From: "K4YZ" on Thurs 18 Aug 2005 03:01


wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Wed, Aug 17 2005 4:01 pm
wrote:
From: John Smith on Wed 17 Aug 2005 09:06

The fcc has an avenue where ideas for change, restructuring and progress
can be introduced.

Er, John, the FCC is the ONLY avenue to travel.

Poor Lennie.

I'm not "poor," little Stebie, rather reasonably well-off,
NO liens at all, wife and I just bought a new car, we both
have income other than Social Security. We own two houses,
one in Los Angeles, the other in Kitsap County, WA...no
mortgages on either.

Sure you are.

Agreement is always agreeable... :-)

Oh, I am sure you have the material things you claim, but that's
ALL you have.

Considerably MORE, but then, as usual, you are turning this
thread into your own Personal Attack forum, away from the
subject.

You're a proven liar, a miscreant who's word is worthless.

It's quite obvious to all that your sentence quoted above, taken
in context, shows your personal hatred of any opponent.

So congratulations on your wise financial investments. Because
your "word" wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee in a free soup kitchen.

More of your personal hatred coming to a boil.

Get some ashes and sackcloth to complete the picture, Job.

Can't stand it that there ARE other avenues "where ideas for
change, restructuring and progress" may be "introduced".

Incorrect. There are MANY avenues for change, restructuring
and progress. For civilian radio there is ONLY ONE and that
ONE is the Federal Communications Commission for U.S.
citizens.

Your "incorrect" is untrue.

The Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 is LAW and establishes the Federal Communications
Commission as the ONLY civil radio regulating agency in the
United States of America. What I wrote is TRUE.

That there are discussions in THIS forum for those very issues
disproves your assertion.

NOTHING in this forum carries any weight of LAW. Try to keep
a sense of reality however unstable that seems to YOU.

The LAW of the United States of America is established. It is
ALSO law that the same Constitution that established the laws
of this nation carries with it the mechanism for changing
those laws at the will of the people of the United States of
America.


But does that make "untrue" my claim that there ARE other avenues
for change of Amateur regulations?

The ONLY OTHER "avenues for change" are revolt, insurrection,
and an overthrow of the government of the United States of
America. Are you advocating such revolt, insurrection, and
overthrow of the government of the United States of America?

That it eventually winds up in the FCC's lap is a certainty, but
is it your contention that the FCC's NPRM/R&O is the ONLY forum for
those changes?

In regards to a change of regulations as ordered by the Federal
Communications Commission under a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
of that very same Federal Communications Commission, YES.

If you would take the time to read Parts 0 and 1 of Title
47, Code of Federal Regulations, you would understand the
organization and the methods of change of regulations that
makes it possible and lawful to effect a change in those
same regulations.

They won't be at Congressman Brad Sherman's Town Meeting next
week in Northridge, CA. Do you think amateur radio regs
SHOULD be discussed there? If so, state WHY.

Why not?

You did not state any "why."

Is Congressman Sherman NOT elected for the purpose of representing
your issues and concerns to the government? Is there some list of
topics somewhere that says you can't discuss federal regulations with
your elected representitive in a public forum?

Sigh...one has to repeat very basic Civics to those who only
wish to argue...

Hello? The Communications Act of 1934 was passed by the Congress
of the United States of America. That Congress is composed of
two "houses," the Senate and the House of Representatives. A
Congressman is a member of the House of Representatives. That
Communications Act of 1934 (and as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996) made the Federal Communications
Commission an independent federal agency with the capability
to establish rules and regulations pertaining to all civil
radio and certain other communications means...and to have them
enforced by the federal government. The Congress of the United
States does NOT NORMALLY micro-manage the duties it granted to
the Federal Communications Commission by the Laws it passed to
create that Commission and that Commission's sphere of authority.

Try, TRY to understand that NPRM 05-143 and WT Docket 05-235
is NOT a concern for the general public nor is it a topic for
banner headlines in major newspapers. Yes, it could be, but
then amateur radio is NOT a major public topic for citizens
such as the "deregulation" of the telephone infrastructure
that began about four decades ago.

TRY to understand that a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking put
forth by the Federal Communications Commission is FOR such
rulemaking as established by the same Federal Communications
Commission. The mechanism of such changes has been established
by law of the United States of America through the Congress of
the United States. Congress has, through a law, granted the
Federal Communications Commission certain powers of regulation
of civil radio services in the United States. Congress did
NOT grant any such powers to the ARRL or any other private
organization nor did the Telecommunications Act of 1996 grant
any powers to Internet discussion groups to change any Law.

The Federal Communications Commission has created, by
regulation, the mechanism by which the citizens of the
United States of America may discuss, seek changes to,
amend, or propose regulations established by the Federal
Communications Commission. That same Commission also
has established the report of any Report and Order which
formally establishes any change in its own regulations.


Means he can't remind us of how impotent he is.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to worry, LITTLE Stebie, in a real discussion of real
issues affecting the community, I can "get it up" (so to
speak) on DISCUSSIONS with relevant facts and figures to
support my views. I'm used to it, can do it effectively.

Some of the worlds most destructive powers got to be that way with
the spoken word, not a gun.

Tsk, little Stebie trying to sound like Tom Paine and winding
up a Paine in the ass...

That you can "baffle 'em with BS" doesn't make it true...It just
means you baffle well.

I understand the LAW of the United States of America enough
to work within it, using those means lawfully available to
me to support or seek changes to laws of the United States
of America. That is NOT any sort of "bafflement" and
certainly no "lie." The basics of that are guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States of America and
maintained by the Congress of the United States, overseen
by the Supreme Court of the United States.

One thing I do NOT do is - like your sexual innuendo
misdirection - try to divert the discussion into some
mean-spirited self-frustrated ATTACK on other personalities.

THAT'S ONE OF YOUR MOST OUTRAGEOUS, ABSOLUTLEY IDIOTIC AND
TRANSPARENT LIES E V E R LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !

This thread began on "issues" of concern over the policies
in regard to amateur radio. As usual, little Stebie has
turned it into his own "battleground" wherein he is only
concerned with his hatred and frustrations against his
"opponents" on anything.

While that serves to temporarily HIDE YOU on your lack of
facts and logic on the SUBJECT under discussion, it is by
no means any sort of positive attribute for yourself.

READ WHAT YOU JUST WROTE THEN TRY TO LIVE IT, LENNIE ! ! ! ! ! !

You have been reminded of the structure of laws of the
United States of America. That may be reviewed by yourself
from documents established by the government of the United
States of America.

The common problem with the egocentric opinions of some,
such as evident of yourself, is that they cannot abide in
ANY opinion contrary to their own personal fanciful
interpretation. They, like yourself, become frustrated,
angry, and seek to denigrate, humiliate, and insult the
persons who do not agree with them. That is NOT debate,
NOT discussion, NOT even any civil argument. It is
simply the puerile schoolyard-bully tactics of the
sociopath, the maladjusted, those frustrated by everyday
life who take out their aggressions on others for purely
personal reasons.

It is clearly evident to any reader of this newsgroup that
YOU exist solely to heap abuse on all those you hate,
all those who do not agree with you. The SUBJECT is
just something you use as a springboard to begin more
personal attacks on others. You cannot discuss anything
civilly without launching into yet-another-attack on the
persons who do not agree with you.

you hat