K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Military
and international socio-political politics are another group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which to make
informed opinions or suggestions from.

That never stopped Mike Powell or any of his predecessors. But it must
stop Len. Len must be stopped "SOMEhow!" At any cost.

Dave Heil wrote:
bb wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

bb wrote:

wrote:




"who can't argue a subject for squat and does the personal insult

thing


in order to "win an argument." "


Len, this proves he hangs on your every word. Hi!

Doesn't look that way to me. It would appear that Len has been hung by
his very words.

Dave K8MN


How's Six Meters? Heard any out of band Frenchmen?

Why would you like to know? Are you operational on 6m?

Dave K8MN

Just wondering if you're still working out of band Frenchmen on six
meters or if you've curbed your enthusiasm for illegal pileups at any
cost?

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.
Military
and international socio-political politics are another
group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to
be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio
policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which
to make informed opinions or suggestions from.

Whether the discussion is "informed" or not isn't the issue,
Steve. My point was about Len's ability to have *civil*
(as in well-mannered) discussion with those who disagree
with him.

I've tried many times, but Len insists on responding to
my disagreement with direct insults, even though I didn't
insult him. Apparently he sees my disagreement as an insult.

No one doubts his "inside the black box" knowledge,

I do, Steve. Len talks a lot of nomenclature and buzzwords
but when it comes to actually solving practical radio problems
we don't see anything. His articles for ham radio (22 years ago)
were all basic theory, not practical projects.

however he
knows almost "diddly squat" about Amatuer Radio practice or
policy.

Not the point.

His rants on "Morse Code TESTING" are emotionally based and
bear no
relevence to current Amateur employment of the mode.

Obviously.

73 de Jim, N2EY

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Military
and international socio-political politics are another group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which to make
informed opinions or suggestions from.

That never stopped Mike Powell or any of his predecessors.

"Mike Powell (and his) predecessors" staff out assignmentss who
ARE informed on the various issues.

But it must Len. Len must be stopped "SOMEhow!" At any cost.

I may or may not like the politics of Mr Powell, but whether he
has said or done anyhing I didn't like, I can't say he was lying or
obviously being deceitful in his dealings with Amateur Radio.

The same does NOT hold true for Lennie.

Or you.

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.
Military
and international socio-political politics are another
group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to
be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio
policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which
to make informed opinions or suggestions from.

Whether the discussion is "informed" or not isn't the issue,
Steve. My point was about Len's ability to have *civil*
(as in well-mannered) discussion with those who disagree
with him.

Point taken. You're quite right.

I've tried many times, but Len insists on responding to
my disagreement with direct insults, even though I didn't
insult him. Apparently he sees my disagreement as an insult.

Obviously.

Of course his insistance on using diminutives when you clearly
address him with at least the accepted social civility demonstrates
what we've been saying all along.

No one doubts his "inside the black box" knowledge,

I do, Steve. Len talks a lot of nomenclature and buzzwords
but when it comes to actually solving practical radio problems
we don't see anything. His articles for ham radio (22 years ago)
were all basic theory, not practical projects.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....Good point. And when I think back on
it, Lennie fought tooth-and-nail to get involved in a meaningful
discussion on microwave technology.

Part of my persistence in trying to get him to do so, of course,
was directly tied to his suggestion that he and his "engineering
bretheren" had so much to offer Amateur Radio.

Of couse ALL he has offered Amateur Radio are arguments, name
calling and the aforementioned articles in said defunct magazine.

Not THOSE I doubt were his...

however he
knows almost "diddly squat" about Amatuer Radio practice or
policy.

Not the point.

It is when he's humiliating himself by making assinine assertions
that are obviously not rooted in fact.

His rants on "Morse Code TESTING" are emotionally based and
bear no relevence to current Amateur employment of the mode.

Obviously.

Ayup.

73

Steve, K4YZ

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

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Military
and international socio-political politics are another group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which to make
informed opinions or suggestions from.

That never stopped Mike Powell or any of his predecessors.

"Mike Powell (and his) predecessors" staff out assignmentss who
ARE informed on the various issues.

Like they were informed about refarming the 220 band to UPS? BPL?

But it must Len. Len must be stopped "SOMEhow!" At any cost.

I may or may not like the politics of Mr Powell, but whether he
has said or done anyhing I didn't like, I can't say he was lying or
obviously being deceitful in his dealings with Amateur Radio.

The same does NOT hold true for Lennie.

Or you.

Steve, K4YZ

Definitely not you.

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.
Military
and international socio-political politics are another
group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to
be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio
policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which
to make informed opinions or suggestions from.

Whether the discussion is "informed" or not isn't the issue,
Steve. My point was about Len's ability to have *civil*
(as in well-mannered) discussion with those who disagree
with him.

Point taken. You're quite right.

I've tried many times, but Len insists on responding to
my disagreement with direct insults, even though I didn't
insult him. Apparently he sees my disagreement as an insult.

Obviously.

Of course his insistance on using diminutives when you clearly
address him with at least the accepted social civility
demonstrates
what we've been saying all along.

Think about why Len does all that. I call him Len, he calls me
"Jimmie boy" or some such. If I call him a similar name, I would
then validate his behavior. But if I just call him Len, or Mr.
Anderson, his attempt to misdirect fails.

This does not mean letting his mistakes go unchallenged. Nor does
it mean not calling his bull**** what it is.

No one doubts his "inside the black box" knowledge,

I do, Steve. Len talks a lot of nomenclature and buzzwords
but when it comes to actually solving practical radio problems
we don't see anything. His articles for ham radio (22 years
ago)
were all basic theory, not practical projects.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....Good point. And when I think back on
it, Lennie fought tooth-and-nail to get involved in a meaningful
discussion on microwave technology.

Anybody can "discuss" with a little point-and-click research. I'm
talking about actually *doing* something, such as an actual project.

Len will tell you all about some piece of gear he worked on at some job
years ago. But ask him what he has recently built at home, on his own
time, with his own resources, and he's got nothing to show you.

He'll go on and on about "some Extras" at the radio store who didn't
know much about the triple loop PLL system in his R-70 - 22+ years ago.
But in fact he didn't design or build the thing.


Part of my persistence in trying to get him to do so, of course,
was directly tied to his suggestion that he and his "engineering
bretheren" had so much to offer Amateur Radio.

And you bought that line? HAW!

Remember the Tech Plus WA6 guy who used to lecture us here on "no
setasides for legacy modes" "elitism" and "electronic paintball wars"
and such? us all about his engineering expertise in radio (which is
genuine, btw)?

After restructuring, he went and got his Extra - then got on HF SSB
with a manufactured transceiver and proceeded to work DX. He may even
have DXCC by now. Also got a 2x1 vanity call.

Nothing wrong with any of that but it sure was surreal.

Of couse ALL he has offered Amateur Radio are arguments, name
calling and the aforementioned articles in said defunct magazine.

If Len were really interested in microwaves and amateur radio, he'd
have gotten a license years ago. The Tech only required 5 wpm code,
when it had a code test.

Not THOSE I doubt were his...

however he
knows almost "diddly squat" about Amatuer Radio practice or
policy.

Not the point.

It is when he's humiliating himself by making assinine assertions
that are obviously not rooted in fact.

So? Correct his mistakes without behaving the way he does. Or just
ignore him.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Military
and international socio-political politics are another group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which to make
informed opinions or suggestions from.

That never stopped Mike Powell or any of his predecessors.

"Mike Powell (and his) predecessors" staff out assignmentss who
ARE informed on the various issues.

Like they were informed about refarming the 220 band to UPS? BPL?

"UPS" was not the only entity involved in that "deal" Brain, and
Amateur Radio operators are as responsible for that folly as anyone.

We had more than andequate opportunity to get that band "loaded
up" like 2 meters ('Use It Or Lose It") but didn't.

BTW...remember the FIRST 'threat' to the 1.25m band and for what
purpose?

But it must Len. Len must be stopped "SOMEhow!" At any cost.

I may or may not like the politics of Mr Powell, but whether he
has said or done anyhing I didn't like, I can't say he was lying or
obviously being deceitful in his dealings with Amateur Radio.

The same does NOT hold true for Lennie.

Or you.

Definitely not you.

I've neither lied nor been deceitful in any discussion on Amateur
Radio, Brain.

The same canNOT be said for you and Lennie. Shame on you both.

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Mon,May 23 2005 4:38 am

Ya think that MAYBE that's why I said "...the MC version of
the Pave Low..."...?!?!

Brain was in the Air Force. That's why the cross-reference.

1. Helicopters are NOT a radio subject, let alone AMATEUR RADIO.

Sure they are.

If we can be bombarded with reams of old tales on how you dodged
"incomming artillery fire", "served under the threat of the Soviet
Bear", and how "you" passed 1.2 million messages, I can discuss
helos.

2. Military aircraft nomenclature, names are NOT a requirement
in AMATEUR RADIO.

Neither are the names of soldiers you never served with and who
died three years before you were ever in the Army...but you deem it
necessary to being them up anyway.

3. Are there any AMATEURS operating "helicopter mobile?"

There was at least one in the Marines many years ago. I know of
several Flight Medics with Life Flight (Nashville) and Life Force
(Chattanooga) today who are Amateurs and carry HT's on occassion.

The "Pave Low" is the MH-53E through O suffix, operated mostly
by the USAF. More specifially "Pave Low II" to "Pave Low VI."

Amazing how "smart" you are with the click of a mouse, eh...?!?!

All the information on the Internet is at ANYONE's disposal.

Yes, it is...

Too bad you can't retain some of that...

Not my job. Too bad Stebie can't remember to get names correct
on helicopters he has "served."

I did get them correct. Absolutely correct.

YOU tried to make an issue out of my making an anolgy between the
USMC CH53 and the USAF Pave Low.

It didn't work.

The "CH" in the type designation stands for Cargo, Helicopter.

Very good....Still not any "smoking gun", though...

The CH-53A through CH-53D are CARGO HAULERS.

As is the CH53E Super Sea Stallion, on which I was qual'ed.

1. The colloquial term for "qualified" is spelled "qualled"
as it is pronounced.

And many people abbreviate it "qual'ed". You don'...that's fine.
But YOU were never one of those persons "qual'ed" on ANY airframe.

2. The CH-47 and CH-54 are also Cargo Handlers, types that
I've designed test sets for...and gotten them in
production and eventually delivered (RCA EASD).

And never qualified on either of them as a flight mechanic,
aircrewman, gunner or other flgith crew.

Not a one.

And it's cargo HAULERS, not cargo "handlers", Lennie. 'Handlers'
are known as LOADMASTERS...On USMC heavy helicopters the Crew Chief
also doubles in that role.

Some of the MH-53s are into special ops. But, the Sea Stallion
is basically a CARGO HAULER, first operational in 1966.

Actually first operational in 1965.

FORTY YEAR OLD DESIGN.

So...can we assume by your disdain for things over 40 years old
that wwe will not hear anymore meaningless meanderings about
"ADA"...?!?!

The "CARGO HAULER" was used for "special ops" through out it's
career too, Lennie. That's why the USMC had them fitted with
VULCAN's,
-50's, etc.

Tsk...next thing will be Stebie bragging on his "special ops"
experience...maybe with a "HALO Drop" story?

Nope...Never was a SpecOp operator.

The tactical and strategic use of helicopters is NOT anything
close to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

True. But you're not qualifed on all three subjects, yet in the
last three days you've tried to preach to me on them.

Silly Rabbit.

At one time or another I've participated in all three.

That's also why the USMC fit's them for vertical envelopment.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Got your nose rubbed in your error again, eh Lennie...?!?!

The USMC, The Air Force and the Navy all used them for SpecOp
insertions, Maritime patrol, security-of-the seas missions.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Got your nosed rubbed in your own error again, eh, Lennie? Of
course any brief "search" via Google, et al, will produce numerous
reports that substantiate exactly what I said...

The airframe comes off the same production line at Sikorsky at
Stratford, CT.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Got your nosed rubbed in your own error again, eh, Lennie? Of
course you want to change subject now...Got caught with your "facts"
exposed again...

The same airframe...Over 80% interchangeable.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Quite correct...But still absolutely true.

And the missions of the CH-53 (ALL variants) far exceed "CARGO
HAULING".

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Of course it is, Lennie.

YOU made an issue out of it! And still absolutely true.

Of course you didn't know that because the scope of your
knowledge
stopped at your wrist.

Not my job to know details of helicopters.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! ! !

THERE WE GO!

Lennie thought he'd be a smart alec and try to "ding" me on yet
another topic HE was unfamiliar with...

Got zinged!

YESTERDAY he "knew the details"... Now that he got slapped around
for his errors, it's...

........."NOT MY JOB"...!!!!


BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

I didn't lie about a single thing, Lennie.

Not in Stebieworld. Stebie NEVER lies in Stebieworld...everyone
else does there...

Not in "Stebieworld" (wherever that's supposed to be), not
here...Not about these topics...

If you want a REAL education, you should read some of the
histories of the USMC's various Sea Stallion units...Most notably
HMH-462, HMH-464, HMH-363 and HMH-361.

I was in all except 464 at one time or another.

NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....OUCH!

Spanked by "The Gunny" again!

Take the time to do some research and you'll find a few of those
"seven hostile actions" you claim I never participated in.

Is Stebie's name featured anywhere on those "research pages?"

So far, none of us readers have found out the WHEN and
WHERE of Stebie's famous "seven hostile actions."

And you won't from me.

"NOT applicable to AMATEUR RADIO POLICY".

Hint: This newsgroup is NOT about the Glory of the USMC
or about helicopters. Try to stay focussed. If you write
names of helicopters, try to get them CORRECT.

Hint: It's "focused". That error's been pointed out to you
frequently but you continue to make it.

And I got them "CORRECT"...Including who flies what and why....

If you are going to LIE, BLUFF, SCAM, try to get your military
nomenclature CORRECT.

I did so. Absolutely correct.

You did NOT do so!

Tsk, tsk. I corrected you and you admitted to the INCORRECT
"cross-reference" (your term for covering up your mistake).

No error...no mistake. The USMC flies the "CH53" (and variants)
and the USAF flies the "Pave Low".

NOBODY can tell mighty Stebie ANYTHING!

Plenty of folks can "tell me lots"...

YOU, on the otherhand, seem to ahve a problem getting a LOT of
things about Amateur Radio and current military aircraft right, Lennie.

The service history and deployment of the CH53-series aircraft is
yet another "field" in which YOUR "experience" is from a mouse click.

Absolutely!

And LIMITED to that "experience".

I, on the otherhand, have FIRST HAND experience and didn't need to
find a URL to get it...

I've spent 53 years working in RADIO-ELECTRONICS, not
helicopters. This forum is NOT about helicopters. This
newsgroup is about RADIO, specifically amateur radio policy.

No...You spent 53 years riding other people's coat tails. And now
you spend your retirement riding the mouse to try and impress people
with what you can find out "now" because you didn't do it "then".

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

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

Hello? This newsgroup is about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Military
and international socio-political politics are another group.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents, Len? You seem to be afraid
to have a civil discussion about amateur radio policy here.

In order to have a "civil discussion" on Amateur Radio policy,
Lennie would have to have some sort of experience from which to make
informed opinions or suggestions from.

That never stopped Mike Powell or any of his predecessors.

"Mike Powell (and his) predecessors" staff out assignmentss who
ARE informed on the various issues.

Like they were informed about refarming the 220 band to UPS? BPL?

"UPS" was not the only entity involved in that "deal" Brain, and
Amateur Radio operators are as responsible for that folly as anyone.

Well, that's one opinion....

We had more than andequate opportunity to get that band "loaded
up" like 2 meters ('Use It Or Lose It") but didn't.

That happened for a bunch of reasons.

First off, 220 is not a ham band by international treaty. It's
primarily land mobile - we get it as a secondary allocation here in
Region 2 because the FCC lets us. Most parts of the world have never
had a band there. That's why it's not used for satellite comms.

And because of the relatively small market, the selection of
manufactured rigs for 220 was and is less than for 2 meters or 440.

All of which means FCC could reallocate some or all of 220 without
waiting for treaty changes.

BTW...remember the FIRST 'threat' to the 1.25m band and for what
purpose?

Yup. It was stopped by two factors: Opposition by hams (including
ARRL), and
disinterest by the users who would supposedly migrate there.

The first threat was from the EIA, who saw an opportunity to sell lots
of new
radios, antennas and accessories, while relieving the congestion on the
existing
allocation. The users didn't like the fact that almost all of their
existing equipment would become useless.

In both cases, the original threat was to the entire band, then part of
it.

Perhaps more amateur activity would have saved 220-222.

But it must Len. Len must be stopped "SOMEhow!" At any cost.

Fun fact: I haven't seen anyone here tell Len to shut up (as in "shut
the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel") or to go away. But he has done
so several times.

Who is trying to stop who?

I may or may not like the politics of Mr Powell, but whether he
has said or done anyhing I didn't like, I can't say he was lying or
obviously being deceitful in his dealings with Amateur Radio.

C'mon, Steve, anyone who knows a little about radio knows that BPL is a
real
threat to every radio service that uses the same frequencies. Anyone
who
knows a little about the whole theory of why FCC exists knows that one
of its
fundamental purposes is to protect licensed radio services from
avoidable
interference - either from other radio services, or from other
electrical
devices and systems.

All Mr. Powell had to do was look at the measurements and observations
made
by any number of observers - including but not limited to ARRL - and it
was
obvious what would happen. Or look at the experiences in other
countries. Or
declare that *any* interference complaints would result in immediate
BPL system shutdown until the problem was fixed. Instead, the business
model overrode the engineering model.

Perhaps all the outcry from hams and the ARRL may yet carry the day
against
BPL. Note how few systems are actually in operation, and how many have

shut down. Note also how many that were under consideration have not
gone
forward due to the interference issue. Meanwhile, DSL, cable and WiFi
expand
daily.

73 de Jim, N2EY