|
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:03 pm
wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. a fair enough assesment of len views I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio operator's license. my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave I understand your posting, Mark. I was, once again, trying to make my position clear in this din of inequity. Jimmie Noserve and Kernal Klunk love to argue for argument's sake. They seem to be addicted to WIN arguments at all costs! They frequently take quotes out of context and make disparaging remarks on those as if they were stand-alone statements. They MUST win. They are very sore losers, can't take pain. They both use "operating skills" as if the ONLY kind of operation of radio involves morse code. In every other radio service, there is NO "operating skill" of the amateur variety involved. Klunk should know that but he is no longer in the furrin servuss, busy using his "operating skills" out of exotic countries such as Guinea-Bisseau. He probably misses BEING "rare DX." The FCC has had that viewpoint. They said so in public documents. As early as 1990, as in FCC 90-53. Anyone can see a copy of that at the NCI website. They said the same thing, although in slightly different works, in NPRM 05-143 released on 15 July 2005. Stupor-patriot morsemen think morse code telegraphy skills are all that is "operating skill." That's how it is with them extra morsemen. Failure to agree with them results in immediate dismissal under BUPERINST something or other. |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
|
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
an old friend wrote:
wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. a fair enough assesment of len views I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio operator's license. my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim... Paper? Where's the paper? ...as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill... I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel. (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody. Dave K8MN |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm cut my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim... Paper? Where's the paper? gog find it ...as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill... I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel. beg all you like I can't help (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody. did you have anything to say? it doesn't look like it Dave K8MN |
Not Qualified
wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am wrote: From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations for 71 years. :-) That's true ;-) It's also been in the regulations for 72 years, and 73 years, and 74 years, Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC. You didn't specify "regulations of the FCC" before. Now you're trying to change the boundary conditions. Old trick, doesn't work. It was created in 1934. As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with: - cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto. Ancient history. ;-) You have no valid comparison to morse code. Yes, I do. Manual transmissions are a valid comparison to Morse Code. Someone who was really interested in a logical argument could point out that there is no separate skill test for manual transmission skill anymore. Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence. I don't do that, Len. I am skilled in both manual transmission operation and Morse Code operation. You, on the other hand, have no competence in Morse Code operation, yet you blather on about it endlessly. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence." When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro (as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual gear changing. But they are not manual transmissions. They are automatic transmissions. Didn't have to know morse code to drive... But isn't manual transmission a "dying" technology? Why would anyone bother to learn it in 2005? Manual transmission is not favored in many states due to emission limits, by law, not by the fact that manual transmissions are a decided inconvenience. Doesn't answer the question, Len. Truck-tractors have manual transmissions. For various reasons. Most cars equipped with automatic transmissions can also do manual gear changing; they just don't have any clutch. There are more differences than "they just don't have any clutch", however. But that is all beside the point. - sailboats instead of power boats Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats... Morse Code takes less power than voice transmission. There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order to pilot a sailing vessel. Not the point. Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound- powered" telecommunications sets. Actually, I have. No DC or AC power needed to operate them. There is no equivalent for telegraphy. Sure there is - it's called wigwag. Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using sail power about 100 years ago. Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are real. Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces. They represent less than 1% of the fleet of those military services. Morse Code, OTOH, represents much more than 1% of amateur radio operation. No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat. There are almost no commercial uses for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating, and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well. That is an absolute? Yes - is it not true? Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft." Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple facts. Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating? There are NO commercial uses for morse code skill in the USA except for the companies selling morse code practice material. And the companies selling Morse Code equipment. In any event, the analogy between sailing and Morse Code is obvious, valid, and very clear. - Drawing and painting instead of photography No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do. Still have your crayons, huh? Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles. Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there? Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that. Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a simple question? Sure looks like it. When I went to Art Center it was in the city of Los Angeles, on 3rd Street, somewhat near CBS City and the Pan-Pacific Auditorium. Do you still have your crayons, Len? Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography? No. I can give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My photographs and illustrations have been published in national magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints, brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for painting in preference for the finer linen media. That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies. Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer graphics. Why do you live in the past? Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or photography? By analogy. - Homemade food instead of packaged How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-) Is that where your cooking winds up, Len? Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow campers. I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-) Try not to "get along so well with others" in your writing. It looks hostile and argumentative. Awwww...can't you take a little humor, Len? :-) Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten others? Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead... :-) Why? It would further prove the efficacy of "morse code efficiency" to all others. How? The point is simply that Fessenden was using AM voice effectively more than 100 years ago. You deny and denigrate his successes, but they are well documented all the same. Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in "engineering?" :-) What gaffe, Len? "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering. Electronics is a part of Physics. No, it isn't. I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college. None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical engineering covered electronics. Part of Electronics is SCIENCE. What isn't science is technology. No, it's all part of engineering. Application of electronic technology is done in electrical and electronic engineering. Says who? You? Bwaaahaahaa! Science is about discovering the laws of nature. Engineering is about doing practical things. Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous) kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God, celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly thought at the time. Franklin the scientist determined the nature of lightning. But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree) didn't stop with just the scientific discovery of the nature of lightning. He went on to develop the first systems of lightning protection (commonly known even today as "lightning rods" to protect structures. His system was the first practical electrical device or system, earning him the honor of being the first Electrical Engineer. You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s. Yes, you did. Also UCMJ, usenet, and many others. Buck up and learn to live with your own imperfections, Len. You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ other than some casual thing that applies only to others. Irrelevant - you didn't even know what the acronym "UCMJ" stood for. You made a mistake. If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that. Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005. 3,795 of them. :-) So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one more has been added in the ECFS. You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len, even though the url was given in the filed comments. If you'd actually read and understood them, you'd know have seen it and been able to compare it with your own. There is NO "evidence" at www.ah0a.org Yes, there is. Each filing is categorized, and a direct, automatic link provided so that anyone can compare the categorization to the actual filing documents. I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments so accessible. except in the highly- biased opinion of a long-time morseman... How are those results "biased", Len? How are they any more "biased" than yours, in which you count multiple filings by the same person as separate opinions, as long as they are not exactly identical? Do you think your anticodetest opinion is 10 times more valid than the procodetest opinion of someone who simply filed a comment? one whose Petitions before the Commission have been DENIED. Lots of people have had their petitions DENIED, either in whole or in part: NCI's petition to have a "sunset" clause on Morse Code testing was DENIED NCI and NCVEC's petitions to simply dump Element 1 by Memorandum Report and Order, and to avoid the whole NPRM cycle, were both DENIED ARRL and NCI's petitions to give free upgrades to over 300,000 amateurs were DENIED NCVEC's petition to create a new "Communicator" license class was DENIED. And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age requirement for an amateur radio license was DENIED. Have you *ever* filed a real petition with FCC, Len? One that got an RM number, drew comments, etc.? I think not. When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's basic logic. No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-) In your illogical mind, I suppose. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine. I will not stop writing facts and truth just because they bother you. Your Commercial license does not qualify you to operate an amateur radio station. Your amateur radio operator's license does NOT "qualify" you to operate any commercial radio station, radionavigation station, space-communications station, radiosonde station, radar of any kind, television transmitter, aircraft transmitter, maritime vessel transmitter, land mobile radio service transmitter, or microwave radio relay station. Never said it did. Mine does. Do you own any of those? Legally, you are the same as a person with no license at all when it comes to operating an amateur radio station. Do you wish to take me to civil court? Federal court? If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job, not mine. Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur radio license (that's good) Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or "unqualified." Incorrect again! You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and AUTHORIZED. Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station. FCC considers every unlicensed person to be unqualified to operate an amateur radio station. That's why they issue licenses - to identify those who are qualified. Wrong. No, it's exactly right. Those whom the FCC considers qualified are issued licenses. FCC does not consider any unlicensed person to be qualified to operate an amateur radio station. The FCC issues licenses as part of their overall civil radio regulatory task. FCC only issues licenses to those who demonstrate that they are qualified. The licenses can be revoked if the licensee demonstrates that they are not qualified. All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither qualified nor authorized. The FCC was never chartered by LAW to be an academic or skill- achievement agency. They AUTHORIZE license holders to operate and transmit RF energy according to the regulations pertaining to the type and kind of radio service they are AUTHORIZED in. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station, Len. FCC says so. FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. The FCC has "said" no such thing to me. Yes, they have. They've never once written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything... They don't have to, Len. The regulations clearly define what an amateur radio station is, and what license is required to operate one. You don't have the required license, so by definition you are not qualified - and not authorized - to operate an amateur radio station. The license is the qualification. It is an AUTHORIZATION. It is a PERMISSION. It is a GRANT. You have none of those. By definition. FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. No, I am not permitted - by regulation - to transmit RF energy exceeding incidental RF radiation limits on allocated amateur- only frequencies without possessing an amateur radio license grant. True, but incomplete. By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur radio station. The military of the United States and the federal government of the United States (other than the FCC) have QUALIFIED me to operate radio transmitters according to military/government regulations. Experience in actual successful transmission of RF energy has furthered that qualification. None of which extends to amateur radio stations. You are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur radio station. Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio station, Len? I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI together. Prove it. Go to the FCC Reading Room and look up correspondence to them prior to the earliest ECFS-available date. That is an un- alterable third-party reference. What date should I look for? I did not keep ALL correspondence I've done in the last four decades. So you have no proof. I cannot digitize and present what I no longer have. The FCC Reading Room keeps records intact, archived. And what date are you claiming? You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that license. Doesn't matter - I could pass it again easily. You can't even pass it once. More hostility and combativeness. Tsk, NOT "getting along with others" on your part. I'm just telling you the facts. I have never taken any amateur radio license test, therefore I neither "passed" nor "failed" it. That only proves the PAST. You can't even pass the tests once. Not all of them, anyway. You stated what I allegedly "could not do" in the future. You are not prescient, cannot tell the future. Ergo, your remark is simply one of hostility and combatativeness. No, I simply point out what you can't do *now*.... Telling someone the Morse Code test is a good thing isn't hostile, Len. Sorry, it IS hostile when you presume your opinion to be an absolute. It is only your opinion. You frequently try to make your opinions as absolutes. That is wrong. Where have I made my opinions absolute? Give us a concrete example. Also consider how many times you have stated your opinions as facts, then had them shown to be unsupported by facts. Not me. I'm not the one who's afraid to turn on a receiver and listen to the low ends of the HF amateur bands.... Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced. Really? ;-) First, I was not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day holiday weekend. But you could have been... Second, I've already "turned on and listened" to all parts of the MF and HF spectrum...many times...even looked at it with a spectrum analyzer. But you avoid those parts where Morse Code can most likely be found, right? At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't have one. How do you know, Len? You've never served in the armed forces of the United States. How do you know? Had you done so, you would have received a DD-214 as a release from active duty. You've said you did not serve, When? I have never claimed to have served in any military. That does not mean I never served. There's a lot of things I have done which I have not mentioned here. That really seems to bother you. "It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-) I know what they are, Len. Incorrect again. All you "know" is what I've written in here. I've not written about all of my "interests" or "what I've done" or "what I do." You've written such long diatribes about your activities that it's hard not to know, Len. Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those subjects. "Near-complete ignorance?!?" Yes. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. It's a fact that you have near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, Len. That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model. "Hardly a good role model?!?" Yep. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. Do you think others should act like you, Len? Do you think you're a good role model of professional - or amateur - behavior? Or are you one of those who think that others should do as you say, not as you do? |
Not Qualified
From: on Dec 2, 5:33 pm
wrote: From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am wrote: From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC. You didn't specify "regulations of the FCC" before. Now you're trying to change the boundary conditions. Old trick, doesn't work. "Boundary conditions?" :-) Tsk, you aren't old enough to have been licensed under any other federal radio agency besides the FCC. :-) You have no valid comparison to morse code. Yes, I do. Manual transmissions are a valid comparison to Morse Code. Sorry, but that's really so far out of "boundary conditions" that it is a ridiculous analogue. :-) I don't do that, Len. I am skilled in both manual transmission operation and Morse Code operation. Oh? Tsk, I didn't see you at that NASCAR awards banquet telecast tonight...were you waiting in the wings or something? Can you hop into any 18-wheeler's tractor and "skillfully" operate the gear shifting there? :-) You, on the other hand, have no competence in Morse Code operation, yet you blather on about it endlessly. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence." Now, now, your "boundary conditions" are getting blurred by the red haze of your hostility... :-) When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro (as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual gear changing. But they are not manual transmissions. They are automatic transmissions. Funny! Takes MANUAL MOVEMENT by hands to set the right gear. :-) Doesn't answer the question, Len. What "question?" Vehicle transmissions aren't involved in any amateur radio license examinations. My, you DO stray from the subject a lot when misdirecting... :-) There are more differences than "they just don't have any clutch", however. But that is all beside the point. Ah! NOW you are getting the point. Took you long enough... There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order to pilot a sailing vessel. Not the point. Ah, but YOU brought that up to begin with... :-) Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound- powered" telecommunications sets. Actually, I have. Oh, my, you "have" done everything? :-) Sure there is - it's called wigwag. No, those are called SEMAPHORE FLAGS. Those are useless at night so the U.S. Army Signal Corps used TORCHES at night. Both kinds on both sides during the U.S. Civil War. The very same flag/torch positions, too! :-) The flags crossed, overlaid by a single torch, appear as the collar insignia of all U.S. Army signal persons today...the same as they did when I served in the U.S. Army as a signalman. Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using sail power about 100 years ago. Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are real. Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces. Funny! I suppose lots of USN and USCG academy midshipmen "train to be museum curators?" :-) They represent less than 1% of the fleet of those military services. How do you KNOW? :-) No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat. There are almost no commercial uses for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating, and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well. That is an absolute? Yes - is it not true? Yes, it is not true. :-) Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft." Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple facts. Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating? I think your terms are a bit wrong. It is PLEASURE boating, not "hobby" boating. :-) So, is morse code skill required to pilot ANY boat or ship? In any event, the analogy between sailing and Morse Code is obvious, valid, and very clear. Only in a dense fog of your own making. Sound your foghorn like a good little "hobby" mariner...toot, toot! :-) - Drawing and painting instead of photography No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do. Still have your crayons, huh? Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles. Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there? I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on 3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-) Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that. Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a simple question? Sure looks like it. BWWAAAAAAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!! Poor lad, you are WORRIED? :-) Do you still have your crayons, Len? A couple of "Conte crayons." Stubs, left-overs. Few use Conte crayons now. As far as I know, those weren't made by Crayola. Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography? No. You might find references to Conte crayons in an old art text. Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience." I can give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My photographs and illustrations have been published in national magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints, brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for painting in preference for the finer linen media. That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies. Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer graphics. Oh, my, you'll have to tell all the illustrators everywhere that their techniques are "dying!" All the lithography producers will have to shut down! All the Art Schools have to shut down! Oh, my, all that commotion! :-) Why do you live in the past? I live in the past?!? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or photography? By analogy. Is "analogy" a new kind of art media? [yes, I Gesso... :-) ] - Homemade food instead of packaged How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-) Is that where your cooking winds up, Len? Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow campers. I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-) How do you KNOW? Tsk, tsk, more HOSTILITY showing there... Awwww...can't you take a little humor, Len? :-) I love humor. Too bad you don't display any. Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten others? I "threatened" you? How so? Are you worried about "threats?" Are you insecure? How? The point is simply that Fessenden was using AM voice effectively more than 100 years ago. You deny and denigrate his successes, but they are well documented all the same. Tsk. Show me ANY OTHER AM transmitter that "modulates" by putting a carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead. :-) ... I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college. None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical engineering covered electronics. Tsk. "As you studied it" so goes the world? :-) Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous) kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God, celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly thought at the time. Tsk, tsk. I read Ben's biography entitled "Benjamin Franklin - An American Life," by Walter Isaacson. Franklin the scientist determined the nature of lightning. Franklin was hardly schooled. He had only HONORARY degrees. But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree) Yes, yes, on and on with the Philly stuff. :-) Franklin died in 1790. The first morse code wasn't used until 1844. "Radio" was still very unknown as to what it was in 1844. You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ other than some casual thing that applies only to others. Irrelevant - you didn't even know what the acronym "UCMJ" stood for. You mean UNIFORM Code of Military Justice? :-) I knew full well what it "stood for." I was subject to it for four years of active duty in the United States Army. You made a mistake. Oh HORRORS! A MISTAKE! :-) Let's see...this is the year 2005...and the last time I wore a full U.S. Army UNIFORM was in 1956. That's 49 years in the past. I still have one set of winter, one set of summer UNIFORM clothing in a clothing bag stored in the empty space of the guest room at the southern house. All mine. Has the last four digits of my Army serial number stamped on the clothing. Do you have anything like that? I don't think so. If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that. Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005. 3,795 of them. :-) So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one more has been added in the ECFS. You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len, even though the url was given in the filed comments. I don't really care one lil bitty rat snit about those "other analyses." :-) I did mine. The Commission knows it. That's enough for me. By the way, as of 2 PM EST on 2 December 2005, there were exactly 3,800 filings in WT Docket 05-235. Haven't you been keeping up? I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments so accessible. "Jealous" of Joe Speroni? The Hawaiian Morseman? Hardly. All his Petitions before the Commission have been DENIED. Lots of people have had their petitions DENIED, either in whole or in part: Speroni's have been DENIED in WHOLE. :-) And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age requirement for an amateur radio license was DENIED. Tsk, my SUGGESTION to the Commission (filed on 13 January 1999) on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to Comments wasn't even mentioned in FCC 99-412, the R&O for Restructuring. :-) Those are the breaks in regulatory politics. :-) You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine. Nope, NOT "my problem." You are simply hostile to anyone who won't accept morse code wholeheartedly. You insist on keeping the code test and don't have any valid reasons for doing so except for canned phrases that were conditioned into your mind by the league. Why ARE you so obsessed with putting down all who want the code test eliminated? I won't matter to you, personally. You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays. Not to worry. There will always be some morseperson around to play with you in your morse playground. If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job, not mine. Oh, my...do you carry a "shield" that states you are an "official" radio person "authorized by the federal government" or something like that? Tsk, tsk, you ought to hang around truck stops and butt in on truckers who you suspect are doing "illegal" CB activity! Why, you could even be a RADIO BOUNTY HUNTER! Might even get a movie done on your life a la Domino Harvey! You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and AUTHORIZED. Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you have no "boundary conditions" there, senior. [ chuckle, chuckle ] All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither qualified nor authorized. [ remember the "boundary conditions!" :-) ] FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. The FCC has "said" no such thing to me. Yes, they have. In a real document addressed to ME? :-) Maybe in a telephone call? :-) They've never once written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything... They don't have to, Len. Please make up your mind. :-) First you said the FCC "said something to me," now you say "they don't have to." You contradict yourself. You have none of those. None of what? You have no DD-214 form. You will never have a DD-214 form. Yet you claim to have knowledge of "how military life is." Hey, no problem with me. Dudly the Imposter probably does all your fantasizing for you. :-) By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur radio station. Wow! Several months ago I was looking at the Burbank HRO store station, even tweaked a transceiver dial to tune in a SSB signal clearer! Hey, get the surveilance camera tapes! You might find me on them doing that! Wowee! You can make an ARREST! You might even make the cover of QST for doing that! Fame! :-) Article 73 of the UNIFORM Code of Amateur Morse Excellence? [ UCAME ] [ I'll bet you did! ] Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio station, Len? Tsk, why SHOULD I do such a thing? :-) You might ARREST me or something! BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What date should I look for? Yours for Saturday night...you need to get out more... I'm just telling you the facts. Before you kept on saying "all I'm doing is asking questions." Which is it? You can't even pass the tests once. Not all of them, anyway. How do you KNOW that? :-) Where have I made my opinions absolute? Give us a concrete example. What kind of mix? Structural? Fill? Fine-sand type? Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced. Really? ;-) I have served in the military of the United States. Volunteering during a war time. Taking an oath to defend the United States and its Constitution with my life if needs be. You've NEVER done that, haven't served, don't know dink about real military life...yet you imply "cowardice" on the part of others and try to tell them what real military life is like. Yes, really, no-guts. First, I was not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day holiday weekend. But you could have been... BBWWWAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never claimed to have served in any military. That does not mean I never served. You served as a civilian waiter in an officer's club? :-) There's a lot of things I have done which I have not mentioned here. You and Dudly the Imposter ought to get together and write a book about "all the things you've not mentioned here!" It ought to be a best smeller on some newspapers' literary section! It's a fact that you have near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, Len. Oh, dear, there you go again...all that HOSTILITY! :-) Near-COMPLETE Ignorance! :-) Do you think others should act like you, Len? Considering I'm NOT in show business, yes, I don't think so! :-) My acting would return Hollywood productions back to the silent era. :-) Not to worry. I'll wait patiently for amateur agents of the UNIFORM Code of Amateur Morsemanship Excellence (UCAME) to arrest me for "cowardice" and "being a bad role model", perhaps some unspecified "charges" which are considered heretical to the mighty Church of St. Hiram! Captain Code! Captain Code! Where is Captain Code when he is needed?!? Help! Help! Call Isaac...I'm laughing my ass-im-off! |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm cut my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim... Paper? Where's the paper? gog find it Gog find it? Isn't "Gog" that troll-like character in the comic strip "B.C."...?!?!? ...as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill... I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel. beg all you like I can't help There's so little you CAN help with, Markie. (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody. did you have anything to say? it doesn't look like it The point he was making, Blockhead, is that who can understand YOUR point...?!?! E N G L I S H ! ! ! ! S P E L L C H E C K E R ! ! ! ! H O O K E D O N P H O N I C S ! ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
Not Qualified
wrote They're floating museum pieces. In your dreams, landlubber! Just a couple of examples for you..... The USS Constitution, homeported at Boston, is a commissioned US Navy ship (in fact the flagship of the US Navy) with a full active duty crew of sailors. Not a museum (the museum is across the street from her berth). The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Not Qualified
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com