"John Smith" wrote

In fact, it was this professor who first told me to look either for angels
or aliens--before he finally settled on the angels (intelligence NOT from
a mud puddle as you could ever find upon an earth-like planet)...

The only thing that I can think of which is more impossible to believe than "mud
became man" is angels that just "were".

73, de Hans, K0HB

Len:

Just answer me one thing. Is it just me who sees "them" constructing
control-freak rules which work at 180 degrees opposite anything conductive
to experimentation and research in new protocols, equip, methods, etc?

I mean these rules are beginning to look a bit like a religious cults',
and deal with the proper form, how to conduct yourself, the status quo,
the "amateur class system", proper worship of "Radio Gods", belief
systems, etc....

If so, I might try a few of those lotus-blossoms myself! This chit gets a
bit old fast!

John

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:55:12 -0700, wrote:

From: Frank Gilliland on Aug 27, 7:08 pm

On 27 Aug 2005 15:30:42 -0700, "
wrote in
ps.com?:


snip

Dave is a Pro-Code-Test Advocate. Dudly is more-or-less a PCTA.
Dave wants to fiercely attack ANY No-Code-Test Advocate (NCTA).

Frank, you've come out as an NCTA and thus are on Dave's ****list.

Then Dave is barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a ham but I do see the
value of keeping the code as a requirement.

Okay, I stand corrected. No problem to me.

However, under the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in here, if you
agree with me in the slightest on anything, that puts you in
"aligned with me" and in Dave's ****list. :-)

Not only is it one of the
most efficient and universal forms of radio communication, learning
the skill demonstrates both a willingness and dedication to the hobby
and it's history. Besides, 5wpm isn't so hard that it leads to chronic
insomnia or constipation, but some of these no-coders whine about as
much as Dudly does when he's asked for proof of his military service!
Code isn't that big of a deal. Learn it, pass the test, then either
use it or don't use it but at least you'll have a skill you didn't
have before. IMO.

Opinion noted. I have a surfeit of acquired skills already,
don't need any old ones. :-)

I don't need to demonstrate how to hand-crank-start a car to
the state motor vehicle department. I've done that anyway.

I don't need to learn musketry skills, of hand-loading a lead
ball, to shoot well. I've shot well with modern firearms. No
personal firearms license in my locality requires demonstration
of shooting skills.

I don't need to "sit" a horse in order to convey myself a large
distance. I've never done that nor do I expect to. All the
"horsepower" I need is in our new Chevy. The state motor
vehicle department does not recognize horsemanship.

I don't need to learn blacksmithing in order to shape iron or
most other metals. I've already shaped metal to what I want
and none of it was for horseshoes. :-)

I don't need to learn to grow all my food, either in ground
or that walking upon it. Food markets serve me and wife well.
I've learned enough to survive on the land in emergencies and
that is, in my opinion, sufficient.

Since 1952 I've learned old-fashioned vacuum tube radio
communications techniques and never had to demonstrate any
morsemanship nor to use it in any transmission mode then...or
afterwards. That afterwards included transmitting on many
more parts of the EM spectrum than is allowed to U.S. radio
amateurs.

One thing I have learned in the last half century is that our
government CAN and DOES accept cogent arguments on changing
existing regulations to better suit all citizens. At the
same time I also learned that there is a large body of citizenry
that absolutely forbids any thought of changing "their" beloved
standards and practices in legislated law! :-)


Dave thinks you've "sided" with me. I'm on Dave's ****list from
years ago. :-)

Well, that's between you and Dave. Apparently he can't make that
distinction.

He sure can't. :-)

On 27 Aug 2005 21:55:12 -0700, "
wrote in
.com:

From: Frank Gilliland on Aug 27, 7:08 pm

On 27 Aug 2005 15:30:42 -0700, "
wrote in
ps.com?:


snip

Dave is a Pro-Code-Test Advocate. Dudly is more-or-less a PCTA.
Dave wants to fiercely attack ANY No-Code-Test Advocate (NCTA).

Frank, you've come out as an NCTA and thus are on Dave's ****list.

Then Dave is barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a ham but I do see the
value of keeping the code as a requirement.

Okay, I stand corrected. No problem to me.

However, under the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in here, if you
agree with me in the slightest on anything, that puts you in
"aligned with me" and in Dave's ****list. :-)


Typical partisan politics: you have to be on one side or the other, no
independent thinking allowed.


Not only is it one of the
most efficient and universal forms of radio communication, learning
the skill demonstrates both a willingness and dedication to the hobby
and it's history. Besides, 5wpm isn't so hard that it leads to chronic
insomnia or constipation, but some of these no-coders whine about as
much as Dudly does when he's asked for proof of his military service!
Code isn't that big of a deal. Learn it, pass the test, then either
use it or don't use it but at least you'll have a skill you didn't
have before. IMO.

Opinion noted. I have a surfeit of acquired skills already,
don't need any old ones. :-)

I don't need to demonstrate how to hand-crank-start a car to
the state motor vehicle department. I've done that anyway.

I don't need to learn musketry skills......
snip for brevity


The difference between our opinions seems to be in our perceptions of
the service. My own perception is that the ARS, while intended to be
used for various reasons, is primarily a hobby. And obsolete or not,
CW is still a significant part of the hobby as a whole. I think it
should be dropped when the mode has been abandoned by the -hams-, not
just the ITU.

You can apply this argument to your analogies for dropping the code:
For example, you don't need to pass a horsemanship test for your
driver's license because horses have been almost completely abandoned
for traveling on the roads. On the contrary, CW is still widely used
in the ARS. So in this respect I don't think it's very fair to equate
horsemanship with code.

And again, since it's just a hobby, the requirement of 5wpm just isn't
any big deal. I learned Morse at an age when things like that are easy
to learn, but I can understand how trying to learn it at a later age
might cause a little anxiety. However, there is a huge assortment of
anti-anxiety drugs available these days (and plenty of doctors who
hand them out like candy). No, that's not a legitimate reason to keep
the code requirement, but it -is- a reason not to make such a big deal
about it.

What I think -is- a big deal is the dumbing-down of the written test.
Giving out the question pool to memorize before the test is a complete
and utter joke. It's nothing more than a memory test, -not- a test of
knowledge and skills. Who's bright idea was that, anyway?


One thing I have learned in the last half century is that our
government CAN and DOES accept cogent arguments on changing
existing regulations to better suit all citizens. At the
same time I also learned that there is a large body of citizenry
that absolutely forbids any thought of changing "their" beloved
standards and practices in legislated law! :-)


The requirement will eventually be dropped. That much is inevitable.
The question is really about -when- it should be dropped. Either way,
I still have no intentions of getting a ham license -- that is, not
unless ARRL of Borg decides to assimilate the 1750m band.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:23:00 GMT, Dave Heil wrote
in et:

Okay. Maybe you're a slow learner or perhaps you just have no sense of
remorse. You told us that you weren't a model Marine.

Feel free to speculate all you want about my service.

It's not speculation...You were incompetent.

But there's one big difference between me and Dudly
that you can't seem to comprehend: I'm telling the truth. And that's
something I am most definitely proud to admit.

So, the truth is, according to you, that Steve isn't a Marine or that
he's lying. That's an assumption made by you and you've offered no
proof, just accusations.

You haven't been paying attention, Dave. I tossed out several tidbits
of info that he would know if his claim was true, but he tripped up
and proved that he knew -nothing- of what I was talking about.

Bull. Just plain bull.

Now what I don't understand is why you are so passionate about Dudly
when this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with you. Is he your
butt-buddy? Or are you afraid that you are next in line to be exposed
as a military imposter? Why is his business -your- business, Dave?

I challenge you to expose me as a "military imposter", Frank. Make it
your life's work. As far as your last comment: read up on how usenet
works. After all, how did Steve's business become *your business*?

I see you missed that part, too. I was in here on a totally different
issue when someone mentioned that Dudly was a Marine. So I asked him
when he served and what units he was with -- a really simple question.
Heck, it's not like I was asking him his SSN or something. But that's
the way he acted. Up went the red flag. Ever since then he's been
tripping over his tongue and frothing like a rabid dog.

Now that I have answered -your- question, just why are you defending
him with such passion?

So far you've "proved" nothing except that YOUR trivia isn't
necessarilly someone elses, and even then you've so grossly discredited
yourself as to make ANY argument lost.

Loser. Hoser. Poser.

That's Frank of Silliland.

Steve, K4YZ

Frank of Silliland wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:25:35 -0700, John Smith
wrote in
:

Frank:

When you are all done, won't what he said which is true still be true, and
what he said which is false still be false...

Or, are you making a case that you can now claim the truth, if he stated
it, is now false?

If so, I must admit, I don't understand how that would be any where near
accurate...

People lie. It's that simple.

Yes, Frankie...You do..

So have you had problems with the alien interfering with your CB
moon-bounce lately?

Have you had trouble looking yourself in the mirror to shave
knowing the United States Marine Corps busted you and sent you home as
incompetent and unworthy of wearing the uniform...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:34:14 -0700, Cmdr Buzz corey
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:

Well, I'll tell ya, Dave -- I have absolutely no regrets about
anything I did in the Marines,

But the Marines probably do.


What's this..... tag-team flame wars?

Well, Sparky, you're the one who lit this one.

I've given references to PUBLIC sources to verify my service, yet
you continue ot try and diminish my serivce.

HOWEVER, for what ever pea-brained reason you thought it pertinent
to do so, you have PROVEN to us that YOU were incapable of honoring
your contract with the Marines.

Sucks to be you, non-rate.

Steve, K4YZ

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005 16:01:13 -0700, wrote in
.com:


K4YZ wrote:

The rank of PFC and the less-than-four year tour lends one to
believe that the reason he didn't publish the other 3/4ths of his -214
was that somewhere on that form it said "LESS THAN HONORABLE", or one
of those categories of discharge.

And your DD-214?


That is something you will never see.

Just in case I do, I want to be prepared. Wonder what the code is for
a section 8 discharge?

John Smith wrote:
Len:

Just answer me one thing. Is it just me who sees "them" constructing
control-freak rules which work at 180 degrees opposite anything conductive
to experimentation and research in new protocols, equip, methods, etc?

I mean these rules are beginning to look a bit like a religious cults',
and deal with the proper form, how to conduct yourself, the status quo,
the "amateur class system", proper worship of "Radio Gods", belief
systems, etc....

If so, I might try a few of those lotus-blossoms myself! This chit gets a
bit old fast!

John

John, for some here (and elsewhere), CW Morse is a Faith-Based Mode.
It transcends rationality. For example, it overcomes all propagation
problems, all equipment malfunctions, and is the world's best language
translator. Just ask them.

bb

Dave Heil wrote:

According to your recent directive, aren't you supposed to be addressing
amateur radio policy issues?

Dave K8MN

Steven J. Robeson/KY4Z (aka K4YZ) sees himself as an instrument of
Amateur Radio Policy. Len is addressing said instrument.

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:

Hey, that's a neat idea! I gotta do that, keep it right next to my
Blue Nose card.

What kind of guy carries a copy of his DD-214 around with him?

The same kind of guy that I try to avoid being...the loud mouth at
the end of the bar telling everyone how he stormed the beaches...Laguna
Beach...Redondo Beach...Panama Beach...

You don't mind one bit bing the RRAP loudmouth. Always waving your
arms and claiming, "Liar, Liar Pants on Fiar!"

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Dudly kept talking about his "seven hostile actions"
and implying he was in the thick of them.

I've never bragged about being IN any hostile actions. If fact,
Jimmie Noserve took me to task about being a "rear-area" type.
I guess all those books he read (to become an expert on warfare)
didn't tell him that NOBODY got to "choose" where they were
assigned. Nonetheless, I got to work real HF radio communications
for three years in a 24/7 radio station...even living IN a two
square mile antenna field for a while. [many more antennas
there than overweight "scampering" Davie can possibly put up]

Just as they have not permitted you to comment about "amateur" radio
because you hold no license, NoServers may not comment about the
military.

Hold on, Sparky. Len has commented here at great length and on many,
many occasions.

And what has Jim's response been to Len's comments?

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

Dave K8MN

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions. In the end, if they cannot
lay waste to Len's comments with rational argument(s), they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham. David
Heil/K8MN is a primary culprit in that tactic, but Jim has used it as
well.