wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the
Amateur Radio Service?

Prove that such changes are "detrimental." :-)

I've already shown that they could be.

Why should something be discarded just because it's old?

sigh...one can only imagine the state of your clothing... :-)

Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd
try not to imagine the state of yours...

No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean.

There's very little chance that changes in the rules of the amateur
radio service will have *any* effect on you, because
you're not a licensed radio amateur, and it doesn't appear
that you'll ever be one.

The morse code test WILL AFFECT new licensees.

And existing ones.

What "existing ones?" Upgraders? You can't upgrade, Jimmie.

All existing amateurs could be affected.

But it almost certainly won't affect you, Len.

How do you know that? Show your work.

As I have explained befo

It has been possible to get an amateur radio license in the USA
without any code test since 1991. It's been possible to get any
available class of amateur radio license in the USA with only a
5 wpm code test since 1990.

But you haven't gotten one. And except for you "Extra out of the
box" claim back in 2000, you haven't said you intended to.

You're not an existing licensee nor are you likely to be a new one.

I was a "licensee" in 1956.

Not in the amateur radio service, you weren't..

On top of that, you've tried more snide uncivil "civility" in
my "motivation" towards getting any amateur radio license.

How? It's quite obvious you don't want such a license and will
probably never get one.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. There you go again. Not nice, Jimmie.

What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your
disdain of the ARS is not a secret.

NO ONE is required to toady up to some already-licensed U.S.
radio amateur and HAVE to state "motivation." NOBODY.

You don't have to state your "motivation".

Yes, I do.

Then state it, Len.

But it does seem odd that
you won't state why you're so obsessed with a license test for a
license you don't seem to want, and which has no effect on you at all.

I'm sure it is "odd" to you, Jimmie. You are finding fault
with everything I say or do, making long, long, long, long,
long, long posts arguing minutae. :-)

FCC can also decide to change license privileges, subbands, etc., all
of which can have a profound affect on those who actually operate in
the licensed service.

NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie.

Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from
FCC.

For example, it specifically denies all requests for a new entry-class
license. It also repeats FCC's support for a three-tier system of
license
classes. Plus much more.

The TEST. The TEST does NOT affect those ALREADY LICENSED.

Yes, it does. If a change affects the amateur radio service itself, it
affects those already licensed.

Only those "upgrading."

Not just them.

Gosh...imagine that, the possibility of a NO-CODE-TEST EXTRA!

It would be the END OF THE CODER'S WORLD AS THEY KNOW IT!

Need some help doing a "Kevorkian?" :-)

Gee, Len, that's not funny.

The TEST affects those GETTING INTO U.S. amateur radio.

But not only them.

And since you're clearly not one of them, why do you care so much?

Since YOU are "clearly not one of" the military, government,
or the aerospace business or even "of" radio other than
amateurism, why did you post so many "caring" messages on
THOSE subjects? Hmmm?

"You can not answer a question with another question" - Len Anderson

Some days back, you posted a description of your experiences with
cb radio back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. You told us how
you installed a manufactured cb transceiver and antenna in your car and
used it. You told us the performance was *excellent* - for about four
years. Then it wasn't so excellent anymore.

Here's that description again:

"One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the
USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of
any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed
for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control).
Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

Let's look at that last sentence again:

"Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

Where did the excellence go, Len?

It went to the Chevrolet auto dealer in Canoga Park, CA, as a
trade-in.

Your cb radio was traded in at a car dealership?

Only the antenna and its lead-in. Went with the car. Dealer
liked that. I kept the Johnson Viking Messenger.

That's not what was meant by "before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

That refers to cb radios, and how the cb radio service wasn't so
excellent
anymore.

You know that the cb service went downhill. The same thing could happen
to the amateur radio service. You're avoiding the issue because you
know I'm right - or maybe because that sort of slide is exactly what
you want.

It was a 1953 Austin-Healey sports car with an
all-aluminum body (excellent ground plane).

Terrible for magmounts, though.

I never said anything about "magmounts," Jimmie. "Magmounts" were
scarce in those days.

Your sense of technical humor has gone missing, Len - if it ever
existed.

Maybe you'd like a nice image of that Austin-Healey? I have one.

The last time you sent me an "image", (unrequested and unwanted spam)
it contained male nudity. No thanks.

Clearly shows the CB "shorty" (base-loaded) antenna.

So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite
appropriate....

That "Healey"
got me an introduction to my first wife. She persuaded me to
buy the replacement 1961 Impala Convertible. She was diagnosed
with cancer soon after and died after a year.

I am sorry for your loss.

I can't believe that.

It's true, nevertheless. You don't believe in a lot of things,
but that doesn't change their truth.

YOU really know what it's like? Other
than reading about it in books?

I know what it's like to lose someone to cancer, yes. And to
see someone die before their time.

I am sorry for your loss.

After a long period of bachelorhood, I got re-acquainted with my
high-school sweetheart, also unattached. We were married and
are living together happily now.

That's nice. But what does it have to do with amateur radio policy?

That's from your post on the subject, a few days ago. No mention of a
trade-in or your first wife. The excellence you wrote about was cb.

Jimmie, go get laid or something.

What *is* your problem, Len?

You can't take opposition to your cherished views, eh? You can't take
strong
debate.

You are going wayyyy too far in criticsm.

You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

And the fact remains that cb quickly went downhill in the late 1960s
and early 1970s - about the same time frame as what you describe.

No.

Yes. Although I was never on cb, I did listen to it from time to time,
and knew several active cbers back then. By the mid1960s the
cb service was already a problem.

You are describing LATER things than what happened here.

"Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared
about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them."

Your words. Documenting the loss of excellence in the cb service.

You know it happened, but to admit it here would prove me right, and
you can't tolerate that.

There, aren't you HAPPY over having a newsgroup "opponent" go
through difficulties?

No. Not at all.

NO?

No. I am sorry for your loss.

That's odd. To see your postings in here, I am nothing but
trouble and affect you greatly.

You don't affect me much at all, Len.

Maybe you want an ice-cold emotionless
set of numbers of performance of the Viking Messenger now (I
still have that old radio)?

Why?

Why NOT? You love to ARGUE minutae in posts. It would be a ripe
area for more harrassment, "questions," et al.

It still meets manufacturers' (and FCC) specifications.

But I don't think you use it.

Why do I have to USE it?

You don't have to use it. Point is, the cb service is such a mess that
even you don't participate in it.

Your '53 Healey was a classic sports car. Maybe not the fastest or most
powerful thing on four wheels but definitely a classic - and classy
too. Fun in the tradition of a Triumph or MG.

Why do you care?

I appreciate all sorts of classics.

You were NOT in the sports car culture of
southern California in the 50s and 60s.

So? You're not in the amateur radio of any
decade, but you comment on it at extreme
length.

It doesn't concern you.

Amateur radio doesn't concern you either, but
that doesn't stop you.

Your only "road race" was on foot.

So? I've run many road races. Have you?

Probably never heard of Watkins Glen either.

Not only heard of it but been there several times. Have you?

I am somewhat surprised that you still have the Johnson Viking
Messenger, though. The thing has *vacuum tubes*, right? (At least the
early Messengers did).

So? I'm NOT ALLOWED to keep things?

You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you
would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all,
you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology"
and all that sort of rot.

Of course the Johnson Viking Messenger is interesting from an
historical POV because it was such a departure for the company. Instead
of a big desk-crushing VFO transmitter, they built a compact
lightweight transceiver of pretty good quality. And it still works!

How do you KNOW "it still works?"

You said so.

Aren't you going to CHALLENGE
my measurements of it?

No.

I'm "surprised" you haven't made negative of that.

Surprise, surprise!

So I guess it's not so surprising that for more than 40 years you've
held onto one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.

Davie Heil wants to talk about other "johnsons" (meaning
penises).

Where do you get that, Len?

K8MN did not write of "johnsons" at all. He wrote about "Johnsons".
(See
the capital J?)

Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name.
Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example,
just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs,
three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates
and yes, at least four different Johnsons.

Does that turn you ON? Go talk with Davie about
"small johnsons!" :-)

Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with
one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.

Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as
the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus
the 122 VFO).

Do you see how the same could happen to amateur radio?

NOT at all.

Denial.

How can you can guarantee that what happened to cb cannot happen to
amateur radio?

I didn't "GUARANTEE" anything, Jimmie. The future happens when
it happens.

So what I'm concerned with could happen. You won't admit that,
of course.

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the
Amateur Radio Service?

Prove that such changes are "detrimental." :-)

I've already shown that they could be.

Why should something be discarded just because it's old?

sigh...one can only imagine the state of your clothing... :-)

Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd
try not to imagine the state of yours...

more name calling
cut

From: on Mon 7 Nov 2005 09:35

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:


Your methods are faulty.

All anti-morse are "faulty." By morseman definition! :-)


You're the one "fudging", Len. By counting multiple comments
and reply comments from the same person as separate opinions
rather than duplicates, you're saying that some people's opinions
are worth more than others simply because they wrote more.

Morsemen think they know all about radio... :-)

What's worse is that you tried to hide that fact, and the effect it
has on the 'scorecard'.

Tsk, nothing was "hidden" in all those "score card." They
are what they are.

Joe Speroni hides the fact that the official comment
period didn't begin until 31 August.

You muddied that clarity by counting some people's opinions
multiple times.

Tsk, your opinion is faulty. :-)

You dislike that.

Not at all.

Yes, you do. :-)


And then the trend went the other way. Like it or not.

I kept on reporting the tally, like it or not.



You don't have website, though, even though AOL has a homepage
for every screen name.

Reporting a tally requires a website? Oh, my...! :-)


How does your posting it *here* tell the FCC anything, Len?

Doesn't matter, Jimmie. I never said it did.

The direct communication by citizens with the Commission
"tells" them.


But not all of it. I saw your anti-Extra diatribe. Some would say it
was "petulant" and "whiny".....

Poor baby. Feeling petulant and whiny are you? :-)


So are the written tests. If FCC enacts the NPRM, it
will take at least a General license for new hams to
get *any* HF privileges.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmie. WRONG. The FCC doesn't "enact NPRMs."

Those are just NOTICES of PROPOSED Rulemaking. That's
why they are called what they are. :-)

"Enacts" come from Reports and Orders.


Long ago I
started communications on HF without a single requirement
to know or test for morse code and did it LEGALLY.

Sure - as part of a *battalion* of military servicepeople caring
for a bunch of transmitters. You were trained to do the job,
tested along the way, and supervised at every opportunity.

You were there? You were in the military? I didn't know that.

Transmitters (a "bunch" of THREE DOZEN) was "run" by a
COMPANY, Jimmie. [C Company in this case] Better read
your books a little closer... :-)

The transmitter operation was completely governed by set
procedures and by experienced personnel.

"Peak the grid and dip the plate." :-) "Set procedure" for
tube finals. Same "set procedure" for tube finals today, a
half century later... :-)

After a (short) while *I* became one of the "experienced
personnel," Jimmie. "Three up and one down" on the sleeve.
Operating Team Supervisor. E-5. NCO.

Oh, and I was NEVER trained to operate high-power transmitters
in the Army, Jimmie. My Signal schooling was on microwave
radio relay. A Field Radio MOS got trained on high-power
transmitters on HF. [you need to read your books carefully]

Amateur radio is a completely different thing. FCC recognizes
that, even if you don't.

Electrons, fields and waves don't differentiate between
human discriminations in human ideas of things like human
laws. Really.

Didn't you learn that at "Dexter?" :-)

FCC "recognizes" that they ONLY regulate United States
CIVIL radio, Jimmie. They are limited to CIVIL radio by
two Acts of Congress of the United States.

FCC can recognize other kinds of "civility" too! :-)

Tsk, you aren't being civil in here...



Nope. I think for myself. I've given my reasons for
my support of Morse Code testing in my comments
to FCC, and here.

"Conditioned thinking" is known by its colloquial name
of "brain washing."

If your mind wasn't "washed," then it must be dirty.


You don't like them, so you attack me and claim
nonsense like "conditioned thinking" rather than
a simple difference of opinion.

Tsk, you aren't being "civil"! :-)


You haven't "dropped it", Len.

True! Don't plan to, either! :-)



You go into detail explaining other people's motivations, so yours
are fair game even if you won't discuss them or admit to them.

You telling me what to do! Tsk. :-)



No, you didn't write that. Read what you actually wrote, Len.

I do. Haven't detected any "hacker" trying to post their
words under my screen name. :-)



I'm not calling people names, Len. You are.

How AWFUL! I'm the only one, right? :-)



Nobody made ME any "judge," Jimmie.

But you act like one here.

Fear being laid off? :-)


I OBSERVE it. It's apparant to anyone with an open mind.

That leaves you out...

Tsk, tsk, incivility!

You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing.

Not as closed as yours, Len.

MORE incivility! :-)



Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact.

Tsk, MY tally doesn't go by YOUR "standards."

MY tally doesn't go by Joe Speroni's "standards."

Sunnuvagun!



What have I "done wrong", Len?

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.



It's clear you tried to skew them the way *you* want them, Len. But
the majority still opposed it.

You oppose my posting in here. Ergo, you are the majority.

A majority of one.


Your skewing has been revealed

It is a HEINOUS and IMMORAL to act against a morseman!



You avoid the question because you know I'm right.

You are? I didn't know that...



Because one person's opinion should not be counted multiple times.

Hey, let's count ALL 20 of those LAW STUDENTS (who don't have
any professed desire to get ham licenses and doing some kind
of class exercise at University of Tennessee) who got into the
official time period of comments on 05-235! Some were FOR,
some were AGAINST the NPRM. Do you know which ones, Jimmie?

Let's count an instructor at an English Departement of a west
coast university who also stated outright she wasn't interested
in any amateur radio license yet was against the NPRM! Joe
Speroni counts her Comment as "pro-CW!"

How about Dwayne Sparks, Jimmie? He Commented (not one of his
were Replies to Comments) 13 times "pro-CW." He is an Extra.

Jimmie, Joe Speroni's "analysis" does NOT consider what the
federal government says is an official comment period and
merely counts ALL. HIS "standards" set out to make it
absolutely favorable towards radiotelegraphy testing...but he
is "okay." He is "okay" because He is a morseman and that's
"okay." [cue an old tired Monty Python sketch here...]

I'll let Bill the Cat comment: "Pbthbththththth..." :-)

[from "Opus" 2]

On 7 Nov 2005 17:59:47 -0800, wrote:

wrote:
snip

You don't affect me much at all, Len.

....other than occupying your thoughts for a considerable portion of
each and every day, that is.....


snip

73, Leo

From: Leo on Tues, Nov 8 2005 4:40 pm



You don't affect me much at all, Len.

...other than occupying your thoughts for a considerable portion of
each and every day, that is.....



...that's how it is to guys with Big classic johnsons... :-)