....or perhaps we should contact earthlink and tell them of your
bullying bahavior.

On 5 Aug 2005 03:02:50 -0700, N9OGL wrote:

**** you Steve you ****ing little troll, why don't you crawl back under
that ****ing rock where you came from and when want to hear from your
bullying ass we'll ask.

Oh my, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Ed

On 5 Aug 2005 06:23:10 -0700, K4YZ wrote:

N9OGL wrote:
#### you Steve you ####ing little troll, why don't you crawl back under
that ####ing rock where you came from and when want to hear from your
bullying ### we'll ask.

Toiddie, I am disappointed in you. Profanity was only 12.9% of
that post...Way, way down from your personal best!

Here's where YOUR biggest disappointment comes in, Toid...I get to
exercise the EXACT SAME "freedom of speech" that YOU get to use...

Sucks, huh...?!?!

You may not like the way I use mine, but then I guess that leaves
us tied now, doesn't it...?!?!

Keep that First Amendment spirit, Toiddie!

Steve, K4YZ

Interesting how Todd considers others using the same First Amendment
rights he does as "bullying."

He must have been deprived of essential education during his formative
years.

Ed

On 6 Aug 2005 14:13:55 -0700, N9OGL wrote:

...or perhaps we should contact earthlink and tell them of your
bullying bahavior.

What "bullying behavior" would that be? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ed

N9OGL wrote:
...or perhaps we should contact earthlink and tell them of your
bullying bahavior.

You mean like YOU were going to frag me to AOL...?!?!

Yeah....Right...

Hey Toddie...?!?! Isn't that yo mama calling you for your
Ovaltine and Cookies...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

You mean like YOU were going to frag me to AOL...?!?!


YOU would do something like that, but not me, that's what makes me
better then you.

Todd N9OGL

Sure he is. Baxter is NOT stupid.

Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dan:

Now that you mention it, yeah. I think the boy is trying to make a point
there, just wonder how many really catch on?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:51:31 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

So that's why MAN plays the ARRL bulletins on his show, eh?

Dan/W4NTI
"John Smith" wrote in message
news

Lloyd:

My gawd man, K1MAN is a GOD! He cannot be judged as a mere mortal!

If he wasn't posing such a danger to the "arrl enterprises, inc." he
would
probably have a write up in Forbes Magazine.

His best trait is throwing some light on the arrl and perhaps awakening
the brain dead to the fact arrl needs a severe "hand slapping" and
restructuring.

However, I think the sorry state of things is that those who already
have
the gray matter are already pi$$ed at the con job, the others will never
know.

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:33:22 +0000, Lloyd wrote:

On 3 Aug 2005 10:40:54 -0700, N9OGL wrote:


----------------------------------------------------------
N9OGL IS WORKING ON A FILING TO COMMENT ON K1MAN RENEWAL
----------------------------------------------------------
N9OGL is filing a comment to the Federal Communication Commission on
the renewal of K1MAN's license. N9OGL is filing the comment not for
nor
against K1MAN but attends to raise some questions about the recent

I attend too raise some questions also. K1MAN is a great man and
a humanatarian who is missunderstood by the little pple. it would
be a travestation if K1MAN isnt renewed and I will say so to them
in a calm rationel manner when I write so that I dont sound like
Dan or Steve do in rrap.

"N9OGL" wrote in message
ups.com...
Some of the points to my petition:

1. This petition is neither for nor against K1MAN renewal, instead it
is being sent to the commission for the purpose of the FCC to answer a
few questions. These question mostly circle around the recent NAL given
to K1MAN.



BWAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA....you seriously expect the FCC to answer a question from
YOU?


2. INTERFERENCE: The question of why the FCC seems to be going only
after K1MAN when W1AW has also been reported to have cause
interference. It seems funny that since 1987 the FCC has repeatedly
sent warning letters and NAL's to K1MAN and not W1AW, who has been
reported to begin transmitting over ongoing communications. It is also
rather funny that amateur's, even the ones that W1AW has transmitted
over, seem to target only K1MAN.


FCC responds to complaints. The issue is K1MAN, not W1AW. If you got a
problem with W1AW, send in a complaint. If you got the gonads that is.


3. PECUNIARY INTEREST: Amateur radio is a non-commercial service and
according to the rules and regulations amateur radio stations cannot
have pecuniary interest either direct or indirect. The first of the
questions is why does the FCC have a double standard or definition to
the term non-commercial? Non-commercial under the general rule is a
station that can't make a profit; instead a station can make money, to
sustain the station. Non-commercial FM and AM radio station due it
through viewer support and non-commercial point to point services do it
through state and federal funds ALL other service are able to get funds
to run their stations either commercial and non-commercial. The second
is direct or indirect rule. K1MAN on his Information bulletin
advertised his website which had commercial goods on it (DIRECT) while
when some one listens to W1AW, like a short-wave listener, or a future
ham operator they would get on the Internet and do a search for W1AW,
which in term would lead them to the ARRL site, site, which also has
goods for sale (INDIRECT). So the question is why is the FCC going
after the ARRL for their indirect sale of goods? It seems that the FCC
has a double standard when it comes to who can bend the rules and who
can't. Which leads to the finally question, Does announcing your
website on the radio (even if it to some guys your talking too) and it
has commercial advertisement on it really constitute pecuniary
interest? And again if so then why is the ARRL allowed to sale products
on their website.


SNIP What a blowhard you are Toad. Ham radio is NOT COMMERCIAL.
Broadcast radio is. Need I continue, really? You are not actually that
ignorant are you?


4. Broadcasting: Under the FCC rules governing amateur radio, ham
operators are not allowed to broadcast, however under 97.3(a)(25) and
97.111(b)(6) amateur can run Information bulletins. The questions are
where does the line between Information bulletin end and broadcasting
begin? Many amateurs believe that an Information bulletin is to be a
newscast and is not allowed to opinionated. Which raises the second and
third question, where in the amateur rules does it state an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated? Third does these "non-opinionated
rules" allowed under the "non-content based rules" (the Courts has
ruled repeatedly that the FCC rules must be content-neutral) or Under
Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 as amended, (prohibits the
FCC from control the content of station except for obscene and indecent
material) or the First Amendment


The FCC has answered that question. It is UP TO THE CONTROL OPERATOR.

Your shot goof.

Dan/W4NTI

BWAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA....you seriously expect the FCC to answer a question from
YOU?

Well you dumb redneck, either they will or the court of appeals will
tell too.

FCC responds to complaints. The issue is K1MAN, not W1AW. If you got a
problem with W1AW, send in a complaint. If you got the gonads that is.

Moron, W1AW does the same thing, it is funny that ALL THE MORONS in
amateur radio complain about K1MAN, and not W1AW.

SNIP What a blowhard you are Toad. Ham radio is NOT COMMERCIAL.
Broadcast radio is. Need I continue, really? You are not actually that
ignorant are you?

And what dumbass you are, Amateur radio is NON-COMMERCIAL, but
NON-COMMERCIAL IN ALL THE OTHER SERVICE CAN MAKE MONEY, BUT ONLY ENOUGH
TO SUBSTAIN THE STATION. Commercial radio can make a profit, read the
rules you freaking moron.

The FCC has answered that question. It is UP TO THE CONTROL OPERATOR.

yeah but the NAL seems to me is an attempt by the FCC to control the
content. Simply because the definitions of an information bulletin and
broadcasting is very vague.

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
BWAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA....you seriously expect the FCC to answer a question from
YOU?

Well you dumb redneck, either they will or the court of appeals will
tell too.

FCC responds to complaints. The issue is K1MAN, not W1AW. If you got a
problem with W1AW, send in a complaint. If you got the gonads that is.

break

Moron, W1AW does the same thing, it is funny that ALL THE MORONS in
amateur radio complain about K1MAN, and not W1AW.

in point of fact K1MAN's real "crime" is being unpopular sorry to say
that amounts to crime these days


SNIP What a blowhard you are Toad. Ham radio is NOT COMMERCIAL.
Broadcast radio is. Need I continue, really? You are not actually that
ignorant are you?

And what dumbass you are, Amateur radio is NON-COMMERCIAL, but
NON-COMMERCIAL IN ALL THE OTHER SERVICE CAN MAKE MONEY, BUT ONLY ENOUGH
TO SUBSTAIN THE STATION. Commercial radio can make a profit, read the
rules you freaking moron.

The FCC has answered that question. It is UP TO THE CONTROL OPERATOR.

yeah but the NAL seems to me is an attempt by the FCC to control the
content. Simply because the definitions of an information bulletin and
broadcasting is very vague.

Todd N9OGL