|
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... : ... almost a decade before the Lloyd Bucher shamefully struck his : colors to the Koreans.. Shameful is in the eye of the beholder. Captain Bucher was not punished for surrendering, just as the US didn't punish the Jews who attacked his sister-ship, USS Liberty on a similar mission. Probably because then the Navy would have needed to punish those who sent those ships in harms way without proper means to defend themselves, and further because when Pueblo signalled for help other forces in the area (7th Fleet, CINCPAC, 5th AF at Fuchu/Kadena/Clark, etc.) engaged in a messy cluster-**** deciding whether and who should send air assets to cover his retreat. Enough shame to go around! M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
Jumper 101 wrote: Thank you, Master Chief, for your service. You served our country well. There are others of us who 'lurk' hereabouts and several of us are also Vets. Hats off to you, Master Chief, and to you I give an Airborne Salute. Airborne All The Way from a former 101st Abn. Trooper, Ft. Campbell, KY. Screaming Eagles get the job done. All others are 'legs'. And thanks to you for your service and sacrifices, Jumper! Steve, GySgt United States Marine Corps 1974 to 1992. |
K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: The fact of the matter is that except in the most aggrevious warfare, more Americans die on the highways at home than do Servicemen. And heroes all of them, defending the country. """Sorry Hans, a run-over Jay-Walker IS a Veteran!!!""" Hi! The point beig, Brain, that civilians die in the course of both "peacetime" and states of war too. Then they would have been wise to have stepped up to the plate and enlisted. Do a bit of history research on "Maritime Marine", "Civil Air Patrol" and "Office of Civilian Defense" during WW2. CAP "civilians" still lose their lives "in the line of duty", and they weren't even getting paid for it. Then they did something horribly, horribly wrong. |
bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: bb wrote: K4YZ wrote: The fact of the matter is that except in the most aggrevious warfare, more Americans die on the highways at home than do Servicemen. And heroes all of them, defending the country. """Sorry Hans, a run-over Jay-Walker IS a Veteran!!!""" Hi! The point beig, Brain, that civilians die in the course of both "peacetime" and states of war too. Then they would have been wise to have stepped up to the plate and enlisted. Do a bit of history research on "Maritime Marine", "Civil Air Patrol" and "Office of Civilian Defense" during WW2. CAP "civilians" still lose their lives "in the line of duty", and they weren't even getting paid for it. Then they did something horribly, horribly wrong. Such as...?!?! People die every day doing whatever it is they do 100% safely. Like the local mother of two who was stopped at a traffic light. She was sober, alert, had her seat belt with shoulder belt on. A drunk driver careened through the intersection and struck her sqaure in the door. 3000+ people died three years ago just becasue they went to work that day. Did THEY do something "horribly, horribly wrong"...?!?! There's absolutely no guarantee to life other than you are going to die. What you do with your life until you do is to some degree in your own hands. The rest is the roll of the dice. Steve, K4YZ |
wrote:
From: on Sat,Apr 16 2005 8:44 am wrote: From: Dave Heil on Apr 12, 9:31 pm It only shows what a snow-jobbing laid-off murine does under the guise of a U.S. AMATEUR radio extra callsign. Tosses brags like they were bagels. What brags, Len? Look at American foreign policy since the end of the USA's involvement in Vietnam. Plenty of "hostile actions" for active-duty, career military personnel to be a part of in a variety of roles. And that's just the "hostile actions" we civilians know about. How does that tie in with the use of morse code in museum windows? The same way your service at ADA ties in with amateur radio policy. To my knowledge, Steve has never stated that DOD does not direct MARS. His claim is that if there were no radio amateurs, there'd have been no MARS program. In that, he is correct. Bull****. Well, you're certainly the authority on *that* subject, Len! ;-) I know TRUTH as opposed to snow-job braggadoccio. Really? Like what encryption systems the US Navy used in WW2? Psycho Pstevie is an "extra class" snow-jobber. So you're saying he wasn't involved in "seven hostile actions"? And, mister wizard, you REWROTE what Robeson wrote. Not me. You must be thinking of someone else. "Sorry, Hans, MARS IS amateur radio." That's not what I wrote. In NO way did Pstevie write what YOU say he wrote. What did I say he wrote? In NO way did Pstevie's single sentence say what you IMPLY it did. He is NOT "correct." You're misquoting all over the place, Len. But it doesn't matter. Here, I'll clear it up: MARS and amateur radio aren't the same thing. But many radio amateurs are involved in MARS. That's my position. If Steve says different, argue with *him*. MARS always was and remains a MILITARY radio system. But most of the participants aren't in the military. How do YOU know? I have sources, Len. Haw, that's funny. Len, you pretty much come unglued at the slightest opposition to your cherished statements, or when someone refuses to feed your insult machine. "Insult machine?" Yes, that's right. It's what you're all about here. Jimmie Noserve wants the exclusive use of that "machine?" Do you feel insulted by my posts, Len? It seems so - you seem to find insult in everything. Oh, yes, that ties right in with a Canadian museum having morse code in its window...sure... Those windows really seem to bother you. If you ain't got the guts to tell the details, you AIN'T done it. Simple as that. Then you must think that Brian Burke, N0IMD-allegedly- /T5, "ain't done it", because he won't give any details about his amateur radio operation in Somalia. Then you must be as nuts as Psycho Pstevie. Tsk. Not me, Len. I'm not the one calling people names and telling them to shut up. You are. Pstevie pervertedly pejorated hisself at least a couple orders of magnitude with his alleged "poor repfit" of NADC on my visit there 34 years ago...and is still trying (vainly) to rationalize his LIE as some kind of "truth." What has that to do with your claim that: "If you ain't got the guts to tell the details, you AIN'T done it. Simple as that." That's what you wrote, Len. Does it only apply to Steve and not to Brian. I'm just showing what a damn LIAR he is. What lie? The claim he has made is that he found someone who knew you from when you were allegedly at NADC. And that someone says you didn't do such a great job there. Now maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. But it's basically your word against that of some unknown person. But, Pstevie is your BUDDIE and therefore can do NO wrong. That's not true at all. He is PCTA extra Double Standard class and can therefore say ANYTHING he wants in your complete approval. Not true at all, Len, but you would rather claim so than to face the facts. Orwell did a good job describing the subjective reality mindset in his classic "1984". You remind me of "Big Brother", Len, in the way you want to rewrite history to fit your mindset. Pizz off, sweetie. What's the matter, Len? Are you insulted? I'm simply telling you how you appear in this newsgroup. You claimed: "If you ain't got the guts to tell the details, you AIN'T done it. Simple as that." which is a pretty good definition of subjective reality, where if something isn't described, it doesn't exist. Which is what you're telling us *you* believe. You are going hot and heavy into this personal insult thing and Brian Burke is NOT a part of it. The personal insults are your bag, Len. Brian plays a related but slightly different game. If a person does something, they've done it whether they talk about it or not. Or whether you believe it or not. Simple as that. Tsk. Turn your phrase around. No. The converse of a true statement isn't necessarily true. The contrapositive is. If a person TALKS about something, that isn't "proof" that they've DONE it. :-) Which applies to *you*, Len... Psycho Pstevie still hasn't come up with a SINGLE detail of "proof" on his insult of my "fitrep" at NADC. Nor have you proved him to be mistaken. And if K4YZ really did participate in seven hostile actions, then it happened regardless of whether details are given or not. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IS TRUTH? :-) It's basic logic, Len. If K4YZ really did participate in seven hostile actions, then it happened regardless of whether details are given or not. That's objective reality. |
wrote: From: on Sat,Apr 16 2005 8:44 am wrote: From: Dave Heil on Apr 12, 9:31 pm No, Len, that's not true. FCC is involved - but you're not FCC. James P. Miccolis is NOT FCC. :-) Never claimed to be, Len. Amateur radio manufacturers are involved - but you're not one of them, either. James P. Miccolis is NOT a "manufacturer of radios." Actually I'm an "amateur radio manufacturer" - you're not. You're not involved. OH! "Not involved!!!" That's right. You're not involved in amateur radio - other than some newsgroup rantings and spamming FCC's ECFS. The U.S. Government gives me the RIGHT to vote, on anything up for a vote! Same as me. But Part 97 isn't up for a vote. I am NOT "involved in government" yet I can vote on government officials! [really!] Me too. Who did you vote for in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, Len? Or don't you "have the guts" to "give the details"? I am NOT "involved" in any of the proposals to be voted on yet I can VOTE on them! No, you can't, Len. You can comment on them but that's not the same thing as voting. Wow! I'm "not involved" in so many things!!!! That's right, Len. You're not involved in amateur radio beyond your rantings here and to FCC. BULL****, sweetums. That pretty much describes your involvement, Len. The FCC determines who gets a radio license That's what I've said all along, Len. and sets the standards. The standards to get a license, that is. The ARRL does NOT. Len Anderson does NOT, either. Jimmie Noserve does NOT. Len Anderson does NOT, either. Davie Heil does NOT. Len Anderson does NOT, either. The "ham community" does NOT. Len Anderson does NOT, either. He's not even part of the amateur radio community. It's the FCC, sweetie. And nobody else. Not even you. [and that's the absolute truth...pbthththt] Whoever said differently, Len? The "F" in FCC stands for "Federal." That means that ANYONE can make themselves and their opinions known to them (see the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution). Of course. Not the same thing as voting, though. The FCC does NOT limit itself to amateur regulation input SOLELY from amateurs. It isn't an exclusive clubhouse...even though you try to convey that idea. I've never said anything different, Len. Why the lecture? You can comment all you want. That doesn't make you "involved in amateur radio" to any significant extent. Who? Not you, of course. You're not involved. What? Paradoxical. According to that, one can't get INTO amateur radio WITHOUT being "involved," BUT...to BE "involved" one has to ALREADY be IN amateur radio. No, that's not it at all. You're not involved beyond your rantings here and spamming of ECFS. Tsk. If you don't like paradoxes, all you are doing is trying to make it all into a private clubhouse. Not at all. You could be involved, but you choose not to be. That's fine, to each his own. Amateur radio doesn't need you, Len Anderson. Sorry, the Communications Act of 1934 took that away when the FCC was created to regulate ALL civil radio in the USA. ALL, Jimmie. So what? Nobody denies that FCC makes the rules. That fact does not mean *you* are somehow *involved in amateur radio* beyond a newsgroup or two and voluminous nonsense sent to FCC. Len knows more about radio operation. Tsk. I know HOW they work and the protocols needed in some radio services. But not amateur radio. Not Morse Code. Your knowledge is all theory, no practice, when it comes to amateur radio. Sidewalk superintendent stuff. All hat and no cattle, all talk and no action. Okay, so you DON'T think that amateur radio works by the same principles of physics as all other radio services. No, that's not true at all. Electrons, fields, and waves all work in in an "amateur fashion" if you have an AMATEUR radio license! Nope. An AMATEUR radio "won't work" unless it has a valid, certificated amateur radio operator operating it? Wow. Learn something every day. That's simply your way of avoiding the real issue, Len. The fact is, you're not knowledgeable about amateur radio "protocols" nor Morse Code nor are you experienced in amateur radio. Well, no sweat. Someone who doesn't KNOW the "ham way" should be FIRED, right? Give up their ham job? Be prosecuted if they don't behave according to YOUR set of regulations? You're still not involved and not qualified. Sweetie, I've designed and built those "sidewalks," and the "buildings" they are in front of, done the "civil engineering" testing on those "buildings" to make sure they are in-spec. Not on the street called "amateur radio", Len. You did some articles for a now-long-defunct New England-based ham radio magazine 22+ years ago. None of them were about building or operating an amateur radio station. Poor baby. Still sulking about NOT getting published in anything but "Electric Radio?" :-) Not me. I've been published elsewhere. So what? You're not involved. I am. Who did you vote for in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, Len? Where there RADIO issues proposed by the candidates then? I watched the debates on TV rather than listening to the radio. Fill me in. HOW is such information REQUIRED to discuss amateur radio regulations and how to get INTO amateur radio by licensing? It's a demonstration of your own concept, Len. You wrote about having the guts to give details. And about voting. Don't you have the guts to tell us who you voted for? I guess not. WHO did you VOTE for in Canada on their last election? I'm not allowed to vote in Canada - I'm not a Canadian citizen. Are you an American citizen, Len? Are you "afraid" to say? :-) Not at all. I didn't vote in the last Canadian election because I'm not a Canadian citizen. In fact, I've never been to Canada. The U.S. military did NOT use morse code in long-distance fixed-point to fixed-point communications a half century ago and still don't. Even if that's true - what does it matter to amateur radio policy? Sorry, Jimmie, under YOUR "rules," if I SAID it, then it must be true! :-) Why not just answer the question, Len? What does it matter to amateur radio policy whether the U.S. military did or did NOT use morse code in long-distance fixed-point to fixed-point communications a half century ago and still don't? Actually, it IS true, but YOU are AFRAID to find out. The fantasy that the rest of the radio world "still uses morse code" is way too strong a mental narcotic for you. You can't go cold turkey. Not at all, Len. The question remains: What does it matter to amateur radio policy whether the U.S. military did or did NOT use morse code in long-distance fixed-point to fixed-point communications a half century ago and still don't? Amateur radio isn't the US military. MARS is military. "Sorry, Hans, MARS IS amateur radio!" :-) Amateur radio is NOT Private Land Mobile Radio Service. Amateur radio is NOT Mass Media Radio Service. Amateur radio is NOT Maritime Radio Service. Amateur radio is NOT Aviation Radio Service. Amateur radio is NOT Personal Radio Service. Etc. Then you've just proved my point, Len. Since amateur radio isn't any of those, what those services do isn't what should determine what hams do, nor what the license requirements for an amateur license should be. Tsk. Some of you olde-tyme hammes need to get your noses out of old WW2 surplus radio books and inspect the rest of the radio world. Is that an order? Are you afraid to take orders? Not at all - from duly authorized people. You're not in charge, Len - you're not even involved. Is that why you never volunteered for military service? :-) How do you know I never volunteered? Why should what other radio services do be more important to amateur radio policy than what hams do? Why should amateur radio policy be dictated SOLELY by already-licensed radio amateurs? Nobody says that. Also, you cannot answer a question with another question. You're avoiding the important question: Why should what other radio services do be more important to amateur radio policy than what hams do? Try answering that one. Or are you afraid? That's in direct VIOLATION of both the 1st Amendment and the Communications Act of 1934. Nobody says that only hams should make the rules. I see. Well, Len, you have the thinnest skin of all those here, because you get insulted by *any* opposition.. What "opposition?" :-) Any opposition. There's Jimmie Noserve who likes to make out that he KNOWS ALL about the military...but never served. Gee, Len, you gave us a lecture here about US Navy communications and encryption recently. But *you* never served in the US Navy - and there were several mistakes in your little lecture. There's a psycho-sick whacko inventing "fitreps" about me that never happened... Here's a clue, Len: I'm not him. There's a few more and have been lots more. Not a problem. Lots of you knowitalls and control freaks on the Internet who "get off" on being "superior" on their screens. Tsk. Been that way since computer-modem communications got going over three decades ago. :-) That pretty much sums up what *you* do here, Len. That's what *you* are involved in... Who did you vote for in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004,Len? Maybe I've forgotten! :-) I don't think so. More likely, you "don't have the guts" to say so in public. But I think I know who you voted for. What Prime Minister candidate did you vote for in Canada, Jimmie? None - I'm not allowed to vote in Canada. Are you, Len? Are you an American citizen? What military did you serve in up in Canada, Jimmie? I've never been to Canada, Len. |
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:20:15 GMT, Mel A. Nomah wrote:
Shameful is in the eye of the beholder. Captain Bucher was not punished for surrendering, just as the US didn't punish the Jews who attacked his sister-ship, USS Liberty on a similar mission. Probably because then the Navy would have needed to punish those who sent those ships in harms way without proper means to defend themselves 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. 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. And the NSA kept denying... -- 73 de K2ASP / 4X4UQ - Phil Kane |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:20:15 GMT, Mel A. Nomah wrote: Shameful is in the eye of the beholder. Captain Bucher was not punished for surrendering, just as the US didn't punish the Jews who attacked his sister-ship, USS Liberty on a similar mission. Probably because then the Navy would have needed to punish those who sent those ships in harms way without proper means to defend themselves 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. 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. And the NSA kept denying... -- 73 de K2ASP / 4X4UQ - Phil Kane |
Read the TRUTH about the deliberate Jew attack on the USS Liberty at this website, which is operated by survivors of the attack: www.ussliberty.org |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com