wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased
and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license
classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the
General class license. Then they were taken away.

Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is
"lowering the requirements."

Jim sees what Jim wants to see.

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

"Amateur"

While some can and would do so, it's clearly not the
best way to do things.

Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too
much like the traditional union concept of work with
levels of apprentice-journeyman-master.

Not really.

Yes, REALLY.

No, not REALLY.

Amateur radio is NOT an occupation.

Who said it was?

If a person can meet the requirements of the
higher class licenses, they can go right to General or
Extra. The apprentice-journeyman system doesn't allow
that, except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances.

Says who? The only Guild I have a card for doesn't
require those levels.

That's an extraordinary circumstance.

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box".
You haven't.

One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed
all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. Then the FCC
implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away
priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to
all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements.

Sorry you feel that way.

"Upgrading" can be done for oneself, to
keep abrest of technology advancements (see the
old "Amateurs Code" on that).

How about keeping abreast of correct spelling? ;-)

Thanks, Steve. ;^)

If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.
Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

No, it wouldn't. Strawman.

The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES.

So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

Is that what you want?

You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took
priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

From: on Dec 11, 11:03 am

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased
and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license
classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the
General class license. Then they were taken away.

Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is
"lowering the requirements."

Jim sees what Jim wants to see.

Jimmie need help of opthalmologist...he have astigmatism.


It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

"Amateur"

Ummm...yes, that's what I answered. Too obvious to be "seen,"
I guess...




Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box".
You haven't.

One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed
all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. Then the FCC
implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away
priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to
all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements.

Sorry you feel that way.

Confusion reigns there. Must be the weather...



If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.
Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

No, it wouldn't. Strawman.

The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES.

Not applicable to Jimmie-discussions. He get Extra license,
be "superior." He typify "superior" class, elite. Nobility?

Blue blood is thicker than water.


So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

Is that what you want?

You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took
priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

Brian, that wasn't the point. Jimmie try more misdirection
by trying to start yet-another controversy over "what I want."
That can be expanded with his imaginary helium to "reach the
threshold of [newsgroup] space."

He tried the same bull**** with my remark on "extra out of the
box" five years ago in here...that I "WANTED" one...and the same
thing on my Reply to Comments of Mikey D. on WT DOCKET 98-143
six years ago with "my WANTING an age limit on licensing."

Tsk, Jimmie complains that I "don't *read* what he wrote" and
then takes my postings so far out of context that we might as
well all be in outer space and/or the Twilight Zone.

Okay, in that spirit of misdirection in here, let me pass on
an EXACT QUOTE of Jimmie's made on 10 December 2005:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

Offhand, I'd say that Jimmie "wants" amateurs to be UN-
LICENSED! :-)

Let's see if he can "tapdance" a few time-steps on that one?

wrote:
From: on Dec 11, 11:03 am

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased
and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license
classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the
General class license. Then they were taken away.

Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is
"lowering the requirements."

Jim sees what Jim wants to see.

Jimmie need help of opthalmologist...he have astigmatism.

He have a stigmup tis bottom.

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

"Amateur"

Ummm...yes, that's what I answered. Too obvious to be "seen,"
I guess...

Not enough "prestige."

Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box".
You haven't.

One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed
all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. Then the FCC
implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away
priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to
all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements.

Sorry you feel that way.

Confusion reigns there. Must be the weather...

When it reigns, it poors.

If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.
Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

No, it wouldn't. Strawman.

The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES.

Not applicable to Jimmie-discussions. He get Extra license,
be "superior." He typify "superior" class, elite. Nobility?

Blue blood is thicker than water.

Just thick. Need thinner. Coronary imminent.

So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

Is that what you want?

You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took
priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

Brian, that wasn't the point.

Good. I'm glad I was able to bring Jim back around to the discussion
of policy.

Jimmie try more misdirection
by trying to start yet-another controversy over "what I want."
That can be expanded with his imaginary helium to "reach the
threshold of [newsgroup] space."

Wonder how Coslo's BBS is coming along?

He tried the same bull**** with my remark on "extra out of the
box" five years ago in here...that I "WANTED" one...and the same
thing on my Reply to Comments of Mikey D. on WT DOCKET 98-143
six years ago with "my WANTING an age limit on licensing."

Tsk, Jimmie complains that I "don't *read* what he wrote" and
then takes my postings so far out of context that we might as
well all be in outer space and/or the Twilight Zone.

Okay, in that spirit of misdirection in here, let me pass on
an EXACT QUOTE of Jimmie's made on 10 December 2005:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

He presumes that the VEC does? Like so many Morsemen confuse "ARRL"
with "FCC?"

Offhand, I'd say that Jimmie "wants" amateurs to be UN-
LICENSED! :-)

Let's see if he can "tapdance" a few time-steps on that one?



Jim has his back in a corner. He's losing major ground on his lifetime
achievement of being an Extra, and the worst is probably just around
the corner.

From: on Sun, Dec 11 2005 7:33 pm


wrote:
From: on Dec 11, 11:03 am
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm
wrote:
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message

I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary.

The alternative would be to eliminate all license classes except
the Amateur Extra, and require all new hams to meet all the
requirements of the Amateur Extra without any intermediate
steps.

The ONLY alternative? :-)

If you don't want to lower the written test requirements, yes.

Jim just got through posting that in 1936 the code speed was *increased
and the written exams made *more comprehensive for the three license
classes at the time. Later, all priveleges were granted to the
General class license. Then they were taken away.

Now, one license class with the equivalent of the General Class exam is
"lowering the requirements."

Jim sees what Jim wants to see.

Jimmie need help of opthalmologist...he have astigmatism.

He have a stigmup tis bottom.

Well, he has 20-20 hindsight but seems to be of extreme
tunnel-vision
for the future (only He "knows" what will come to pass).

It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

"Amateur"

Ummm...yes, that's what I answered. Too obvious to be "seen,"
I guess...

Not enough "prestige."

...and Rank, Status, Privilege. All POLITICALLY stomped into the
regulations by those who thought they were "better" than others
in a HOBBY radio activity over the last half century.

I wish I had saved a longish post made by another about the time
I started accessing this newsgroup. Someone had written the
"new classes" of ham licenses, perhaps fifty-plus, delineating
how so many were so "superior" to those of "lesser rank."
Such as the supermen of amateur radio "able to leap tall pileups
in a single QSO." Hilarious!



Every month, a few dozen new licenses are issued to
Generals and Extras. While that number is small
compared to those who start out as Technicians, it
proves that at least some new hams bypass one or both
upgrading steps.

Why does one have to "upgrade" through license
classes?

One doesn't. Anyone can "go for the Extra right out of the box".
You haven't.

One doesn't have to upgrade at all. At one time the General conveyed
all amateur priveleges, and few amateurs tested higher. Then the FCC
implemented the Incentive Licensing System which you loved, took away
priveleges, and the rest is history. Now you say that going back to
all priveleges for the General exam is lowering requirements.

Sorry you feel that way.

Confusion reigns there. Must be the weather...

When it reigns, it poors.

TRUE! While these super-extra morsemen are busy hurting their
shoulders by patting themselves on the back over their superiorness,
the number of Expirations each month is just slightly more than the
number of Newcomers (never before licensed). Not many, but it is
consistent and has been so for the last 2 1/2 years. It's not a
"statistical anomaly" anymore. Amateur radio is getting "poorer"
as a result.

Advertising revenue - the fuel that feeds the periodical fires -
has been dropping for over a decade. Two major independent
publishers had to drop out of the business. The league wants more
money...to "keep the faith" (in the Church of St. Hiram?). Way
too many hams are busy with a "Let's Pretend" fantasy (almost
palpable) about their glorious service to the nation (as radio
hobbyists) and wearing virtual uniforms (unseen by ordinary
mortals) of glory and honor in their morsemanship a vital asset
in the War Against Terrorism! [I kid you not, some comments were
made in 05-235 saying that very thing] The "richness" is in
the tales of fantasy they generate, NOT a commodity that generates
any sort of revenue.


If there were only ONE license, there would be no
"upgrading" via licenses, would there?

Right.

And if there were only one license, regardless of
what it would be called, its test(s) would
have to contain everything that is now contained in
the three written tests for the Amateur Extra.
Otherwise the standards would be reduced.

No, it wouldn't. Strawman.

The General License used to convey ALL AMATEUR PRIVELEGES.

Not applicable to Jimmie-discussions. He get Extra license,
be "superior." He typify "superior" class, elite. Nobility?

Blue blood is thicker than water.

Just thick. Need thinner. Coronary imminent.

Similar to their self-coronation as Kings of Radio.

"Bloody clots" as the Brits might remark. :-)


So what you propose is that all new amateurs would
have to pass the equivalent of all the written tests
for the Amateur Extra all at once, just to get an
amateur radio license.

Is that what you want?

You're the one who loved the Incentive Licensing System which took
priveleges away from fully qualified amateurs. You're the one who
loves unnecessary licensing requirements.

Brian, that wasn't the point.

Good. I'm glad I was able to bring Jim back around to the discussion
of policy.

Don't bank on that lasting.


Jimmie try more misdirection
by trying to start yet-another controversy over "what I want."
That can be expanded with his imaginary helium to "reach the
threshold of [newsgroup] space."

Wonder how Coslo's BBS is coming along?

I wonder too. Anyone else know?



He tried the same bull**** with my remark on "extra out of the
box" five years ago in here...that I "WANTED" one...and the same
thing on my Reply to Comments of Mikey D. on WT DOCKET 98-143
six years ago with "my WANTING an age limit on licensing."

Tsk, Jimmie complains that I "don't *read* what he wrote" and
then takes my postings so far out of context that we might as
well all be in outer space and/or the Twilight Zone.

Okay, in that spirit of misdirection in here, let me pass on
an EXACT QUOTE of Jimmie's made on 10 December 2005:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

He presumes that the VEC does? Like so many Morsemen confuse "ARRL"
with "FCC?"

Jimmie just said "major typo alert!"

He acknowledged a MAJOR mistake in posting as a "typographical
error" but that is apparently okay for him to do. It's not okay
for any of us to do it...if we do it, we get reminders of it for
the next five years, negative critique, accusations of "not
following up on 'promises,'" the whole magilla. :-)




Offhand, I'd say that Jimmie "wants" amateurs to be UN-
LICENSED! :-)

Let's see if he can "tapdance" a few time-steps on that one?

Jim has his back in a corner. He's losing major ground on his lifetime
achievement of being an Extra, and the worst is probably just around
the corner.

Not to worry. He will rationalize the "worst" somehow, probably
based on "what the FCC did 37 years ago" or his getting a license
at age 14 or getting a college degree without having a car or
being a "manufacturer of amateur radio equipment" in the 1990s
using recycled vacuum tube technology. Whatever he's done is
guaranteed to be "better" than what anyone else has done, whether
avocationally or occupationally. shrug

wrote:

Jimmie just said "major typo alert!"

He acknowledged a MAJOR mistake in posting as a "typographical
error" but that is apparently okay for him to do. It's not okay
for any of us to do it...if we do it, we get reminders of it for
the next five years, negative critique, accusations of "not
following up on 'promises,'" the whole magilla.

The fact of the matter is, Lennie, that more often than not, you
either refuse to admit your errors, or even worse, defend them with
lengthy, windy pontifications intended to obfuscate them.

Jim's character doesn't seem to permit him to act that way.

I see you're still using diminutives that aren't directed at you.
Of course your sock puppet does nothing to suggest otherwise to you,
yet presumes to chastise others for not engaging in such conduct.

What's that term you're always using...."double standard"...?!?!

Seems you NCTA "guys" have more than your fair share! (as if
there was any doubt.....)

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Jimmie just said "major typo alert!"

He acknowledged a MAJOR mistake in posting as a "typographical
error" but that is apparently okay for him to do. It's not okay
for any of us to do it...if we do it, we get reminders of it for
the next five years, negative critique, accusations of "not
following up on 'promises,'" the whole magilla.

The fact of the matter is, Lennie, that more often than not, you
either refuse to admit your errors, or even worse, defend them with
lengthy, windy pontifications intended to obfuscate them.

But I thought the discussion was Jim's error?

Jim's character doesn't seem to permit him to act that way.

What character is Jim playing today?

I see you're still using diminutives that aren't directed at you.

Len is kidnapping diminuitives? Call the FBI!

Of course your sock puppet does nothing to suggest otherwise to you,
yet presumes to chastise others for not engaging in such conduct.

Why would a person be chastized for NOT engaging in such conduct?

You presume to have such great command of the "King's Engwish."

That's Quitefine. Hi, hi! ;^)

What's that term you're always using...."double standard"...?!?!

No, that is what you are always using. It is what I am always
claiming. Do you see now?

Seems you NCTA "guys" have more than your fair share! (as if
there was any doubt.....)

Steve, K4YZ

"Raped an Old Friend" is OK in the Emergency Room?

On 13 Dec 2005 09:25:02 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:


wrote:

Jimmie just said "major typo alert!"

He acknowledged a MAJOR mistake in posting as a "typographical
error" but that is apparently okay for him to do. It's not okay
for any of us to do it...if we do it, we get reminders of it for
the next five years, negative critique, accusations of "not
following up on 'promises,'" the whole magilla.

The fact of the matter is, Lennie, that more often than not, you
either refuse to admit your errors, or even worse, defend them with
lengthy, windy pontifications intended to obfuscate them.

Jim's character doesn't seem to permit him to act that way.

I see you're still using diminutives that aren't directed at you.
Of course your sock puppet does nothing to suggest otherwise to you,
yet presumes to chastise others for not engaging in such conduct.

What's that term you're always using...."double standard"...?!?!

why are you obsessed with dimutives stevie clearly you are dumb enough
to think being called stevie is worse than being called a pedophile
(you have said this more or less for months

Seems you NCTA "guys" have more than your fair share! (as if
there was any doubt.....)

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

wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 11 2005 7:33 pm
wrote:
From: on Dec 11, 11:03 am
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm

TRUE! While these super-extra morsemen are busy hurting their
shoulders by patting themselves on the back over their superiorness,

You've posted many, many words about *your* "superiorness" here,
telling us all about your Exploits In Professional Radio-Electronics.

If anybody's hurting from self-patting it's you...;-)

the number of Expirations each month is just slightly more than the
number of Newcomers (never before licensed). Not many, but it is
consistent and has been so for the last 2 1/2 years. It's not a
"statistical anomaly" anymore. Amateur radio is getting "poorer"
as a result.

Is it? How do you know, Len? And why does it matter to you?

You're not a radio amateur, and it's very unlikely you'll ever become
one.

You don't supply the amateur radio community with any product or
service. You're only obvious involvement with amateur radio in the
past decade or two has been to spam the FCC and usenet with your
verbiage.

Let's check the numbers....

These are the numbers of current, unexpired
amateur radio licenses held by individuals
on the stated dates:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Technician - 205,394
Technician Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254

Total Novice/General/Advanced/Extra - 340,538

Total all classes - 674,792

As of December 13, 2005:

Novice - 26,742 [decrease of 22,587]
Technician - 274,091 [increase of 68,697]
Technician Plus - 44,221 [decrease of 84,639]
General - 134,886 [increase of 22,209]
Advanced - 74,191 [decrease of 25,591]
Extra - 107,302 [increase of 28,552]

Total Tech/TechPlus - 318,312 [decrease of 15,942]

Total Novice/General/Advanced/Extra - 343,121 [increase of 2583]

Total all classes - 661,433 [decrease of 13,359]

These totals do not include licenses
that have expired but are in the grace period.
They also do not include club, military, RACES
or other station-only licenses.

How about that - the combined Technician/Technician Plus
number dropped by almost 16,000 while the other classes
*increased* by over 2500 - even though the Novice and
Advanced are not available for new issue anymore.

Advertising revenue - the fuel that feeds the periodical fires -
has been dropping for over a decade.

Whose advertising revenue?

Two major independent
publishers had to drop out of the business.
The league wants more
money...to "keep the faith" (in the Church of St. Hiram?).

Did you send ARRL any money? I did. Not just membership
dues either.

Way
too many hams are busy with a "Let's Pretend" fantasy (almost
palpable) about their glorious service to the nation (as radio
hobbyists) and wearing virtual uniforms (unseen by ordinary
mortals) of glory and honor in their morsemanship a vital asset
in the War Against Terrorism! [I kid you not, some comments were
made in 05-235 saying that very thing]

Your comments were a laff riot too, Len!

The "richness" is in
the tales of fantasy they generate, NOT a commodity that generates
any sort of revenue.

You've characterized amateur radio as "a HOBBY". So what does
it matter to you if "a HOBBY" "grows poorer"? Or even disappears?


He tried the same bull**** with my remark on "extra out of the
box" five years ago in here...that I "WANTED" one...and the same
thing on my Reply to Comments of Mikey D. on WT DOCKET 98-143
six years ago with "my WANTING an age limit on licensing."

You clearly wrote that you were "going for Extra". Was that a typo?

Did you mean you *weren't* going to get an amateur license?

In your comments to FCC in 1999 you wrote that an age limit of 14
should exist for any class of amateur radio license. Was that a typo
too?

If you didn't want either thing, why did you write what you did?
Were those things typos? If so, what did you mean to write? Where
are the corrections?

Shall we look at what you actually wrote and you can explain what
you meant that we didn't understand?

btw, speaking of the age of licensees - did you see that ex-KG6IRO
is being fined $42,000 by FCC? He's 69 years old. Guess what class
of amateur radio license he held before FCC revoked it.... (Hint: it
wasn't the Amateur Extra)

Tsk, Jimmie complains that I "don't *read* what he wrote"

You don't *understand* much of it, Len.

and
then takes my postings so far out of context that we might as
well all be in outer space and/or the Twilight Zone.

Supply the context, then. You've had *years* to do so...

Okay, in that spirit of misdirection in here, let me pass on
an EXACT QUOTE of Jimmie's made on 10 December 2005:

"The FCC doesn't license radio amateurs."

That was a typo, Len. A mistake. I wrote "FCC" when I meant to write
"FAA".

He presumes that the VEC does? Like so many Morsemen confuse "ARRL"
with "FCC?"

Jimmie just said "major typo alert!"

He acknowledged a MAJOR mistake in posting as a "typographical
error" but that is apparently okay for him to do.

"MAJOR" mistake? How so?

It's not okay
for any of us to do it...if we do it, we get reminders of it for
the next five years, negative critique, accusations of "not
following up on 'promises,'" the whole magilla. :-)

Well, Len, that was a typo I made.

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 don't see any corrections to them.

I corrected my FAA typo.

He's losing major ground on his lifetime
achievement of being an Extra, and the worst is probably just around
the corner.

Good heavens, I've much bigger achievements than the Amateur Extra
license. It's just the one you two like to pick on - because you don't
have such a license.....

Not to worry. He will rationalize the "worst" somehow, probably
based on "what the FCC did 37 years ago" or his getting a license
at age 14 or getting a college degree without having a car or
being a "manufacturer of amateur radio equipment" in the 1990s
using recycled vacuum tube technology.

Actually I was licensed at age 13, Len ;-). And I did get the degree
in the way described.

Was it wrong of me to take advantage of that
educational opportunity?

Am I not supposed to write about it?

Whatever he's done is
guaranteed to be "better" than what anyone else has done, whether
avocationally or occupationally.

Why no, Len, I don't claim that everything I've done is "better".
That's
*your* game!

I've done some things you haven't. And you've done some things I
haven't.

I'm better at some things than you are. And you're probably
better at some things than I am.

See how simple that is?

What's so predictable about your response is that you'll jump all over
a typo rather than discuss the actual arguments, facts and opinions
presented.

On 11 Dec 2005 11:03:08 -0800, wrote in
. com:


wrote:
wrote:
snip
It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

"Amateur"


Actually, I really like this idea of a single-class license. I might
even get one if it should ever be implemented, with or without code.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 11 Dec 2005 11:03:08 -0800, wrote in
. com:
wrote:
wrote:
snip
It isn't logical to have ONE license labeled "Extra." :-)

Then call it something else.

"Amateur"

Actually, I really like this idea of a single-class license. I might
even get one if it should ever be implemented, with or without code.

One license class is all that's needed. Perhaps after some elapsed
time, people will quit saying that they are Extra's or Advanced, or or
or..., and focus on being a good ham.