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

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...

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.