Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

. . . unbelievable . . !!

w3rv


W1AW at it's finest.

W1AW? The decision came from the HQ station?

Dave K8MN

What's K8MN?

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

From: Dave Heil on Sep 14, 8:44 pm




wrote:

Also, the "millimeter" bands are not the centimeter bands such as
70 cm.

There's one your familiar restatements of the obvious. I'll add my
thanks for all of those who weren't aware.


well you were going on and on about 70cm and down so...

Feel free to save yourself from embarrassment by quoting the statements
where I "went on and on about 70cm and down".

Perhaps you've heard of the monthly QST VHF/UHF column. It has been
around for decades. I have decades worth of QST Magazine and ARRL
Handbooks featuring construction articles on VHF/UHF antennas,
amplifiers and the like.


Goodie, you can be an "elmer" and teach all those newcomers
ALL ABOUT the MILLIMETER BANDS!! :-)


Do you know that I haven't?


I know you can't. You lack the temperment to mentor almost anybody
therefore of course you can't realy elemer any one on the MM bands
cut

Mark, it has yet to be demonstrated that you know much about anything at
all.

Anyone on the WEST coast would NOT know what is going on
on the east coast. MILLIMETER BANDS are rather line-of-sight.

Anyone on the West Coast who is not a radio amateur would likely not
know much about what hams were doing at any given time on the millimeter
bands.


again why must you waste BW reminding everyone that Len ins't a ham

I pay for my bandwidth. Feel free not to read or comment on anything I
post.

cut

My my you really ARE ****ed off, aincha, snarly Dave? Tsk, tsk.

Not at all, Leonard. I accorded you much more civil treatment than I
received from you.


Bigg whooper you aren't civil to anyone that disagrees with you

Why, Mr. Morgan, I believe you've made an error. Perhaps you meant "big
whooper" or "bigg whopper" or "big whopper".

My bad...said unkind things about Big Brother in Newington. :-)

That wasn't your error, Len. What you did was state unsubstantiated
things about League members.


Snarly Dave, go to the grill and fork yourself. You're done. :-)

There's a very well known profile which fits your behavior. Would you
like to see it?


see you grill yourself? Hmm might be accepatabl;e esp if you realy went
and did it, but personaly Id prefer you flambayed

Well, flamboyant Mark, you may flambay on ebay; I'll flambe'...or not.
My regards to your personaly id.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

wrote:


http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c/

. . . unbelievable . . !!

w3rv


W1AW at it's finest.

W1AW? The decision came from the HQ station?

Dave K8MN


What's K8MN?

It isn't W1AW.

Dave K8MN

From: on Thurs 15 Sep 2005 04:28

Rick wrote:

My League Director told me in public that only 4 Directors
voted to review the Executive Committee's ruling. He said
he told them that there was no "upside" to keeping Carl off
the ballot, and that as just one director, there was no
damage he could do anyway, even if he was as dangerous as
they thought.

I agree!

You agree that "Carl is dangerous?!?" :-)

But, seems to me the Board is hellbent on paybacks for
Carl's work with NCI. After all, he and the rest of the NCI
Board have beaten them at every turn on the code issue.

No, they haven't.

By all that's been published by the ARRL, NCI *has*.

It's clear that FCC was pushing for reductions in Morse Code testing
long before NCI existed. And there are strong no-code-test directors on
the ARRL BoD.

Crappola. The no-code-test movement was just starting to
pick up momentum TWO DECADES AGO. The FCC knew about it
since they got most of the correspondence on that.

The ARRL has been almost virulent on retention of the code
test up to and after 1990 and the big Comment period of FCC
90-53.

Since YOU were NOT one of the ARRL Directors, or even IN the
ARRL in any capacity, you have NO MORE ACCESS to what the
directors had in mind than do any of the rest of us.

If
it's not paybacks time, then the Board is scared to death of
what Carl might do to try to reform the organization. It's
one or the other.

No, it isn't. There are other possibilities.

Sorry, sweetums, take your League sugar-coating elsewhere.

One is that Carl's manner *in the past* may have upset some people. Or
his *past* comments about ARRL and many aspects of ham radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's exactly what Rick was alluding to, NOT
an "alternate possibility." :-)

Face it, the ARRL is 91 years old and rather set in its ways.

There's also his leapfrogging over the field organization and going
straight for Director.

OH WOW!!! Heinous ethical crime! Failure to "go through the
ranks" like a good little League soldier? :-)

Personally I don't see any conflict between his present employment and
being an ARRL director. The commitees and Board see different.

Oh? You are an "insider" again? More crappola. You don't
"see" any more than any of us "see." And that consists of
what the League LETS US SEE.

Either way, this will stiffle future candidates who might
otherwise consider running for an ARRL office, but don't
want the public humiliation of being disqualified by the
Elections Committee if they don't like the way you part your
hair.

It might stifle some. But the alleged "humiliation" can be avoided by
not going public until the Board accepts your candidacy.

In other words OBEY THE HIERARCHY, do not speak until given
permission to speak? Be good little troopers and accept
what is allowed?

Too bad old George Orwell couldn't have described the
Animal Farm of today.


And, of course if doesn't do much for League
recruiting, particularly of younger hams who tend to rebel
against such shenanigans when they see them in adults. I
agree that there is no upside to keeping him off the ballot,
but apparently, the Board would rather bring the house down
on their heads than have to deal with an outsider who
doesn't care much for the way the exclusive good ol' boys
club has been doing things.

Seems that way. OTOH, there could be other factors.

Check out the tenure of the existing hierarchy, the BoD,
and report back after you've read ALL the past three decades
of Minutes.

Now write on the black/white board 100 times: GOOD OLD
BOYS CLUB. [is it sinking in yet?]

Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's
let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant
abuse of power.

Can I be an NCI Board Member?

You are NOT A PARTICIPANT in No-Code-Test movement.

You are OPPOSED to No-Code-Test movement.

You don't have a no-code-test license.

You dislike everyone IN the No-Code-Test movement.

You are mentally an OLD GEEZER who lives in the PAST heyday
of morsemanship in amateur radio.

I would oppose your being a board member and would repeatedly
whap a board on your member if you ever were. Deservedly so.

Any more questions?

From: on Thurs 15 Sep 2005 04:28

Rick wrote:

My League Director told me in public that only 4 Directors
voted to review the Executive Committee's ruling. He said
he told them that there was no "upside" to keeping Carl off
the ballot, and that as just one director, there was no
damage he could do anyway, even if he was as dangerous as
they thought.

I agree!

You agree that "Carl is dangerous?!?" :-)

But, seems to me the Board is hellbent on paybacks for
Carl's work with NCI. After all, he and the rest of the NCI
Board have beaten them at every turn on the code issue.

No, they haven't.

By all that's been published by the ARRL, NCI *has*.

It's clear that FCC was pushing for reductions in Morse Code testing
long before NCI existed. And there are strong no-code-test directors on
the ARRL BoD.

Crappola. The no-code-test movement was just starting to
pick up momentum TWO DECADES AGO. The FCC knew about it
since they got most of the correspondence on that.

The ARRL has been almost virulent on retention of the code
test up to and after 1990 and the big Comment period of FCC
90-53.

Since YOU were NOT one of the ARRL Directors, or even IN the
ARRL in any capacity, you have NO MORE ACCESS to what the
directors had in mind than do any of the rest of us.

If
it's not paybacks time, then the Board is scared to death of
what Carl might do to try to reform the organization. It's
one or the other.

No, it isn't. There are other possibilities.

Sorry, sweetums, take your League sugar-coating elsewhere.

One is that Carl's manner *in the past* may have upset some people. Or
his *past* comments about ARRL and many aspects of ham radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's exactly what Rick was alluding to, NOT
an "alternate possibility." :-)

Face it, the ARRL is 91 years old and rather set in its ways.

There's also his leapfrogging over the field organization and going
straight for Director.

OH WOW!!! Heinous ethical crime! Failure to "go through the
ranks" like a good little League soldier? :-)

Personally I don't see any conflict between his present employment and
being an ARRL director. The commitees and Board see different.

Oh? You are an "insider" again? More crappola. You don't
"see" any more than any of us "see." And that consists of
what the League LETS US SEE.

Either way, this will stiffle future candidates who might
otherwise consider running for an ARRL office, but don't
want the public humiliation of being disqualified by the
Elections Committee if they don't like the way you part your
hair.

It might stifle some. But the alleged "humiliation" can be avoided by
not going public until the Board accepts your candidacy.

In other words OBEY THE HIERARCHY, do not speak until given
permission to speak? Be good little troopers and accept
what is allowed?

Too bad old George Orwell couldn't have described the
Animal Farm of today.


And, of course if doesn't do much for League
recruiting, particularly of younger hams who tend to rebel
against such shenanigans when they see them in adults. I
agree that there is no upside to keeping him off the ballot,
but apparently, the Board would rather bring the house down
on their heads than have to deal with an outsider who
doesn't care much for the way the exclusive good ol' boys
club has been doing things.

Seems that way. OTOH, there could be other factors.

Check out the tenure of the existing hierarchy, the BoD,
and report back after you've read ALL the past three decades
of Minutes.

Now write on the black/white board 100 times: GOOD OLD
BOYS CLUB. [is it sinking in yet?]

Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's
let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant
abuse of power.

Can I be an NCI Board Member?

You are NOT A PARTICIPANT in No-Code-Test movement.

You are OPPOSED to No-Code-Test movement.

You don't have a no-code-test license.

You dislike everyone IN the No-Code-Test movement.

You are mentally an OLD GEEZER who lives in the PAST heyday
of morsemanship in amateur radio.

I would oppose your being a board member and would repeatedly
whap a board on your member if you ever were. Deservedly so.

Any more questions?

Dave Heil wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

From: Dave Heil on Sep 14, 8:44 pm




wrote:

Also, the "millimeter" bands are not the centimeter bands such as
70 cm.

There's one your familiar restatements of the obvious. I'll add my
thanks for all of those who weren't aware.


well you were going on and on about 70cm and down so...

Feel free to save yourself from embarrassment by quoting the statements
where I "went on and on about 70cm and down".

Perhaps you've heard of the monthly QST VHF/UHF column. It has been
around for decades. I have decades worth of QST Magazine and ARRL
Handbooks featuring construction articles on VHF/UHF antennas,
amplifiers and the like.


Goodie, you can be an "elmer" and teach all those newcomers
ALL ABOUT the MILLIMETER BANDS!! :-)


Do you know that I haven't?


I know you can't. You lack the temperment to mentor almost anybody
therefore of course you can't realy elemer any one on the MM bands
cut


Mark, it has yet to be demonstrated that you know much about anything at
all.

which is just the devie boy evasion, lacking an answer, so turn and
attack

Anyone on the WEST coast would NOT know what is going on
on the east coast. MILLIMETER BANDS are rather line-of-sight.

Anyone on the West Coast who is not a radio amateur would likely not
know much about what hams were doing at any given time on the millimeter
bands.


again why must you waste BW reminding everyone that Len ins't a ham

I pay for my bandwidth. Feel free not to read or comment on anything I
post.

more evasion deal with the subject and not wate time and effort

cut

My my you really ARE ****ed off, aincha, snarly Dave? Tsk, tsk.

Not at all, Leonard. I accorded you much more civil treatment than I
received from you.


Bigg whooper you aren't civil to anyone that disagrees with you

Why, Mr. Morgan, I believe you've made an error. Perhaps you meant "big
whooper" or "bigg whopper" or "big whopper".

so you understood therefore the message got through you choose per SOP
to ignore anything you can by making a personal attack

My bad...said unkind things about Big Brother in Newington. :-)

That wasn't your error, Len. What you did was state unsubstantiated
things about League members.


Snarly Dave, go to the grill and fork yourself. You're done. :-)

There's a very well known profile which fits your behavior. Would you
like to see it?


see you grill yourself? Hmm might be accepatabl;e esp if you realy went
and did it, but personaly Id prefer you flambayed

Well, flamboyant Mark, you may flambay on ebay; I'll flambe'...or not.
My regards to your personaly id.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
cut

W1AW at it's finest.

W1AW? The decision came from the HQ station?

Dave K8MN


What's K8MN?

It isn't W1AW.

very insightfull, but of course evasive in the extreme SOP Dave

Dave K8MN

From: on Thurs 15 Sep 2005 04:28

Rick wrote:

My League Director told me in public that only 4 Directors
voted to review the Executive Committee's ruling. He said
he told them that there was no "upside" to keeping Carl off
the ballot, and that as just one director, there was no
damage he could do anyway, even if he was as dangerous as
they thought.

I agree!

You agree that "Carl is dangerous?!?" :-)

But, seems to me the Board is hellbent on paybacks for
Carl's work with NCI. After all, he and the rest of the NCI
Board have beaten them at every turn on the code issue.

No, they haven't.

By all that's been published by the ARRL, NCI *has*.

It's clear that FCC was pushing for reductions in Morse Code testing
long before NCI existed. And there are strong no-code-test directors on
the ARRL BoD.

Crappola. The no-code-test movement was just starting to
pick up momentum TWO DECADES AGO. The FCC knew about it
since they got most of the correspondence on that.

The ARRL has been almost virulent on retention of the code
test up to and after 1990 and the big Comment period of FCC
90-53. They kept at demanding code testing right up to the
start of WRC-03...even though the IARU had come out for
no code testing a year before.

Since YOU were NOT one of the ARRL Directors, or even IN the
ARRL in any capacity, you have NO MORE ACCESS to what the
directors had in mind than do any of the rest of us.

If
it's not paybacks time, then the Board is scared to death of
what Carl might do to try to reform the organization. It's
one or the other.

No, it isn't. There are other possibilities.

Sorry, sweetums, take your League sugar-coating elsewhere.

One is that Carl's manner *in the past* may have upset some people. Or
his *past* comments about ARRL and many aspects of ham radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's exactly what Rick was alluding to, NOT
an "alternate possibility." :-)

Face it, the ARRL is 91 years old and rather set in its ways.

There's also his leapfrogging over the field organization and going
straight for Director.

OH WOW!!! Heinous ethical crime! Failure to "go through the
ranks" like a good little League soldier? :-)

Personally I don't see any conflict between his present employment and
being an ARRL director. The commitees and Board see different.

Oh? You are an "insider" again? More crappola. You don't
"see" any more than any of us "see." And that consists of
what the League LETS US SEE.

Either way, this will stiffle future candidates who might
otherwise consider running for an ARRL office, but don't
want the public humiliation of being disqualified by the
Elections Committee if they don't like the way you part your
hair.

It might stifle some. But the alleged "humiliation" can be avoided by
not going public until the Board accepts your candidacy.

In other words OBEY THE HIERARCHY, do not speak until given
permission to speak? Be good little troopers and accept
what is allowed?

Too bad old George Orwell couldn't have described the
Animal Farm of today.


And, of course if doesn't do much for League
recruiting, particularly of younger hams who tend to rebel
against such shenanigans when they see them in adults. I
agree that there is no upside to keeping him off the ballot,
but apparently, the Board would rather bring the house down
on their heads than have to deal with an outsider who
doesn't care much for the way the exclusive good ol' boys
club has been doing things.

Seems that way. OTOH, there could be other factors.

Check out the tenure of the existing hierarchy, the BoD,
and report back after you've read ALL the past three decades
of Minutes.

Now write on the black/white board 100 times: GOOD OLD
BOYS CLUB. [is it sinking in yet?]

Spread the word to your clubs around the country, and let's
let the Directors hear of our disgust over this blatant
abuse of power.

Can I be an NCI Board Member?

You are NOT A PARTICIPANT in No-Code-Test movement.

You are OPPOSED to No-Code-Test movement.

You don't have a no-code-test license.

You dislike everyone IN the No-Code-Test movement.

You are mentally an OLD GEEZER who lives in the PAST heyday
of morsemanship in amateur radio.

I would oppose your being a board member and would repeatedly
whap a board on your member if you ever were. Deservedly so.

Any more questions?

From: "K0HB" on Thurs 15 Sep 2005 13:15


"Dave Heil" wrote


I'd like to know all the facts before I start blasting away at the League.

[I doubt that...:-) ]

Me too. Unfortunately facts are not very forthcoming.

And I think it was Dr. Who who remarked "The very powerful and the very stupid
have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they
alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you
happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."

Heil is unalterable. He isn't tailor-made to get along with all...

wrote:
From: "K0HB" on Thurs 15 Sep 2005 13:15


"Dave Heil" wrote


I'd like to know all the facts before I start blasting away at the League.

[I doubt that...:-) ]

Me too. Unfortunately facts are not very forthcoming.

And I think it was Dr. Who who remarked "The very powerful and the very stupid
have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they
alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you
happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."

The quote is Dr Who although they may have lifted it from Somewhere
else, the serial was called "Face of Evil" aand was from the Tom Baker
era served to introduce the companion Leia to the show

Heil is unalterable. He isn't tailor-made to get along with all...

indeed You are right about that Never thought that Who quote would
prove to have an exception