|
Another Len Quote
RST Engineering wrote: Novice 1967 (age 13) Same age. 2nd Class Commercial Radiotelephone 1972 1st Class Commercial Radiotelephone 1964 (age 17), Radar Endorsement Coinventer US patent #5,358,202 I quit the company and the boss got the patent designations from my notebooks, but I'm not going to press the issue. There's always "something", isn't there...?!?! However, designated responsible engineer for FCC type acceptance/certification on seven commercial two-way transceivers; two for studio-transmitter links and five for aircraft transceivers. Currently on the "approved" list for type acceptance/certification for FCC Laurel Laboratories. That's pretty impressive, Jim. You've been involved in quite a number of things in and out of amateur radio. Even if I was an "Internationally acknowledged expert in the subject of hidden antennas", I don't think I could bring myself to so describe myself. Well, if you had sold ten thousand (actual count may vary a few percent) hidden antenna original design products everywhere from Latvia to Louisiana, you may describe yourself that way. Aside from your not including attributions, What do you mean by attributions? I'll give proof of anything I've said. not signing your post I thought I signed it Jim. If you want a full formal signing, it is Jim Weir, WX6RST. Most people know who I am; I don't hide behind a pseudonym. and the top posting, In the vernacular, go screw yourself. Well there we go! What is it about California engineers that tends to present a foul mouthed, two-faced, It's-OK-For-Me-But-You-Better-Do-It-Like-I-Say attitude...?!?! I'll top post, interleave post, or bottom post, whichever I think will get the point across better. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Or, in the Latin, "Pusca, puscalorum." you even manage to present some of your ideas here in a reasonable manner. It is the engineer showing through the politician. The arrogant showing through the deceitful? That slipped my mind. Len has taken numerous shots at my Air Force service in Vietnam, though he doesn't seem to know what it is that I did there. He keeps alluding to MARS duty and I did spend time operating a MARS circuit from Tan Son Nhut, but only in an off duty capacity. I have only the highest regard for anybody who wore the uniform. It was not my privilege to do military duty as my parents neatly sandwiched me in between Korea and Vietnam. Sure, I did MARS duty for twenty years, and sure, I wear the local sheriff's Search and Rescue volunteer uniform, but it pales in weak comparison to actual military duty. I bow my head in gratitude. You're welcome. Here's another fun quote from Len, made two years ago today: Then there's his classic "sphincters post", but you get the general idea. $#!+, we all get into the bottle from time to time and post stuff that we regret in the morning, but what the hell. Two quotes from two years? Give the guy a break. I'd hate (although my political opponents have done it mercilessly) to be quoted two years after the fact and have to defend myself at that time. "TWO QUOTES FROM TWO YEARS?"..............?!?! So where's that "engineer" you alluded to a moment ago, Jim...?!?! There's only EIGHT YEARS of solid profanity, deceit, arrogance, argumenitivness, and down right ugly behaviour from Lennie! That brings us back to RST Jim. It is apparent that he's done a number of things in amateur radio. Who is "he's". Me? Len? You? Steve? ???? And don't worry about RST. It has been around since 1973 and will probably be around long after you and I are SK. Don't worry about it. I have the cojones to put my reputation and my company's reputation on the line when I see something that just cries for comment. Like tacit support for a know liar, Jim...?!?! Where do they teach that in business school? Perhaps he hasn't been around long enough to see who and what Len Anderson is. Maybe his agenda in defending Len is something entirely different. Perhaps he'll explain. I'll be around after the CQ WW SSB DX 'test. If you are talking about me, I've been on the usenet and this ng since 1995. I don't claim to defend Len, but again, most of what he says makes perfect sense. Perfect sense if you are into self mutilation and flagellation. It is YOU TWO that I'm worried about. Oh jeeze...Yet another "General Hospital" trained psychiatrist. Steve, K4YZ |
Another Len Quote (was: Lennie's Scorecard Backfires)
On 28 Oct 2005 14:58:47 -0700, wrote:
snip I could go on... (sigh) ....truer words have never been spoken.... snip 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: wrote: On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote: wrote: Tsk, tsk, tsk...I think Jimmie-James is all for children VOTING in elections! I don't know who "Jimmie-James" is supposed to be, Len. But I'm not "all for children VOTING in elections". I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Jim in answering the post I am afraid you just lied above Where? Len uses multiple names in his posts. I'm not sure who he means by "Jimmie-James". Is it me, or Jim Weir (who posts as "RSTEngineering") or somebody else? Then you must be dim-witted. If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY? All this confusion, then you go ahead and answer af if it were you he was referring to. That is the lie that Mark refers to. And it's a fact that I'm not "all for children VOTING in elections". Why would you care? He's not talking about what you are in favor of, is he? I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Good for you. Len is in favor of an age requirement. Or perhaps, it is okay for children having state drivers' licenses... I don't think it's okay for children to have driver's licenses. I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. and Len supports the notion at this point Why? Why not? The books are full of minimum age requirements for various things. Can he or anyone else supply *ANY* evidence that the lack of an age requirement has had *any* negative effects on the amateur radio service? We've had licensed amateur radio in the USA for 93 years now. In all that time there has *never* been an age requirement. So if the lack of an age requirement is a problem, there should be plenty of evidence by now. Yet Len provides no evidence, but wants an age requirement of 14 years for anyone to have a US amateur license. If you look at FCC enforcement letters, the age of the worst offenders is much closer to Len's age than to 14 years.... It's possible that yet another arbitrary licensing requirement might be good for the ARS. Imagine all those 11, 12, and 13 year old trying to sneak in under the FCC's radar and get their licenses prematurely. Those poor old VE's will have to break out "thier" bi-focals and check for proper age. Imagine all the "job security" that Riley will have checking the birth dates of all those No-Code Technician wannabe's. I neither support nor oppose such a notion, Why don't you oppose it? It's a completely unnecessary requirement for a license. No evidence has been presented to support it. Morse Code in sheep's clothing? Hi! Just what we need is another unnecessary, arbitrary license requirement! |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
On 28 Oct 2005 19:35:45 -0700, wrote:
wrote: On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote: wrote: Tsk, tsk, tsk...I think Jimmie-James is all for children VOTING in elections! I don't know who "Jimmie-James" is supposed to be, Len. But I'm not "all for children VOTING in elections". I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Jim in answering the post I am afraid you just lied above Where? Hot ham handled that for me he is right I'll just you were being dense to need it Len uses multiple names in his posts. I'm not sure who he means by "Jimmie-James". Is it me, or Jim Weir (who posts as "RSTEngineering") or somebody else? If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY? And it's a fact that I'm not "all for children VOTING in elections". I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Or perhaps, it is okay for children having state drivers' licenses... I don't think it's okay for children to have driver's licenses. I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. and Len supports the notion at this point Why? he has explained his reasoning over the years I agree there is something to it Can he or anyone else supply *ANY* evidence that the lack of an age requirement has had *any* negative effects on the amateur radio service? I doubt it he points out a peotencail bad effect but one that seems not to be problem We've had licensed amateur radio in the USA for 93 years now. In all that time there has *never* been an age requirement. So if the lack of an age requirement is a problem, there should be plenty of evidence by now. Yet Len provides no evidence, but wants an age requirement of 14 years for anyone to have a US amateur license. If you look at FCC enforcement letters, the age of the worst offenders is much closer to Len's age than to 14 years.... I neither support nor oppose such a notion, Why don't you oppose it? for the same reason I don't oppose voice testing before the voice modes, there is no serious proposal on the table to do anything about it It's a completely unnecessary requirement for a license. No evidence has been presented to support it. just like code testing which is why the later is likely out of the service very soon _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
From: on Fri 28 Oct 2005 21:47
wrote: wrote: Brian, you've posted (I have a copy along with others from rrap who've filed on WT Docket 05-235) and so have others. But, for all his macho morsemanship, neither James P. Miccolis nor the mighty morsemen regulars in here have NOT filed! So? What's your point, Len? I'll "file" when I want to. Len, the old saying goes, if you don't "vote" you can't bitch. The U.S. Constitution has a (gasp!) "age requirment" minimum on voters! Jimmie has implied he is an EXPERT on military matters and can "judge" veterans. However he NEVER served one moment of time IN the military. [there's a minimum age requirement for that as well as a maximum age...:-) ] Except for these guys. They can bitch up a storm. In HERE. They seem to get "lost" when it comes time to communicate with their own government...but that does NOT stop them being judgemental to an ultimate degree in HERE. Jimmie will "file when he wants to." In order to be counted, he MUST file a Comment by October 31st and a Reply to Comments by November 14. Maybe he thinks (because of his "superiority") that the U.S. government will "listen to him" even if he files beyond the official ending date? [I'm sure he does] Jimmie ain't said he read ALL of the Comments in Docket 05-235. He's said he will NOT do his own tally...but he is QUICK to condemn and berate and call "inaccurate" the tallies of others! Anyplace else he would be called a hypocrite. In here he is a Morseman Extra. Beep, beep, huh-rawhhh! |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
From: on Oct 30, 5:50 am
wrote: wrote: On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote: wrote: Len uses multiple names in his posts. I'm not sure who he means by "Jimmie-James". Is it me, or Jim Weir (who posts as "RSTEngineering") or somebody else? Then you must be dim-witted. Nah...he's only in a truss over trying to misdirect the subject thread on all about how we should all be FORMAL and RESPECTFUL to the mighty macho morsemen extras. Maybe I'll get a tuxedo and wear one when posting to these mighty macho motivated morsemen? Now if they would only specify white-tie or black-tie? :-) If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY? All this confusion, then you go ahead and answer af if it were you he was referring to. That is the lie that Mark refers to. Further reinforcement of the misdirection onto Jimmie's demand for FORMALITY and RESPECTFULNESS...when it comes to HIM. :-) And it's a fact that I'm not "all for children VOTING in elections". Why would you care? He's not talking about what you are in favor of, is he? Poor Jimmie. I dropped that "age requirement for amateur licensees" six years ago and he just can't LET GO of it. He MUST keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing it over and over and over and over again...perhaps hoping that I will "give in" or acknowledge his Lordship's Superior Intellect or whatever. :-) I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Good for you. Len is in favor of an age requirement. What I "favor" is NOT allowed in here according to James P. Miccolis, renowned amateur historian and mighty macho motivated morseman extra. :-) and Len supports the notion at this point Why? Why not? The books are full of minimum age requirements for various things. ...not to mention the Constitution of the United States. :-) Note that the Miccolis Misdirection ploy is almost complete. Once again, Miccolis Misdirection has caused a thread shift to an oft-repeated "argument" (originally started by Hans Brakob in here) over a Reply to Comments on the (now dead) WT Docket 98-143 of 1998-1999. Instead of the usual condemnation (of anyone not thinking as wonderfully as Jimmie) on the "docket score card" (05-235 tally), we have done the Time Warp back to 1999 and are re-arguing the "up-coming" Reconstruction R&O. :-) FCC 99-412 of late December 1999 decided "Reconstruction." The FCC did NOT order any age requirements in R&O 99-412. There is NO age requirement statement of any kind in NPRM 05-143. Jimmie thinks this is ALL about "age requirements." I neither support nor oppose such a notion, Why don't you oppose it? It's a completely unnecessary requirement for a license. No evidence has been presented to support it. Morse Code in sheep's clothing? Hi! More like "Morse sheep in wolf's costume." :-) Halloween without the Trick or Treat... Just what we need is another unnecessary, arbitrary license requirement! Just what we DON'T need is Jimmie hosing everyone with an old, Old, OLD arguments over "age requirements" which were NOT on the "reconstruction" NPRM nor in NPRM 05-143. :-) Now, if Jimmie wants to fire up his "state of the art" 1990s vacuum tube Southgate Type 7 and beep to young boys with CW, let him. It keeps him "happy" when he doesn't have to reveal a thing about his REAL identity...on-off keying morse code cannot reveal a single clue to gender, age, emotion, or anything else while voice can tell much. Jimmie can, effectively, HIDE behind his on-off key. Jimmie can be the "X-man superhero," a "masked avenger" (like Captain Code) who keeps alive the old, Old, OLD modes forever and ever. [long live 1844! :-) ] |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: From: on Oct 30, 5:50 am wrote: wrote: On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote: wrote: Len uses multiple names in his posts. I'm not sure who he means by "Jimmie-James". Is it me, or Jim Weir (who posts as "RSTEngineering") or somebody else? Then you must be dim-witted. Nah...he's only in a truss over trying to misdirect the subject thread on all about how we should all be FORMAL and RESPECTFUL to the mighty macho morsemen extras. Maybe I'll get a tuxedo and wear one when posting to these mighty macho motivated morsemen? Now if they would only specify white-tie or black-tie? :-) You could do like the news anchors; just wear the upper half. If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY? All this confusion, then you go ahead and answer af if it were you he was referring to. That is the lie that Mark refers to. Further reinforcement of the misdirection onto Jimmie's demand for FORMALITY and RESPECTFULNESS...when it comes to HIM. :-) Whole nother set of rules for Jim. And it's a fact that I'm not "all for children VOTING in elections". Why would you care? He's not talking about what you are in favor of, is he? Poor Jimmie. I dropped that "age requirement for amateur licensees" six years ago and he just can't LET GO of it. He MUST keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing it over and over and over and over again...perhaps hoping that I will "give in" or acknowledge his Lordship's Superior Intellect or whatever. :-) He just wants me to bring up him saying that "A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code Use." I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Good for you. Len is in favor of an age requirement. What I "favor" is NOT allowed in here according to James P. Miccolis, renowned amateur historian and mighty macho motivated morseman extra. :-) He is self-appointed. and Len supports the notion at this point Why? Why not? The books are full of minimum age requirements for various things. ...not to mention the Constitution of the United States. :-) Note that the Miccolis Misdirection ploy is almost complete. Once again, Miccolis Misdirection has caused a thread shift to an oft-repeated "argument" (originally started by Hans Brakob in here) over a Reply to Comments on the (now dead) WT Docket 98-143 of 1998-1999. Instead of the usual condemnation (of anyone not thinking as wonderfully as Jimmie) on the "docket score card" (05-235 tally), we have done the Time Warp back to 1999 and are re-arguing the "up-coming" Reconstruction R&O. :-) FCC 99-412 of late December 1999 decided "Reconstruction." The FCC did NOT order any age requirements in R&O 99-412. There is NO age requirement statement of any kind in NPRM 05-143. Jimmie thinks this is ALL about "age requirements." You gotta remember that these guys are almost always behind the times. I neither support nor oppose such a notion, Why don't you oppose it? It's a completely unnecessary requirement for a license. No evidence has been presented to support it. Morse Code in sheep's clothing? Hi! More like "Morse sheep in wolf's costume." :-) Halloween without the Trick or Treat... Just what we need is another unnecessary, arbitrary license requirement! Just what we DON'T need is Jimmie hosing everyone with an old, Old, OLD arguments over "age requirements" which were NOT on the "reconstruction" NPRM nor in NPRM 05-143. :-) Now, if Jimmie wants to fire up his "state of the art" 1990s vacuum tube Southgate Type 7 and beep to young boys with CW, let him. It keeps him "happy" when he doesn't have to reveal a thing about his REAL identity...on-off keying morse code cannot reveal a single clue to gender, age, emotion, or anything else while voice can tell much. Jimmie can, effectively, HIDE behind his on-off key. Jimmie can be the "X-man superhero," a "masked avenger" (like Captain Code) who keeps alive the old, Old, OLD modes forever and ever. [long live 1844! :-) ] But in all that anonymity, Jim know the sex, age, race, religion, sexual preference, and political party of all those anonymous signals. He's said so! Hi, hi!!! |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: From: on Fri 28 Oct 2005 21:47 wrote: wrote: Brian, you've posted (I have a copy along with others from rrap who've filed on WT Docket 05-235) and so have others. But, for all his macho morsemanship, neither James P. Miccolis nor the mighty morsemen regulars in here have NOT filed! So? What's your point, Len? I'll "file" when I want to. Len, the old saying goes, if you don't "vote" you can't bitch. The U.S. Constitution has a (gasp!) "age requirment" minimum on voters! Yikes! That sounds almost unconstitutional! Jimmie has implied he is an EXPERT on military matters and can "judge" veterans. However he NEVER served one moment of time IN the military. [there's a minimum age requirement for that as well as a maximum age...:-) ] Jimmy may be many things, but he is no judge of the military nor its veterans. The best Jim can do is stand on the sidewalk and wave a flag as the parade goes by. Maybe Kelly and Cos will join him. Except for these guys. They can bitch up a storm. In HERE. They seem to get "lost" when it comes time to communicate with their own government...but that does NOT stop them being judgemental to an ultimate degree in HERE. Jimmie will "file when he wants to." In order to be counted, he MUST file a Comment by October 31st and a Reply to Comments by November 14. Maybe he thinks (because of his "superiority") that the U.S. government will "listen to him" even if he files beyond the official ending date? [I'm sure he does] Jim will file. He'll do it from work tomorrow. Probably has nothing else to do. He just doesn't want counter-comments at this time. Jimmie ain't said he read ALL of the Comments in Docket 05-235. He's said he will NOT do his own tally...but he is QUICK to condemn and berate and call "inaccurate" the tallies of others! Anyplace else he would be called a hypocrite. In here he is a Morseman Extra. I wonder what's on the "FISTS" site? Beep, beep, huh-rawhhh! beebeep |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
From: on Oct 30, 2:31 pm
wrote: From: on Oct 30, 5:50 am wrote: wrote: On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote: wrote: Len uses multiple names in his posts. I'm not sure who he means by "Jimmie-James". Is it me, or Jim Weir (who posts as "RSTEngineering") or somebody else? Then you must be dim-witted. Nah...he's only in a truss over trying to misdirect the subject thread on all about how we should all be FORMAL and RESPECTFUL to the mighty macho morsemen extras. Maybe I'll get a tuxedo and wear one when posting to these mighty macho motivated morsemen? Now if they would only specify white-tie or black-tie? :-) You could do like the news anchors; just wear the upper half. Hmmm...good idea. However, KNBC and KTLA out here aren't bottomless in the studio. Well, KTLA might be...in the morning news show they act like "Laugh In Looks At the News." [less Judy Carne and Goldie Jean Hawn] Ever notice that James P. Miccolis never concerned himself at all about Dudly the Imposter calling me "Lennie" for over a year in here? :-) Jimmie thought he could get another to the dirty work he craved. :-) If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY? All this confusion, then you go ahead and answer af if it were you he was referring to. That is the lie that Mark refers to. Further reinforcement of the misdirection onto Jimmie's demand for FORMALITY and RESPECTFULNESS...when it comes to HIM. :-) Whole nother set of rules for Jim. PCTA Double Standard...alive and well in rrap. Poor Jimmie. I dropped that "age requirement for amateur licensees" six years ago and he just can't LET GO of it. He MUST keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing it over and over and over and over again...perhaps hoping that I will "give in" or acknowledge his Lordship's Superior Intellect or whatever. :-) He just wants me to bring up him saying that "A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code Use." He hasn't done it YET. How long has it been? I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Good for you. Len is in favor of an age requirement. What I "favor" is NOT allowed in here according to James P. Miccolis, renowned amateur historian and mighty macho motivated morseman extra. :-) He is self-appointed. But...he might have an "official certificate" (suitable for framing) saying he IS one or both of those! :-) You gotta remember that these guys are almost always behind the times. They'd probably be behind the Wall Street Journal...if they could afford a copy. :-) Now, if Jimmie wants to fire up his "state of the art" 1990s vacuum tube Southgate Type 7 and beep to young boys with CW, let him. It keeps him "happy" when he doesn't have to reveal a thing about his REAL identity...on-off keying morse code cannot reveal a single clue to gender, age, emotion, or anything else while voice can tell much. Jimmie can, effectively, HIDE behind his on-off key. Jimmie can be the "X-man superhero," a "masked avenger" (like Captain Code) who keeps alive the old, Old, OLD modes forever and ever. [long live 1844! :-) ] But in all that anonymity, Jim know the sex, age, race, religion, sexual preference, and political party of all those anonymous signals. He's said so! Hi, hi!!! He's a heckuva guy! :-) Too bad he is turning into Dudly the Imposter, Jr. Everyone is scrupulously honest in morse mode...they never ever swear, are always civil towards one another, and never is heard a discouraging word while the skies are not cloudy all day... bit bit |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
From: on Oct 30, 2:43 pm
wrote: From: on Fri 28 Oct 2005 21:47 wrote: wrote: The U.S. Constitution has a (gasp!) "age requirment" minimum on voters! Yikes! That sounds almost unconstitutional! Quick...to the Supremes...have the ARRL argue that in front of the robed crowd! Jimmie has implied he is an EXPERT on military matters and can "judge" veterans. However he NEVER served one moment of time IN the military. [there's a minimum age requirement for that as well as a maximum age...:-) ] Jimmy may be many things, but he is no judge of the military nor its veterans. The best Jim can do is stand on the sidewalk and wave a flag as the parade goes by. Maybe Kelly and Cos will join him. Great "cheering section"...NOT. :-) Except for these guys. They can bitch up a storm. In HERE. They seem to get "lost" when it comes time to communicate with their own government...but that does NOT stop them being judgemental to an ultimate degree in HERE. Jimmie will "file when he wants to." In order to be counted, he MUST file a Comment by October 31st and a Reply to Comments by November 14. Maybe he thinks (because of his "superiority") that the U.S. government will "listen to him" even if he files beyond the official ending date? [I'm sure he does] Jim will file. He'll do it from work tomorrow. Probably has nothing else to do. He just doesn't want counter-comments at this time. You have a point there...Jimmie no want any opposition to his opinions. He gets all upset and starts making nasty ("just asking some questions") over and over and over again. Jimmie ain't said he read ALL of the Comments in Docket 05-235. He's said he will NOT do his own tally...but he is QUICK to condemn and berate and call "inaccurate" the tallies of others! Anyplace else he would be called a hypocrite. In here he is a Morseman Extra. I wonder what's on the "FISTS" site? A bunch of ancient propaganda pro morsemanship, I'd expect. Haven't bothered to look there since last year. Back then I was looking up some ancient history on radio communication. Morsemanship is ancient radio communications. :-) Beep, beep, huh-rawhhh! beebeep bit bit |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: wrote: James P. Miccolis has NOT answered a repeated question: How many children has HE parented? He won't say, doesn't answer. Why should I answer that question, Len? You refuse to answer on-topic questions, so why should anyone answer your off-topic ones? That same question has been posed to Lennie for YEARS now...So far, not even a hint of an answer...At least we know Jim has kids... Lennie has...A lap dog and a stray cat? Steve, K4YZ |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: From: on Oct 30, 2:31 pm wrote: From: on Oct 30, 5:50 am wrote: wrote: On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote: wrote: Len uses multiple names in his posts. I'm not sure who he means by "Jimmie-James". Is it me, or Jim Weir (who posts as "RSTEngineering") or somebody else? Then you must be dim-witted. Nah...he's only in a truss over trying to misdirect the subject thread on all about how we should all be FORMAL and RESPECTFUL to the mighty macho morsemen extras. Maybe I'll get a tuxedo and wear one when posting to these mighty macho motivated morsemen? Now if they would only specify white-tie or black-tie? :-) You could do like the news anchors; just wear the upper half. Hmmm...good idea. However, KNBC and KTLA out here aren't bottomless in the studio. Well, KTLA might be...in the morning news show they act like "Laugh In Looks At the News." [less Judy Carne and Goldie Jean Hawn] Ever notice that James P. Miccolis never concerned himself at all about Dudly the Imposter calling me "Lennie" for over a year in here? :-) Jimmie thought he could get another to the dirty work he craved. :-) Jim is completely oblivious to everything except his own peeves. If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY? All this confusion, then you go ahead and answer af if it were you he was referring to. That is the lie that Mark refers to. Further reinforcement of the misdirection onto Jimmie's demand for FORMALITY and RESPECTFULNESS...when it comes to HIM. :-) Whole nother set of rules for Jim. PCTA Double Standard...alive and well in rrap. MMMM. Poor Jimmie. I dropped that "age requirement for amateur licensees" six years ago and he just can't LET GO of it. He MUST keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing it over and over and over and over again...perhaps hoping that I will "give in" or acknowledge his Lordship's Superior Intellect or whatever. :-) He just wants me to bring up him saying that "A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code Use." He hasn't done it YET. How long has it been? He's embarassed that he ever utered such words. Might get him tossed out of FISTS. I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Good for you. Len is in favor of an age requirement. What I "favor" is NOT allowed in here according to James P. Miccolis, renowned amateur historian and mighty macho motivated morseman extra. :-) He is self-appointed. But...he might have an "official certificate" (suitable for framing) saying he IS one or both of those! :-) I think I still have some blank Air Force certificates of thanks. You gotta remember that these guys are almost always behind the times. They'd probably be behind the Wall Street Journal...if they could afford a copy. :-) Having to build a tube transmitter probably saved him a bunch. Now, if Jimmie wants to fire up his "state of the art" 1990s vacuum tube Southgate Type 7 and beep to young boys with CW, let him. It keeps him "happy" when he doesn't have to reveal a thing about his REAL identity...on-off keying morse code cannot reveal a single clue to gender, age, emotion, or anything else while voice can tell much. Jimmie can, effectively, HIDE behind his on-off key. Jimmie can be the "X-man superhero," a "masked avenger" (like Captain Code) who keeps alive the old, Old, OLD modes forever and ever. [long live 1844! :-) ] But in all that anonymity, Jim know the sex, age, race, religion, sexual preference, and political party of all those anonymous signals. He's said so! Hi, hi!!! He's a heckuva guy! :-) Too bad he is turning into Dudly the Imposter, Jr. Everyone is scrupulously honest in morse mode...they never ever swear, are always civil towards one another, and never is heard a discouraging word while the skies are not cloudy all day... bit bit Home, home on the RADAR Range... |
Another Len Quote
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Now, lay YOURS out on the table and see who takes a knife to it. Jim OK, from one Jim to another: Novice 1967 (age 13) Technician 1968 Advanced 1968 Extra 1970 (because of mandatory 2 year wait) 2nd Class Commercial Radiotelephone 1972 BSEE 1976 University of Pennsylvania MSEE 1992 Drexel University Coinventer US patent #5,358,202 I could go on... Now I have some questions as to your credentials. Len Anderson is a sidewalk superintendent to amateur radio. That's pretty impressive, Jim. You've been involved in quite a number of things in and out of amateur radio. Even if I was an "Internationally acknowledged expert in the subject of hidden antennas", I don't think I could bring myself to so describe myself. Aside from your not including attributions, not signing your post and the top posting, you even manage to present some of your ideas here in a reasonable manner. My own credentials have been "on the table" for nearly a decade here in r.r.a.p. One of those taking a knife to them on a regular basis is Leonard H. Anderson. He has routinely insulted my employment, experience in radio (amateur, commercial and government), my authorship of amateur radio articles and even my German surname. Don't forget military service... That slipped my mind. Len has taken numerous shots at my Air Force service in Vietnam, though he doesn't seem to know what it is that I did there. It's not what you did there. What you didn't do in Vietnam appears to have defined your time there. You were a frustrated amateur in Vietnam which caused you to under go a career change. He keeps alluding to MARS duty and I did spend time operating a MARS circuit from Tan Son Nhut, but only in an off duty capacity. That must be the MARS duty that he refers to. Or maybe not. I can't claim that I'm special in that regard though. Len does similar things to anyone who disagrees with him. Also anyone who points out a mistake he makes or proves him wrong about anything. ...or, come to think of it, anyone who even questions his methods or motivation. I think Len's a little too hard on you guys. I'm sure that your cuts and jabs are given with the best of intentions. Here's another fun quote from Len, made two years ago today: Len wrote: "Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel. Learn to READ English. Ah yes. That was directed at me, wasn't it? I was never in the Marine Corps. Can you prove that? ;^) As of 1 PM EST on the 27th of October the ARRL website news page had NOTHING about the California wildfires. NOTHING. Go "munch" someone else's shoes, preferrably some CROW as dessert." - Leonard H. Anderson http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...514cd48c14fbb1 Then there's his classic "sphincters post", but you get the general idea. Len's description of what it was like to be under artillery fire--even though he was never actually under artillery fire. I thought that he was quoting W0EX or GrayJL or Xray or all three when he said that. That brings us back to RST Jim. It is apparent that he's done a number of things in amateur radio. Perhaps he hasn't been around long enough to see who and what Len Anderson is. Maybe his agenda in defending Len is something entirely different. Perhaps he'll explain. I'll be around after the CQ WW SSB DX 'test. Dave K8MN But, but, but what if the Coslo BBS is up and running? Hi, hi! |
Another Len Quote
From: on Oct 31, 4:52 pm
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Now, lay YOURS out on the table and see who takes a knife to it. Jim OK, from one Jim to another: Novice 1967 (age 13) Technician 1968 Advanced 1968 Extra 1970 (because of mandatory 2 year wait) 2nd Class Commercial Radiotelephone 1972 BSEE 1976 University of Pennsylvania MSEE 1992 Drexel University Coinventer US patent #5,358,202 I could go on... But not much farther. Present employer unnamed. The patent is described only as involving "vehicular technology" according to one of Miccolis' old Comments on one of the 18 Petitions. My sole-invention patent of 1974 is on RADIO. shrug That slipped my mind. Len has taken numerous shots at my Air Force service in Vietnam, though he doesn't seem to know what it is that I did there. It's not what you did there. What you didn't do in Vietnam appears to have defined your time there. You were a frustrated amateur in Vietnam which caused you to under go a career change. What DID Heil DO in Vietnam? He's never been anymore specific than Dudly the Imposter (of the "seven hostile actions"). He keeps alluding to MARS duty and I did spend time operating a MARS circuit from Tan Son Nhut, but only in an off duty capacity. That must be the MARS duty that he refers to. Or maybe not. Damifino. Heil just hasn't been specifc about it. Can't "take shots" at something invisible. :-) Poor Davie has forgotten my quoting from the Army Center for Military History which mentions the good morale service that Army MARS did in Vietnam. I think Len's a little too hard on you guys. I'm sure that your cuts and jabs are given with the best of intentions. I'm sure Jack the Ripper thought the same... :-) I'm also sure Ted Bundy thought all his female victims "were asking for it." Len's description of what it was like to be under artillery fire--even though he was never actually under artillery fire. I was once but it was from U.S. Army artillery. :-) Just the same, the 8235th Army Unit (that I was in) never allowed any Tokyo territory to fall into communist hands! :-) At the same time, that same battalion of signalmen were moving message "traffic" at the rate of 220 thousand a month over the Army Command and Administrative Network (later integrated into the DCS or Defense Communications System), a worldwide network. All with TTY. Not a single morse code link in that system since 1948. I thought that he was quoting W0EX or GrayJL or Xray or all three when he said that. Irrelevant. If Davie says I did bad, then I did bad. He is da Judge! "Heah come da judge...heah come da judge!" That brings us back to RST Jim. It is apparent that he's done a number of things in amateur radio. Perhaps he hasn't been around long enough to see who and what Len Anderson is. Maybe his agenda in defending Len is something entirely different. Perhaps he'll explain. I'll be around after the CQ WW SSB DX 'test. James Weir runs RST Engineering. It is located in Grass Valley, CA, in Nevada County (California's "gold country"). He ran for Governor of California, had his picture in the L.A. Times as one of many candidates. [a former Austrian citizen won the election] I sent Jim Weir one of my computer programs (LCie4, synthesis and analysis of passive-component inductor-capacitor filters) and he stated that this (freeware) program has been used by his students (successfully) in Grass Valley. We had some brief e-mail exchages that resulted in my modifying the older LCie program to fit the DOS 7 in newer Windows. LCie was written in MS FORTRAN 5.1 but on an earlier operating system and that (now unsupported by MS) FORTRAN did not have the compiler links to fit DOS 7. LCie4 runs only under DOS, doesn't have the flash, dash, or pizazz of color Windows but is nonetheless accurate and proven. It is freeware to anyone requesting it...something I mentioned in rec.radio. amateur.homebrew some time ago. RST Engineering makes some neat electronics for general aviation aircraft. RST has a nice website if anyone cares to look. One of the neat things they do is what I would term "SURFACE MOUNT VHF antennas" for aircraft fabric surfaces. :-) Neat! They don't stick out in the airstream and thus have minimal drag. [international civil aviation band is 108 to 137 MHz] But, but, but what if the Coslo BBS is up and running? Hi, hi! Then the Coslonaut will - once again - be "at the edge of space!" By the way, outer space is only a half hour's drive away... provided your car can go straight UP. :-) bit bit |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
From: on Oct 31, 4:42 pm
wrote: From: on Oct 30, 2:31 pm wrote: From: on Oct 30, 5:50 am wrote: wrote: On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote: wrote: Ever notice that James P. Miccolis never concerned himself at all about Dudly the Imposter calling me "Lennie" for over a year in here? :-) Jimmie thought he could get another to the dirty work he craved. :-) Jim is completely oblivious to everything except his own peeves. That's IMPORTANT to him. Personally, I think he wants Dave Sumner's job of writing editorials in QST for the ARRL. He ought to do a historical article on how he pioneered the NTS as a teen-age ham in those ancient days of the 1970s. If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY? All this confusion, then you go ahead and answer af if it were you he was referring to. That is the lie that Mark refers to. Further reinforcement of the misdirection onto Jimmie's demand for FORMALITY and RESPECTFULNESS...when it comes to HIM. :-) Whole nother set of rules for Jim. PCTA Double Standard...alive and well in rrap. MMMM. The only "standard" that is allowed is unflagging allegiance to the Order of the Church of St. Hiram. Poor Jimmie. I dropped that "age requirement for amateur licensees" six years ago and he just can't LET GO of it. He MUST keep on arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing it over and over and over and over again...perhaps hoping that I will "give in" or acknowledge his Lordship's Superior Intellect or whatever. :-) He just wants me to bring up him saying that "A Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to Morse Code Use." He hasn't done it YET. How long has it been? He's embarassed that he ever utered such words. Might get him tossed out of FISTS. It's sort of like Dee Flint - experienced scoutmaster - wanting to "explain" scouting to all...and especially to adult leaders. By ignoring critique from those who actually know, they can claim "message victory" and that they are really "right." :-) I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license. Good for you. Len is in favor of an age requirement. What I "favor" is NOT allowed in here according to James P. Miccolis, renowned amateur historian and mighty macho motivated morseman extra. :-) He is self-appointed. But...he might have an "official certificate" (suitable for framing) saying he IS one or both of those! :-) I think I still have some blank Air Force certificates of thanks. You could send a few to all those "military supporters" out there. The first one ought to go to "Captain" Stevie Wonder of the TN CAP for "outstanding service." [he stood out on the flightline] The second one ought to go to long-time supporter and athlete cup holder Jimmie for all that extraordinary traffic direction on the NTS and his historical knowledge of the military. You gotta remember that these guys are almost always behind the times. They'd probably be behind the Wall Street Journal...if they could afford a copy. :-) Having to build a tube transmitter probably saved him a bunch. He made up for it in all the praise he got from all his neighbors who came in to admire his extraordinary work and praise his expertise in pioneering vacuum tube technology in the 1990s. Everyone is scrupulously honest in morse mode...they never ever swear, are always civil towards one another, and never is heard a discouraging word while the skies are not cloudy all day... Home, home on the RADAR Range... Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Their bliss over the efficacy of morsemanship shines on under skies unclouded by progress in technology...which had already begun before they got their first amateur license. They BELIEVE deep in their little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential ingredient in becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert," "well-rounded" and a "leader" in amateurism. It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Must be wonderful to exist in such deep delusions of grandeur, very satisfying, off in a wonderland of their own fantasies of self-importance and Greatness. shrug |
Another Len Quote
|
Another Len Quote
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Oct 31, 4:52 pm Dave Heil wrote: That brings us back to RST Jim. It is apparent that he's done a number of things in amateur radio. Perhaps he hasn't been around long enough to see who and what Len Anderson is. Maybe his agenda in defending Len is something entirely different. Perhaps he'll explain. I'll be around after the CQ WW SSB DX 'test. James Weir runs RST Engineering. It is located in Grass Valley, CA, in Nevada County (California's "gold country"). Fine. I don't want to deflate his ego but when I saw a post from "RST Engineering" signed "Jim", it meant nothing to me. I never heard of it or him. I've seen him on various r.r.a... groups for years. |
Another Len Quote
|
Another Len Quote
From: Dave Heil on Nov 1, 8:38 pm
wrote: From: on Oct 31, 4:52 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: RST Engineering wrote: Now, lay YOURS out on the table and see who takes a knife to it. That slipped my mind. Len has taken numerous shots at my Air Force service in Vietnam, though he doesn't seem to know what it is that I did there. It's not what you did there. What you didn't do in Vietnam appears to have defined your time there. You were a frustrated amateur in Vietnam which caused you to under go a career change. What DID Heil DO in Vietnam? He's never been anymore specific than Dudly the Imposter (of the "seven hostile actions"). I see the sentence with my name in it. I see the sentence which follows it. That is typical of your behavior. Heil did NOT answer the question. Heil did NOT supply any details of what he did with a MARS thing in Tan Son Nhut. Tsk, that too is "typical" of Heil's remarks in here. :-( Damifino. Heil just hasn't been specifc about it. Can't "take shots" at something invisible. :-) Then again, you have already done so on a number of occasions. :-) :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk. Heil have a guilty conscience? Poor Davie has forgotten my quoting from the Army Center for Military History which mentions the good morale service that Army MARS did in Vietnam. I've forgotten, have I? What're you, Madame Cleo? I was never assigned to a MARS unit anywhere, anytime in the military. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Maybe Bob Hope never did a USO show at Tan Son Nhut? :-) I'm pretty certain that Len Anderson thinks he's somehow involved in amateur radio too. Pity the FCC then...they regulate and enforce ALL civil radio in the United States, including amateur radio. Absolutely none of the staff nor commissioners are required to be granted any amateur radio license in order to regulate and enforce. Tsk, tsk, tsk...I'm just trying to eliminate the morse code test from United States amateur radio regulations. According to the United States Constitution (First Amendment), all citizens have the RIGHT to free speech in the USA. Just the same, the 8235th Army Unit (that I was in) never allowed any Tokyo territory to fall into communist hands! :-) At the same time, that same battalion of signalmen were moving message "traffic" at the rate of 220 thousand a month over the Army Command and Administrative Network (later integrated into the DCS or Defense Communications System), a worldwide network. All with TTY. Not a single morse code link in that system since 1948. It took an entire battalion of signalmen to do that, Len? All this time, I was under the impression that you did it all by yourself. Tsk, tsk. Davie can't "impress" people as he wishes. I've never said what you think I did. I explained it several times...but your mind can't grasp that, can it? I explained that station ADA was operating "24/7" meaning (in colloquial use) around-the-clock, every day of the week. You said that "was never done." It was. It was done on a FAR LARGER scale than any MARS facility anywhere. ADA did carry MARS TTY traffic on a second-priority basis when the primary circuit wasn't busy. I explained the RESPONSIBILITY of team leaders in keeping the transmitters up and operating, one part of the entire operation, but you insist on word-twisting to suit your savage beast within that wants to fight. All you wish to do is denigrate anyone who did MORE in REAL HF radio than you did. Tsk, tsk. James Weir runs RST Engineering. It is located in Grass Valley, CA, in Nevada County (California's "gold country"). Fine. I don't want to deflate his ego but when I saw a post from "RST Engineering" signed "Jim", it meant nothing to me. I never heard of it or him. Tsk, tsk. Jim Weir has posted in here for several years. That YOU didn't notice that is not my concern. YOU seem to "notice" only those posts where you can engage in word fights with your "opponents." Down, big warrior. He ran for Governor of California, had his picture in the L.A. Times as one of many candidates. [a former Austrian citizen won the election] No doubt Jim's charm, as evidence here, was a factor. Davie said, sarcasm dripping down his chin like alien slime... I sent Jim Weir one of my computer programs (LCie4, synthesis and analysis of passive-component inductor-capacitor filters) and he stated that this (freeware) program has been used by his students (successfully) in Grass Valley. We had some brief e-mail exchages that resulted in my modifying the older LCie program to fit the DOS 7 in newer Windows. LCie was written in MS FORTRAN 5.1 but on an earlier operating system and that (now unsupported by MS) FORTRAN did not have the compiler links to fit DOS 7. LCie4 runs only under DOS, doesn't have the flash, dash, or pizazz of color Windows but is nonetheless accurate and proven. It is freeware to anyone requesting it...something I mentioned in rec.radio. amateur.homebrew some time ago. That's nice. Damn straight. LCie4 IS a very nice program for quickly and accurately synthesizing (designing) and analyzing a passive L-C filter of lowpass, highpass, bandpass, or bandstop configuration. The user can optionally change component values, modify Q of inductors or capacitors, do printouts of schematics or analysis results (or store them in a file), analyze input and output impedances in lieu of normal decibel insertion loss, phase change, or group delay. It's been proven in real hardware results that came out exactly as predicted. RST Engineering makes some neat electronics for general aviation aircraft. RST has a nice website if anyone cares to look. I looked at the web site. It isn't particularly nice. If one orders online, the payment information isn't even sent securely. You aren't involved in general aviation. You have NO business with general aviation let alone private flying. Why are YOU being critical of something you aren't even close to being involved in? Why are YOU being critical of someone else's website to ME? You don't even live in California. You have NO business with any California elections of any kind. Why do you give a **** of any elections of governors in California or state politics? One of the neat things they do is what I would term "SURFACE MOUNT VHF antennas" for aircraft fabric surfaces. :-) Neat! They don't stick out in the airstream and thus have minimal drag. [international civil aviation band is 108 to 137 MHz] I've not noted many fabric surfaces on the aircraft I've seen in recent decades. Tsk, tsk, tsk. There are tens of thousands of general aviation aircraft having "fabric" covering in United States registry alone. That YOU "haven't seen them" doesn't mean they exist. In a half hour's drive from my residence, I can go to two major airports and one air park that have well over a thousand such "fabric" covered aircraft. You said nothing about "surface mounting," indicating you are unable to perceive any humor (as in "SMD" now the common method of electronics hardware construction) or the fact that MOST of a general aviation aircraft structure UNDER the skin is largely empty. Any antenna can thus be mounted on the surface of a non-conductive skin and be largely unaffected on characteristics in that position. Rather basic EM theory involved there, but meaningless to those who will not bother to think about basic radio theory. Thanks for providing the information on the aircraft band. Perhaps nobody here knew where the band could be found. YOU have NO BUSINESS with general aviation concerns, are NOT INVOLVED. It is no surprise that those who are NOT INVOLVED would be ignorant of technical details. Amateur radio is NOT INVOLVED with the international civil aviation band in VHF or the specific frequencies for that in the HF spectrum. If you have any more questions, don't be afraid to show your ignorance. You haven't yet. With warmest, best regards, |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
|
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
On 2 Nov 2005 15:01:08 -0800, wrote:
wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? what majority? Their bliss over the efficacy of morsemanship shines on under skies unclouded by progress in technology... which had already begun before they got their first amateur license. You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. so what you keep beating that dead horse it smells pretty bad by now They BELIEVE deep in their little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential ingredient in becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert," "well-rounded" and a "leader" in amateurism. And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len? It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. nice to see the ARRL can whip it some of it memebrs into a lather and of course your logica is Flawed in suggesting that all Ham favor coded extra oppose Code free general making the No code position clearly the purality and indeed the coded extra support just shows the foolish ness of the Procode side if there is any need for code testing at HF it applies to the general as well as the Extras so the Procode side merely shows itself as being for restriction whad enough flushing the restN _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Another Len Quote
|
Another Len Quote
|
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him "progressive." Their bliss over the efficacy of morsemanship shines on under skies unclouded by progress in technology... which had already begun before they got their first amateur license. You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. That would make Len "unbiased." They BELIEVE deep in their little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential ingredient in becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert," "well-rounded" and a "leader" in amateurism. And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len? That there is a God? It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group. The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. Where did your numbers come from? A few days ago, you wrote: "3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of those who commented want at least some code testing. That majority is almost identical to those supporting more than one code test speed back in 1998. Show your work. Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago: "That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson A perfect lead-in to the following: Must be wonderful to exist in such deep delusions of grandeur, very satisfying, off in a wonderland of their own fantasies of self-importance and Greatness. shrug It's interesting that you will go on and on and on about the motivations of people you've never met, but you won't tell us *your* motivations for changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service. Which is a radio service you are not involved in. Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in" amateur radio. |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: wrote: wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him "progressive." That's not what I said. I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the Morse exam. I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some proficiency in Morse Code. Their bliss over the efficacy of morsemanship shines on under skies unclouded by progress in technology... which had already begun before they got their first amateur license. You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. That would make Len "unbiased." No, it would not. It VERY heavily predisposes Lennie to a specific view. They BELIEVE deep in their little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential ingredient in becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert," "well-rounded" and a "leader" in amateurism. And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len? That there is a God Is there? Really? It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group. Such as? Seems everyone here, myself included, have expressed many different ideas on a great many issues. The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. Where did your numbers come from? The FCC via Lennie's previous posts. Why? A few days ago, you wrote: "3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of those who commented want at least some code testing. That majority is almost identical to those supporting more than one code test speed back in 1998. Show your work. It's LENNIE'S Work, Brain...The number are fluid, of course, but as of his last compilation, those numbers still come pretty close. Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago: "That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson A perfect lead-in to the following: Must be wonderful to exist in such deep delusions of grandeur, very satisfying, off in a wonderland of their own fantasies of self-importance and Greatness. shrug It's interesting that you will go on and on and on about the motivations of people you've never met, but you won't tell us *your* motivations for changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service. Which is a radio service you are not involved in. Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in" amateur radio. No...A FEW people are. Steve, K4YZ |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
"K4YZ" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: wrote: wrote: [snip] Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him "progressive." That's not what I said. I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the Morse exam. I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some proficiency in Morse Code. I would disagree with this approach. Here's why. Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. There are two ways to get people to learn it. One, which is what we have now, is to tie the most desired privilege (HF voice) to the subject that they least desire to study. However there is a second way. Allow the novices and techs CW privileges only on the General HF bands without any further testing. They can have HF voice, digital, etc at any time they then pass the whatever the test will be in the future for General. This gives them a taste of HF. I would happily work them as slow as they want to go in order to encourage the use of CW. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Another Len Quote
|
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote:
On 2 Nov 2005 15:01:08 -0800, wrote: wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? what majority? Where've you been? Did you miss the news about the hurricanes and Scooter Libby's indictment too? Their bliss over the efficacy of morsemanship shines on under skies unclouded by progress in technology... which had already begun before they got their first amateur license. You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. so what you keep beating that dead horse it smells pretty bad by now Yep, Len's carcass is beginning to stink up the joint after that "Extra right out of the box" comment. They BELIEVE deep in their little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential ingredient in becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert," "well-rounded" and a "leader" in amateurism. And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len? It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. nice to see the ARRL can whip it some of it memebrs into a lather Is it your opinion that the ARRL told its membership what view to take in commenting on the 05-235 issue? and of course your logica is Flawed in suggesting that all Ham favor coded extra oppose Code free general making the No code position clearly the purality What is clear is that you comprehend what Jim wrote. and indeed the coded extra support just shows the foolish ness of the Procode side I know it'll be a stretch, but do you think you could tell us what thought processes took place in your formulation of such a view? if there is any need for code testing at HF it applies to the general as well as the Extras Good idea, Mark. so the Procode side merely shows itself as being for restriction whad enough flushing the restN Let's see if I have this correct: The procode testing side is for restriction whad enough flushing the rest? Can that be what you meant to convey? Dave K8MN |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
From: on Nov 2, 4:38 pm
wrote: wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him "progressive." Robeson is still nuts, but maybe "progressively" nuts. Jimmie is a whining little crybaby who loves to engage in word "food fights" about minutae. In any other venue this would be HECKLING. Both are growing ALIKE in behavior. Scary thought, ey? Jimmie thinks he knows ALL about long-time-ago radio. Thing is, he did NOT work in radio a half century ago. I did. But, Jimmie has READ a LOT about long-time-ago radio and must think he "knows" about it...just like he "knows" all about military life and how it feels to be geographically close to unfriendlies during the Cold War. There have now been 3,687 filings on WT Docket 05-235 at the FCC. That is, very roughly, only 1% of all U.S. licensees including or excluding those in their grace period. Statistically, that small number would be rather marginal for any REAL determination of either minority or majority. However, from the TEXT of those who are against the NPRM, it is rather obvious that the MAJORITY of THOSE are still stuck in the morse myths and standards-practices in amateur radio of the 1930s. Some of those believe they are engaging in some kind of "service to their nation" by their ham radio hobby. [the FCC uses the word "service" as a regulatory term, denoting a type and kind of radio being regulated...such as Citizens Band Radio SERVICE] You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. That would make Len "unbiased." Irrelevant to Jimmie. Jimmie NEVER operated any HF transmitter in the 1950s. Jimmie NEVER got any FCC license in that time. I did both. [First 'Phone in 1956 at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, one sitting, no retries and passed] Us readers do NOT know for sure whether or not Jimmie EVER worked in ANY radio service OTHER than amateur radio. He won't say in public. Jimmie hasn't admitted that all radio works by the SAME laws of physics. Since that is established fact, the distinction between 'amateur' and any other kind or type of radio is solely an adminstrative differentiation by a radio regulating agency. Jimmie wants to make amateur radio technology/operation somehow SPAY-SHUL and "more advanced" than any commercial or military radio. The Church Lady is in fine form... secular discussion omitted as not pertinent to "score cards" It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group. Sounds like ALL the pro-morse persons in here with the exception of Hans Brakob. The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. Where did your numbers come from? Probably from that "Secret Source" of his that he will NOT name. Robeson still hasn't produced his "secret source" on the ex- NADC person who supposedly did a "performance review" of my assignment there for RCA Corporation in 1971. [NO such "review" was ever done on contractor-visitor personnel] Jimmie KNOWS things mo' bettah than anyone. Sigh. But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of those who commented want at least some code testing. That majority is almost identical to those supporting more than one code test speed back in 1998. Show your work. He will NOT. All must "show their work" to HIM if HE requests it. Jimmie's numbers are "accurate" by definition...of Jimmie. None may question that. [if they do, he goes into long, long, long, lonnnnng posts 'challenging' minutae in everything the challenger has said] It's interesting that you will go on and on and on about the motivations of people you've never met, but you won't tell us *your* motivations for changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service. Which is a radio service you are not involved in. Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in" amateur radio. Irrelevant to Jimmie or any other PCTA in here. They haven't looked at the FCC budget figures showing how many work there. Jimmie is still stuck in "fraternal" concepts of rule. He apparently doesn't understand that a single federal agency regulates ALL of U.S. civil radio (i.e., non-government, non-military). The Laws of Congress (Communications Act of 1934, Telecommunications Act of 1996) have NOT required ANYONE in the FCC to hold amateur radio license grants. Jimmie and the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) think they are a "law" unto themselves. Bless the ARRL for continuing reinforcement of that conditioned thinking. Want to GET INTO amateur radio? Follow the 'rule' of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society and test for beeping. No beep, no get into HF ham bands. Gosh, and they did NOT tell the Army about that a half century ago! The fraternal order doesn't want non-beepers dirtying up their private sandbox. Their sand is elite. But their sand is also sometimes used for kitty litter. Beep, beep |
Another Len Quote
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Oct 31, 4:52 pm Dave Heil wrote: That brings us back to RST Jim. It is apparent that he's done a number of things in amateur radio. Perhaps he hasn't been around long enough to see who and what Len Anderson is. Maybe his agenda in defending Len is something entirely different. Perhaps he'll explain. I'll be around after the CQ WW SSB DX 'test. James Weir runs RST Engineering. It is located in Grass Valley, CA, in Nevada County (California's "gold country"). Fine. I don't want to deflate his ego but when I saw a post from "RST Engineering" signed "Jim", it meant nothing to me. I never heard of it or him. I've seen him on various r.r.a... groups for years. That's you. I was writing about me. If the guy wants to play "maybe you don't know who I am", I'm game. I didn't know who he was. Now that I know, I don't much care. I don't have an airplane and don't live in California. You're welcome to let not knowing people define your presence on rrap. Best of Luck. I'm free to reject the implication that I'm supposed to know who "Jim" "RST-Engineering" is. As Leonard H. Anderon pointed out, I have no business in civil aviation and no business in California politics. I like it that way. Dave K8MN Yet I was supposed to know who a guy was who posted in here a couple of times. You'se guys sure do hang on to that PCTA double-standard. |
Another Len Quote
|
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him "progressive." That's not what I said. It's what CQ magazine said that you said. I said I am in favor of allowing some access to HF without the Morse exam. You did use a couple of double negatives to disallow non code-tested hams access to narrowband operations. I also said I favor retaining the Morse exam for the Extra Class license and for limiting access to those frequencies where Morse is most used where the licensee has not demonstrated at least some proficiency in Morse Code. CQ didn't indicate that. Their bliss over the efficacy of morsemanship shines on under skies unclouded by progress in technology... which had already begun before they got their first amateur license. You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. That would make Len "unbiased." No, it would not. It VERY heavily predisposes Lennie to a specific view. He has no vested interest in Amateur Radio. They BELIEVE deep in their little hearts that morsemanship is THE essential ingredient in becoming an extra-super-special radio "expert," "well-rounded" and a "leader" in amateurism. And what do *you* believe deep in your little heart, Len? That there is a God Is there? Really? Is there? It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group. Such as? Seems everyone here, myself included, have expressed many different ideas on a great many issues. Your ideas are usually summed up with, "putz, liar, deceit, coward, dialing..." The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. Where did your numbers come from? The FCC via Lennie's previous posts. Why? Did Jim check Len's work? A few days ago, you wrote: "3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old, Old, OLD standards and practices." - Len Anderson But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of those who commented want at least some code testing. That majority is almost identical to those supporting more than one code test speed back in 1998. Show your work. It's LENNIE'S Work, Brain...The number are fluid, of course, but as of his last compilation, those numbers still come pretty close. So Jim just takes Len's work and posts it as his own, without even checking the validity of it? Another quote from what you wrote a few days ago: "That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and accusatory. Tsk." - Len Anderson A perfect lead-in to the following: Must be wonderful to exist in such deep delusions of grandeur, very satisfying, off in a wonderland of their own fantasies of self-importance and Greatness. shrug It's interesting that you will go on and on and on about the motivations of people you've never met, but you won't tell us *your* motivations for changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service. Which is a radio service you are not involved in. Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in" amateur radio. No...A FEW people are. Steve, K4YZ No license required to have an opinion wrt amateur radio. No license required to enforce amateur radio rules. No license required to restructure the ARS. No license required to drop the morse code exam. And that's the way it is. |
Free Ride, was Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
Dee Flint wrote: I would disagree with this approach. Here's why. Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio stations at their own expense? Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and emergency responders. If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them. But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL with on the low end of the bands. Thanks a lot |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: From: on Nov 2, 4:38 pm wrote: wrote: Well, after (ugh) reading through 3,599 filings on the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235 (up to 31 October 2005), I'm convinced that way too many radio amateurs are still stuck to the glorious past of a half century ago in radio communications. Why, Len? Because the *majority* disagree with you? Steve agreed with removing the Morse Code Exam. I guess that makes him "progressive." Robeson is still nuts, but maybe "progressively" nuts. Jimmie is a whining little crybaby who loves to engage in word "food fights" about minutae. In any other venue this would be HECKLING. Yep. Both are growing ALIKE in behavior. Scary thought, ey? "Dialing..." Jimmie thinks he knows ALL about long-time-ago radio. Thing is, he did NOT work in radio a half century ago. I did. But, Jimmie has READ a LOT about long-time-ago radio In the amateur radio literature from one amateur radio publication house. and must think he "knows" about it...just like he "knows" all about military life and how it feels to be geographically close to unfriendlies during the Cold War. Did he get his "Cold War" certificate? There have now been 3,687 filings on WT Docket 05-235 at the FCC. That is, very roughly, only 1% of all U.S. licensees including or excluding those in their grace period. Statistically, that small number would be rather marginal for any REAL determination of either minority or majority. However, from the TEXT of those who are against the NPRM, it is rather obvious that the MAJORITY of THOSE are still stuck in the morse myths and standards-practices in amateur radio of the 1930s. Some of those believe they are engaging in some kind of "service to their nation" by their ham radio hobby. See my reply to Dee about communicators needing morse code. [the FCC uses the word "service" as a regulatory term, denoting a type and kind of radio being regulated...such as Citizens Band Radio SERVICE] Correct. You haven't got *your* first amateur radio license, Len. That would make Len "unbiased." Irrelevant to Jimmie. Jimmie NEVER operated any HF transmitter in the 1950s. Jimmie NEVER got any FCC license in that time. I did both. [First 'Phone in 1956 at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, one sitting, no retries and passed] But, but, but... Us readers do NOT know for sure whether or not Jimmie EVER worked in ANY radio service OTHER than amateur radio. He won't say in public. Jimmie hasn't admitted that all radio works by the SAME laws of physics. Since that is established fact, the distinction between 'amateur' and any other kind or type of radio is solely an adminstrative differentiation by a radio regulating agency. Jimmie wants to make amateur radio technology/operation somehow SPAY-SHUL and "more advanced" than any commercial or military radio. The Church Lady is in fine form... The government doesn't want morse code in "thier" radio services. secular discussion omitted as not pertinent to "score cards" Fair enough. It's a Belief so deep, so basic, that they are convinced that ALL morsemen are "experts" on everything and those who don't Believe as they do are heretics who know nothing about everything. Sounds like sour grapes on your part. Sounds like several of the amateurs that remain on this news group. Sounds like ALL the pro-morse persons in here with the exception of Hans Brakob. Hans has long advocated eliminating the morse code tests and limiting license classes to two; Unlimited and Learner Permit. The actual count of individuals commenting showed that once duplicates and nonresponsive filings were removed, 55% of those commenting support at least a Morse Code test for Extra. Only 45% support the NPRM, with its complete removal of Morse Code testing. Where did your numbers come from? Probably from that "Secret Source" of his that he will NOT name. Robeson still hasn't produced his "secret source" on the ex- NADC person who supposedly did a "performance review" of my assignment there for RCA Corporation in 1971. [NO such "review" was ever done on contractor-visitor personnel] Jimmie KNOWS things mo' bettah than anyone. Sigh. He is always the victor in any discussion, um, errr, I meant argument. But the filings on WT 05-235 show that the majority (55%!) of those who commented want at least some code testing. That majority is almost identical to those supporting more than one code test speed back in 1998. Show your work. He will NOT. All must "show their work" to HIM if HE requests it. Jimmie's numbers are "accurate" by definition...of Jimmie. Except his "moon distance" numbers. In all fairness, he might have been referring to any one of Jupiter's moons. None may question that. [if they do, he goes into long, long, long, lonnnnng posts 'challenging' minutae in everything the challenger has said] The Steve shows up and everything is lies, Lies, LIES! It's interesting that you will go on and on and on about the motivations of people you've never met, but you won't tell us *your* motivations for changing the regulations of the Amateur Radio Service. Which is a radio service you are not involved in. Lots of people deciding the outcome of the NPRM are not involved "in" amateur radio. Irrelevant to Jimmie or any other PCTA in here. They haven't looked at the FCC budget figures showing how many work there. Jimmie is still stuck in "fraternal" concepts of rule. He apparently doesn't understand that a single federal agency regulates ALL of U.S. civil radio (i.e., non-government, non-military). The Laws of Congress (Communications Act of 1934, Telecommunications Act of 1996) have NOT required ANYONE in the FCC to hold amateur radio license grants. And the ones who do should have "thier" licenses held in abeyence during their term in government just so there is no conflict of interest. Jimmie and the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS) think they are a "law" unto themselves. Bless the ARRL for continuing reinforcement of that conditioned thinking. I'll have to look up that new guy who came on here several years ago singing the praises of the Morse Code that he was -going- to learn. He was the darling of the group, all PCTA fawning all over him. I looked up his call about a year ago - still a no code. Wonder what "rank" he hold today? Want to GET INTO amateur radio? Follow the 'rule' of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society and test for beeping. No beep, no get into HF ham bands. Gosh, and they did NOT tell the Army about that a half century ago! Something for nothing. The fraternal order doesn't want non-beepers dirtying up their private sandbox. Their sand is elite. But their sand is also sometimes used for kitty litter. Beep, beep bb |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. (SNIP) Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. (SNIP) Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. That is only your opinion. At one time morse was truly one of the basics of amateur radio but that is simply untrue (IMHO) today. Cheers, Bill K2UNK I have no problem with that. In each case, we have both identified that as being our personal opinions. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Free Ride, was Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16
Dee Flint wrote: I would disagree with this approach. Here's why. Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio stations at their own expense? ...just because... Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and emergency responders. If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them. Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to any emergency/crisis/disaster. But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL with on the low end of the bands. PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better." They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar... |
Free Ride, was Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote: From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16 Dee Flint wrote: I would disagree with this approach. Here's why. Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio stations at their own expense? ...just because... There's got to be some deeper motive. Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and emergency responders. If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them. Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to any emergency/crisis/disaster. If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond first. But the PCTA are more than willing to donate other people's free time and money in order to provide the government with something it doesn't want and doesn't want to pay for, just so you'll have someone to QSL with on the low end of the bands. PCTA think they are spay-shul (as the church lady said) and NEED that code test to "prove" they are "better." They are special. But when all become special, none are. They are Mighty Macho Motivated Morsemen. Hear them roar... They were born 100 years too late. |
Free Ride, was Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
wrote in message oups.com... wrote: From: on Fri 4 Nov 2005 17:16 Dee Flint wrote: I would disagree with this approach. Here's why. Let me start by saying that I believe all amateurs should have a basic ability in Morse code as it is one of the basics of amateur radio. Why is it that you only want volunteers to take up the burden of learning morse code on "thier" free time and equip morse code radio stations at their own expense? ...just because... There's got to be some deeper motive. There is no deeper motive. Notice that Len Anderson has made no comment on my approach to using CW when the license structure changes. He chooses to comment on a section that is clearly identified as opinion. I'm entitled to my opinion just like any one else. Why wouldn't you want paid, professional radio operators and radio users to know Morse Code? Especially paid emergency communicators and emergency responders. If the government needed or wanted morse code radio operators, they should create a GS5-7-9-11 series and get them. Dee must imagine that ONLY hams are First Responders to any emergency/crisis/disaster. If so then Dee needs to back off and let first responders respond first. Notice that Len Anderson injects something into my post that was not there, was not implied, and has not been stated or implied in any of my posts. I am firmly in favor of first reponders responding first and other groups standing by until they are needed and then only going in if they are needed. However as you can see, rather than addressing the concept that I was discussing, Len Anderson has gone off on one of his tangents and trying to distract people from my actual statements. This is why I killfiled him long ago. I see that you started the paragraph with "if so...." You are wise to doubt his statements. Investigate for yourself. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com