" to
be deficient in handling a public dispute by a
technique of mockery and attempts at humiliation.
As one who has been IN computer-modem communication
for 20 years - not counting sporadic viewing of the
old ARPANET and original USENET before that - and
as a former co-sysop of one BBS and a moderator on
two other BBSs...I find this "technique" of handling
certain individuals to be faulty in the extreme.


You should give careful thought, using whatever
intelligence is there, artificial or not, to closing
access from public to private. Select ONLY those
who conform to Group Think, who say nice-nice to all
the self-defined gurus, and respect the ENTIRETY of
U.S. amateur radio customs and traditions, wishing
to keep OLD standards forever. CLOSE this place off.
Do NOT let any "riff-raff" in. Demand "dedication"
and "committment" to old standards, ideas, and
(especially) the mythology. Demand "involvement"
FIRST...by licensing, something by which "to show
papers." Do NOT, under any circumstances, allow
the First Amendment Rights of Americans to operate
in here. Think of that as the "Orwell Test." It
doesn't have the mythological mystique of "Turing
Test" but it is nonetheless as artificial.


Speaking of tests, you didn't answer my challenge that you guess my
positions on Morse Code. Either you don't know, or you realize that
arguing with me isn't about Morse Code, it's about your desire to fight
just for the sake of fighting, whether people could conceivably agree
with you or not. I also recall that there was one specific circumstance
that I agreed with you on another topic, and disagreed with every other
poster, in a recent thread. Can you name the topic?

I refuse to meet any "Orwell Test." Have a nice
day, Mr. Asimov...





"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

- Monty Python, "The Holy Grail"


--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key



Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê April 19th 05 07:11 PM


"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
:
: wrote in message
: ups.com...
:
: Sorry, can't think of any fancy names applied to
: any of the land-based systems. :-) Guess it isn't
: as romantic as what the Navy had with names like
: ADONIS or JASON (if you like horror that one might
: be considered "romantic" - :-] ).
:
: Land based/sea based all have the same names. They were assigned by NSA
(who
: ultimately controls all US Government crypto systems), and were based on
names
: from Greek mythology, ie., ADONIS, BACCUS, JASON, NESTOR, ORESTES, PONTUS,
etc.
: By convention they are always written in "all caps".
:

Hans spreading greek myths again!

We thought you'd died.




Phil Kane April 19th 05 07:33 PM

On 18 Apr 2005 20:40:56 -0700, Mike wrote:

As well as the NSA/USN brass who, when queried by the Israelis,
adamantly denied that the Liberty was a U S Naval vessel even after
being told that the vessel wiil be blown out of the water if it
wasn't a US Naval vessel.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) has ever made
such a claim.

The Israelis had every reason to believe
that the Egyptians or their mentors, the Soviets, would fly the US
flag to avoid destruction if they could get away with it.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) have ever made
such a claim at stated here.

And the NSA kept denying...


And the GOI has never made the above claim ...


Of course not, governments never reveal such stuff, but every
Israeli in "the business" (where I worked) knows that that was the
case.

I don't dishonor the memory of the sailors killed aboard the USS
Liberty. They didn't have to die. I dishonor their superiors who
never took responsibility for not preventing what happened.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Mike April 19th 05 11:37 PM

Phil Kane wrote:
On 18 Apr 2005 20:40:56 -0700, Mike wrote:

As well as the NSA/USN brass who, when queried by the Israelis,
adamantly denied that the Liberty was a U S Naval vessel even

after
being told that the vessel wiil be blown out of the water if it
wasn't a US Naval vessel.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) has ever

made
such a claim.

The Israelis had every reason to believe
that the Egyptians or their mentors, the Soviets, would fly the

US
flag to avoid destruction if they could get away with it.


Not even the Israelis (meaning the ACTUAL Israeli gov't) have ever

made
such a claim at stated here.

And the NSA kept denying...


And the GOI has never made the above claim ...


Of course not, governments never reveal such stuff,


Ah, gov'ts are made up of people. Those people involved have never,
ever made the claim you are stating.

but every
Israeli in "the business" (where I worked) knows that that was the
case.


That's quite some claim to be making. In all the years, not one peep
from those "in 'the business'" (as you call it) who would have been
part of (you guessed it) the GOI ...

I don't dishonor the memory of the sailors killed aboard the USS
Liberty. They didn't have to die.


Correct, they sure as hell didn't!

I dishonor their superiors who
never took responsibility for not preventing what happened.


Ah, there was no way any component of the US gov't was going to prevent
the IDF from screwing up!

The popular term is "sh*t happens!", and during a war is can happen a
lot ...

MW


Dave Heil April 20th 05 05:05 PM

wrote:

"Liberal" Robeson is NOT. :-)


It matters not what the subject is, ANYONE disagreeing
with him (even in the slightest) becomes his "enemy"
and is dealt with in barbaric terms.


That sounds an awfully lot like you, Leonard.

See his treatment
of Dieter Stussy, Todd...


Stussy is a guy with an ax to grind. Todd is a scofflaw and emotionally
challenged.

...even Hans who outranked him in
experience as well as rank in the Navy.


You've exchanged unpleasantries with Hans and used name-calling with
him.
He outranks you in military experience and rank.

The interesting part is that he does the "mirror"
thing on people who respond to him more than once.
He turns around and accuses the accuser of doing
things he does. Such as (lately) being an
"antagonist." It's obvious that HE is the antagonist
but he will not, possibly can not accept that.


Again, this could be a page from the Len Anderson Song Book.

To me he has tried to be "on my case" even in
comments to others, having nothing to do with
Robeson. He seems to desperately seek attention
by trying to turn every thread into his own
battleground.


You've often done precisely those things to others.

Dave K8MN

[email protected] April 20th 05 09:50 PM

From: "bb" on Tues,Apr 19 2005 6:06 pm

wrote:
From: "cl" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 11:33 pm

Eh - I had the code down in 2 weeks for the Novice exam. AND I'm

now an
Extra. Been licensed since the early 80s.
Yeah, I probably could have learned it in under a week, if I pushed

myself.
Most anyone will tell you - it isn't good to do such.


Sorry, according to many in here you have to approach it as
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN YOUR LIFE!!! :-)


I've heard that, too.


Everybody wants to be Coach!! [I rode First Class...]

Besides, at that time,
I was chasing rug rats - so study time was premium.


Excuses, excuses, excuses! :-)


I've heard that, too.


Perhaps there was a lack of a medical certificate
presented to the VEs at the test showing a sufficient
sperm count to demonstrate "manhood." :-)

Most recommendations are
15 minutes to a half hour a day. That hardly makes it possible in a

week. I
used the words " "AT LEAST" 2 WEEKS". Some are faster learners

than others,
that is a given. BUT my point was, you have to get started to learn
ANYTHING. You can't absorb it through osmosis. Back to the timing

thing, I
hope someone from the military can step in to tell us how much time

they
were given to get the code down. I think they had to "Cram".


"Caveat," I was in the military, the United States Army,
voluntary enlistment beginning 13 March 1952. Went from
Basic to Signal School at Fort Monmouth, NJ. Amount of
Signal School time spent on morse code? ZERO! NO class,
NO "cramming."


That can't be right. Why there's a war museum in Canada that has a
code key...

Hi, hi!


Mythology seems to be graven in stone images for some of
the morsemen zealots.


At that time the ONLY military occupation specialty
in the Army requiring morsemanship was Field Radio.


Just like Field Day, I'll bet.


A picnic in da park it wasn't. Big HUT on the bed of
a deuce and a half, towing a PE-95 motor generator on a
trailer. Enough poles and wire under the single operator
bench (a low cabinet with "cushions" on it) to make a
small wire rhombic antenna. Smelly Model 19 TTY
clattering away on the bench-desk and the venerable
BC-610 400 Watt transmitter near the door. A couple
fans to "cool" everything so it was miserable in the
heat of summer and uncomformtable in winter. "5-packs"
of canned/dry rations instead of hot dogs and soda.
Nobody "kept score" in any competition...other than the
competition of not being destroyed (literally) by any
enemy. Field Radio circa 1950s, USA.

Field Radio then required passing 20 WPM, was taught
at Camp Gordon (later Fort Gordon, now the home of the
Signal Corps).


Fort Gordon? Where was Fort Farnsworth?


Next to Camp Fessenden.

Drop-out rate was roughly a quarter of
all starting...that I know about. Those that didn't
make it, but had some apitude for electronics, got to
go to Inside Plant Telephone, Outside Plant Telephone,
Carrier, Teleprinter Operator, Field Wireman...or the
Infantry. :-)


"Incoming!"


Well, infantry is better than adultery...

My Signal School classes taught Microwave Radio Relay
(at a time when there was little of such operational).
Radar was also taught at Fort Monmouth, had the same
basic electronics as Microwave. I got assigned to a
Fixed Station Transmitter site in Japan. Got all of
about a day's worth of on-site "training" to operate
one of three dozen HF transmitters having a minimum of
1 KW output. NO MORSEMANSHIP NEEDED THERE.


Not even to open and close circuits?


Nah...we were a close bunch but always open for suggestion.

NO MORSE
USED at the third-largest station in the Army Command
and Administrative Network.


That's when the US Army started it's downward slide and people now

have
to go to Canadian war museums to get "thier" morse code fixes.


I know. The "shame" of it all...



Probably the same age bracket as me. I do listen to call signs now

and then
on the scanner to pick out the services they represent - if I don't
immediately know who the service is. I do listen some times to code

on
the H.F. Bands.


...or what you think is morse. :-) There's very LITTLE
morse code on HF nowadays...EXCEPT inside the ham bands.


With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)

The discordant thrumming-whistling of old commercial muliti-
channel SSB is less now than it was a quarter century ago.
All kinds of OTHER weird sounds ARE there, but those are
various forms of data that very few hams use (or can use)
and ON HF but NOT in the ham bands. Once in a rare while
one might catch an ALE burst from one of the 2500 gubmint
radios of SHARES.

There are many things you learn in life and may never use
again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy.


Tell that to Ken Jennings! :-)


That guy could probably copy psk31. He's a machine.


Nah. He's just an ordinary programmer, a regular
young guy, a Mormon. He just happens to have
gunfighter reflexes in his brain...and about $2.5
million extra now. :-)

Jeopardy is now coming up on the FINALS in a sort
of mental championship on ABC-TV. Fun programming
to watch...and try to match wits with the various
contestants and their amazing memories. My wife and
I are regular viewers after supper...with a bit of
friendly competition between us and the contestants.

Meanwhile, the cardinals are gathering in Newington
to elect a new poop to lead the morsemen into the
righteous path of the true hamreligion...via the
"history" of radio as only they have sterilized it.




[email protected] April 20th 05 10:03 PM

From: Paul W. Schleck on Tues,Apr 19 2005 12:38 pm

In .com

writes:

From: Paul W. Schleck on Mon,Apr 18 2005 12:03 pm



By taking things too literally, you have missed the point (and also
further proving you have no sense of irony, humor, or

self-deprecation,
all important examples of human emotional intelligence that, by the

way,
could be detected by, oh, I don't know, a Turing Test maybe?).


OH, YES YES YES...A FAILURE ON THE HUMAN EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE SCHLECK SCALE!!!!

Gotta love it. Judge Schleck comes out with some weird
character out of a dozen years ago, in another (UNNAMED)
venue SOMEWHERE on the usenet...and posts a lot of total
BULL**** that I am "similar!!!"

I, of course, do not think that you are 100% Serdar Argic.


Riiiiight. [bull****] I'm not even 0$ "close."

You might as well say "I'm just like 'Kasar Pane' or
'Balik Kavurmasi.'"

Why not? [it's Turkish] You can really do a snow job
on somebody with names like that.

I'm happy to clarify that for you.


Stop sounding like a used car salesman or other pitchman.

Rather, you act very much like Serdar Argic in
many ways, and I thought the newsgroup readers would be amused by my
pointing that out.


Riiiiight. You KNEW "Serdar Argic" and say "I'm NO Serdar
Argic..." :-)

Not to worry. I once met the REAL Arpad Somlyody.
[hope I spelled the name right after all these years]

I figured that you would not be amused.


Whatever gave you THAT idea? :-)

I didn't figure that you wouldn't understand why WE were amused.


Oy beggin' yer lardship's pardon...oy dint behave in
da presence of ya nobles wot got all yer WE-WEs itchy.

Here's just a few examples that I could find in the few minutes that I
searched in Google (try the query "wrong Len
group:rec.radio.amateur.policy" at
http://groups.google.com):

Tsk. Judge Schleck is carrying on like his real name
is Roy Bean and he be in the olde West and wanting to
hang anyone high...

So...have you queried (in just scant minutes) ANYONE ELSE'S
"mistakes" and evil, wicked, mean, and nasty comments
about ANYONE ELSE? Tsk. Haven't seen you in here for
months and suddenly you strap on them "six-shooters" and
go gunning for ONE individual...who "coincidentally" is
a pro not an amateur and who is against the morse test.

Uh-huh...you are "here" to nobly RIGHT WRONGS and do
some "avenging." [serving all you WE-WEs, no doubt]

"WE are not amused," you write. Have another piece of
cake, Marie...

- snip of alleged "offenses" committed before the
high court of the kangaroos -


I characterize these as interpretations either because they are wrong
(can be rebutted by facts), or are expressions of opinions (usually
sweeping, black-and-white assumptions that can be counter-argued into
many shades of gray).


Tsk, tsk, tsk, Judge Bean...er, Judge Judy...er, Judge Schleck.

Feel free to do a few "searches" on OTHERS who were here
BEFORE me as well as during. It will take you "only
minutes." :-)


What I have seen is something like Israel/Palestine, or Serbia/Bosnia,
where the conflict has been ratcheted up incrementally until it

becomes
personal on both sides.


So...has your ratchet clicked up anything about me in regards
to those foreign places? Or did your ratchet get clogged with...
(I won't mention it).


You have certainly done your share of
escalation, spoiling for fights, and picking new fights.


Absolutely! But, one error...I haven't "picked new fights."
The old ones haven't ended yet as the walking wounded from
years ago in here are still suffering anquished pain and
demand retribution.

Tsk, tsk. Somebody calls me names and does the personal
insult bit and they get REPLIES. Oh, oh, oh, OH! One
CANNOT talk back to High Nobles of Amateurism!!!! No, no
nono NO! That just "isn't done!" :-)

You remind me
of the type of person that the police regularly drag out of barroom
brawls, or that school principals separate on the elementary school
playground, and usually with both sides screaming, "But HE started
it!!!!"


Poor baby. YOU remind me of some haughty intellectual who
got his academic robes twisted when someone from the real
world (the one outside the campus) pointed out some really
real things.

At that point, it doesn't matter who started it, because you
have what are called "unclean hands," and thus garner no sympathy from
me, or others.


Whooooeeee. The caste system has been cast in concrete,
I see! [is there a "caste-ing couch" in here too?]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. I've been doing computer-modem communication
for almost 20 years and learned LONG ago NOT to "look for
love, respect, or admiration" via this medium. Don't start
with that bull**** "looking for sympathy" thing...doesn't
work with grown-ups, boy.

Case in point on hypocrisy: Look at what you wrote IN
CONTEXT. Seems like that is an exact depiction of what
you accuse me of doing! :-)

Your spoiling for a fight caused you to lash out at Jim, N2EY, in a
situation where you were not directly attacked, your basic arguments
about Morse Code were not explicitly contradicted, and you chose to
reply (post #2, in response to his post #1 in the thread) in a manner
that was completely off-topic and ad-hominem.


In other words, my manner got YOU all ****ed off. :-)

So...Miccolis (who never served) GETS A PASS because he
"is allowed" to previously act in the manner you described?
[do a search etc., will take you only minutes or something]

Not a problem. Your reaction was expected.

Say nasty to traditional methods, sass the WE-WEs and
one will be hung from the nearest J-pole. :-)

Meanwhile, all the NON-serving "historians" can strut
around as "experts" in a parody of a Monty Python
lumberjack. :-)

I might have even given
you a pass (by not replying) if you had argued something like, "Well,

I
don't think that Morse Code deserves such architectural worship in a
World War II exhibit by implying that it has the same status as, say,
Egyptian Hieroglyphics in an exhibit about Egyptology." Instead, you
ripped into Jim with an accusation that he didn't have military

service
(an off-topic, ad-hominem attack that could only be replied with,
"Yes/No/Maybe/So What?"), then tried to drag him into some silly
argument over whether Morse Code could be an "interesting

architectural
feature." That's when I dropped in on the thread.


In fewer words, you got ****ed off!

Everone gotta be nice-nice to da extras and morsemen.
They RULE ham radio. Uh-huh. Got the picture. Got
whole billboards, posters, and regular ads to that
effect. Yawn. Been that way for years. Try to say
something new.

Jim and I have disagreed on many things, but I don't like to see a
fellow ham attacked in that way.


"Brothers in arms." :-)

As you can see, the ham community will
close ranks and will defend each other vigorously if that happens.


"As one." "An Army of ONE." "All united."

Tsk. Usual stuff. Each individual thinks ALL hams think
just like them. Not quite. :-)

That's not a threat, merely a pragmatic observation that you are not
winning friends or influencing people here.


AWWWWWW...."really?" :-) :-) :-)

I've never come in here to "win friends." Got them already,
NOT on-line or by "working contacts" on a raddio.

You are falling into a common personal trap in doing this
computer-modem comms thing...that of thinking you are "one
to one" with however you are messaging to in public. NOT
so. You can't see all the (silent) readers who never post.

I'm NEVER going to "convince" Morseman Miccolis of anything
and have never hoped to. He is of the type that just can't
be swayed from his set-in-concrete and armor-plated godlike
stubbornness about the efficacy of morsemanship. Neither
can I convince any of the other CLOSED minds who have been
thoroughly brainwashed into some weird groupthink. They
toss out their arrogant stuff by the bushels full on a
regular basis (sounding like Newington-south all the time)
and us little "we" are supposed to sit quietly by and say
"yes, sir, no, sir, can we have more, sir?"

Not likely, Judge Schleck. Bang your gavel all you want,
but there are MANY out here and there who DO NOT agree
with old ways, old traditions, forever keeping some
antiquated artificial standards operative until the end
of time. There's lots of us independent thinkers out
here and there and a few of us don't really give a shnit
about saying what's on our minds. [I know that's tough
to live with but it IS a fact of life and it's growing]

So, "close your ranks." Do close-order drill in formation
if you want (the morse beat will be the music you need to
keep in step?). Fly flags, have the post band play loud.
Vigilantes can even try to burn an ARRL diamond on my
front lawn. :-) Your "ranks" in that particular
"community" is having more and more deserters. Formations
are out of step more often than not. Hobby activities'
members don't all particularly care to be in some para-
military "service." Get used to it.

Whatever merit you may have
originally had is now completely wasted, and falls on deaf ears.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. [add overtones of "snide" to your being
****ed off]


What a silly question. Of course, I have examined the record, that's
why I have come to the conclusions that I have.


[aren't you rather underestimating the degree to which
you were ****ed off? :-) ]


yourself. Not even John Updike or James Michener could generate that
much output and still be original.


Thank you for putting me in with some literary best-sellers!

I wouldn't mind it if you put me in with J. D. Robb... :-)

I used the principal address you
used over the years. If I threw in your recent switch to
" (probably due to AOL shutting down news

service),
and any other address you used earlier (you previously said you have
been posting to the newsgroups for about 7 years), I'm sure the
statistics would be even higher.


"Billions and billions served!" :-)

A saga worthy of a Sagan.

Consider it an astronomical number since I've been doing this
computer-modem thingy for nearly 20 years and have a little
experience at being a BBS co-sysop and a moderator on two
other BBSs. Tsk, tsk, tsk. If you think some of these
public egos are "large," you ought to see them in private! :-)

Furthermore, most recent threads show you replying, and
counter-replying, and counter-counter-replying, and ..., doing more

than
your share of contributing to run-on arguments. In this most recent
thread, you have made about 21 out of the 141 posts to date, and will
probably make many more. Do you really need the last word that badly?


No, now that you explain that others "DO deserve the
last word!" :-)

Tsk. Am I to "keep to some (ordained) schedule" in here?
Sunday afternoon I was speaking at Getty Center. Only
posted a couple that day. Monday the Getty is closed and
I didn't have any other things needed to do...posted
several things. Tuesday it's "back to the usual" and
I wasn't here. shrug

You really need to POST A ROSTER of who is PERMITTED
and who is NOT PERMITTED to post! :-)

"Close ranks" ALL the way. As I've suggested before, just
make access restricted to those who can "show papers" AND
demonstrate a Group Mindset "worthy" of being in the
newsgroup. NO major dissention allowed. Lock out any
"undesireables." No problems. All make nice-nice and
chant traditional mantra.


The following response of yours exhibiting your obvious persecution
complex is a perfect example of your overwrought replies:


Wow! "OVERWROUGHT!!!" Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)


The following response of yours about the "Turing Test" joke is a

perfect
example of your overwrought replies:


Tsk. Some of us "artificial intelligences" get SO
"overwrought."

Remember what ol' Sam Morse tapped out, "What hath
God overwrought?" :-)


Are you homosexual, Len?


Call me a "lesbian." I prefer women. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you if so
("Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Seinfeld would say).


Perish the thought, JUDGE Schleck would NEVER "accuse"
anyone!!!" No, no, no, no NO...


Speaking of tests, you didn't answer my challenge that you guess my
positions on Morse Code.


I really don't give a flying fig about your "position." :-)

I've never HAD to use any morse code in my whole career
IN radio (a mere 52 years now)...which includes, but is
not limited to REAL HF communications. Anyone who says
I "MUST" take some federal test in order to be ON HF as
an amateur tends to get the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate
awarded in return. :-)

Either you don't know, or you realize that
arguing with me isn't about Morse Code, it's about your desire to

fight
just for the sake of fighting, whether people could conceivably agree
with you or not.


Tsk. It's also about my getting you all ****ed off. :-)

That happens a lot all over the Internet.

Have a nice day...




K4YZ April 20th 05 11:39 PM


wrote:
From: Paul W. Schleck on Tues,Apr 19 2005 12:38 pm


Oy beggin' yer lardship's pardon...(SNIP)


Tsk. Judge Schleck is carrying on like his real name
is Roy Bean and he be in the olde West and wanting to
hang anyone high...(SNIP)


As usual, someone made the mistake of thinking they could engage
Lennie in meaniningful, adult "debate".

Lennie couldn't stand a toe-to-toe "debate", so he starts in on
the cute "endearments" and making analogies that are no where near the
mark.

And Lennie wonders why I call him a "putz" and no one renders to
him the honors he feels he is due.

Thanks, Lennie. I never have to wait long for YOU to provide me
with even MORE proof of all my assertions about you.

But don't worry...You've impressed Todd!

Steve, K4YZ


[email protected] April 21st 05 02:39 AM

wrote:

With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)


Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception


Dave Heil April 21st 05 06:04 AM

wrote:

wrote:

With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)


Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception


....and for RTTY. I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that
with his decades of experience. With the BFO injection of most old
boatanchor receivers, he'd likely hear little or no beat note at all
using the method he advocates.

Dave K8MN

[email protected] April 21st 05 12:17 PM


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)


Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain
should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception


...and for RTTY.


Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment. While
we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an audio
TU, there are other ways.

There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter
that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a
BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving
setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550 kHz)
from almost any superhet to it.

I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents.

I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that
with his decades of experience.


"It's a trap"...

With the BFO injection of most old
boatanchor receivers,


(like the R-70?)

he'd likely hear little or no beat note
at all using the method he advocates.

Maybe that's the point...

73 de Jim, N2EY


Dave Heil April 21st 05 05:36 PM

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)

Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain
should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception


...and for RTTY.


Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment. While
we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an audio
TU, there are other ways.


While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or product detector
in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It was also the
method used by USG agencies at HF.

There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter
that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a
BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving
setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550 kHz)
from almost any superhet to it.

I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents.

I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that
with his decades of experience.


"It's a trap"...


I suppose we're doomed to another "I meant to do that".

With the BFO injection of most old
boatanchor receivers,


(like the R-70?)


Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use the
method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to
the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position.

he'd likely hear little or no beat note
at all using the method he advocates.

Maybe that's the point...


If he couldn't copy it either way, what's the diff?

Dave K8MN

K4YZ April 21st 05 08:32 PM


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:


With the BFO injection of most old
boatanchor receivers,


(like the R-70?)


Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use

the
method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to
the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position.


You'd think he'd be quick to put up some pics of "see...I've a
radio station too...", but no...Lennie doesn't seem to have mastered
getting pics onto AOL yet...

(At least not ones that don't show another man's bottom...)

Brag not got not, eh, Guys...???

Steve, K4YZ


[email protected] April 21st 05 10:35 PM

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

wrote:


With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)

Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain
should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception

...and for RTTY.


Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment.

While
we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an

audio
TU, there are other ways.


While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or product

detector
in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It was also

the
method used by USG agencies at HF.


Still, it could be done other ways.

There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter
that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a
BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving
setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550

kHz)
from almost any superhet to it.

I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents.


A really good use for a Q5er, too. Selectivity was about right for the
850 shift that was common in those days. Plus it was a complete unit in
one package.

I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that
with his decades of experience.


"It's a trap"...


I suppose we're doomed to another "I meant to do that".


Yup.

With the BFO injection of most old
boatanchor receivers,


(like the R-70?)


Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use

the
method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to
the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position.


Point is, somebody who didn't know Len might read what he advised and
think it was the right way.

he'd likely hear little or no beat note
at all using the method he advocates.

Maybe that's the point...


If he couldn't copy it either way, what's the diff?

Simple:

One of the arguments for keeping some sort of code test is that
hams do, indeed, use Morse Code. And on HF, they use it *a lot*.
Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is
purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason.

As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the
role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication. So
it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode..

Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out
his error, or even acknowledging it.

73 de Jim, N2EY


[email protected] April 22nd 05 05:12 PM

From: on Thurs,Apr 21 2005 2:35 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:


With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)

Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain

should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception

...and for RTTY.


etc., :-)

Oh my how the LITERALISTS hop in with FALSE "corrections" in
order to attempt making nasty to "opponents."

Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... :-)

With maximum gain, almost ANYTHING will be "heard" on a
radio with NO signals present. If someone WANTS to hear
morse, then, listening to noise, they eventually will. :-)

Note: Check one of Cecil Moore's early postings about
how he (in humor) said he "could hear morse from his
car tires when traveling on rough highways." :-)

Now let's turn back to the good old ARC-5 Command
receivers...which DID have BFOs and thus morse code
beeping capability in the audio output. Look again at
their circuitry. See any "A.F.gain" control in there?
What, couldn't find it? You couldn't, the thousands of
them were NEVER made with any "A.F. gain" or "volume"
control! Amazing!

Only ONE "volume" control, better known as an "R.F.gain"
that changed input amplifier bias. That even included
the original "Q-Fiver," the LF band version of the ARC-5
receiver.



Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment.

While
we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an

audio
TU, there are other ways.


While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or product

detector
in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It was also

the
method used by USG agencies at HF.


Oh, dear, here comes the Department of State, equating
amateur radio with "U.S. Government agencies!" :-)

Tsk, tsk, then whatever you TWO know suddenly becomes
what "ALL hams" do!! Marvelous.

Commercial and Government users of TTY reception
NORMALLY use "converters" outboard of the receivers.
Those are specifically tailored to detect the FSK
(Frequency-Shift Keying) that is COMMON in RTTY
communications. Those converters (in the generic
sense, NOT as "what hams know" as "converters" to
down-frequency-convert VHF or UHF to HF) usually
have (in older days) some mild analog signal
processing to both clean up the demodulated TTY
Mark and Space for less distortion and to limit
interfering signal amplitude in between Mark and
Space as well as above and below them.



One of the arguments for keeping some sort of code test is that
hams do, indeed, use Morse Code. And on HF, they use it *a lot*.


Hams use morse code to sell real estate? :-)

Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is
purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason.


A vapid "reason" considering that the government
does NOT *REQUIRE* any class ham to specifically
USE morse code over and above other OPTIONAL modes.

As Hans Brakob pointed out in another thread, ANY
U.S. class radio amateur CAN use morse code...but
they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.

As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the
role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication.


Oh, oh! Jimmie done said a WRONG THING there!

I've repeatedly pointed out that On-Off Keying, as
by morse code, was THE ONLY METHOD OF USING EARLY
RADIO AS A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM!

As the ONLY way to communicate by early radio, I'd
say - and HAVE SAID - that the ONLY way is IT. As
such, it would intrinsically BE the "great part" of
early radio! :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I don't see (and hardly anyone else
"can see") Jimmie maximizing the early SPARK
transmissions as having been a "role" as great as
morse code...:-)

So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode..


Poor baby...can't understand simple HUMOR, can you?
You MUST be the LITERALIST, taking EVERYTHING EXACTLY
as its written!! No possibility of exaggeration as an
essential part of humor. To you two, all things ham
are SERIOUS BUSINESS (even if amateur means not to gain
monetarily from the activity). :-)

Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out
his error, or even acknowledging it.


Tsk, tsk, I "acknowledge" only that you wrote what you
THOUGHT was a "correction." It was NOT a "correction."
The "correction" (as it was portrayed with an example
of the original "Q-Fiver" out of an LF Command Set
receiver) was WRONG. There is NO "A.F.gain" on any of
those receivers. With NO such control it is impossible
to "set gain" of it. :-)

What "thanks" does Jimmie Noserve "deserve" in here?

Come back when you've learned to get along with non-
morsemen, general.




K4YZ April 22nd 05 10:12 PM


wrote:
From: on Thurs,Apr 21 2005 2:35 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:


With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the
bands." :-)

Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain

should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception

...and for RTTY.


etc., :-)

Oh my how the LITERALISTS hop in with FALSE "corrections" in
order to attempt making nasty to "opponents."

Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk...


Everything can be hidden behind a smiley with you, Lennie.

Jim and Dave were right...Here's your "I meant to say that"
excuse.

Big snip of usual "If I can baffle 'em with enuff BS, maybe I can
worm my way out of this" ramblings....

Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out
his error, or even acknowledging it.


Tsk, tsk, I "acknowledge" only that you wrote what you
THOUGHT was a "correction." It was NOT a "correction."
The "correction" (as it was portrayed with an example
of the original "Q-Fiver" out of an LF Command Set
receiver) was WRONG. There is NO "A.F.gain" on any of
those receivers. With NO such control it is impossible
to "set gain" of it.


Uh huh....

Once again, lack of practical expereince in radio OPERATING has
caught you with your britches down.

What "thanks" does Jimmie Noserve "deserve" in here?


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh....Now all participants in this forum MUST be
Veterans of the Armed Forces in order to talk to Lennie.

Come back when you've learned to get along with non-
morsemen, general.


YOU are a LOT of "non" things, Lennie.





Steve, K4YZ


[email protected] April 24th 05 09:45 PM

wrote:
From:
on Thurs,Apr 21 2005 2:35 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO
on,
one will eventually start "hearing morse code"
on "the bands." :-)

Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF*
gain should be
at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control.

For both SSB and CW/Morse reception

...and for RTTY.


etc., :-)

Oh my how the LITERALISTS hop in with FALSE "corrections" in
order to attempt making nasty to "opponents."


No, Len, I just corrected your mistake. Deal with it.

Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... :-)


You use so many smileys that they're meaningless noise.

With maximum gain, almost ANYTHING will be "heard" on a
radio with NO signals present. If someone WANTS to hear
morse, then, listening to noise, they eventually will. :-)


Just as predicted, you try to tapdance out of a mistake.

Note: Check one of Cecil Moore's early postings about
how he (in humor) said he "could hear morse from his
car tires when traveling on rough highways." :-)


You're not him.

Now let's turn back to the good old ARC-5 Command
receivers...which DID have BFOs and thus morse code
beeping capability in the audio output. Look again at
their circuitry. See any "A.F.gain" control in there?
What, couldn't find it? You couldn't, the thousands of
them were NEVER made with any "A.F. gain" or "volume"
control! Amazing!


I never said the BC-453 or any other "Command Set" had an AF
gain control, Len.

Only ONE "volume" control, better known as an "R.F.gain"
that changed input amplifier bias. That even included
the original "Q-Fiver," the LF band version of the ARC-5
receiver.


I traced the circuitry of one more than 35 years ago. I probably
know more about them than you do, Len.

I never said the BC-453 or any other "Command Set" had an AF
gain control.

Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and
equipment. While
we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and
then an audio TU, there are other ways.

While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or
product detector
in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It
was also the
method used by USG agencies at HF.


Oh, dear, here comes the Department of State, equating
amateur radio with "U.S. Government agencies!" :-)


Ever work at a US Govt. RTTY *receiving* setup, Len?

Tsk, tsk, then whatever you TWO know suddenly becomes
what "ALL hams" do!! Marvelous.


Who said that?

Commercial and Government users of TTY reception
NORMALLY use "converters" outboard of the receivers.
Those are specifically tailored to detect the FSK
(Frequency-Shift Keying) that is COMMON in RTTY
communications. Those converters (in the generic
sense, NOT as "what hams know" as "converters" to
down-frequency-convert VHF or UHF to HF) usually
have (in older days) some mild analog signal
processing to both clean up the demodulated TTY
Mark and Space for less distortion and to limit
interfering signal amplitude in between Mark and
Space as well as above and below them.


So do they demodulate audio signals or IF signals, Len?

Or don't you know?

One of the arguments for keeping some sort of code test is that
hams do, indeed, use Morse Code. And on HF, they use it *a
lot*.


Hams use morse code to sell real estate? :-)

Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is
purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason.


A vapid "reason" considering that the government
does NOT *REQUIRE* any class ham to specifically
USE morse code over and above other OPTIONAL modes.


So what?

As Hans Brakob pointed out in another thread, ANY
U.S. class radio amateur CAN use morse code...but
they are NOT REQUIRED to do so.


So what?

Amateurs are not *required* to use any particular mode, frequency or
band - but they *are* tested on what modes, bands and frequencies they
are allowed to use.

As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the
role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication.


Oh, oh! Jimmie done said a WRONG THING there!


Not me.

I've repeatedly pointed out that On-Off Keying, as
by morse code, was THE ONLY METHOD OF USING EARLY
RADIO AS A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM!


As a way of minimizing its use after the days of "EARLY RADIO"

And you do get upset when it is pointed out the Reginald
Fessenden was using voice radio communications as early as 1900,
and had established regular 2 way transatlantic *voice* communications
by November of 1906.

As the ONLY way to communicate by early radio, I'd
say - and HAVE SAID - that the ONLY way is IT. As
such, it would intrinsically BE the "great part" of
early radio! :-)


And I would say you're full of it ;-) ;-) ;-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, I don't see (and hardly anyone else
"can see") Jimmie maximizing the early SPARK
transmissions as having been a "role" as great as
morse code...:-)


The spark era was actually very short in the history of
radio - by the mid-1920s it was almost gone.

So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode..


Poor baby...can't understand simple HUMOR, can you?


Sure I can, Len. But your attempts at humor aren't funny.
They're just dumb.

You MUST be the LITERALIST, taking EVERYTHING EXACTLY
as its written!!


Putting a smiley at the end does not make a dumb statement funny.

No possibility of exaggeration as an
essential part of humor.


Here's a hint, Len: The *audience* decides what's funny and what
isn't.

To you two, all things ham
are SERIOUS BUSINESS (even if amateur means not to gain
monetarily from the activity). :-)


I don't take *you* seriously, Len.

I don't think anyone does ;-)

Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out
his error, or even acknowledging it.


Tsk, tsk, I "acknowledge" only that you wrote what you
THOUGHT was a "correction." It was NOT a "correction."


Sure it was, Len. You don't know squat about Morse Code or its
reception ;-)

The "correction" (as it was portrayed with an example
of the original "Q-Fiver" out of an LF Command Set
receiver) was WRONG. There is NO "A.F.gain" on any of
those receivers. With NO such control it is impossible
to "set gain" of it. :-)


I never said the BC-453 or any other "Command Set" had an AF
gain control.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com