an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote yet another diatribe belittling others:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can. But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more. Write up a contract on that book and send
me an offer. I'll ask a minimum of $75,000 advance on the
compensation for my time and effort just to start.

Oh? 100K words is hard for you?

yea but i guess it isn't for you ###hole

Now now, Markie...You know we're all laughing at you anyway...So
why compound your issues by talking to yourself in public like that?

Steve, K4YZ

On 20 Dec 2005 03:27:55 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote yet another diatribe belittling others:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can. But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more. Write up a contract on that book and send
me an offer. I'll ask a minimum of $75,000 advance on the
compensation for my time and effort just to start.

Oh? 100K words is hard for you?

yea but i guess it isn't for you ###hole

Now now, Markie...You know we're all laughing at you anyway...So
why compound your issues by talking to yourself in public like that?

more forgeing

more of your effort to say what words can be used

you are just a neo NAZI, which is of course your right, but you can't
even be honest enough to fess up about it

Steve, K4YZ

everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote yet another diatribe belittling others:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

Can you cite specific things that are different in the two histories?

Oh, YES, I can. But that takes time to write about 100,000
words or more. Write up a contract on that book and send
me an offer. I'll ask a minimum of $75,000 advance on the
compensation for my time and effort just to start.

Oh? 100K words is hard for you?

yea but i guess it isn't for you ###hole

Now now, Markie...You know we're all laughing at you anyway...So
why compound your issues by talking to yourself in public like that?

more forgery more cnesohip more lie more ****

Steve, K4YZ

From: on Dec 20, 1:56 am

wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm

etc


What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

Yes, there were. :-)

But, trying to present all those, finding the references,
noting them in here is all wasted effort on my part. You
will simply not accept any of it. What you will do is
write something like:

That's just *your* spin, Len.

And all my effort will be for naught. :-)

That's the way it has been in here and that's just how you
will handle it. That's just the way it is... :-)

If anyone else cares to look at the history of ALL radio
they are welcome to peruse two texts by Hugh G. J. Aitken,
"Syntony and Spark," "The Continuous Wave, Technology and
American Radio 1900-1932, Princeton University Press.

For those who wish to review Thomas H. White's history
of USA radio, go to http://earlyradiohistory.us/ or
find a much-more abbreviated history at the FCC website.

There are many others of the non-amateur histories, but
you just don't want to hear of those, do you? :-(


So go ahead.

For what purpose? I'm not a "radio evangelist" out trying
to hold "tent revival meetings" that we should all believe
in the Church of St. Hiram. :-)

Jimmie, U.S. radio amateurs were BANISHED from the "long
waves" after WW1 and had to be on the "short waves" from
200 meter wavelengths and down. BANISHMENT is banishment.
U.S. radio amateurs have NEVER been granted any band
allocations below MF since the FCC was created in 1934.

BTW, you are free to use the CORRECT term of decades in
the EM spectrum that others use; i.e., HF, VHF, UHF, etc.

TODAY's use of "shortwave" refers to the high microwave
region, usually above 10 GHz. Very short wavelengths
indeed.

1923 was 82 years ago, Jimmie.

This is the year 2005. Do try to keep up.



Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all.

ARRL is a MINORITY special interest group, Jimmie.

Only one out of five licensed U.S. radio amateurs are
members of the ARRL.

And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Okay, so this MINORITY "representative group" practices
oligarchy. So what? :-)


FCC makes the regulations.

Ah, but, on 10 December, you wrote "FCC doesn't license
radio amateurs!" :-)


You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

PROVE that fact. Show your work...tell us why we should care.



Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Jimmie, you did not comment on that, yet you quoted it.

Are you going to "argue" that now? Don't try...it will only
make you look more foolish than you are in regards to
national service.


You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Whether or not you "fon't think so" is irrelevant. I have.


INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

It was radio equipment. No one paid me for it, ergo it was
"amateur." :-)


From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, Jimmie. :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

Using ENTIRELY MY RESOURCES, Jimmie. Paid for out of my own
pocket. That classifies it as "amateur" as opposed to
"professional."

I've used others' brake, mill, and lathes, exhanging services
of mine for their loan of tools. All the rest were mine,
owned outright. Fair exchange of services agreeable to all.

Most "chassis" are easier to use purchased off the shelf. I have
the Greenlee chassis punches on hand to do those jobs, had them a
long time, even visited the very workshop in the department of
Greenlee's factory that made them back in 1950. [it was, and
remained, a tiny, tiny part of the overall Greenlee factory]

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

The travel departments at various companies arranged for my tickets
and lodging reservations, accounts payable argued with me on my
expense reports. I didn't have solo meetings with myself in design
reviews, if that is what you mean. :-) [do you hold meetings
with yourself at your work?]



In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

No NEED for ME, Jimmie.

My, my, you DO come across as an UNDERPAID engineer who is all
the time talking about "money." :-)

Are you really a surreptuous socialist? A closet communist?

Maybe you believe that you should get "free radios" because
you are a radio amateur?



Not AUTHORIZED, Jimmie. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I am accurate. I'm am quite QUALIFIED to not only operate
a radio transmitter (or any RF emitter), but to design it,
build a prototype, test it, align it, make it work.

I am not AUTHORIZED to USE it on frequencies which are
regulated by an AUTHORIZING AGENCY. In this case, the agency
is the FCC.



When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

The amateur Condor Net operates ON the "220" band, Jimmie,
not above it.

I have LEGALLY OPERATED on non-amateur bands both above and
below the amateur "220" band since 1952.



I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

It's not a question of "should," Jimmie.

You've made it quite clear that you "fon't" want to change!

:-)


I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr.-I'm-an-amateur-for-38-years, the FCC,
which is NOT requiring any commissioners or staff to be
licensed in amateur radio, has been TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO
IN RADIO OPERATION for 38 years. :-)


btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

You are welcome to go search the Los Angeles Superior Court
records, the Los Angeles City government records, if it is
so "important" to you. :-)

City government activity involving zoning ordinances have
NOTHING to do with radio, Jimmie.



Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

I've never claimed to be "top of the form in morse code."

:-)


TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean.

The Defense Communications System, and all its predecessors
since WW2 days, Jimmie. "Communications" is not restricted
to manual radiotelegraphy.

On the average, Washington Army Radio (WAR) relayed a MILLION
teletypewriter messages per MONTH out of Fort Detrick, MD, in
1955. Some of those were the 220 thousand TTY messages
relayed by station ADA in Tokyo of that same year. ADA did
not communicate directly, RUAP to RUEP, but communicated to
Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, Manila, Okinawa,
Seoul, Pusan, and Saigon in 1955. Some USAF, USN messages
were relayed through ADA, along with State Department messages
to Manila. A few, but very few facsimiles were relayed,
mostly for the USAF. Manila had a circuit through Asmara,
Eritrea, to the USAEUR (U.S. Army in Europe).

You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

I'm not "spinning" anything, Jimmie. TTY messaging carried
the overwhelming mass of ALL messages involving the United
States military a half century ago. Insofar as encrypted
messages are concerned, TTY carried very nearly ALL of
those. "DATA" modes now carry the overwhelming mass of
messaging that goes on now...even in the United States Navy.


NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

No argument about it...teletypewriter mode was the overwhelming
medium/mode of messaging a half century ago in the United States
military.

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

No "spin." That's just the way it is.

You will not accept reality since you are a devout desciple of
the Church of St. Hiram, a "True Believer" in the mythologic
efficacy of morsemanship in radio.


Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change.

What "force," Jimmie?

I am simply showing the TRUTH of the reality of communications
modes in the REALITY of the radio world.

The FCC gives you the OPTION of using any allocated mode, any
amateur band. One of those OPTIONAL modes is morse code on-off
keying. NO ONE is "taking that away from you" when the morse
code test is removed from amateur licensing regulations.

You will continue to be FREE to use any OPTIONAL communications
mode INSIDE your amateur frequency allocations. The "force"
that you imagine others try to put on you will remain, well,
just imaginary.


You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.

Neither has any staffer or commissioner at the FCC...and they
can, not only tell YOU what to do in amateur radio, but they
can also FORCE you to do things (or not do them) via the U.S.
federal marshalls and federal court system.

wrote:
From: on Dec 20, 1:56 am
wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am

What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

Yes, there were. :-)

IOW, no, there weren't. :-)

But, trying to present all those, finding the references,
noting them in here is all wasted effort on my part.

All you have to do is tell us who they were, what they did and when
they did it.

But I doubt you can.

You will simply not accept any of it.

Maybe I will, Len. Or maybe someone else will.

Point is, you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.

So why should we believe you instead of ARRL?

What makes your "history" any more credible than theirs?

If anyone else cares to look at the history of ALL radio
they are welcome to peruse two texts by Hugh G. J. Aitken,
"Syntony and Spark," "The Continuous Wave, Technology and
American Radio 1900-1932, Princeton University Press.

You could scan the appropriate parts and post them to prove your point.
After all, you've
Demanded that others do the same to "prove" things.

Your AOL account includes a web page for each screen name. There's no
reason
you can't use them - is there?

For those who wish to review Thomas H. White's history
of USA radio, go to http://earlyradiohistory.us/ or
find a much-more abbreviated history at the FCC website.

Been there. No contradictions to ARRL's version of events - is there?

You're misdirecting, Len.

There are many others of the non-amateur histories, but
you just don't want to hear of those, do you? :-(

History of *amateur* radio.

U.S. radio amateurs were BANISHED from the "long
waves" after WW1 and had to be on the "short waves" from
200 meter wavelengths and down.

Actually, that happened in 1912, although enforcement wasn't
perfect.

BANISHMENT is banishment.

It was regulation. There was need to have more order among
the various users of radio. The old free-for-all systems just
didn't work.

U.S. radio amateurs have NEVER been granted any band
allocations below MF since the FCC was created in 1934.

So what?

Amateurs were "banished" to the "short-waves" because those
short waves were thought (in 1912) to be useless for long distance
communication. The professionals and regulators were all wrong
about that, however.

1923 was 82 years ago,

Why does that matter? The discussion is about amateur radio history
and your unfounded claims of "ARRL spin".

This is the year 2005. Do try to keep up.

I'm way *ahead* of you, Len.

Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all.

ARRL is a MINORITY special interest group,

"No-Code International" (NCI) is a minority special interest group,
too. Much smaller than
ARRL.

Only one out of five licensed U.S. radio amateurs are
members of the ARRL.

Less than one out of a hundred licensed U.S. radio amateurs are
members of NCI. This despite the fact that NCI membership is
free, never expires, and can be had for a few mouse clicks or a letter.

And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Okay, so this MINORITY "representative group" practices
oligarchy.

No, they do not. They don't rule - they represent.

So what? :-)

Seems to bother you no end that there is an organization
"devoted entirely to amateur radio".

It's clear from your many anti-ARRL tirades, Len, that you'd
really like it if there were *no* national amateur radio organization.

FCC makes the regulations.

Ah, but, on 10 December, you wrote "FCC doesn't license
radio amateurs!" :-)

Well, Len, that was a typo I made. I've corrected it already.

I wrote "FCC" when I meant to write "FAA". My bad - just a mistake.

Know why it sticks out so much? Because it's so unusual!

Now, about typos....

Was it a typo when you told K8MN to 'shut the hell up, you little USMC
feldwebel' ?

Was it a typo when you wrote, almost 6 years ago, that you were going
for Extra right out of the box?

Was it a typo when you lectured a US Coast Guard radio operator on his
military service as a radio operator in the classic "sphincters post"?

Was it a typo when you wrote that all amateurs with
expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses could legally operate their amateur radio stations?

Was it a typo when you accused the ARRL and some VEs of 'very mild
fraud' because of the licensing of some young children? (You never
presented any evidence of fraud other than the ages of the children)

Was it a typo when you twice accused a developer/contractor in your
area of 'payola' to the zoning commission - and the commission
accepting it?

Were all those things typos, Len? I didn't see any corrections to them.

I corrected my FAA typo.

You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

PROVE that fact.

That's easy.

FCC Docket 9295

"National Amateur Radio Council"

"Society of American Radio Amateurs"

Show your work...

Just did.

But why should I? You don't.

tell us why we should care.

You've called the ARRL a "one party system", "oligarchy"
and claimed all sorts of things about FCC "chuckling" over
comments.

Yet the fact is that two relatively-small groups had a big
effect on the 1951 restructuring. Those groups are long
gone, having disappeared soon after they got their way...

Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Are you going to "argue" that now? Don't try...it will only
make you look more foolish than you are in regards to
national service.

The fact is that everyone in the military pledges their willingness
to face combat and mortal danger if and when called upon. No
argument about that.

But that's also true of many nonmilitary people as well. Law
enforcement
officers...firefighters and rescue workers....emergency medical team
members,
to name just a few, face the potential of mortal danger too.

You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Whether or not you "fon't think so" is irrelevant. I have.

Not true, Len. Without a station license, they cannot be an amateur
radio station.

INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

It was radio equipment. No one paid me for it, ergo it was
"amateur." :-)

No, it was *hobby* radio.

Or maybe it was a professional prototype that failed......;-)

From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

Using ENTIRELY MY RESOURCES,

No. You used other people's tools...

Paid for out of my own
pocket. That classifies it as "amateur" as opposed to
"professional."

No, it doesn't.

I've used others' brake, mill, and lathes, exhanging services
of mine for their loan of tools. All the rest were mine,
owned outright. Fair exchange of services agreeable to all.

Not your own resources, then.

Most "chassis" are easier to use purchased off the shelf. I have
the Greenlee chassis punches on hand to do those jobs, had them a
long time, even visited the very workshop in the department of
Greenlee's factory that made them back in 1950. [it was, and
remained, a tiny, tiny part of the overall Greenlee factory]

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

The travel departments at various companies arranged for my tickets
and lodging reservations, accounts payable argued with me on my
expense reports. I didn't have solo meetings with myself in design
reviews, if that is what you mean. :-) [do you hold meetings
with yourself at your work?]

IOW, you had the help of an engineering team. But you want all the
credit...

In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED,

Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

No NEED for ME,

Because you don't want to be a radio amateur. There's no money in it
for you...

My, my, you DO come across as an UNDERPAID engineer who is all
the time talking about "money." :-)

Not me, Len. I'm not underpaid.

Are you really a surreptuous socialist?

"Surreptuous"? What dies that mean?

Do you accept Social Security payments? That's socialized retirement.

Do you accept Medicare benefits? That's socialized medicine.

A closet communist?

Nope. Then again, you're the one who wants one class of license so all
can be "equal"....

Maybe you believe that you should get "free radios" because
you are a radio amateur?

I've already gotten "free radios" because I'm a radio amateur, Len.

Not AUTHORIZED,

Not QUALIFIED, either.

. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I am accurate.

Only in your mind....;-)

I'm am quite QUALIFIED to not only operate
a radio transmitter (or any RF emitter), but to design it,
build a prototype, test it, align it, make it work.

You think you are, anyway.

But have you ever demonstrated any of that to amateur radio?

You claim to have written for "ham radio" magazine for
some years, but none of your articles in that magazine are
construction project articles. Nor are there any depictions of
actual radios you built yourself - there or anyplace else. No
websites, no articles, no pictures.

Also, the ability to design a radio and the qualifications to operate
it are not one and the same.

I am not AUTHORIZED to USE it on frequencies which are
regulated by an AUTHORIZING AGENCY.

Nor are you qualified to use it on the amateur bands.

In this case, the agency is the FCC.

FCC's regulations say a license is required to operate an
amateur radio station. You have not qualified for the required
license, therefore, in the view of the TCC, you are Not Qualified.

When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

The amateur Condor Net operates ON the "220" band,

not above it.

The 220 MHz band is above 220 MHz ;-)

I have LEGALLY OPERATED on non-amateur bands both above and
below the amateur "220" band since 1952.

But you have not LEGALLY OPERATED on any amateur band.

Anybody who has used 100 mW cb walkie talkie and an FRS radio
can say:

"I have LEGALLY OPERATED on non-amateur bands both above and
below the amateur "220" band since 1952."


I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

It's not a question of "should,"

Sure it is. You keep telling others they should change, while
resisting change yourself.

I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr.-I'm-an-amateur-for-38-years, the FCC,
which is NOT requiring any commissioners or staff to be
licensed in amateur radio, has been TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO
IN RADIO OPERATION for 38 years. :-)

They've been telling you what to do as well, Len. In fact
they've been telling you what you *cannot* do for more
than 70 years: You cannot legally operate an amateur
radio station....

FCC says you're Not Qualified.

btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

You are welcome to go search the Los Angeles Superior Court
records, the Los Angeles City government records, if it is
so "important" to you. :-)

IOW, you have no facts to back up your claims.

City government activity involving zoning ordinances have
NOTHING to do with radio,

Actually, it does, since radio requires antennas.

There's a valid analogy between real estate and radio spectrum, too:

Zoning ordinances are government regulation of land use.

FCC rules are government regulation of (civilian) radio use.

Both are intended to maximize the benefit of all concerned -
"the public", as it were.

Now you may say that you "own" your property, and that no
radio amateur "owns" any radio spectrum.

But if you think you "own" your house and land, try not paying
your real estate taxes and see how long you "own" it. Or try
resisting eminent domain...

The major point is that you resisted change when it applied
to your local zoning - as if the regulation of *other people's
property* was never to change without *your* approval. Yet
you want to impose your changes on others when it comes to
radio regulations.

Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

I've never claimed to be "top of the form in morse code."

IOW, you weren't.

That's really the whole issue for you, isn't it, Len?

Which says a lot, because you toot your own horn endlessly
about your accomplishments..

TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean.

The Defense Communications System, and all its predecessors
since WW2 days,

So what? Amateur radio isn't the "Defense Communications System".

On the average, Washington Army Radio (WAR) relayed a MILLION
teletypewriter messages per MONTH out of Fort Detrick, MD, in
1955.

Were you there? I think not.

Some of those were the 220 thousand TTY messages
relayed by station ADA in Tokyo of that same year. ADA did
not communicate directly, RUAP to RUEP, but communicated to
Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, Manila, Okinawa,
Seoul, Pusan, and Saigon in 1955. Some USAF, USN messages
were relayed through ADA, along with State Department messages
to Manila. A few, but very few facsimiles were relayed,
mostly for the USAF. Manila had a circuit through Asmara,
Eritrea, to the USAEUR (U.S. Army in Europe).

With a staff numbering in the hundreds or even thousands, all working
full-time to transfer those messages. Also investment in equipment
and facilities totalling millions of dollars.

With the authority to override any civilian government objections, too.

You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

I'm not "spinning" anything,

Sure you are. The US Navy was using Morse Code for "communications
circuits" with its ships long after you left the Army.

Mor important, you constantly harp on 1950s military communications
as if they had some overwhelming importance or significance to
amateur radio in 2005.

TTY messaging carried
the overwhelming mass of ALL messages involving the United
States military a half century ago.

I think you'd like to believe that - true or not. No way can you give
Morse
Code *any* credit.

Insofar as encrypted
messages are concerned, TTY carried very nearly ALL of
those. "DATA" modes now carry the overwhelming mass of
messaging that goes on now...even in the United States Navy.

But so what? Amateur radio isn't the US military.

NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

No argument about it...teletypewriter mode was the overwhelming
medium/mode of messaging a half century ago in the United States
military.

How do you know? You weren't in the Navy - or the Air Force - or the
Marines - or the Coast Guard - or the US Merchant Marine.

Or amateur radio...

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

No "spin." That's just the way it is.

It's your spin, Len.

Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change.

What "force,"

Your attempts to get the rules changed, Len. You're not involved in
amateur
radio, but you want the rules changed for reasons you refuse to state.

At least the developer who got your local zoning changed was involved,
up-front and honest.

He was involved because he bought the 15 acre tract.

He was up-front and honest because he showed what he wanted to build
there, and
his motive for doing so (to make a profit).

I am simply showing the TRUTH of the reality of communications
modes in the REALITY of the radio world.

Not when it comes to amateur radio.

The FCC gives you the OPTION of using any allocated mode, any
amateur band.

That's right - because I'm qualified to operate an amateur radio
station,

You're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station, Len.

One of those OPTIONAL modes is morse code on-off
keying.

All authorized modes are OPTIONAL in amateur radio, Len.
No radio amateur has to use any specific mode.

Yet the testing for an amateur radio license requires
some knowledge of a wide variety of subjects - almost
all of which are optional.

If someone wants to legally operate an amateur radio
station on, say, 7020 kHz using Morse Code and
vacuum-tube equipment, that person will have to pass
tests that having nothing to do with 40 meters,
Morse Code or vacuum tubes.

NO ONE is "taking that away from you" when the morse
code test is removed from amateur licensing regulations.

Just as NO ONE took anything away from you that was rightfully
yours when the zoning was changed.

You will continue to be FREE to use any OPTIONAL communications
mode INSIDE your amateur frequency allocations.

Of course - because I'm qualified. You're not.

The "force"
that you imagine others try to put on you will remain, well,
just imaginary.

Really?

You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.

Neither has any staffer or commissioner at the FCC...and they
can, not only tell YOU what to do in amateur radio, but they
can also FORCE you to do things (or not do them) via the U.S.
federal marshalls and federal court system.

You are not part of the FCC nor law enforcement, Len.

The fact is that none of the unlicensed FCC staffers or commissioners
is qualified to operate an amateur radio station. Just like the
President (aka Commander in Chief) is not qualified to operate
most military equipment (aircraft, ships, radios, etc.) but
nevertheless
is in command.

You're not in command, Len.