On the Mary Tyler Moore show, Ted Baxter is an incompetent shell of a man. He's selfish, inflated, overblown, egotistical, insecure, and very very dumb.

Baxter's role model is Walter Cronkite. Although devoted to his wife, Baxter has reproductive "issues." We're never told but my guess is, he's impotent. Baxter is the proverbial talking air-head - no one respects him.

So why did we enjoy following Baxter's antics?

It's simple. His idiocy made us laugh. He was the quintessential clown; the court jester; the fool.

I'll miss our amateur radio version of Ted Baxter. In less than two weeks his license will expire, and although he'll undoubtedly try to get his license renewed, there's a huge doubt as to whether we'll ever hear another original "broadcast."

I often wonder if Baxter, like another tragic clown, Pagliacci, is crying on the inside. The comedy is nearly ended, and we may never know.

This has been an editorial by John Johnston.

"John Johnston" wrote in message
...

On the Mary Tyler Moore show, Ted Baxter is an incompetent shell of a
man. He's selfish, inflated, overblown, egotistical, insecure, and very
very dumb.

Baxter's role model is Walter Cronkite. Although devoted to his wife,
Baxter has reproductive "issues." We're never told but my guess is,
he's impotent. Baxter is the proverbial talking air-head - no one
respects him.

So why did we enjoy following Baxter's antics?

It's simple. His idiocy made us laugh. He was the quintessential clown;
the court jester; the fool.

I'll miss our amateur radio version of Ted Baxter. In less than two
weeks his license will expire, and although he'll undoubtedly try to
get his license renewed, there's a huge doubt as to whether we'll ever
hear another original "broadcast."

I often wonder if Baxter, like another tragic clown, Pagliacci, is
crying on the inside. The comedy is nearly ended, and we may never
know.

This has been an editorial by John Johnston.


--
John Johnston

However, the comparison to Pagliacci is not entirely fair to Pagliacci.
Baxter created all his own problems by knowingly violating the rules. On
the other hand, Pagliacci, although brought down by his own unreasoning
jealousy, did not create the initial problem of his wife's unfaithfulness.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Johnston" wrote in message
...

On the Mary Tyler Moore show, Ted Baxter is an incompetent shell of a
man. He's selfish, inflated, overblown, egotistical, insecure, and very
very dumb.

Baxter's role model is Walter Cronkite. Although devoted to his wife,
Baxter has reproductive "issues." We're never told but my guess is,
he's impotent. Baxter is the proverbial talking air-head - no one
respects him.

So why did we enjoy following Baxter's antics?

It's simple. His idiocy made us laugh. He was the quintessential clown;
the court jester; the fool.

I'll miss our amateur radio version of Ted Baxter. In less than two
weeks his license will expire, and although he'll undoubtedly try to
get his license renewed, there's a huge doubt as to whether we'll ever
hear another original "broadcast."

I often wonder if Baxter, like another tragic clown, Pagliacci, is
crying on the inside. The comedy is nearly ended, and we may never
know.

This has been an editorial by John Johnston.


--
John Johnston

However, the comparison to Pagliacci is not entirely fair to Pagliacci.
Baxter created all his own problems by knowingly violating the rules. On
the other hand, Pagliacci, although brought down by his own unreasoning
jealousy, did not create the initial problem of his wife's unfaithfulness.

stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Johnston" wrote in
message
...

On the Mary Tyler Moore show, Ted Baxter is an incompetent shell of a
man. He's selfish, inflated, overblown, egotistical, insecure, and very
very dumb.

Baxter's role model is Walter Cronkite. Although devoted to his wife,
Baxter has reproductive "issues." We're never told but my guess is,
he's impotent. Baxter is the proverbial talking air-head - no one
respects him.

So why did we enjoy following Baxter's antics?

It's simple. His idiocy made us laugh. He was the quintessential clown;
the court jester; the fool.

I'll miss our amateur radio version of Ted Baxter. In less than two
weeks his license will expire, and although he'll undoubtedly try to
get his license renewed, there's a huge doubt as to whether we'll ever
hear another original "broadcast."

I often wonder if Baxter, like another tragic clown, Pagliacci, is
crying on the inside. The comedy is nearly ended, and we may never
know.

This has been an editorial by John Johnston.


--
John Johnston

However, the comparison to Pagliacci is not entirely fair to Pagliacci.
Baxter created all his own problems by knowingly violating the rules. On
the other hand, Pagliacci, although brought down by his own unreasoning
jealousy, did not create the initial problem of his wife's
unfaithfulness.

stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point

My comments are based on the various warnings, inspections, and other
run-ins with the FCC that Baxter has had. It certainly gives the impression
that he chooses to see how far he can push the FCC.

He could have asked the FCC for an opinion on the things he wanted to do
before he did them rather than taking an approach that appears
confrontational.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Johnston" wrote in
message
...

On the Mary Tyler Moore show, Ted Baxter is an incompetent shell of a
man. He's selfish, inflated, overblown, egotistical, insecure, and very
very dumb.

Baxter's role model is Walter Cronkite. Although devoted to his wife,
Baxter has reproductive "issues." We're never told but my guess is,
he's impotent. Baxter is the proverbial talking air-head - no one
respects him.

So why did we enjoy following Baxter's antics?

It's simple. His idiocy made us laugh. He was the quintessential clown;
the court jester; the fool.

I'll miss our amateur radio version of Ted Baxter. In less than two
weeks his license will expire, and although he'll undoubtedly try to
get his license renewed, there's a huge doubt as to whether we'll ever
hear another original "broadcast."

I often wonder if Baxter, like another tragic clown, Pagliacci, is
crying on the inside. The comedy is nearly ended, and we may never
know.

This has been an editorial by John Johnston.


--
John Johnston

However, the comparison to Pagliacci is not entirely fair to Pagliacci.
Baxter created all his own problems by knowingly violating the rules. On
the other hand, Pagliacci, although brought down by his own unreasoning
jealousy, did not create the initial problem of his wife's
unfaithfulness.

stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point

My comments are based on the various warnings, inspections, and other
run-ins with the FCC that Baxter has had. It certainly gives the impression
that he chooses to see how far he can push the FCC.

well even if your revised stament is true that is different than saying
he has knowingly violated the rules

the later is slander without knowledge neither of us has


He could have asked the FCC for an opinion on the things he wanted to do
before he did them rather than taking an approach that appears
confrontational.

he could choosen to do so

he is not required to

he has the right to choose to be confrontational, if he chooses

again with your appearant efforts to deny that others have the right to
exercise their rights

If you are turely not going to "converse with me" then don't, but don't
complain when you chose to do so

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

nobodys_old_friend wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"nobodys_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Johnston" wrote in
message
...

stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point

My comments are based on the various warnings, inspections, and other
run-ins with the FCC that Baxter has had. It certainly gives the impression
that he chooses to see how far he can push the FCC.

well even if your revised stament is true that is different than saying
he has knowingly violated the rules

It's not slander.

Baxter has been KNOWINGLY violating FCC rules and regulations for
years. HE has said as much. He's said so in public, in print and on
the air.

the later is slander without knowledge neither of us has

Baxter said it. He's brazenly invited conflict with the FCC. He
got what he asked for. Now he's in hac with the FCC for thousands of
dollars, and my bet's on the FCC not backing off this time.

He could have asked the FCC for an opinion on the things he wanted to do
before he did them rather than taking an approach that appears
confrontational.

he could choosen to do so

he is not required to

Sure he is.

EVERY FCC licensee, regardless of what service they are in, is
REQUIRED by law to ensure that they are operating thier station in
accordance with the rules of their particular service.

No one, in ANY radio service, is (legally) permitted to do what
they want then ask later, with the sole exception of true
life-threatening situations.

he has the right to choose to be confrontational, if he chooses

No, he does not.

He DOES have the right to PROTEST that which he considers unfair
and he DOES have the right to seek redress. Both are guarantees of the
Constitution.

again with your appearant efforts to deny that others have the right to
exercise their rights

"apparent"

What IS apparent, Mark, is your inadequate English comprehension
skills.

He has NO right to wantonly violate published rules and
regulations which he has agreed to abide by as condition of licensure.
And it's not as if he's a "newbie" operator.

If you are turely not going to "converse with me" then don't, but don't
complain when you chose to do so

"truly"

No one converses "WITH" you, Mark...It's more like wading through
the mire trying to find the occassional pearl stuck between your
toes...Only there's no pearls.

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:


stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point

Just when I think you could not become any more ignorant, you prove me
wrong again.

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:


stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point


Just when I think you could not become any more ignorant, you prove me
wrong again.

What a strange opinion from someone (Mark) that repeatedly claims that
Steve stalks him. Someone that claims that spelling correction is
censorship.

Yet stating an opinion on documented behavior is slander?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:


stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point


Just when I think you could not become any more ignorant, you prove me
wrong again.

What a strange opinion from someone (Mark) that repeatedly claims that
Steve stalks him.

because he does he has for years

Someone that claims that spelling correction is
censorship.

I never claimed any such thing

Yet stating an opinion on documented behavior is slander?

wrong again boyo stating one you can't possibly support may be slander

- Mike KB3EIA -

Cmdr Buzz Corey wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:


stating that K1MAN has knowingly violated the rules could be considered
slander. Indeed it is my impression that he does not see the rules the
same way as say you do, and in some of the cases he may have a point

Just when I think you could not become any more ignorant, you prove me
wrong again.

gee and from a statement that is entirely accurate

even if K1MAN were knowingly violating... it can be slander/libel (if
the libel/slander is true it does become harder to make the case but
still possible) and from the mass of stuff out there it seem to me and
others that he has a case on many of the points against esp the
"braodcasting" realted charges