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.

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.

maybe it being okay for them to go into
liquor stores to buy alcohol without age limit...

I don't think it's okay for children to buy alcohol. I'm just opposed
to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license.

or serving in armed forces of the United States

I don't think it's okay for children to serve in the military. I'm just
opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio license.

...get married...piloting aircraft with legal license to do so in his age-limit-less world?

I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio
license.

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's NOT the real subject of Jimmie-James' efforts.

I don't know who "Jimmie-James" is supposed to be, Len.

He is still ****ed at being confronted with opposite
opinions in here by those who will not accept HIS opinions.

You're describing yourself, Len.

He MUST re-argue and re-argue
and re-argue old, Old, OLD issues from years back.

I know somebody who keeps telling old, Old, OLD stories of his service
at a radio station in Japan years back.

asking me if I'm "afraid" of anothers' tally on
WT Docket 05-235. :-)

Looks like you are afraid, Len.

NPRM 05-143 is *THE* issue for U.S. amateur radio in this new
millennium. This is the end of the 15th week of filings in WT
Docket 05-235 and the total is (to 27th October) 3,174 total.
That's roughly 209 filings a week average, about four times
more than on 98-143 ("Restructuring") in its 11 month open
comment period.

So?

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.

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

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 I neither support nor oppose
such a notion, but you have been beating this dead equine for years
cuting reps
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

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?

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?

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....

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.

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!

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! :-) ]

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!!!

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

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

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.

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!