wrote:

Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many
kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out
with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional
level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than
the ABILITY for personal communications.

That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio
amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you.


Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at
52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated.
It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to
normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a
radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at
both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy
is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier
radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for
all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is
AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have
given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications.

The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like
"fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse
code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It
bothers you. I can live with your being bothered.

...[the
largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the
keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control,
not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding]
Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of
antiquity.

Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a
campaign.


Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a
commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field
office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF,
microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF,
VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from
a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for
regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics
since 1947, something on-going.

Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for
an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements
is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket.

I don't really NEED an amateur
license to fulfill my Life's Ambition.

There you go.

But other licensees
DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations
(contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says).

Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become
forgetful?

Maybe I "should"
get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-)

It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so
for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice
lunch and catch a nap, OT.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many
kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out
with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional
level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than
the ABILITY for personal communications.

That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio
amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you.


Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at
52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated.
It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to
normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a
radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at
both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy
is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier
radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for
all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is
AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have
given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications.

The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like
"fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse
code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It
bothers you. I can live with your being bothered.

right that is of course why the Views of the advocates of Morse Code
are being ignored by the FCC, ITU, IARU, and many of the nations on the
planet

...[the
largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the
keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control,
not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding]
Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of
antiquity.

Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a
campaign.

again your ability to understand english shows it sad state


Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a
commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field
office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF,
microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF,
VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from
a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for
regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics
since 1947, something on-going.

Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for
an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements
is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket.

again with tangential matter

I don't really NEED an amateur
license to fulfill my Life's Ambition.

There you go.

Indeed Neither do I my Life Ambition are not based on a requirement for
a Ham License

But then you don't get the point or is it simplier than that? just a
case of Binary thinking Ham radio is his lifes ambition so that means
he will not pursue it

But other licensees
DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations
(contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says).

Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become
forgetful?

No a simple turth many of the Licensees esp arround DO indeed demand
such before allowing comment

Maybe I "should"
get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-)

It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so
for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice
lunch and catch a nap, OT.

what is the hurry?

Dave K8MN

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:


Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many
kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out
with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional
level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than
the ABILITY for personal communications.

That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio
amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you.



Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at
52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated.
It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to
normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a
radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at
both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy
is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier
radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for
all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is
AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have
given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications.

The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like
"fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse
code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It
bothers you. I can live with your being bothered.


right that is of course why the Views of the advocates of Morse Code
are being ignored by the FCC, ITU, IARU, and many of the nations on the
planet


The views are being ignored? That's preposterous. Morse code isn't
being done away with.


...[the
largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the
keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control,
not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding]
Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of
antiquity.

Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a
campaign.


again your ability to understand english shows it sad state

It would probably be better if you left it to others to critique
another's use or understanding of the language.


Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a
commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field
office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF,
microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF,
VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from
a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for
regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics
since 1947, something on-going.

Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for
an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements
is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket.


again with tangential matter

Did you find anything in my statement to be unfactual? What was the
purpose for Len's outlining his "PROFESSIONAL" experience yet again? Was
his material tangential?

I don't really NEED an amateur
license to fulfill my Life's Ambition.

There you go.


Indeed Neither do I my Life Ambition are not based on a requirement for
a Ham License

What is your singular Life Ambition, Colonel? I've had many ambitions
in my life. I achieved most of them. Did you obtain an amateur radio
license? You must have had an ambition to do so. Has Len stated an
ambition to obtain an amateur radio license? Has he done so?

But then you don't get the point or is it simplier than that? just a
case of Binary thinking Ham radio is his lifes ambition so that means
he will not pursue it

Sure, I get the point--the fable of the fox and the grapes. Our wily
old fox can't reach the grapes, so he tells others that the grapes are
probably sour. Len has stated at various times that he has had a
decades-long interest in amateur radio *and* that he has no interest in
obtaining an amateur radio license. He is interested enough to post
here for nearly ten years. One could easily gather that he has enough
interest in amateur radio for that to take place.

But other licensees
DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations
(contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says).

Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become
forgetful?


No a simple turth many of the Licensees esp arround DO indeed demand
such before allowing comment

Len has been making comments here for nearly a decade. You are
confusing "allowing comment" with "giving credence to views" and that's
the "turth".

Maybe I "should"
get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-)

It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so
for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice
lunch and catch a nap, OT.


what is the hurry?

Actuarial tables.

Dave K8MN

hmm trying again since my last reply is now 100 hours awol
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many
kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out
with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional
level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than
the ABILITY for personal communications.

That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio
amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you.


Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at
52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated.
It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to
normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a
radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at
both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy
is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier
radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for
all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is
AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have
given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications.

The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like
"fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse
code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It
bothers you. I can live with your being bothered.

Gee Alive and Well that is why the FCC, ITU, IARU, and many nations
have have abandoned the notion it is vital. Even the ARRL has admitted
(in practical terms) that Morse Code isn't vital

...[the
largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the
keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control,
not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding]
Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of
antiquity.

Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a
campaign.

your understanding of English isn't very good as you miss the point...
again


Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a
commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field
office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF,
microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF,
VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from
a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for
regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics
since 1947, something on-going.

Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for
an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements
is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket.

I don't really NEED an amateur
license to fulfill my Life's Ambition.

There you go.

Indeed and by that remark would could take it that YOUR Lifes ambition
does require one. My Life's ambition does not require a Ham License
either, but to you it seems that only something is Vital or useless

But other licensees
DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations
(contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says).

Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become
forgetful?

Niether, I guess you have not been reading the Newgroups

Maybe I "should"
get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-)

It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so
for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice
lunch and catch a nap, OT.

Such a hurry

Dave K8MN

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children,
women, and anyone younger than he is.


His behavior here sure indicates that, but I think it's really much
simpler.

Len just likes to argue online. So he writes all kinds of
stuff full of insults, wisecracks, put-downs, errors, and
other nonsense in an attempt to get an argument going. Of
course an argument requires a disagreement, so he'll do
everything he can to be disagreeable.

In fact, he takes any disagreement with his views as a
personal insult. The worst thing you can do is to prove
him factually wrong about something, or observe how
predictable his behavior here is.

His behavior here can be predicted with very high accuracy
by reference to the profile I have posted. Watch - you'll
see examples of it. Of course pointing that out is
considered "character assassination" by him.

I hit the Novice bands in 1963 with a Heathkit DX-40 and Knight R-100
and a couple of wire antennas. I didn't encounter the unpleasant
Leonard H. Anderson on the ham bands then. It is now late 2005 and I'm
closing on half a million QSOs. I've still not had to deal with Len
Anderson on the ham bands. Professionally, I never had to put up with
Leonard Anderson in any capacity. Life is good.

Dave K8MN

From: on Sep 18, 2:02 pm

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he
really wants a
ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary.

I'm afraid you're mistaken about Len wanting a license, Alun.

Why are you afraid? Fear is a negative attribute.

If Len really wanted a ham license, he could have had a Technician at
any time since February 1991 with no code test at all.

Actually, I could have gone to the Food and Drug Adminstration
for a REAL ham license.

By definition, "ham" is the butchered meat of swine. :-)

If Len really wanted a ham license other than Technician,
he could have gotten any class of license with only a 5 wpm
code test at any time since 1990. From 1990 to 2000 he would
have needed a waiver, but after 2000 he would have needed no
waiver at all.

So could everyone at the Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC *makes* the regulations covering amateur radio.
Really. [it's in the Communications Act of 1934] But,
the Act does not require staff or Commissioners to hold
ANY radio licenses of their own! Unbelievable but true!

Len posted here more than once that he "knew Morse", having
allegedly learned it in the mid 1950s up to about 8 wpm. But
then, according to his post, he gave up and went on to other
things.

Tsk, you don't seem to believe everything you read...taking
some posts as "factual" while making other posts very Jesuit
in "once declared, it is a life goal!" :-)

Back on January 19, 2000, Len said he was "going for Extra right out of
the box" but hasn't gotten a license in the 5 years and 8 months since.
That was the *only* time I ever saw him say he was going to get an
amateur radio license.

Jimmie, BEFORE then I stated that my goal was to just eliminate
the code test from federal regulations. [you glossed over that,
preferring to highlight some artificial "life goal promises"]

I got a First 'Phone (Commercial) license 49 years ago, never
took a vow or promised to get one, just did it. Should I have
"posted bans" on that? [I didn't]

I once took and oath to defend the Constitution of the United
States "...with my life if need be..." way back 53 years ago in
Chicago. I didn't have to DO that but I was ready. Have you
done anything like that, Jimmie?

I once took a vow, in front of many witnesses, to be a true and
faithful husband to my wife (who repeated the vow to me), even
had that officially recorded with authorities. I mean to KEEP
that vow/promise as long as we shall live. Have you done
anything like that, Jimmie?

Do you consider a throwaway remark I made about a HOBBY to be
MORE SERIOUS than the two oaths/vows I mentioned? Apparantly so!

If the code test is totally removed, Len *may* get a license. But
don't count on it.

I don't see anyone at the FCC "going for a ham license" in
order to *regulate* ham radio.

Why don't you go complain to THEM?

Gosh, for all of 71 years (!) the FCC has had the unmitigated
GALL to think they coould regulate and ENFORCE amateur radio
in the USA *without* requiring any staff or Commissioner to
hold an amateur radio license grant! :-)

Ask yourself why someone who wanted a ham license, and who allegedly
knew enough to pass the tests, would not go for one. Particularly over
the course of more than 15 years.

ERROR! You are OFF by 40 years Jimmie. :-)

[I have mention of that in my high school annual/yearbook...:-)]

[it's been printed with real ink on real paper]

I think Len has everything he wants from ham radio right here
on rrap. No license, no propagation troubles, no station or antenna to
assemble, no radio skills needed.

I think Jimmie has everything he wants from ham radio right here
in newsgroups...no propagation "troubles," no station or antenna
to assemble, no radio skills needed to sit around and negatively
criticize each and every person who doesn't share his opinions.

That's utterly predictable. :-)

From: on Sep 18, 1:16 pm

Dee Flint wrote:

From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children,
women, and anyone younger than he is.

[Wow! Kinda over-extended a bit aincha? :-) ]

His behavior here sure indicates that, but I think it's really much
simpler.

It is. I am simply against morse code testing for a license.

Said that years ago, still say that today.

Len just likes to argue online. So he writes all kinds of
stuff full of insults, wisecracks, put-downs, errors, and
other nonsense in an attempt to get an argument going. Of
course an argument requires a disagreement, so he'll do
everything he can to be disagreeable.

Definition: "Disagreeable" = anyone against code testing;
"Disagreeable" = anyone not loving, honoring, obeying the
heart and soul of amateur radio that is morse code;
"Disagreeable" = anyone not agreeing with Jimmie, your
one true voice of the "amateur community." :-)

In fact, he takes any disagreement with his views as a
personal insult.

Not really. :-)

But, if all YOU can talk about is the PERSONALITIES of the
communicators here, then stating so can also be a
"disagreement." :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...Jimmie takes any disagreement with his opinions
as an "insult" (true voices of the amateur community get like
that) and starts in on "profiling" and "his comments are all in
'error' when others aren't "nice" to him.

The worst thing you can do is to prove
him factually wrong about something, or observe how
predictable his behavior here is.

Tsk tsk tsk...Jimmie be even more predictable, no "profile"
necessary. See "disagreement" definitions preceding.

His behavior here can be predicted with very high accuracy
by reference to the profile I have posted. Watch - you'll
see examples of it. Of course pointing that out is
considered "character assassination" by him.

There you have it! [character assassination in "profiling"]

He's even gone so far as to try to get such arguments going in
ECFS, by posting the same sort of errors there as he posts here.

The ECFS is open to everyone for Comments until 31 October
and 14 November on WT Docket 05-235.

You can even Comment on WT Docket 98-143 and have it "published"
except that it won't matter; R&O 99-412 pretty much nulled those
out. Still, if you insist, as some have up to June, 2005, you
can "comment" and "correct those 'errors'" all you want.

Jimmie is very judgemental on what constitutes an "error." In
Jimmie's world, anyone not in agreement with him is "in error."
Quod erat demonstrandum.

The question is: why waste time on him, knowing his behavior?

Because YOU CAN'T HELP YOURSELF! :-)

That's utterly PREDICTABLE! :-)

Been repeated here over and over and over and over again! :-)

Now get busy with the FCC, Jimmie, MAKE them all get amateur
radio licenses so they can "qualify" to regulate, mitigate,
and enforce United States amateur radio! If they don't, then
the FCC is "in error" and is "subject to profiling" by
yourself!

Or...just roll with it. Show your superiority. Jeswald can't
roll with it but has to get into personal insult thingy. Heil
can't roll with it but has to get into the personal insult mode.
Others, like Dudly the Imposter and the anony-mousies are truly
into personal insult mode and can't talk on subjects. The
problem you have is that the SUBJECTS are taken too subjectively,
you believe in them too strongly on a personal level to be
objective, cannot separate the two. You just can't invalidate
VALID arguments against your personal views without coming
unglued and obsessively commenting on personalities.

From: Dave Heil on Sep 18, 9:40 pm

wrote:

Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many
kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out
with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional
level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than
the ABILITY for personal communications.

That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio
amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you.

Did I "promise" that in some kind of "oath" or "vow?" Try to
refrain from taking text out of context, your emminent Lardship.

YOU do NOT "speak" for the entirety of the "amateur community."

YOU are NOT in the "leadership." [despite implications to the
contrary]


Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at
52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated.
It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to
normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a
radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at
both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy
is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier
radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for
all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is
AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have
given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications.

The fantasy seems to be yours alone.

No. Wrong. Error. What I wrote is documented history.

You like to use terms like "fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last
stand" when you write of morse code.

Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy
is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY.

The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio.

It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. By ARRL poll
morse code mode is only SECOND in popularity on ham HF bands.

The argument about NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code USE, it
is about the TEST for morse code cognition.

I can live with your being bothered.

Wrong. Error. You are obsessed with "getting the last word"
with anyone who disagrees with you...on morse code testing or
anything else. YOU are very much BOTHERED. You will try to
assassinate the character of anyone writing against your
sacred viewpoints...and have, repeatedly.



Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for
an amateur radio license.

I've never said it should. Really! :-)

Does AMATEUR radio operate by "different" physical principles than
all other radio services? Yes? No?

Explain that. Explain how morse code testing shows "dedication
and commitment to the amateur community" in lieu of written test
elements.

Is amateur radio "all about morse code?"

NPRM 05-143, currently under Comment period under WT Docket 05-235,
is solely about the elimination or retention of morse code TESTING
in FCC regulations governing United States amateur radio.

Instead of concentrating so much on character assassination of all
who disagree with you, explain to the FCC the reasons, valid
reasons, why the FCC should retain test element 1 in regulations.


But other licensees
DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations
(contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says).

Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become
forgetful?

No "distortion." Actual fact. The first one is found on the
ECFS for WT Docket 98-143, dated 25 January 1999, filed by
Dudly under the surname "Robeson." [it's not in Google archives
but in the FCC archives, still viewable]

You have repeatedly said that I should not be commenting at all
on the subject of amateur radio as a "non participant." In case
you've forgotten (already), the staff and Commissioners are
"non participants" in amateur radio yet the FCC very much
regulates, mitigates, and enforces United States amateur radio!

You have NEGLECTED all those others - IN Google archives - who
have demanded that I be a licensed radio amateur in order to
talk anything about it.

It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so
for nearly the past six years.

Not at all. I dismissed the idea of getting a personal amateur
radio license back in the 1960s for many and varied reasons. I've
stated those. That you refuse to believe them is not my concern.

Have a nice lunch and catch a nap, OT.

I had a "working lunch" but no "nap" needed. I would suggest you
see a real medical doctor about the first signs of Alzheimer's
Disease. You have become forgetful and are unable to concentrate.
Alzheimer's can manifest itself at any age past 40...and you DO
easily qualify for that, old-timer. Serious stuff...and you are
showing those first symptoms already.

From: Dee Flint on Sep 17, 5:07 pm

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
an_old_friend wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
wrote in message
From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm



From what I can see, Mr Anderson hates ham radio, children, women, and
anyone younger than he is.

tsk, Tsk, TSK! Oh, my, what a STRONG bit of character
assassination!

Have you been taking testosterone, Dee? :-)

I "hate women?!?" No, on the contrary, I MARRIED one. My high
school sweetheart, in fact. A number of our classmates observed
that we truly LIKE each other at our 50th high school reunion.

I "hate children?!?" No. I dislkike CHILDISH, bitter, control-
freaks who think they can personally insult anyone they care to.
The PCTA in here seem to qualify for that trait. "Children"
who can't get along with anyone not sharing their beloved ideas.
They never grew up, the poor dears.

I "hate anyone younger than myself?!?" Absurd! Following Ben
Franklin's observation, the older I get, the more WOMEN there
are to LIKE! :-)

I "hate ham radio?!?" Another absurdity. I dislike the morse
code test for any radio operator license and endeavor to disprove
its necessity at many opportunities.

Amateur radio is, de facto, an enjoyable HOBBY, an avocation
(not an occupation of making money) done for personal pleasure.
Because of the nature of the physics of electromagnetic wave
propagation it must be regulated by a government agency created
to regulate, mitigate interference, and enforce it regulations.
In the USA that is the FCC. Why would anyone "hate" it?

Do you think that morse code is the end-all, be-all of amateur
radio? If you do, I'd say you "hate" talking in a normal voice,
"hate" communicating by data/teleprinter, "hate" sending any form
of television over amateur radio, "hate" everything but morse
code communications...in amateur radio or any other radio service.
That's a lot of HATE, Dee. Be careful it doesn't fester and
make you outraged enough to write some paraphrased W. C. Fields
remarks. :-)

...or would you rather be in Philadelphia? :-)

http://tinyurl.com/drbfk


73, de Hans, K0HB
--
Homepage:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb
Member:
ARRL http://www.arrl.org
SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc
VWOA http://www.vwoa.org
A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/
TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org
MWA http://www.w0aa.org
TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org
FISTS http://www.fists.org
LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm
NCI http://www.nocode.org