Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

wrote


1. The U.S. military gave up using morse code modes for
long-haul HF communications in 1948, longer than a
half century ago. Plain, simple fact.


Plain and simply innaccurate, Len. The US Navy used Morse for long-haul HF
communications with its surface fleets well into the 1960's and with its
submarine fleet into the 1980s from stations NAA (Culter, ME), NLK (Jim Creek,
WA), NPM (Honolulu), NAU (Peurto Rico), and VKE-3 (Northwest Cape, Australia).

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Plain and simply innaccurate, Len. The US Navy used Morse for long-haul
HF communications with its surface fleets well into the 1960's and with
its submarine fleet into the 1980s from stations NAA (Culter, ME), NLK
(Jim Creek, WA), NPM (Honolulu), NAU (Peurto Rico), and VKE-3 (Northwest
Cape, Australia).



Poor Hans, misinformed, as usual. Stop repeating what you hear
down at the Legion Hall Hans. Most of time that type of info is
always wrong.

73 from Kalib

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 04:19

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 19, 8:08 pm


Did Mr. Rightsell single you out for some personal criticism?

No, but you do not understand the procedings of public
commentary on Notices of Proposed Rulemaking.

"proceedings".

Try not to argue old v. new word useage, grasshopper.

Oops, forgot you are an extreme Literalist holding fast
to alternate words as well as alternate worlds.

I think I understand them fine.

I don't think so. :-)

One can dismiss or
argue against the views of another. It is not necessary to attack an
individual.

Tsk. No LAW against it, is there?

The way you are going on and on and on about it makes me
think you are preparing a civil suit for slander! Don't
get your legal briefs in a bind. You need better
tailoring for that suit.

Gotta look pretty for your boyfriend?


Think of
it as a form of politics. In politics the "gloves come
off" many times and that is acceptible.

You aren't in politics any more than you are in amateur radio.

Davie boy, you make absolutes on no basis whatsoever. :-)

You might check with a certain political party here in
California. But, you won't. You love calling your
opponents names.


I do not need any GPS device.

C'mon, Len. After reading some of your output here, I'd be surprised if
you could find your way to the bathroom on a foggy night.

You have to go outside to a toilet? Tsk, tsk.

I have a nice house with indoor plumbing. Had it for
over four decades.


I don't carry any purely hobby radio equipment, Len. There's just the
Amateur Radio Service equipment. I can drive and operate the radio
equipment simultaneously. I've not had a chargeable accident in years
and I've never had any accident while using a radio.

You are SO skilled! Never ever anything done wrong!

Or is that "writing" wrongs?


Abrogate your citizenship rights? That's blarney.

"Plain, simple fact:" WT Docket 98-143, 25 January 1999,
Comment by Robeson. Clear attempt by him to deny my
exercising First Amendment rights.

If that is indeed your view, you've made a clear attempt to deny Mr.
Rightsell's First Amendment rights.

Tsk. Not so. Was a Reply to Comments made BY Robert Rightsell.

Specific mentions of Rightsell's statements and my counter
to those. Had neat little footnotes which Jimmy Noserve
thinks are forbidden.

In contrast, Dudly (as Robeson) just didn't pick out any
specific statements I made. He just hopped up and down
that I should not be considered in a blanket statement.
Of course, that matters not since Robeson filed 10 days
after the final official date on Docket 98-143...which
made him essentially discarded by the Commission.



Heil has had ample time to file his own Reply to Comments
on my Replies to Comments. Heil has not. Heil wishes to
vent his bile, spite and anger in here. shrug

I'd never, never stoop to being that low in any documents submitted to
the U.S. Government.

Heavens no! Davie is from the Department of Diplomacy and
is the very model of a modern major diplomat!

Sort of like "Curveball's intelligence reports" making
Secretary Powell's speech in the UN "justifying" our
invasion of Iraq. Heil wants to be both, I think, with
an overdose of "Ahnold" the Governator. Powell got out
of government. Dubya is still in and over 2000 military
have died to further "democracy" and the Halliburton way
of life in Iraq. That leaves only the "informant"
sounding like so many long-time morsemen.


Yes, if I have anything to vent in the arena of
amateur radio policy, I'm likely to post it here.

Yes...ten kinds of nasty behavior in here, spleen spilling
out all over! :-)

You don't seem to know where to vent and where not to vent.

As far as Los Angeles Building Code is concerned, I know
exactly where to vent. Have a copy right here. I have
several other texts on ventilation, air cooling, etc.,
which have been used for venting excess heat. I think
you need those more than I after all the heat you're
generating into here... :-)



All note the title of this thread containing an overt personal
insult directed at myself. :-)

It most assuredly does. All of the material posted is, to the best of
my knowledge, completely factual.

Tsk. Your "knowledge" is both wrong and incomplete. :-)

You are just doing the personal insult thing...as usual.


[on "forking" - ]

A common cook's technique to ascertain the condition of meat
or fowl being cooked in an oven, grill, or barbeque.

Other than Super Chicken, do you know of any meat or fowl posting to
this newsgroup? Oh, it is "barbecue"

I know many who are most foul posting in here. Many have
a beef against the NCTA and wish to pick bones with them.
Most of their beefs sound fishy. Too much fowl matter.
Most seem chicken to address the subject rather than the
poster. That's not a feather in their cap, just
chicken****.

You say you are a ham? I say YOU are baloney. :-)

Try vegetarianism. Vegitate in front of a radio,
dreaming of a banquet of delicious DX. Don't do it
in a smokehouse; smoking not good for you but obviously
coming out of your ears. :-)

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am


wrote

1. The U.S. military gave up using morse code modes for
long-haul HF communications in 1948, longer than a
half century ago. Plain, simple fact.

Plain and simply innaccurate, Len.

Whatever you say, Hans. :-)

I was referring to the major message traffic handling which
enabled the tremendous (and superior) logistics capability
of the U.S. military keeping its worldwide presence during
and long after the end of WW2.

I was not attempting to impugn the United States Navy with
any negative criticism. The USN was the chief encourager
and supporter of early radio communications in the United
States. So much so that, at one point, the USN wanted to
control ALL radio, military AND civilian! [reference:
"The Continuous Wave, Technology and American Radio 1900-
1932," by Hugh G. J. Aitkin, Princeton University Press,
1985] Early radio required morse code skill due to the
primitive technology restricting communications to using
on-off keying codes. Note: The vast majority of
communications used on-off keying codes then despite some
experimentation with voice, time-signal, and teleprinter
communications which worked but did not survive in those
exact modes, even when the vacuum tube became feasible.

The US Navy used Morse for long-haul HF
communications with its surface fleets well into the 1960's and with its
submarine fleet into the 1980s from stations NAA (Culter, ME), NLK (Jim Creek,
WA), NPM (Honolulu), NAU (Peurto Rico), and VKE-3 (Northwest Cape, Australia).

You forgot one station.

And it is "Cutler, ME" and "Puerto Rico" isn't it? :-)

The majority of communications insofar as message traffic
was done as I stated, by teletypewriter. Yes, there was
a Fleet capability using morse code mode as you say. I have
no conflict with that. However, looking at ALL
communications necessary to maintain that Fleet, my
historical sources still point to the teletypewriter as
being the major "traffic" handling device for all branches
since the beginning of the USA's involvement with WW2.

I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

The USAF promoted single-channel (single-user) SSB on HF
in the latter half of the 1940s for Strategic Air
Command communications. Of two major developers, RCA
and Collins Radio, Collins capitalized on that experience
to design, market, and sell "SSB" HF radio equipment to
amateurs and commercial companies alike. That started
the changeover from AM voice to SSB voice in amateur HF
bands. However, commercial and military SSB, multi-
channel (rather multi-circuit) radio equipment was up and
working on HF from the very early 1930s. During WW2 and
after, that multi-circuit SSB bore the brunt of messaging
traffic (via TTY) for all branches of the U.S. military.

The early top-level cryptographic communications in The
Fleet (from at least 1940) was the "rotor machine"
teletypewriters, according to at least two texts on
cryptographic history from the 1960s. Those enabled
unbreakable communications in the Pacific of decrypted
Japanese fleet instructions and is considered part of
the essential means to win the Battle of Midway. That
"rotor machine" method was never compromised by any
nation (friend or foe) until later-generation equipment
was captured intact on the USS Pueblo. An example of
that machine is on the USS Pampanito floating museum
website, there labeled as "SIGABA." From other sources,
those machines were, essentially, modified Model 15 or
Model 19 teletypewriters made by Teletype Corporation.

My use of "plain, simple fact" phrasing is just copying
Miccolis' use. He likes to use that in his technique to
destroy opposing viewpoints by claiming that the least
example of an exception totally and completely "destroys"
any rule expressed by an opponent. It does not, but he
persists. shrug

BTW, the only bell-bottoms I wore were as a civilian,
none of them in blue, and had zippers, not buttons. :-)

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

wrote:
From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am
cut
I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

Len it is my underststanding that one or more of the Navy sub systems
used or at least were desugned to able to use a non manual morse system
that would have allowed for decoding of the signal of the signals
manualy in the event that the sub suffered damage, and survived (
current comabt theory seems ot say that a hit is a kill but..) . I
heard rumors that this system was developed and used for some time very
slow haviely "fransworthed" Morse indeed a demo I heard once in an
unclisified army breifingwas slow enough and farnworthed enough I could
read it (take down the dot and dashes) for looking up on a chart. the
amry considered and rejected such system as I hear it, did look more
into a Non morse encoded OOKed CW system designed for machine use with
the abilty for a jerry rigged unit allowing manual decoding of the
coded gruops that barely (if at all) got off the ground (end of the
cold war killed it) that with the fact I have heard some signal at very
low freqs sending what could be morse and heard em till the navy shut
down the elf unit that sits within a 100 miles of my current home means
I think there was some use of NON manual Morse in Navy till quite
recently (since 9/11) My computer decoded them as seemingly random
letter groups using a Morse back ground they stopped comeing when the
Navy shut down the elf unit

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am


Amateur radio might be operating weak signal UHF SSB with a multi-mode,
multi-band rig. It might be operating 2m FM through a local repeater.
It might be ragchewing on 40m CW. One constant is that you aren't involved.

I don't do any RF transmission in amateur bands, with the
exception of those bands which are shared with other radio
services. Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without
an amateur radio license or using morse code! And 24/7
without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-)

Gosh, you sound awfully important and oh, so involved!

Good going, senior.


I was involved in the 1950s. "State" had their
own TTY nodes in the ACAN-STARCOM-DCS worldwide in the 1950s
and 1960s.

Dark ages, Leonard. You were never employed by the U.S. Department of
State, just as you were never in amateur radio.

"Dark ages?!?" At the beginning of the Cold War?

You were never employed by the U.S. Army or the DoD, were you?

Would you like to know the node letters found on
all messages that were relayed by the Army? I have a nice
list. There's also one at the USAER website which covers
Army in Europe history extensively.

I'm not particularly interested.

Of course not. It might hurt your rants about amateurism.

Why do you live in the past?

Tsk, I don't. Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always
bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history
that happened before his time.

"State" never used an RCA Corporation RACES (Random Access
Card Extract System) archival memory storage machine?

It was not used for long. It wasn't seen as practical.

If it "wasn't seen as practical," WHY did State buy it?

Actually 'buy them' since they bought two.

The GM "tank factory" in Michigan bought a half dozen,
got delivered before State's buy order.


How does that make you involved in my employment?

Were you in the Department of State purchasing department?

Did you approve budget purchases?

I don't think so. If you say they were "impractical,"
then you have defrauded the American taxpayer by
having State buy them! Why do you fleece taxpayers?

Department of State
used those to keep track of a months' worth of messages
into/out of DC. You told me they were of no consequence. :-)

They weren't. Their demise was quick. They were supplanted by state of
the art (for the time) Teletype Model 40 gear. That equipement was used
long past its obsolescence. It was phased out in the late 1980's and
early 1990's. How were you involved in my job?

Whoa! Now you are saying you were in some technical or
strategic planning at State? I thought you only worked
at embassies? [most confusing here trying to get a
straight answer]



I'm not dismissing a great big hobby area involving all of electronics.
I'm stating quite accurately that you aren't involved in amateur radio.

So, in your mind electronics does NOT equate with "radio?"

It does not equate with "amateur radio?"

You hams still using spark transmitters? Tsk, forbidden.

Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY?

I don't think you do. You want enoblement into some kind
of "higher" service to the nation.

In other words, you're a non-factor in either.

Tsk, tsk, I'm closer to a Mersene number insofar as factors
are concerned! BSEG

from:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:DdsGm4-HerQJ:wurmbrand.uconn.edu/research/files/Leiden-1999.pdf+mersene+number&hl=en&client=firefox-a

"No large Mersene number was proven to be prime".

Davie, that's WHY they are called "Mersene" numbers.

You didn't know that? Tsk. You had to look it up... :-(


You must be past your prime, Len. :-)

Ha. Ha. Ha. Davie made a funny!


I don't know why it'd bother radio amateurs. I'm sure that you meant
that the Army gave up the use of morse for long haul, point-to-point
bulk relayed message traffic. Otherwise your statement could be seem as
incorrect. Amateur radio isn't about the Army.

Even if the Army gave birth to MARS? :-)

The amateur NTS could take some tips and pointers from the DCS.

But, that's digressing. Amateur radio is about amateurism.

Like the ARRL and their "radiogram" forms so that netties
can look so very "professional" in forwarding "telegrams." :-)


That's lucky for us. Otherwise your already long and irrelevant posts
would just grow longer.

Hey, be happy! This gives you all the more space to tell
your tales about all that important national communications
you did from African countries like Guinea-Bisseau! :-)

You can regale the group with your military exploits in a
"country at war" (Vietnam, 30+ years ago). Did you go
far "in country," Davie?

How about all the space work you did when you said you were
"with NASA there"?


Yep, when something is simple enough, many folks will opt for it rather
than attempting that which is more difficult. Many never go beyond the
easiest license despite the limited privileges it offers.

Such as long-time amateur radiotelegraphers who've never
ventured behind the front panels of their radios in order
to understand how they worked. :-)

Your clause doesn't address limited privileges. :-)

I didn't have any "clause." I asked a question. Pay attention.

Yes, I am familiar
with those. Their "radio skill" never goes beyond their
key, their ears, or the "official" jargon they've picked
up from older days, those used by older "radio experts."

Do you know any radio telephonists who've never ventured beyond the
front panels of their equipment? Does their skill extend beyond their
microphones? Have they picked up any "official" jargon from older days?
Perhaps your rant was intended only as a slam against anyone who is both
a telegrapher and a radio amateur.

I was addressing - specifically - who I addressed, not
"radio telephonists." You are attempting to misdirect.
The word you should have used is 'radiotelephony.'

NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

The written test elements are prepared, both questions and
multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC. Those
cover "radio theory" (actually electronics in general since
there are no exclusive-to-amateur-radio circuits) and
Commission regulations. While some questions pertain to
"radio operating," there is no actual, hands-on, demonstratable
ability to OPERATE any radio, let alone amateur radio. Some in
here as well as in commentary on the NPRM misuse "operating"
to refer almost exclusively to RADIOTELEGRAPHY.

Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about
radio theory? ABSOLUTELY. I charge that based on MY life
experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions
of rather elementary level on radio theory. I was answering
questions, giving CORRECT answers, as a NON-amateur but also
as a very professional radio-knowledgeable person. All too
many of those questions from radio amateurs chronologically
older than I was were so simplistic, so indicative of a basic
understanding of radio and propagation principles that I
would lump them as less than Novice class amateurs. I could
care less that they might be able to do 40 WPM radiotelegraphy
with "perfect copy" any time. I could care less if they had
earned every possible "radiosport" contest as amateurs. They
were still deficient in a basic understanding of radio theory,
deficient at an elementary level. In a radio activity that
grants BOTH an operator and station license, it showed me
that they couldn't possibly meet the technical regulations
of amateur radio to match their lofty rank-status-privileges
they were granted.


Vic Clark was a silent key before I entered the Foreign Service.

Not my fault. shrug

You told us that you exchanged letters with him.

You told us - many times - you entered employment with the
Department of State. shrug

I have NO proof that the late Vic Clark ever actually saw
my correspondence; such was all typewritten and a "signature"
could have been done by a secretary.

If you wish to make an ISSUE out of that, feel free. I will
have to give in because I never kept that correspondence
and cannot prove it happened.

There! A WEAK POINT! Jump in and make the BIG ISSUE.



Who wrote "I've met people like you, always bragging about..."

It wasn't a brag, Len. After all, you were the one who wrote about
notables coming to my embassy. Oh, that's right--you snipped that part.

I didn't bring up any "notables" until after you did...

What has all that name-dropping to do with amateur radio? :-)

That's what I thought when *you* brought it up.

"I brought it up?" I never worked at any embassy. You have
a time warp condition?



Then again, you aren't likely to know. You aren't a ham and you aren't
an ARRL member.

I'm FAR LESS likely to be an ARRL/NAAR member than a licensed
radio amateur...unless they do some drastic changes to their
public policy.

Every single licensed radio amateur in the United States was
NOT a ham until they passed their first amateur test. Why do
you keep harping on that?

You keep demanding that the only persons who can talk about
amateur radio regulations MUST be a licensed radio amateur?
Why is that? The FCC is NOT a club...it is a radio regulating
agency...for ALL civil radio. The FCC is NOT a fraternal
organization, was never chartered to be one.

The "National Association for Amateur Radio" (nee' ARRL) is
the "club." Even so, their membership is only one of every
five U.S. amateur radio licensees. Why aren't there more?
The percentages of membership have never become greater than
a quarter of all licensees.

Your blatant problem is some weird self-righteous elitism
wherein you claim that no one licensed can "know" anything
about amateur radio. That's just a plain, simple lie.
Were it true then there would be NO newcomers to amateur
radio licensing because they would not know enough to pass
any test!

What nightly footsteps are in evidence and why would they be yellow?

Inquire of REAL USMC veterans about "yellow footsteps."

Why?

Refer to the message exchange between K4YZ and Frank Gilliland,
a REAL USMC veteran. It has been going on in here quite
recently. You haven't seen it? You are not paying attention,
are not aware and informed.

You haven't been following the expose' of the self-renowned
Amateur Extra now dubbed Dudly the Imposter.

Oh, I know that you've found another insulting name for someone.

If that is an insult, then it is MILD in comparison to the
insults he has hurled to many others over his years in here.

If you wish to elevate a fraudulent "veteran" to some lofty
status of "superiority," then you are no better, perhaps
lesser than that sorry excuse for a former military person.



So that'd be unlike any real march on Washington, where all were united
in a common goal. In the Civil Rights march, were more than half of the
marchers *against* civil rights for blacks?

Elimination of the morse code test in amateur radio regulations
is NOWHERE NEAR THE humanitarian level of EQUAL rights for non-
whites.

Is a "march on Washington" ONLY about civil rights in your
mind? Try the "Bonus March" of 1933, April 29 starting
date. Participants even camped out on the Mall for days.
The U.S. Army was ordered to herd them.

Are you trying to "herd in" protesters? Do you fancy yourself
to be in authority? You aren't. You were NEVER in the
U.S. Army. You don't even know what I am referring to...
even though it is a shameful bit of history of the USA.

It's been only four months
since the release of NPRM 05-143 (on July 19, 2005) but in
the 11 month official period of WT Docket 98-143 on
Restructuring, that garnered only about 2200 filings.

And? What percentage of radio amateurs filed? What percentage of the
general public filed?

Ask Joe Speroni. Rightsell calls him the "unofficial
statistician of amateur radio." What did Speroni do about
that "English department" filing wherein the English
teacher stated outright she had NO activity in amateur
radio and was NOT going to get an amateur license. Speroni
counted her for "support" of his "statistics." What of all
those law students filing, 18 in all. None of them are
licensees and none say they are going to get a license.

You love Rightsell, don't you? You get on my case because
I filed a Reply to Comments of his "two-year-olds" filing.



You aren't wrapped very tight.

True, I am (at time of writing) sitting in shirtsleeves,
the office window open, temperature gauge at the corner
of the radio clock displaying 71.3 degrees F.
If you mean that remark as an insult, then it has fallen
flat before the message got here. Please do not litter.

I meant it as a statement of that which is evident, but I don't blame
you for wanting to snip that which illustrated my point.

Explain a colloquial quip as being "evident."

Explain why I am supposed to "accept" an insult which
demeans my intelligence and/or emotional stability.

Or is this the usual Morseman Extra Double Standard wherein
Morsemen can make insults and be acceptible, but others
may not?



"Profiles" work two ways, indeed in many ways. Yours
can, and has been done (in part) several times.

Was that the one you plagiarized from Jim's work?

PARODY is perfectly acceptible.

I've NEVER been guilty of plagiarism, nor did I engage in any.



What's it to you?

You really can't answer a plain, simple, direct question...


Then why do YOU insist that all radio amateurs "love" the
specific things YOU "love?"

I do not.

Tsk, tsk, you DO! See little gems of an accusatory nature
such as I should have obtained an amateur radio license
before accepting professional radio employment!

There's more, but you will try to get out such charges. :-)

Your motivation is at question there.

Your understanding of logic is at question here.

No, MOTIVATION. You try to personalize all opinions, then
you generate false "reasons" why all must do as you
specify, including liking what you like.

What MOTIVATES you to behave in such a manner?

What MOTIVATES you to get all hot and bothered about ONE
Reply to Comments of Robert Rightsell and NOT say anything
about my other, earlier Replies to Comments?

YOUR motivation is highly suspect.



Does Palomar know about you? Does Schmidt help you?

I'll let you think some more about another question you
did not answer... :-)

What were you telling me about your not having to respond to questions? :-)

Did Schmidt help you in amateur astronomy?

That's a plain, simple, direct question.



I have not obtained any amateur radio license, true...

Precisely!

"Precisely" what? Is amateur radio a forbidden subject to anyone
without a federal license in amateur radio?!?

Why do you wish to forbid any discussion?

Why do you wish to heckle others who do not have opinions
equal to yours?

Your motivation in all that activity is suspect.



I had been attempting to levitate. Then I tried to invent anti-
gravity. No success. Something is holding me down...

Have you decided to use that line over and over until someone thinks it
is a) original to you or b) funny?

a. It IS original.

b. The stand-up comic (who paid me to write material for him) found
it was funny to his audience.

c. I have more...but they are wasted on this audience.


Sorry, you're thinking of Val Germann. He's been an unmodified
Tech for over three years. [my micro-fiber jacket isn't
tattered, you've got the wrong guy...]

You're wearing a jacket in 73 degree temperatures?

Tsk. Never said that. You've connected disparate parts
in an attempt to demean another. Not nice.

Around you one may have to wear a "full metal jacket."

:-)


You are not a member.

I am not a member of the FCC. Neither are you. shrug



Just how big is that "lodge hall" you tried to write about?

It is big enough to hold well over 600,000 members.

United States amateur radio is NOT a "Lodge." That you think
so is not a definition nor a legality of existance.

The FCC is NOT a fraternal organization nor a fraternal order
governor.


You DO have such difficulty with the written word, don't
you? Tsk, tsk. Work on comprehension rather that strict,
obedient literalism. This isn't an English Composition
high school class.

I realized that when I found that there isn't a competent instructor on
hand.

Joe Speroni thinks differently.


Ever hear of Phil Amidon? He retired from NBC West Coast
Headquarters years ago. He'd already started a small
business selling iron powder toroid cores and other little
kits on sale in many radio-electronics parts stores
nationwide. Bigger corporation bought his company.

Yep. They don't make anything. They re-package and sell products made
by another firm.

Are you sure it isn't BILL Amidon? :-) Why no "correction?" :-)

Amidon is/was a licensed radio amateur; I don't know if
he is SK or not. Amidon ads have been in QST for over two
decades. Hams who actually build radio things should be
familiar with the name.

Does this mean you are dissing a fellow radio amateur? Tsk.



Yep, extreme literalism. "Back of the bus" kind of bigotry.

That's incorrect. The seating on the bus is open. You haven't boarded.

Then why do you keep trying to shut the door?

Your "motivation" seems one of self-righteous bigotry, allowing
that "door" open to only those you deem desireable.


Tell me, do you hang around VE exam sessions, questioning
those who enter the door whether they are "upgrading" or
are newbies? Do you act like a Dill sergeant with the
newbies? Chew them out, don't permit them to speak until
spoken to? I get the distinct feeling you do that. :-)

You aren't yet a newbie. :-)

Ohm my, there you go again. Nobody can talk in any venue
without YOUR approval?


Morse code is alive but unwell...

See, this is what I mean when I say that you make frequent factual
errors. I invite you to tune your Icom receiver to the low ends of the
bands 160-10m this coming weekend.

Why? I have no personal interest in morse code and no interest
in amateur radio contesting. Invitation denied.

One can listen OUTSIDE the amateur radio bands and NOT hear
much radiotelegraphy. Hardly a beep to be heard...still lots
of SSB and AM voice, data (TORs mostly), international
broadcasting, standard time signals. Not much morse code.

Let's see...your "stock answer" will be the imperative that
"this is an amateur radio forum and that's all that can be
talked about?"

... dwelling only in the musculeminds...

Musculeminds? What's a muscule? Is that like your miscue on "missle"?
Your noggin must be "musculebound".

Ohm my, I made a typo, a Freudian slip confusing "miniscule"
with "muscle." :-)


You aren't wrapped too tight.

Now now, you are making an allusion to lack of intelligence
and/or emotional stability again, aren't you? :-)


Actually, Len, statistics say that I should be at least a couple of
decades from being done.

Let's say this: You sure as hell aren't rare or medium!

I was rare from Sierra Leone, but not as rare as from Guinea-Bissau.

But you sure aren't well done either. "Steak tartare." :-)

Reflect on the old saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and
statistics." All are connected as equals. :-)

I will be reading your SK notice in the ARRL/NAAR newsletter.

The actuarial tables say that you're likely to be wrong.

We'll see... :-)

The League
doesn't publish Silent Key notices in a newsletter. They're published
in QST.

Just today I peeked at the ARRL home page, the one obtained
by accessing www.arrl.org. Just below half of the items of
news is "Former ARRL HQ Staffer Paul R. Shafer, KB1BE, SK."

The ARRL web page is NOT the pages of QST.


I will think back on you then.

I guess you told me.

Right on, senior! :-)

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: "an old friend" on Mon, Nov 21 2005 3:01 pm


wrote:
From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am

I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

Len it is my underststanding that one or more of the Navy sub systems
used or at least were desugned to able to use a non manual morse system
that would have allowed for decoding of the signal of the signals

Mark, it is really irrelevant what the USN uses for Alert
messaging to submarines in this newsgroup. "We" aren't
supposed to talk about anything non-amateur...:-)

Suffice to say that those boats DO use code. It just isn't
morse code. Alert messages WERE sent on very low frequencies
using very slow data-rate DATA. The reason for very slow
data rate was signal-to-noise ratio and a very narrow
bandwidth at ELF or even VLF and to allow submarines to
pick up Alerts while still submerged. While ELF and VLF
does penetrate water, water still has attenuation of the
radio signal so the S:N ratio puts a limit at the depth
they can be to receive the Alert. There WAS automatic
decoding equipment in the boat's "radio room" for Alerts.

I used past tense because I do not know what the boats use
NOW. I'm not going to inquire, either. I've got confidence
in the USN and NSA being able to Alert Boomers and Sharks
as needed without fear of being compromised.

I no longer have any confidence that our country's leadership
can use their intelligence reports intelligently...but that
is a subject for a separate newsgroup. :-)

The information on the FAS website (a considerable amount)
is interesting. Whether it represents the "truth" or not
is a subject for the intelligence community's analysis. So
far the FAS has continued to function, stay on-line without
any closures from the government.

There IS some information about the NSA and DIA and CIA
that has been cleared for publication. I have some of those
books. Amazon has them on sale.

But, amateur radio is forbidden by the Commission regulations
from using any encipherment that obscures the meaning of a
communication. Hans has not been forthcoming on lecturing
us on the precise sub-parts on that. Since I am unlicensed
in the amateur service, several others are attempting to
forbid my mentioning anything. :-)

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Mon, Nov 21 2005 3:01 pm


wrote:
From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am

I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

Len it is my underststanding that one or more of the Navy sub systems
used or at least were desugned to able to use a non manual morse system
that would have allowed for decoding of the signal of the signals

Mark, it is really irrelevant what the USN uses for Alert
messaging to submarines in this newsgroup. "We" aren't
supposed to talk about anything non-amateur...:-)

that is the Stevie postion but i don't agree with him anything radio is
at least more ontopic than the endless discussion of everyone stevie
dislikes sex life

Suffice to say that those boats DO use code. It just isn't
morse code. Alert messages WERE sent on very low frequencies
using very slow data-rate DATA. The reason for very slow
data rate was signal-to-noise ratio and a very narrow
bandwidth at ELF or even VLF and to allow submarines to
pick up Alerts while still submerged. While ELF and VLF
does penetrate water, water still has attenuation of the
radio signal so the S:N ratio puts a limit at the depth
they can be to receive the Alert. There WAS automatic
decoding equipment in the boat's "radio room" for Alerts.

I used past tense because I do not know what the boats use
NOW. I'm not going to inquire, either. I've got confidence
in the USN and NSA being able to Alert Boomers and Sharks
as needed without fear of being compromised.

me too

I no longer have any confidence that our country's leadership
can use their intelligence reports intelligently...but that
is a subject for a separate newsgroup. :-)

definately a differently newgruops My doubts is that the intel world
can express an opinion that they will stand behind 2 days later but as
you say a different NG

The information on the FAS website (a considerable amount)
is interesting. Whether it represents the "truth" or not
is a subject for the intelligence community's analysis. So
far the FAS has continued to function, stay on-line without
any closures from the government.

There IS some information about the NSA and DIA and CIA
that has been cleared for publication. I have some of those
books. Amazon has them on sale.

But, amateur radio is forbidden by the Commission regulations
from using any encipherment that obscures the meaning of a
communication. Hans has not been forthcoming on lecturing
us on the precise sub-parts on that. Since I am unlicensed
in the amateur service, several others are attempting to
forbid my mentioning anything. :-)

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

The purpose of the whole drill was to get you to find out from
uncontestable sources that my information was accurate.

No need. Given your propensity for lying, it's a safe bet that you
were wrong again.

Bad logic, Brian.

Why would I direct you to a source that was uncorruptable?

If I HAD been 'wrong', I would have given you eternal bragging
right, now wouldn't I...?!?!

Steve, I guess that's the main difference between you and me. I need
no bragging rights.

Sure you do.

No, I don't.

Otherwise why manufacture the Somalia tale?

What tale?

Hans'
presenting of the order, howevr well intentioned, harpooned that.

None-the-less, Frankie's rant was shot all to be-jeebers.

Only Hans was suckered into playing your "drill," harpoon and all.
Reminds me of the GNR episode in "The Dead Pool."

Hans wasn't "suckered" into anything.

His information was dead on accurate.

"Back to the Future" accurate.

Unfortunately, you don't have a time machine.

I don't need one.

Apparently you do.

YOU have a phone and Internet access. Drop a dime.

It's not my job to prove every tall tale of yours.

And you now have the resources with which to finish the job,
Brian...It's just up to you whether you're going to do it or not...

You can do it, which will only serve to verify what I've been
saying all along...GOD FORBID it would deprive you of the opportunities
to call me a liar.

Or you can NOT do it, and then waffle along with all sorts of
"It's not my job" or "I bet you're lying anyway" excuses and the rant
wars go on.

Steve, K4YZ

It's not my job to prove you right.

But you demand answers and "proof".

Only because you have a reputation for not speaking the truth.

When I provide verifiable resources you "pooh-pooh" it away with
these lame "...it's not my job..." excuses.

You asked for proof, I provided answers and resources to verify
those answers.

Your DD Form 214 is definitive proof that you served. We'll start with
that. Scan it, post it.

Hans tried, bless his heart.

Yes, he did...And the basic order number is the same. Follow-up on
it. Take a chance.

It's your reputation.

But you want your internet arguments to go on and on and on. All you
had to do was give up some information about your claims of seven
hostile actions five years ago, but no. Now after years of bad
information about everything else, you want someone else to prove you
right about uniform issue?

Nope.

Yep.

You asked for proof. I provided resources of uncorruptable
verification of my assertions.

You refuse to follow the Yellow Brick Road, so don't complain
about not getting to Oz.

You believe that you're in Oz?

Good luck.

For what? Poking holes in your lame excuse, Brian? I didn't need
luck for that...You provided all the footwork.

Thanks.

Steve, K4YZ

Round 2,017. Still no evidence that Steve even served.