Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order
to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any
one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far
amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the
selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for
ratings.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Dee, excellent, excellent post.

That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as
if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history
from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s)
that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down
by the US government at the time.

Many radio amateurs made their war contributions as radio operators.
Many became electronics and radio instructors. Many were involved in
radio design and manufacture. Many became involved with Civil Defense
and WERS (War Emergency Radio Service). There is a large amount of
documentation of the efforts of radio amateurs during the Second World
War. Have you read any of it?

Whoa! Talk about brilliant minds! Our posts hit at the same
time...But when I re-read mine, I accidentally "deleted" a paragraph
when I had changed a sentence I wrote prior to posting!

What I had said was that Brian's demonization of some of us who
make reference to contributions made during WW2 doesn't stand the
litmus test of objectivity. The "War Department" and other agencies of
the era went on record as praising the ARRL and it's members for the
contributions you cited, Dave...

Not to forget the sacrifices many Amateurs of the era made on the
battlefield. Many Amateiurs were also sought out for thier skills to
help "flesh out" the military communications infrastructure as
operators, instructors, crypto-operators, Morse intercept operators,
etc etc etc...

So...as I was asking Brian, what's "Quitepuzzling" is is continued
affiliation with Amateur Radio despite his obvious contempt for fellow
Amateurs.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order
to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any
one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far
amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the
selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for
ratings.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, excellent, excellent post.

That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as
if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history
from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s)
that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down
by the US government at the time.

Many radio amateurs made their war contributions as radio operators.
Many became electronics and radio instructors. Many were involved in
radio design and manufacture. Many became involved with Civil Defense
and WERS (War Emergency Radio Service). There is a large amount of
documentation of the efforts of radio amateurs during the Second World
War. Have you read any of it?

Whoa! Talk about brilliant minds! Our posts hit at the same
time...But when I re-read mine, I accidentally "deleted" a paragraph
when I had changed a sentence I wrote prior to posting!

What I had said was that Brian's demonization of some of us who
make reference to contributions made during WW2 doesn't stand the
litmus test of objectivity. The "War Department" and other agencies of
the era went on record as praising the ARRL and it's members for the
contributions you cited, Dave...

If I made contributions to dental hygeine during any war, it would not
be as an amateur radio operator. You guys, who constantly rail against
persons having commercial and military radio experience, should know
that whatever those amateurs did during WWII were not doing it as
amateurs.

Unless you are now adopting a wider view of what constitutes radio
knowledge. Is that what you're doing? Hmmmmm?

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order
to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any
one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far
amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the
selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for
ratings.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, excellent, excellent post.

That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as
if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history
from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s)
that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down
by the US government at the time.

Many radio amateurs made their war contributions as radio operators.
Many became electronics and radio instructors. Many were involved in
radio design and manufacture. Many became involved with Civil Defense
and WERS (War Emergency Radio Service). There is a large amount of
documentation of the efforts of radio amateurs during the Second World
War. Have you read any of it?

Whoa! Talk about brilliant minds! Our posts hit at the same
time...But when I re-read mine, I accidentally "deleted" a paragraph
when I had changed a sentence I wrote prior to posting!

What I had said was that Brian's demonization of some of us who
make reference to contributions made during WW2 doesn't stand the
litmus test of objectivity. The "War Department" and other agencies of
the era went on record as praising the ARRL and it's members for the
contributions you cited, Dave...

If I made contributions to dental hygeine during any war, it would not
be as an amateur radio operator. You guys, who constantly rail against
persons having commercial and military radio experience, should know
that whatever those amateurs did during WWII were not doing it as
amateurs.

Unless you are now adopting a wider view of what constitutes radio
knowledge. Is that what you're doing? Hmmmmm?

None of us "rail against" persons with commercial or military
experience BECAUSE of that experience, Brian...We DO "rail against"
people who have NO experience in AMATEUR RADIO who then come to an
Amateur Radio forum and presume to tell us how we should be "doing"
things.

Your buddy on the liberal coast is the ONLY one here who routinely
"rails against" anyone based upon RADIO (ie technical and theoretical)
experience. Period. His attacks on me based upon having been an Armed
Forces Avionics Tech and Jim, N2EY, for his various projects are
point-in-case.

No one doubts that Lennie knows how a radio works or that he was
an adequate bench technician.

However he has, to this date, zero-point-zero hours of experience
as a licensed Radio Amateur. He is not now nor ever has been a radio
OPERATOR as it pertains to Amateur Radio practice. He has
zero-point-zero hours of experience in emergency communications. His
list ot "zeros" is lengthy, yet he pretends to be an authority on
Amateur Radio policies and/or practices.

He's nothing of the sort.

Your adaptation of his diversion about how "we" allegedly "diss"
him along some ill-perceived lines of how radios work or RF propagates
is assinine.

Lastly, the original argument was about contributions that
Amatuers made during WW2. All of the references I made were to
electronics-related fields for which AMATEURS were SPECIFCIALLY sought
and recruited due to thier already-demonstrated competency or skill in
radiocommunications.

No one, myself included, ever stated that thier licensure was the
end-all or sole reason for thier employment or service.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order
to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any
one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far
amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the
selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for
ratings.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, excellent, excellent post.

That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as
if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history
from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s)
that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down
by the US government at the time.

Many radio amateurs made their war contributions as radio operators.
Many became electronics and radio instructors. Many were involved in
radio design and manufacture. Many became involved with Civil Defense
and WERS (War Emergency Radio Service). There is a large amount of
documentation of the efforts of radio amateurs during the Second World
War. Have you read any of it?

Whoa! Talk about brilliant minds! Our posts hit at the same
time...But when I re-read mine, I accidentally "deleted" a paragraph
when I had changed a sentence I wrote prior to posting!

What I had said was that Brian's demonization of some of us who
make reference to contributions made during WW2 doesn't stand the
litmus test of objectivity. The "War Department" and other agencies of
the era went on record as praising the ARRL and it's members for the
contributions you cited, Dave...

If I made contributions to dental hygeine during any war, it would not
be as an amateur radio operator. You guys, who constantly rail against
persons having commercial and military radio experience, should know
that whatever those amateurs did during WWII were not doing it as
amateurs.

Unless you are now adopting a wider view of what constitutes radio
knowledge. Is that what you're doing? Hmmmmm?

None of us "rail against" persons with commercial or military
experience BECAUSE of that experience, Brian...

Not true.

We DO "rail against"
people who have NO experience in AMATEUR RADIO who then come to an
Amateur Radio forum and presume to tell us how we should be "doing"
things.

He doesn't "presume." He does so.

Your buddy on the liberal coast is the ONLY one here who routinely
"rails against" anyone based upon RADIO (ie technical and theoretical)
experience.

Not true.

Period.

Longhand punctuation?

His attacks on me based upon having been an Armed
Forces Avionics Tech and Jim, N2EY, for his various projects are
point-in-case.

And you presume to tell Len how he should be doing things.

No one doubts that Lennie knows how a radio works or that he was
an adequate bench technician.

Not true. How many lies will you rack up in this single post?

However he has, to this date, zero-point-zero hours of experience
as a licensed Radio Amateur.

Nor does the Chairman of the FCC.

He is not now nor ever has been a radio
OPERATOR as it pertains to Amateur Radio practice. He has
zero-point-zero hours of experience in emergency communications. His
list ot "zeros" is lengthy, yet he pretends to be an authority on
Amateur Radio policies and/or practices.

Ditto the Chaiman of the FCC and his numerous staffers. Soon, he's
going to "presume" to tell you how it is, both on policy and practice.

He's nothing of the sort.

Your adaptation of his diversion about how "we" allegedly "diss"
him along some ill-perceived lines of how radios work or RF propagates
is assinine.

Not true. Lie #4.

Lastly, the original argument was about contributions that
Amatuers made during WW2. All of the references I made were to
electronics-related fields for which AMATEURS were SPECIFCIALLY sought
and recruited due to thier already-demonstrated competency or skill in
radiocommunications.

Hmmmm? There's that damned one way valve again. Amateurs can jump in
and fill military and commercial radio roles, but commercial and
military radio Ops can have absolutely NO knowledge of amateur comms!

Hi, hi! Talk about an Iron Curtain! Your brain is on "diode."

No one, myself included, ever stated that thier licensure was the
end-all or sole reason for thier employment or service.

Steve, K4YZ

Cronyism and Nepotism are as good reasons as any. You could do worse
by having someone who actually knows something about RF making comments
on the ARS.

Best of Luck.

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order
to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any
one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far
amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the
selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for
ratings.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, excellent, excellent post.

That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as
if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history
from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s)
that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down
by the US government at the time.

Many radio amateurs made their war contributions as radio operators.
Many became electronics and radio instructors. Many were involved in
radio design and manufacture. Many became involved with Civil Defense
and WERS (War Emergency Radio Service). There is a large amount of
documentation of the efforts of radio amateurs during the Second World
War. Have you read any of it?

Whoa! Talk about brilliant minds! Our posts hit at the same
time...But when I re-read mine, I accidentally "deleted" a paragraph
when I had changed a sentence I wrote prior to posting!

What I had said was that Brian's demonization of some of us who
make reference to contributions made during WW2 doesn't stand the
litmus test of objectivity. The "War Department" and other agencies of
the era went on record as praising the ARRL and it's members for the
contributions you cited, Dave...

If I made contributions to dental hygeine during any war, it would not
be as an amateur radio operator. You guys, who constantly rail against
persons having commercial and military radio experience, should know
that whatever those amateurs did during WWII were not doing it as
amateurs.

Unless you are now adopting a wider view of what constitutes radio
knowledge. Is that what you're doing? Hmmmmm?

None of us "rail against" persons with commercial or military
experience BECAUSE of that experience, Brian...

Not true.

Is true. Who else in this forum with "commercial or military"
communications experience rants on-and-on like Lennie?

We DO "rail against"
people who have NO experience in AMATEUR RADIO who then come to an
Amateur Radio forum and presume to tell us how we should be "doing"
things.

He doesn't "presume." He does so.

He doesn't "tell" me anything!

Your buddy on the liberal coast is the ONLY one here who routinely
"rails against" anyone based upon RADIO (ie technical and theoretical)
experience.

Not true.

Is true. Unless we include you.

Period.

Longhand punctuation?

His attacks on me based upon having been an Armed
Forces Avionics Tech and Jim, N2EY, for his various projects are
point-in-case.

And you presume to tell Len how he should be doing things.

Nope. I have not once suggested how he conduct his "professional"
career. You won't find a single posting by me in any "professional
radio" forum", Brian.

Yet Lennie, without one day's bit of experience in practical
Amateur Radio, persumes to know what's good for us.

No one doubts that Lennie knows how a radio works or that he was
an adequate bench technician.

Not true. How many lies will you rack up in this single post?

Is true. I've said it before, and I said it right there.

However he has, to this date, zero-point-zero hours of experience
as a licensed Radio Amateur.

Nor does the Chairman of the FCC.

The Chairman of the FCC is not in this forum, now is he?

He is not now nor ever has been a radio
OPERATOR as it pertains to Amateur Radio practice. He has
zero-point-zero hours of experience in emergency communications. His
list ot "zeros" is lengthy, yet he pretends to be an authority on
Amateur Radio policies and/or practices.

Ditto the Chaiman of the FCC and his numerous staffers. Soon, he's
going to "presume" to tell you how it is, both on policy and practice.

And they are not in this forum, are they?

However the Chairman and his staff DO have Amateurs on the FCC
payroll from whom thye take counsel.

He's nothing of the sort.

Your adaptation of his diversion about how "we" allegedly "diss"
him along some ill-perceived lines of how radios work or RF propagates
is assinine.

Not true. Lie #4.

Is true. And I can see you're back in form.

Myself and others have "called" Lennie based upon NUMEROUS errors
as they pertain to Amateur Radio policy and practice.

You and he are the ONLY ones suggesting that the theory of
electronics or radio wave propagation are issues here.

Lastly, the original argument was about contributions that
Amatuers made during WW2. All of the references I made were to
electronics-related fields for which AMATEURS were SPECIFCIALLY sought
and recruited due to thier already-demonstrated competency or skill in
radiocommunications.

Hmmmm? There's that damned one way valve again. Amateurs can jump in
and fill military and commercial radio roles, but commercial and
military radio Ops can have absolutely NO knowledge of amateur comms!

Hi, hi! Talk about an Iron Curtain! Your brain is on "diode."

Nope.

Where did I say that, Brian?

No one, myself included, ever stated that thier licensure was the
end-all or sole reason for thier employment or service.

Steve, K4YZ

Cronyism and Nepotism are as good reasons as any. You could do worse
by having someone who actually knows something about RF making comments
on the ARS.

What does knowing ANYthing about "RF" have to do with knowing
about the Amateur Radio service?

I worked with many engineers in 2000. About a third of them were
Amateur licensees. The rest weren't. They were excellent in thier
fields. But they knew nothing of Amateur Radio.

Lennie's "knowledge" of "Amateur Radio" comes from having used an
Amateur Radio magazine to get his "writings" into print and from his
flailing's-about in this forum.

Best of Luck.

For what? Pulling the rug out from underneath you and Lennie?

That didn't need luck...You make it all too easy.

Thanks.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order
to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any
one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far
amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the
selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for
ratings.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, excellent, excellent post.

That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as
if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history
from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s)
that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down
by the US government at the time.

Many radio amateurs made their war contributions as radio operators.
Many became electronics and radio instructors. Many were involved in
radio design and manufacture. Many became involved with Civil Defense
and WERS (War Emergency Radio Service). There is a large amount of
documentation of the efforts of radio amateurs during the Second World
War. Have you read any of it?

Whoa! Talk about brilliant minds! Our posts hit at the same
time...But when I re-read mine, I accidentally "deleted" a paragraph
when I had changed a sentence I wrote prior to posting!

What I had said was that Brian's demonization of some of us who
make reference to contributions made during WW2 doesn't stand the
litmus test of objectivity. The "War Department" and other agencies of
the era went on record as praising the ARRL and it's members for the
contributions you cited, Dave...

If I made contributions to dental hygeine during any war, it would not
be as an amateur radio operator. You guys, who constantly rail against
persons having commercial and military radio experience, should know
that whatever those amateurs did during WWII were not doing it as
amateurs.

Unless you are now adopting a wider view of what constitutes radio
knowledge. Is that what you're doing? Hmmmmm?

None of us "rail against" persons with commercial or military
experience BECAUSE of that experience, Brian...

Not true.

Is true. Who else in this forum with "commercial or military"
communications experience rants on-and-on like Lennie?

We DO "rail against"
people who have NO experience in AMATEUR RADIO who then come to an
Amateur Radio forum and presume to tell us how we should be "doing"
things.

He doesn't "presume." He does so.

He doesn't "tell" me anything!

There you go personalizing everything. You're just itching for a
fight, aren't you?.

Your buddy on the liberal coast is the ONLY one here who routinely
"rails against" anyone based upon RADIO (ie technical and theoretical)
experience.

Not true.

Is true. Unless we include you.

Citation, please.

Period.

Longhand punctuation?

His attacks on me based upon having been an Armed
Forces Avionics Tech and Jim, N2EY, for his various projects are
point-in-case.

And you presume to tell Len how he should be doing things.

Nope. I have not once suggested how he conduct his "professional"
career.

Hi, hi! You deny that he has had a "professional" career.

You won't find a single posting by me in any "professional
radio" forum", Brian.

You are so unprofessional that you wouldn't know where to find one.

Yet Lennie, without one day's bit of experience in practical
Amateur Radio, persumes to know what's good for us.

Funny. That's just what the FCC does.

No one doubts that Lennie knows how a radio works or that he was
an adequate bench technician.

Not true. How many lies will you rack up in this single post?

Is true. I've said it before, and I said it right there.

What you say from one day to the next is inconsistant and suspect.

However he has, to this date, zero-point-zero hours of experience
as a licensed Radio Amateur.

Nor does the Chairman of the FCC.

The Chairman of the FCC is not in this forum, now is he?

Nor is Mr. Haney. And I do mind where some "experienced" amateurs are
trying to point the ARS.

He is not now nor ever has been a radio
OPERATOR as it pertains to Amateur Radio practice. He has
zero-point-zero hours of experience in emergency communications. His
list ot "zeros" is lengthy, yet he pretends to be an authority on
Amateur Radio policies and/or practices.

Ditto the Chaiman of the FCC and his numerous staffers. Soon, he's
going to "presume" to tell you how it is, both on policy and practice.

And they are not in this forum, are they?

However the Chairman and his staff DO have Amateurs on the FCC
payroll from whom thye take counsel.

Conflict of interest.

He's nothing of the sort.

Your adaptation of his diversion about how "we" allegedly "diss"
him along some ill-perceived lines of how radios work or RF propagates
is assinine.

Not true. Lie #4.

Is true. And I can see you're back in form.

Myself and others have "called" Lennie based upon NUMEROUS errors
as they pertain to Amateur Radio policy and practice.

Everyone makes mistakes. Even you as, I have pointed out so many times
before.

You and he are the ONLY ones suggesting that the theory of
electronics or radio wave propagation are issues here.

You are the one suggesting it. Len and I are the ones pointing it out.

Lastly, the original argument was about contributions that
Amatuers made during WW2. All of the references I made were to
electronics-related fields for which AMATEURS were SPECIFCIALLY sought
and recruited due to thier already-demonstrated competency or skill in
radiocommunications.

Hmmmm? There's that damned one way valve again. Amateurs can jump in
and fill military and commercial radio roles, but commercial and
military radio Ops can have absolutely NO knowledge of amateur comms!

Hi, hi! Talk about an Iron Curtain! Your brain is on "diode."

Nope.

Where did I say that, Brian?

Then tell us how it works, again.

No one, myself included, ever stated that thier licensure was the
end-all or sole reason for thier employment or service.

Steve, K4YZ

Cronyism and Nepotism are as good reasons as any. You could do worse
by having someone who actually knows something about RF making comments
on the ARS.

What does knowing ANYthing about "RF" have to do with knowing
about the Amateur Radio service?

The FCC tests us on knowledge of RF for "licensure." Take it up with
them.

I worked with many engineers in 2000. About a third of them were
Amateur licensees. The rest weren't. They were excellent in thier
fields. But they knew nothing of Amateur Radio.

Holy Cow! A third of the engineers were amateur radio operators but
knew nothing of Amateur Radio? Were they RF engineers?

Lennie's "knowledge" of "Amateur Radio" comes from having used an
Amateur Radio magazine to get his "writings" into print and from his
flailing's-about in this forum.

It's too bad that you are allowed to continue to denigrate a fine
amateur radio builders publication merely to discredit Len's articles
that were contained within it's covers.

Best of Luck.

For what? Pulling the rug out from underneath you and Lennie?

That didn't need luck...You make it all too easy.

You are truly delusional.

From: on Oct 15, 8:14 am

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Movies and novels, etc often take artistic license with the facts in order
to produce more impact. That is true of both dramas and comedies. So any
one who relies on such items for their history is going to be using a far
amount of misinformation. Even the news media takes artistic license by the
selection of what facts and speculation to report since they are going for
ratings.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, excellent, excellent post.

That must be why some in this group constantly quote british comedy as
if it were somehow relevant to matters at hand. They get their history
from Monty Python. Telling is their admiration for the contribution(s)
that the ARS made in WWII. Quitepuzzling, since the ARS was shut down
by the US government at the time.

Many radio amateurs made their war contributions as radio operators.
Many became electronics and radio instructors. Many were involved in
radio design and manufacture. Many became involved with Civil Defense
and WERS (War Emergency Radio Service). There is a large amount of
documentation of the efforts of radio amateurs during the Second World
War. Have you read any of it?

Whoa! Talk about brilliant minds! Our posts hit at the same
time...But when I re-read mine, I accidentally "deleted" a paragraph
when I had changed a sentence I wrote prior to posting!

What I had said was that Brian's demonization of some of us who
make reference to contributions made during WW2 doesn't stand the
litmus test of objectivity. The "War Department" and other agencies of
the era went on record as praising the ARRL and it's members for the
contributions you cited, Dave...

If I made contributions to dental hygeine during any war, it would not
be as an amateur radio operator. You guys, who constantly rail against
persons having commercial and military radio experience, should know
that whatever those amateurs did during WWII were not doing it as
amateurs.

Unless you are now adopting a wider view of what constitutes radio
knowledge. Is that what you're doing? Hmmmmm?

None of us "rail against" persons with commercial or military
experience BECAUSE of that experience, Brian...

Not true.

Is true. Who else in this forum with "commercial or military"
communications experience rants on-and-on like Lennie?

We DO "rail against"
people who have NO experience in AMATEUR RADIO who then come to an
Amateur Radio forum and presume to tell us how we should be "doing"
things.

He doesn't "presume." He does so.

He doesn't "tell" me anything!

There you go personalizing everything. You're just itching for a
fight, aren't you?.

Dudly the Imposter is a MIGHTY WARRIOR...on-screen. Off-screen
the best he can do is pose in some kind of uniform and pretend
to be a great "hero." :-)


Your buddy on the liberal coast is the ONLY one here who routinely
"rails against" anyone based upon RADIO (ie technical and theoretical)
experience.

Not true.

Is true. Unless we include you.

Citation, please.

Dudly the Imposter issues his own citations. He makes them up on
the spot to suit his personal HATRED of certain others. :-)

Dudly seems to be the usual east-coastie kind of geographical
BIGOT. He wants to call anyone on the west coast of the United
States
as a "liberal." Once in a while as a "leftist." :-)

Tennessee doesn't have a seacoast at all. Dudly must have ENVY
of anyone being on any "coast." :-)


His attacks on me based upon having been an Armed
Forces Avionics Tech and Jim, N2EY, for his various projects are
point-in-case.

And you presume to tell Len how he should be doing things.

Nope. I have not once suggested how he conduct his "professional"
career.

Hi, hi! You deny that he has had a "professional" career.

Going back through virtual volumes of Dudly the Imposter's
postings in this newsgroup, anyone will find that Dudly has
continually hurled personal insults about my working career
and HAS told me what I "should have been doing." Several
others have done so. [par for the course in this din of
inequity]

I'll just sit back and grin while Dudly gets up another head
of steam to hurl more personal insults at me. He is so
obsessed with his HATRED of certain others that he must be
quite unaware of what he is doing.

You won't find a single posting by me in any "professional
radio" forum", Brian.

You are so unprofessional that you wouldn't know where to find one.

He might know where a Purchasing Agent forum is...but didn't
last long in that singular "professional" area...


Yet Lennie, without one day's bit of experience in practical
Amateur Radio, persumes to know what's good for us.

Funny. That's just what the FCC does.

It's the LAW! :-)


No one doubts that Lennie knows how a radio works or that he was
an adequate bench technician.

Not true. How many lies will you rack up in this single post?

Is true. I've said it before, and I said it right there.

What you say from one day to the next is inconsistant and suspect.

It's a Monte Carlo random-HATE situation...whatever the subject is,
Dudly the Imposter has to hurl SOME kind of personal insult at his
HATE object.

Note the "...was an adequate bench technician." Dudly has so
little experience "on the bench" and NONE as a "technician" (in
the electronics industry) that he is supremely UNqualified to
judge anything in the industry.


However he has, to this date, zero-point-zero hours of experience
as a licensed Radio Amateur.

Nor does the Chairman of the FCC.

The Chairman of the FCC is not in this forum, now is he?

Nor is Mr. Haney. And I do mind where some "experienced" amateurs are
trying to point the ARS.

Neither the Commissioners nor anyone on the Staff of the FCC
are required by LAW to hold amateur radio license grants in
order to FULLY REGULATE United States amateur radio.
Somehow Dudly just can't understand that absolute Fact of Law.
Tsk.


He is not now nor ever has been a radio
OPERATOR as it pertains to Amateur Radio practice. He has
zero-point-zero hours of experience in emergency communications. His
list ot "zeros" is lengthy, yet he pretends to be an authority on
Amateur Radio policies and/or practices.

Ditto the Chaiman of the FCC and his numerous staffers. Soon, he's
going to "presume" to tell you how it is, both on policy and practice.

And they are not in this forum, are they?

However the Chairman and his staff DO have Amateurs on the FCC
payroll from whom thye take counsel.

Conflict of interest.

A few things on the above... First of all, the FCC has "counsel"
from LAWYERS since they are a legal regulatory agency of the federal
government. The FCC regulates MANY DIFFERENT radio services,
ALL the civil radio services in the United States.

Secondly, I do have some experience in emergency communications,
but definitely not as an amateur. While that is irrelevant to this
so-
called "discussion," Dudly the Imposter is, as usual, WRONG in his
personal attacks.

Third, by definition of LAW, an amateur radio license grant covers
BOTH operator AND station.

Fourth, "operating" any radio is just operating it. Dudly's
interpretation refers only to the use of on-off keying morse code
as "operation." Such morse code use is found only in the
AMATEUR service and a very few vessels in Maritime Radio Service.

Fifth, expressing an OPINION on radio regulations is NOT any
pretense of being an "authority." It is just expression of an
OPINION. Dudly the Imposter has NO "authority" on radio
regulations. Neither do any of the current communicators in this
newsgroup.

Sixth, Jim Haney, elected president of the ARRL, has been IN this
newsgroup some years ago, but only for a short while. I advised
him in private e-mail that this would lead to trouble within the
newsgroup from others who were not happy with ARRL policies...and
that would create a bad image of the ARRL as a result of flak from
those that (like Dudly) love to personally insult anyone.

Seventh, the full organization of the FCC is explained on their
website, including all of the higher staff positions of Bureaus
and Offices and Working Groups. To reiterate, the FCC is not
concerned solely with amateur radio since their charter by LAW
is to regulate the ENTIRETY of civil radio in the United States.


He's nothing of the sort.

Your adaptation of his diversion about how "we" allegedly "diss"
him along some ill-perceived lines of how radios work or RF propagates
is assinine.

Not true. Lie #4.

Is true. And I can see you're back in form.

Myself and others have "called" Lennie based upon NUMEROUS errors
as they pertain to Amateur Radio policy and practice.

Everyone makes mistakes. Even you as, I have pointed out so many times
before.

The "makes numerous errors" charge is another FALSE one, but often
used in newsgroups (even way back before USENET existed and all
there was was the original ARPANET) to color an opponents' posts.

The "numerous errors" derive from certain individuals using THEIR
personal preferences as THE judgemental point...any deviation from
that personal preference is considered "wrong." A typical one is
some kind of "fact" that morse code is supposed to be "basic to
the knowledge of any radio amateur." In itself that is false
insofar
as operating any radio communication device of any radio service,
grounded in personal preferences. The morsemen try to "legalize"
that by playing barracks lawyer in the newsgroup and showing the
license test requirements as their "proof."

Dudly the Imposter has never "pertained to amateur radio policy
and practice" but only repeated a few morse myths and posted many
news items (which he did not participate in nor did he report
as any kind of journalist). Dudly has not been able to categorize
subjects, cannot properly use all of the words he thinks are
'necessary' (such as "venue" or "licensure" lately, confusing
their application in other fields far removed from radio). Dudly
has NO ("zero-point-zero") experience in ANY radio communication
(other than perhaps CB) before 1970 and thus - by his own
standards - cannot possibly express any sort of qualified opinion
of amateur radio operation before then.


You and he are the ONLY ones suggesting that the theory of
electronics or radio wave propagation are issues here.

You are the one suggesting it. Len and I are the ones pointing it out.

I'm just pointing out the HOLES in Dudly's "reasoning" and the
personal insults he continually hurls at certain individuals he
obsessively HATES. :-)


Lastly, the original argument was about contributions that
Amatuers made during WW2. All of the references I made were to
electronics-related fields for which AMATEURS were SPECIFCIALLY sought
and recruited due to thier already-demonstrated competency or skill in
radiocommunications.

Hmmmm? There's that damned one way valve again. Amateurs can jump in
and fill military and commercial radio roles, but commercial and
military radio Ops can have absolutely NO knowledge of amateur comms!

Hi, hi! Talk about an Iron Curtain! Your brain is on "diode."

Nope.

Where did I say that, Brian?

Then tell us how it works, again.

Brian, do not expect the impossible. :-)

Dudly the Imposter has NO existance prior to 1955. He cannot
possibly
"know" anything of World War 2 by personal experience. All his
input
comes from AMATEUR RADIO literature. Such amateur radio literature
is colored to favor the wish-fulfillment of radio amateurs.
Actually,
the much wider field of electronics has considerable REAL history of
who did what for whom.


No one, myself included, ever stated that thier licensure was the
end-all or sole reason for thier employment or service.

Steve, K4YZ

Cronyism and Nepotism are as good reasons as any. You could do worse
by having someone who actually knows something about RF making comments
on the ARS.

What does knowing ANYthing about "RF" have to do with knowing
about the Amateur Radio service?

The FCC tests us on knowledge of RF for "licensure." Take it up with
them.

Apparently Dudly the Imposter does NOT know anything about "radio"
or the propagation of electromagnetic radiation! :-) Or he has
forgotten anything to do with RF on his amateur radio license test.

The Volunteer Examiner Coordinators' Question Pool Committee
generates the questions and answers for the amateur radio license
test. The FCC either approves or disapproves those questions and
answers. Testing of radio amateurs for their licenses is done
almost entirely by the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator groups (the
FCC can demand certain individuals to be tested by the FCC in
certain dispute cases...that is also the LAW).

The FCC does NOT use the term "licensure" in regards to amateur
radio licenses or the licensing process. That term is used in
some civil governments for licensing in other fields of activity.
Dudly may think he is "highbrow" or an "authority" if he uses
the word "licensure." :-)

I worked with many engineers in 2000. About a third of them were
Amateur licensees. The rest weren't. They were excellent in thier
fields. But they knew nothing of Amateur Radio.

Holy Cow! A third of the engineers were amateur radio operators but
knew nothing of Amateur Radio? Were they RF engineers?

Dudly the Imposter admitted he worked as a PURCHASING AGENT for
a set-top-box manufacturer. Purchasing Agents do NOT do any
sort of "design" work nor do they do any testing of the final
product, whatever that may be. Purchasing Agents are the
equivalent of technical bookkeepers and form-filler-outers and
their "communications knowledge" is limited to using a
telephone.

Dudly has "zero-point-zero" experience in electronics engineering
of any kind, "zero-point-zero" experience as a "bench top
technician" (in the industry). He has NO baseline for judgement
other than continually being obsessed with insulting others from
his obsessive HATRED.


Lennie's "knowledge" of "Amateur Radio" comes from having used an
Amateur Radio magazine to get his "writings" into print and from his
flailing's-about in this forum.

It's too bad that you are allowed to continue to denigrate a fine
amateur radio builders publication merely to discredit Len's articles
that were contained within it's covers.

Dudly the Imposter will insult anyone if he can make "message
points" and partially soothe his obsessive HATRED of some in
this newsgroup. [that is continually on display in here]

I could list the Editors in Chief of Ham Radio magazine and
describe much of its 22-year independent existance as an
amateur radio technical publication. Suffice to say that all
22 years of articles in it are on a three-CD set available
from CQ or the ARRL bookstores for $150 (shipping charges
extra). HR is still considered the "top" of the technical
periodicals for amateur radio worldwide (the RSGB's "Radio
Communication" magazine perhaps a close second). HR, like
CQ and 73, never had the backing of an entire membership
organization to assure it of continued existance (as QST
does) and they managed to exist for 22 years solely on
income from advertising sales. My hat is off and a salute
given to Jim Fisk (SK), Alf Wilson, Rich Rosen, and Terry
Northrup, wherever they are now, for editorial leadership
throughout those 22 years.

Tsk, I've written for other electronics magazines and have
had the pleasure of being acquainted with radio amateurs
since 1947...among them Gene Hubbell (the first H of H&H
Electronics in Rockford, IL, now SK), Captain William P.
Boss, Officer in Charge of ADA Transmitters (1953-1954),
Sergeant First Class Don Ross (NCOIC at ADA Transmitters
1954-1956, holder of an Amateur Extra as well as both
First Telegraph and First Phone Commercial licenses),
Eugene Rosenbaum (retired from the FAA and living in
Long Island, NY), Allan Walston (W6MJN, best man at my
wedding and co-worker in the RCA Cube Farm), James Hall
(KD6JG, retired and on the RCA network from near Grass
Valley, CA, on Saturdays), and a whole bunch of other
good people that I've known and/or worked with over the
last 58 years. It doesn't require personal acquaintenship
to "know about amateur radio" since nothing of it is
either "secret" or "sensitive" or "to be kept within the
confines of a fraternal order." United States amateur
radio is NOT a guild, union, or trade craft that takes
some kind of special learned-over-many-years experience,
nor is it some "national service" organization vital to
the nation. It is a fun hobby, an activity done for
personal pleasure but one that requires federal regulation
due to the nature of EM propagation. Some want it to be
MUCH MORE than what it is in order to fulfill some kind of
daydream they have to show their personal greatness. shrug


Best of Luck.

For what? Pulling the rug out from underneath you and Lennie?

That didn't need luck...You make it all too easy.

You are truly delusional.

Dudly the Imposter is a delusional sociopath with an unfulfilled
ego. That manifests itself as an obssessive hatred of certain
individuals who will not suck up to him and his opinions. Tsk.

He cannot "discuss", only insult others who disagree with him.
This will continue until he gets some professional help for
his mental affliction.

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

None of us "rail against" persons with commercial or military
experience BECAUSE of that experience, Brian...

Not true.

Is true. Who else in this forum with "commercial or military"
communications experience rants on-and-on like Lennie?

We DO "rail against"
people who have NO experience in AMATEUR RADIO who then come to an
Amateur Radio forum and presume to tell us how we should be "doing"
things.

He doesn't "presume." He does so.

He doesn't "tell" me anything!

There you go personalizing everything. You're just itching for a
fight, aren't you?.

With you or Lennie? Sheesh. Not much of a challenge there.

Your buddy on the liberal coast is the ONLY one here who routinely
"rails against" anyone based upon RADIO (ie technical and theoretical)
experience.

Not true.

Is true. Unless we include you.

Citation, please.

Wade through about a ton of LennieRant's from the last seven
years, Brain. They are prolific.

Period.

Longhand punctuation?

His attacks on me based upon having been an Armed
Forces Avionics Tech and Jim, N2EY, for his various projects are
point-in-case.

And you presume to tell Len how he should be doing things.

Nope. I have not once suggested how he conduct his "professional"
career.

Hi, hi! You deny that he has had a "professional" career.

No, I've not.

I've stated that I doubt that his career is all that his stories
make him out to be.

Kinda like your "There I was in Somalia..." stuff.

You won't find a single posting by me in any "professional
radio" forum", Brian.

You are so unprofessional that you wouldn't know where to find one.

Uh huh...WHO is "personalizing" this, Brain?

Yet Lennie, without one day's bit of experience in practical
Amateur Radio, persumes to know what's good for us.

Funny. That's just what the FCC does.

Nope.

Comparing Lennie to the FCC is like comparing a mob hitman to a
Sheriff's Deputy.

No one doubts that Lennie knows how a radio works or that he was
an adequate bench technician.

Not true. How many lies will you rack up in this single post?

Is true. I've said it before, and I said it right there.

What you say from one day to the next is inconsistant and suspect.

Nope.

But it obviously makes you warm and fuzzy to promulgate such lies.


Of course lying is easy for you.

However he has, to this date, zero-point-zero hours of experience
as a licensed Radio Amateur.

Nor does the Chairman of the FCC.

The Chairman of the FCC is not in this forum, now is he?

Nor is Mr. Haney. And I do mind where some "experienced" amateurs are
trying to point the ARS.

Mr Haney DOES have tons of experience in Amateur Radio.

Weak diversion, Brain. Try again?

He is not now nor ever has been a radio
OPERATOR as it pertains to Amateur Radio practice. He has
zero-point-zero hours of experience in emergency communications. His
list ot "zeros" is lengthy, yet he pretends to be an authority on
Amateur Radio policies and/or practices.

Ditto the Chaiman of the FCC and his numerous staffers. Soon, he's
going to "presume" to tell you how it is, both on policy and practice.

And they are not in this forum, are they?

However the Chairman and his staff DO have Amateurs on the FCC
payroll from whom they take counsel.

Conflict of interest.

WHAT conflict of interest?

It's no more a "conflict of interest" to have Amateurs on the FCC
payroll and providing counsel about Amatuer issues than it is to have
any OTHER service represented.

He's nothing of the sort.

Your adaptation of his diversion about how "we" allegedly "diss"
him along some ill-perceived lines of how radios work or RF propagates
is assinine.

Not true. Lie #4.

Is true. And I can see you're back in form.

Myself and others have "called" Lennie based upon NUMEROUS errors
as they pertain to Amateur Radio policy and practice.

Everyone makes mistakes. Even you as, I have pointed out so many times
before.

But I admit mine. Lennie's several years behind.

You're a close second.

You and he are the ONLY ones suggesting that the theory of
electronics or radio wave propagation are issues here.

You are the one suggesting it...(SNIP)

No, I am not.

(UNSNIP).....Len and I are the ones pointing it out.

Then we have you in yet another mistruth, Brain.

I have N E V E R suggested that there is one iota of difference
in theory, technology OR propagation.

If you insist on suggesting otherwise, you are wantonly lying.

Lastly, the original argument was about contributions that
Amatuers made during WW2. All of the references I made were to
electronics-related fields for which AMATEURS were SPECIFCIALLY sought
and recruited due to thier already-demonstrated competency or skill in
radiocommunications.

Hmmmm? There's that damned one way valve again. Amateurs can jump in
and fill military and commercial radio roles, but commercial and
military radio Ops can have absolutely NO knowledge of amateur comms!

Hi, hi! Talk about an Iron Curtain! Your brain is on "diode."

Nope.

Where did I say that, Brian?

Then tell us how it works, again.

How "what" works, Brain?

No one, myself included, ever stated that thier licensure was the
end-all or sole reason for thier employment or service.

Steve, K4YZ

Cronyism and Nepotism are as good reasons as any. You could do worse
by having someone who actually knows something about RF making comments
on the ARS.

What does knowing ANYthing about "RF" have to do with knowing
about the Amateur Radio service?

The FCC tests us on knowledge of RF for "licensure." Take it up with
them.

And, just as Lennie the Liar, blindly skip over the OTHER parts of
the exam and weakly try to slip in yet another diversion.

lame...really lame.

I worked with many engineers in 2000. About a third of them were
Amateur licensees. The rest weren't. They were excellent in thier
fields. But they knew nothing of Amateur Radio.

Holy Cow! A third of the engineers were amateur radio operators but
knew nothing of Amateur Radio? Were they RF engineers?

Yep.

Lennie's "knowledge" of "Amateur Radio" comes from having used an
Amateur Radio magazine to get his "writings" into print and from his
flailing's-about in this forum.

It's too bad that you are allowed to continue to denigrate a fine
amateur radio builders publication merely to discredit Len's articles
that were contained within it's covers.

Where, Brain, was ONE WORD of "denigration" of the MAGAZINE...?!?!

Best of Luck.

For what? Pulling the rug out from underneath you and Lennie?

That didn't need luck...You make it all too easy.

You are truly delusional.

There you go calling the pot black again, Oh Parroting One. Kinda
like your accusations of me "denigrating" a "fine amateur radio buildrs
publication.

Brian P Burke ("hot-ham-and-cheese", "billybeeper") is a known
pathological liar.

Beware.

Steve, K4YZ