wrote:
From: on Thurs,May 26 2005 4:35 am

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

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.

Heh heh heh. It couldn't be because of Robeson calling me
penis head in Yiddish or now trying to level a charge of
"shame" on my military service record? :-)

Maybe. Trouble is, Len, you respond to everyone who disagrees with you
in the same way, whether they call you such names or not.

You and Steve have been insulting each other steadily for years now. It
would be interesting to go back in Google and see which of you started
that game. Of course, you won't do that.

But if I just call him Len, or Mr.
Anderson, his attempt to misdirect fails.

Sir James, you need not bow but you can quit trying to give
me the finger...! :-)

Where am I trying to give you anything, Len?

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

Ah...there it is...ANY disagreement with Sir James of Miccolis
is "bull****!" :-)

Nope. I just call your 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.

That's "simply untrue," your most esteemed noble highness
Sir James of Miccolis. Tsk, tsk, tsk, you haven't read
beyond your ham publications! :-)

Sure I have - but that's not the point. When it comes to solving
practical
amateur radio problems, you don't have anything to show us.

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.

Tsk, tsk. Stebie has been told a MILLION times not to
exaggerate! :-)

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

Tsk. Jimmie is invited to the Long Beach, CA, International
Microwave Symposium during the entire second week of June this
year. "Actual projects!" :-)

By whom, Len?

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.

WHY must Sir James "be shown?"

You don't have anything to show, do you, Len?

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.

Tsk. Mention something just twice in here and Sir Jimmie puts
the label of "going on and on about it!" :-)

You've told the story many times, Len.

So, how many "projects" has Jimmie designed and built using
PLLs? Or DDSs?

How many Soviet aircraft did you see when you were in Japan in the
1950s, Len?

How many amateur radio receivers, transmitters or transmitters have you
designed and built, Len?

How many of your articles for ham radio magazine were for construction
projects?

How many "radios" has Jimmie designed/built at his work?
Especially those NOT done from kits...?

How many have you designed and built at home with your own resources,
Len?

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

That's "simply untrue," Pilot In Command Stebie...[search Google]

I have. It's true. You don't have anything practical to show us.

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Jimmie gonna have a fit now, I did it differently.

Yes, your fits are very different...

Was a supervisor of microwave radio relay terminals in 1954-1956
while in the Army, terminals operating at 1.8 GHz.

There you go, rehashing the past again.

Did you design and build the microwave equipment, or just install and
maintain it?

Did you teach yourself how to do the job, or work your way through
school, or did you learn on the taxpayer's tab?

Did you pay for any of the equipment or other resources, or was it all
provided free for your use to do the job?


Then I got a
First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Operator License (only
one exam) in 1956, entered the California aerospace industry first
working at Hughes Aircraft Company in El Segundo, CA, worked some
more at microwaves (up in X-Band region) as well as from DC on up
to microwaves. So far, there wasn't any need to learn morse code
or "pass any morse code test" to transmit.

And none of it was amateur radio.

Not even in 1960 when
I was working on Ka-Band microwave equipment (as well as UHF high
power sources).

Not ham radio either.

Class D CB was authorized in 1958 and that rather
ended any need for a "ham license" to use a voice transceiver.

On a few channels, using low-power type-accepted equipment.

Tsk. I've since transmitted from VLF on up to microwaves, in LF,
MF, HF, VHF, UHF on land, in the air, on the water, all without
having to pass any amateur radio license or pass any morse
code test! ["Sunnuvagun!"] All very LEGAL.

None of it amateur radio. Almost all of it on someone else's station
license, with someone else paying the way.

Well, Judge Sir James of the Noble Houses of CW decrees that I
shall NOT ever set foot in here without expressing some personal
desire of obtaining an amateur radio license!

Simply not true, Len. I've never told you nor anyone else here to shut
up. Nor have I ever said that a license is required to post here.

You, on the other hand, have told people here to shut up, go away, etc.

Tsk, tsk, Tsk, TSK...all I'm trying to do is argue against the
retention of the morse code test in federal regulations on U.S.
amateur radio.

Then why all of your commentary on other, nonrelated subjects, Len? You
go on and on about things completely unrelated to the Morse Code test.

Instead, I am called names (in Yiddish by non-
Yiddish speakers), accused of Sedition and Treason Against The
State,

Not by me!

and told that my opinions are "simply not true!"

Some of your statements here are not based on fact. Like the claim that

FCC doesn't use the word "expired" to describe licenses in the grace
period.

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.

Tsk, tsk. Stebie CANNOT ignore anyone. He is emotionally
volatile and triggers off faster than a vial of nitroglycerine
in a blender. Stebie shouts and hollers and insults and even
speaks in tongues, defaming ANYONE disagreeing with him! :-)

Just like *you*, Len. I think you like it - you *want* others to behave
the way you do.

I won't do that, which seems to really tick you off.

Ah, but there is now Love and Harmony in the PCTA Extra Double
Standard bearers. Jimmie now condones Stebie's actions.

Not all of them. Where do you get that idea?

Judge Sir James, Night of the Noble Houses of CW, keep
defending the NEED for the morse code test because it is the
SECOND-most-popular mode on HF ham bands!

I will! It's a good, sound, valid reason for a test of basic skill. Not
the only reason by any means, though.

Be sure and spit on
any U.S. military veterans who don't love and cherish morse
code on Memorial Day.

I don't "spit on" any US military veterans, Len.

From: on Fri 27 May 2005 14:30

wrote:
From: "bb" on Wed,May 25 2005 3:35 pm

wrote:
From: on Mon,May 23 2005 3:57 am



He became a Virtual
military expert without once being IN any branch or working in
any office of the Department of Defense.

I don't claim to be an expert in anything.

Now, now, you are being toooo modest... :-)

You've never been "IN" amateur radio, yet you want to tell us How It
Should Be.

That's simply untrue. :-)

But...one just cannot tell a PCTA Extra anything. :-)

Getting to the heart of the matter, Jimmie feels TERRIBLY "insulted"
when one doesn't like what Jimmie likes.

Not true. You're the one who calls people names, and tells them to shut up
if they don't agree with you.

Tsk, tsk. Someone like that should be removed from this
newsgroup "clubhouse," shouldn't they? :-)

You can begin by removing some 1x2 Extras in here, such
as the one always calling his "opponents" for "Putz."

[he is regularly bringing up old, faded postings from Google as
if to continue to "do battle" on those topics forever and ever]

Gee, Len, you bring up even older and more faded stuff about defunct
ham radio magazines and your experiences of a half-century ago.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, perhaps because I actually DID those things
and you did not? Awwww....

Why is it OK for you to rehash events of 20, 30, 50 years ago, but not
OK for others to remind you of the events of 2 or 3 years past?

Who said "it isn't OK?" Jimmie, you do that all the time
lapsing back to your teenage years and that MIGHTY TEST
for an AMATEUR radio license!

Seems like a double standard on your part.

Awwwww...you seeing double all the time, Jimmie? Yes you
are. Get some medical attention. See Dr. Robeson, both of
him, maybe some of his other alter egos...he has the
"qualifications" to do things. He says.

Jimmie wants NUMBERS? He is regularly giving some sort of
tabulation on the "valid licenses" of radio amateurs in the USA.

No, I'm not. You're mistaken, Len. Wrong again.

They aren't tabulations?!? Are you MAKING THOSE UP?!?!?

The numbers I post here twice a month are those of current, unexpired
FCC amateur licenses held by individuals. That's stated in each post.
The word valid is not used to describe them.

So...where do those NUMBERS come from?

You've claimed that FCC doesn't use the word "expired" to describe
licenses in the grace period, but Part 97 shows that you're wrong on
that.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. There's a GRACE PERIOD, Jimmie. That's in
the regulations. Do you mean each "expired" licensee has to
RETEST? Say goodnight "gracie?" Grazie...

So? You've posted the numbers from hamdata.com without describing how
they are generated.

That's simply untrue, Jimmie.

We are to accept
his NUMBERS as "correct" because Jimmie never makes mistakes. All
others, ESPECIALLY those challenging him, always "make mistakes."

That's just not true, Len.

So...you DO make mistakes?!? Who would have thought that....?

Most folks would accept some website that regularly downloads the
huge FCC amateur database, sorts it, and presents gross totals.

Then why don't you accept the numbers I post?

Tsk. You don't accept www.hamdata.com numbers.

Not Jimmie. He wants "massaged" NUMBERS, showing only the "valid"
licensees..."valid" in HIS viewpoint.

Nope.

The numbers I post come from a website that regularly downloads the
huge FCC amateur database, sorts it, and presents gross totals. All I
do is copy them and post them here.

WHICH website, Jimmie? How can we trust your "honesty"
in anything when you make so many mistakes?

No "massaging".

Your medium is the massage.

Jimmie needs MASSAGING
of those NUMBERS in order to "show us" something...and thus we get
the INTERPRETATIONS of those "valid" numbers.

How? The numbers are what they are.

Tsk, tsk, it's the editorial commentary that you add... :-)

I especially like his "reason" for maintaining the code test for
all amateurs having below-30-MHz operating privileges: "Morse
code is the SECOND-most popular mode on HF, therefore the code
test 'deserves' to remain!"

I'm glad you like it, Len.

That's simply untrue, Jimmie.

It's a really good, valid reason to keep a
test of basic Morse Code skill for an amateur radio license.

It's your bull**** OPINION, Jimmie. NOT a "fact."

It's not an international requirement. It's not something that
the FCC thinks is necessary for amateur license grants. They
keep it in the rules because the PCTA lobbyists from ARRL and
other olde-tymers insist/demand it is "necessary" (because they
HAD to pass it), and because amateur radio isn't that important
to address rules changes right now.

Enjoy the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society) in all its
beepery. Keep on recreating the pioneer days in radio that
you were never a part of, poor guy. Hold those ancient
traditions, standards, and practices forever...make sure
nothing is changed and keep on saying to hell with newcomers,
make them work like Jimmie did as a teenager. After all,
wasn't amateur radio created in YOUR image? :-)

wrote:
From: on Fri 27 May 2005 14:30


wrote:

From: "bb" on Wed,May 25 2005 3:35 pm

wrote:

From: on Mon,May 23 2005 3:57 am

Gee, Len, you bring up even older and more faded stuff about defunct
ham radio magazines and your experiences of a half-century ago.


Tsk, tsk, tsk, perhaps because I actually DID those things
and you did not? Awwww....

A good many of us have done any number of things which you've never
done. We're also radio amateurs. You've never done that either.


Why is it OK for you to rehash events of 20, 30, 50 years ago, but not
OK for others to remind you of the events of 2 or 3 years past?


Who said "it isn't OK?" Jimmie, you do that all the time
lapsing back to your teenage years and that MIGHTY TEST
for an AMATEUR radio license!

Do you feel that it is somehow inappropriate for Jim to bring up AMATEUR
radio in an AMATEUR radio newsgroup, Leonard?

Dave K8MN