Lennie's Scorecard Backfires
 

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.

Except for these guys. They can bitch up a storm.

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