Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Dave Heil wrote:

Thanks for recognizing J.C.'s style in my stuff. 'Twas intentional.

Unmistakeable, too. Well done.

Now back to recopying the SS logs.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: on Sat 19 Nov 2005 04:32

wrote:
From: on Thurs 17 Nov 2005 18:36
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Here, Len uses emoticons and SHOUTS by using all capitals. His
submissions to FCC are full of italics, bold text, and numbered
footnotes.

using italics in filings on Dockets at the FCC?

Your comments look childish, Len. Over the top, flamboyant, trying to
get attention by style rather than substance.

Oh, oh...Sister Nun of the Above is pontificating in one of
her lectures again!

Sister has a habit of stark simplicity, devoid of human
emotion in the spartan classroom, a no-nonsense sterile
place where strict obediance to the Order is the rule.

But of course you never say something in three words when three hundred
will do.

BWAAAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember Len referring to FCC Chairman Powell as "Mikey". As if he'd
actually address Mr. Powell that way....

No problem with me,
I'm not afraid of authority.

It's not about fear.

Sister Nun of the Above demands OBEDIANCE to the Order!

Some months back, Len mentioned here that he had once, way back
in the 1950s,

actually, the early 1960s

set about learning Morse Code. Claimed he'd actually
gotten up to about 6-8 wpm or so before deciding all the 'hard work'
wasn't worth it. That was just about the time 27 MHz cb came along,
and he jumped on that.

Other way around - he was on cb first.

No, no, NO, Jimmie, MUCH lower in frequency than that...somewhere
around 9 MHz if memory serves. Was in early February 1953, using
a BC-339 1 KW transmitter.

Built, paid for, and installed by others.

Good grief...a closet ham-Amish! Or is it a ham-Shaker?

My apologies are tendered to those in the religious orders of the
Church of St. Hiram. It's difficult for normal people to keep
track of all those cult names and be non-sectarian.

Ohm my, SOLDIERS on duty are now expected to BUILD, PAY FOR, and
DO OWN INSTALLATION of all military equipment?!?

Well, I could have sewn together the cloth of my uniforms but
don't have the experience or machinery to weave the cloth.

I could have made a wooden stock for my issue sidearm, an M-2
Carbine, perhaps taking a couple years to do it with just a
sharp-edged rock after felling a tree (with bare hands). Just
didn't have the experience or machinery to build all the metal
parts of it or make the ammunition.

That particular BC-339 transmitter was built some time just
prior to WW2 (I still remember where it was located then in
relation to the central command console). That would have
made me of mid-grade school age and I had not yet acquired
the knowledge or skills to BUILD it. Certainly did not have
the physical strength to "install" a seven-foot-high box
of iron, copper, steel, and ceramic parts weighing a ton.
There was NO ONE at that station or in the entire battalion
that could have "installed" it with their bare hands. :-)

But...that vacuum tube based transmitter OPERATED by the same
rules and principles of any vacuum tube based transmitter of
today. Laws of physics haven't changed in a half century.
One "dips the plate and peaks the grid" in tuning the final,
same now as it has been since the beginning of radio time.

Oh, you mean "did I give up" on learning more morse code?
Yes, I did. Roughly six years later in California I gave
up on bothering to continue learning morse code.

Sure - beccause it took too much time and effort on your part. It
was hard work for you, and you thought it was not worthy of your
time and effort.

Absolutely. :-) I've never regretted it since...

think that a "crime?"

No. You made your choice - you "GAVE UP".

Wow! Implications of moral-ethical perfidy!!!

" G A V E U P " Let's try to imagine that painted in Day-Glo

or as a neon sign blinking on a billboard! " G A V E U P "

Terrible heinous negative F A I L U R E ! ! !

So, is there some divine/imperial IMPERATIVE that one MUST
stay with and learn morsemanship?!?!? For a HOBBY activity?

*YES* says his imperial majesty, guided by the ever-faithful
spartan Sister Nun of the Above alternate personality!


I learned it by listening to hams using Morse Code on 80 meters. I
first had to build myself a receiver, though.

Bully bull bull to Davie for being a Scout. And to Jimmie
Noserve for "building his own receiver!"

Did you ever build a working receiver, Len?

Yes, several, including one transmitter! :-)


Such advanced teen-agers!

Actually, I wasn't a teenager when I built the receiver I used to learn
Morse Code - I was 12 years old. I built my first receiver, a simple
AM BC set, when I was 10.

A prodigal son. A budding genius. IQ to four places? :-)

Did you both get nice, pretty merit badges?

No. The receivers were their own reward.

What? Your friends and neighbors didn't come over an gush
about what a bright boy you are...like they did for your
homebuilt vacuum-tube rig made in the 1990s?


I don't see any point in learning what was ONCE the only way
to communicate in radio in order to get an AMATEUR license.

That's fine, Len. Then you don't get the license and you're not a
radio amateur. Works for me.

Tsk, then why are you so militant, antagonistic against all
those who want to remove the code test for a license?

And you've just verified what I said - you think you are too good to
have to learn Morse Code. Not worth your time and effort.

Sigh...you still don't understand other people's motivations,
Jimmie. You want all others to follow YOUR standards and
ideals. You confuse your own emotions and the LAW.

Some of us (thousands) against the code test for a license
just DON'T SEE ANY POINT OF ANY KIND in keeping that
mandated test for an old, outdated requirement. We (again
the same thousands) simply want to change the federal
regulation requiring it to eliminate that test. Seeking
that change is within our rights as citizens.

Now WHY do you insist on keeping that old, outdated
requirement? You know very well that knowledge of morse
code is NOT a physical requirement to make any RF emitter
work below 30 MHz. The requirement of demonstrated morse
code skill is required ONLY in amateur radio and some
classes of maritime radio licenses for operation below
30 MHz...by a MAN-MADE regulation. What "man" has made
can be undone legally by other "men." All have that
right in the United States.

A question for you, Jimmie: What makes you so arrogant
and superior, to think that you are so damn good that
everyone has to do what you say and think like you do
and believe in the standards that you do?


Tsk, tsk...you forget (conveniently and whenver possible)
that I'd already operated transmitters (note plural) on HF
many years before.

No, you didn't *operate* them.

Hello Steve? Are we having personality tranferences
going on in this newsgroup?

OPERATION of any radio-electronic equipment refers to
powering it on (or off as required), adjusting the
controls, making it do what it was designed to do.

Since when is "operation" defined as solely using radio-
telegraphy?

Perhaps you think that "operation" refers to some
"careful tuning across the band," listening for a
signal? [that's receiving operation and not for
single-frequency operation]

You were a technician, following the direction and
supervision of others.

Tsk, tsk, that's a variation of what goes on in the
military, Jimmie. :-)

It can be summed up in two words: "Follow orders."

Somebody told you to
put transmitter A on frequency B using antenna C and connect it
to incoming line D, and you (actually about three technicians) did that
according to a prearranged procedure.

Teamwork is a necessity to reduce TIME, Jimmie. In any
transmitter site operating 24/7 and carrying a heavy load
of "traffic," it is an absolute requirement to keep
operating as long as possible. Broadcasters know that
well, and "dead air" is a no-no to any station.

Every operating team (there were four) at ADA could do
any of the QSY tasks required among the 36 transmitters
(count in early 1953) and set up any of the two dozen
(approximate) FSK exciters on the correct carrier and
"spread" (frequency shift from Mark to Space), and being
able to read and understand the teletypewriter commands
from control. Any team could do the required operations
singly, in pairs, or in threes. Doing it by threes
reduced the down-time of any circuit since essentially
overlapping operations at three different places could
be done at the same time. We "hustled" on every QSY
order that came down...a mark of professional style in
operating...maximization of up-time during 24/7 ops.

"Prearranged Procedures": Frequencies were fixed by
order. Control setting charts were there to minimize
"hunting" for the right setting and minimize time in
setting during a QSY. Four, and later, eight trans-
mitters were gang-set by internal servo motors preset
for the proper frequency...all to minimize down-time
during a QSY. Once reset to a new frequency, each team
kept watch to see that it operated properly. There
were approximately eight different transmitter types,
all with varying controls and arrangements and each
team was trained and experienced to operate all of
them. When the ORDER is to come up and stay on a
fixed frequency, one MUST obey that order.

That's certainly experience but it's not amateur radio
experience.

It is RADIO experience, Jimmie. Radios that operate by
the SAME laws of physics as in amateur radio. Really.

ADA, like all other RADIO stations (and torn-tape TTY
relay centers) in ACAN-STARCOM-DCS did NOT have any
MOS positions for radiotelegraphers. No morse code
radiotelegraphy modes were used or required to relay
over a million messages a month in the Pacific third
of worldwide communications.

Yes, U.S. amateur radio regulations allow morse code
mode radiotelegraphy as an OPTION for licensees. Now.
That makes it "different" than all other U.S. radio
services except maritime radio service. But that is
SOLELY by man-made regulations. None of that is
any absolute requirement for physical operation below
30 MHz.

And
the FCC does not consider it as qualification to operate an amateur
radio station.

I've never argued that it did, Jimmie.

Just the same, all those hundreds of radios and thousands
of military personnel were still operating radios which
operated according to the SAME laws of physics as ham
radio.


Here's a link:

http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf

"my 3 years" - as if the place was all about you.

You have the wrong impression. MY EXPERIENCE directly involves
ME. [that's why possessives are used]

I do not praise myself in that 20-page article. It describes
where I was and what I did during three years of my voluntary
military service...and it ALSO describes what a lot of others
did, using as many pictures of them as survived a long time in
storage. It was all teamwork, Jimmie. It wasn't one man - one
radio - one station kind of thing common in amateur radio.

If you don't like my little paper, then download (in the same
web page) "AlphabetSoup.pdf." That is a brochure prepared by
the same Signal Battalion in 1962 and published by them. The
equipment shown is more modern than it was in 1955, reflecting
the improvement and modernization of the Army network.

You might want to tell the United States ARMY on your demand
that all radio operators must get an amateur radio license
FIRST.

No demand, Len. You're very mistaken about that.

Okay, I stand corrected. Herr Robust (Davie) demanded that.

It's getting harder and harder to tell the differences between
the super amateur extra morsement in here...

After all, it's been possible to get a Technician class license without
a code test for more than 14 years. All FCC-issued amateur licenses
have been available for just a 5 wpm code test for 15 years now.

THIRD MAJOR MISTAKE in one posting!

FCC 99-412 ordered all morse code test rates for
radio amateur licenses to be fixed a 5 words-per-minute
beginning in 2000. That was only FIVE years ago. Not "15."

Medical waivers.

Ohm my, yes. My terrible badness in accusing you of a "mistake!"

Back in 1990, it became possible to obtain any class of FCC-issued
amateur license with just a 5 wpm code test.

Was there a lot of that going around?

I didn't keep any eagle eye on the medical community then nor
did I ask for any "waiver." The only thing I wanted was for
my doctor to give me a cheery wave bye-bye and "see you next
year" after my annual physical.


Your irrational reactions here prove that Morse Code testing - and the
Morse Code itself - have an intense psychological effect on you.

Wow! Danke, Herr Doktor A. Freud.

[your analysis couch is very lumpy, Doktor, have it fixed]

I'm just an "intense" guy, Jimmie, terribly persistent. :-)

That irrationality could have gotten you a medical waiver easily

"Easily?" :-) What makes you think I "wanted" one at
any time? Had I wanted to be a beeper and self-professed,
self-defined morseman-guru-radio-champion, I would have
done so without any "waiver." But I didn't. I've never
had to use morse code for ANY purpose and certainly not
in any radio service (I've operated in more of them than
you have).

Vell now, Herr Doktor, how do you explain YOUR irrational,
preserve-the-status-quo-at-all-costs attitude FOR morse code
testing? An ultraconservative traditionalist who demands
everything to be in-place as it was when you were born?
One who won't reveal is place of "professional electronics
employment" or even anything specific on the KIND of
"professional electronics work" he does...one who keeps on
going back to his pre-adult activities and stressing that
of youngsters...and has a fascination for amateur radio
history that happened well before he was born?

Tsk, tsk, you ALMOST sound qualified as a psychologist
but your shrink-wrap is torn.

OK, Jimmie, time for you to WRITE the RONGS. "Waive" bye-
bye and go back to your beeping. Buy-buy.

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: on Sat 19 Nov 2005 05:54


K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

Right...it will always apply to Dudly's alleged time (13 to 31
years ago) if it supports Dudly's claims.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

So...it "applies" and thus "supports" Dudly even if it didn't.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Phone call to whom? :-)

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Dialling fingers are busy poking holes in Dudly's "arguments." :-)

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

SOP for Dudly...when unwilling to stick to an "argument" he
resorts to name-calling.



Steve would rather have a tantrum that dig out his own 1974 copy of the
regulation.

If and only if he had one...:-)

Imposters rarely have "evidence" at hand to "support" them. They
love to snow-job others into thinking they were actaully there.
Standard practice of con artists and used car salesmen.

When unable to verify his supposed existance, he tries the
"outraged" ploy. Neat misdirection from the thread operating
on several levels:

1. It demonstrates his "toughness", as if he really was what
he say.

2. It obscures the original thread in order to garner emotional
support from the few like-thinkers around.

3. It misdirects the thread in an attempt to get his challengers
on the defensive; further back-and-forth now concerns his
puerile insults.

Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg???

Sumptin wrong there.

Captain Code works in mysterious ways...

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: on Sat 19 Nov 2005 07:07


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

And another thing. Jim, Dave, and Mike just might have been able to
pull Steve back from the brink with a little intervention. But no.
They sanctioned his lunacy by "thier" silence.

I have "another thing" for you, Brian: "Jim, Dave and Mike" are no more
responsible for posts other than their own, than you are responsible for
Mark's, Len Anderson's or Roger Wiseman's.

Never said that you were responsible.

You pointed to us as having had some obligation to pull Steve back from
some brink you've manufactured.

I'm not in manufacturing.

Davie thinks he is Shop Foreman and all work for him...keep
those morse machines working in the factory!


I hope that clears things up for you.

Hope that clears things up for you.

No, it didn't do that at all. If we aren't responsible for Steve's
actions (making them what *you* think they should be), why would we have
pulled him back?

I'm not responsible for other people's kids, but I donate to Toys for
Tots.

I'm not responsible for the neighbors dog biting another neighbor's
kid, but I pulled the dog off.

Do you see how it works? Not my responsibility, but it was the right
thing to do.

Brian, the only thing that matters to Davie is that "the right
thing to do" is what Davie says it is.


But you're a pretty worthless friend to Steve for seeing him carry on
the way he does and saying nothing.

It's hard to say something in a forum where all we have is the written
word.

Even harder when the written word is encoded in dits and dahs, but many
here want it MANDATED.

Davie took and passed the 20 WPM code test, therefore all others
have to do the same thing in order to be his "equal." He
condescends to allow "lesser" beings (who passed 5 or 13 WPM
tests) to coexist in his universe but has utter contempt for any
who have not.

Davie likes his exclusivity of status-rank-title since it makes
him "superior" to others. Therefore he demands that code
testing MUST be retained in federal regulations for the licensing
of amateur radio hobbyists. That is very important to his IMAGE.

Have you written anything to bring your friend Mark Morgan back
to reality?

Reality? How am I supposed to do that. I'm not a medical
professional. ;^)

Neither is Davie. But, I think he plays one on TV. :-)

Perhaps the most effective course of action would be for Steve to get
off Mark's ass and quit calling around Mark's county.

Too easy. Congenital bullies LIKE what they do to others.

What have you written to Len toward straightening him out?

I've said he's too hard on you guys.

"Straightening me out?" :-)

I'm a congenital heterosexual, freely admitting that. :-)

Davie sounds like he is a raving ultra-conservative
morseodist with all his proselyte activity "batter-ying"
everyone to keep the code test forever and ever.

Must be electro-chemistry at work. His liquid proselyte
tries to cause a reaction. Alas, none. His "cold fusion"
sputters its fuse and it goes out...

All I've noted here is you egging him on. Some friend *you* are.

Aw, geez. Some of the greatest fun I've had on here was the Hop
Sing-speak; english as a first and second language. It was only
funny because Steve got so upset over it.

Gonna call my wife, gotta show my kids! There's a guy that takes
himself much too seriously.

Woe be unto the sanctimonious self-righteous cultists, for
they have not developed any sense of humor. Their "humor"
consists solely of enjoyment of humiliating others.

Is that the double standard you're always going on about?

OK, Dave, I get your point.

Notice to Len: Start playing nice with these guys when they start
playing nice with you.

I'm waiting patiently for that to happen...hasn't yet.

My duty as a friend to Len and good citizen of RRAP is now satisfied.

Roger that, and thank you Brian...

Your turn, Dave.

Fork Davie...I think he's done...

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

Meanwhile, Dudly is busy, busy kissing Hans' ass for that
navel regulation of 2005. Dudly doesn't realize that the
effective-date regulation is only for NOW, not 13 to 31
years past.

It doesn't matter when the CURRENT regulation was updated.

A quick review of the order suffix indicates it's a much-ammended
order.

A five minute phone call could verify my original statements.

Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task.

Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD.

Steve, K4YZ

Steve would rather have a tantrum that dig out his own 1974 copy of the
regulation.

WHAT "1974" copy of ANY regulation?

Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg???

I am suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure he had it "right there",
Brain...

Sumptin wrong there.

Why?

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.

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

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

Steve, K4YZ

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

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

wrote:
From: on Sat 19 Nov 2005 07:07


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

And another thing. Jim, Dave, and Mike just might have been able to
pull Steve back from the brink with a little intervention. But no.
They sanctioned his lunacy by "thier" silence.

I have "another thing" for you, Brian: "Jim, Dave and Mike" are no more
responsible for posts other than their own, than you are responsible for
Mark's, Len Anderson's or Roger Wiseman's.

Never said that you were responsible.

You pointed to us as having had some obligation to pull Steve back from
some brink you've manufactured.

I'm not in manufacturing.

Davie thinks he is Shop Foreman and all work for him...keep
those morse machines working in the factory!


I hope that clears things up for you.

Hope that clears things up for you.

No, it didn't do that at all. If we aren't responsible for Steve's
actions (making them what *you* think they should be), why would we have
pulled him back?

I'm not responsible for other people's kids, but I donate to Toys for
Tots.

I'm not responsible for the neighbors dog biting another neighbor's
kid, but I pulled the dog off.

Do you see how it works? Not my responsibility, but it was the right
thing to do.

Brian, the only thing that matters to Davie is that "the right
thing to do" is what Davie says it is.


But you're a pretty worthless friend to Steve for seeing him carry on
the way he does and saying nothing.

It's hard to say something in a forum where all we have is the written
word.

Even harder when the written word is encoded in dits and dahs, but many
here want it MANDATED.

Davie took and passed the 20 WPM code test, therefore all others
have to do the same thing in order to be his "equal." He
condescends to allow "lesser" beings (who passed 5 or 13 WPM
tests) to coexist in his universe but has utter contempt for any
who have not.

Davie likes his exclusivity of status-rank-title since it makes
him "superior" to others. Therefore he demands that code
testing MUST be retained in federal regulations for the licensing
of amateur radio hobbyists. That is very important to his IMAGE.

Have you written anything to bring your friend Mark Morgan back
to reality?

Reality? How am I supposed to do that. I'm not a medical
professional. ;^)

Neither is Davie. But, I think he plays one on TV. :-)

Perhaps the most effective course of action would be for Steve to get
off Mark's ass and quit calling around Mark's county.

Too easy. Congenital bullies LIKE what they do to others.

What have you written to Len toward straightening him out?

I've said he's too hard on you guys.

"Straightening me out?" :-)

I'm a congenital heterosexual, freely admitting that. :-)

Davie sounds like he is a raving ultra-conservative
morseodist with all his proselyte activity "batter-ying"
everyone to keep the code test forever and ever.

Must be electro-chemistry at work. His liquid proselyte
tries to cause a reaction. Alas, none. His "cold fusion"
sputters its fuse and it goes out...

All I've noted here is you egging him on. Some friend *you* are.

Aw, geez. Some of the greatest fun I've had on here was the Hop
Sing-speak; english as a first and second language. It was only
funny because Steve got so upset over it.

Gonna call my wife, gotta show my kids! There's a guy that takes
himself much too seriously.

Woe be unto the sanctimonious self-righteous cultists, for
they have not developed any sense of humor. Their "humor"
consists solely of enjoyment of humiliating others.

Is that the double standard you're always going on about?

OK, Dave, I get your point.

Notice to Len: Start playing nice with these guys when they start
playing nice with you.

I'm waiting patiently for that to happen...hasn't yet.

My duty as a friend to Len and good citizen of RRAP is now satisfied.

Roger that, and thank you Brian...

Your turn, Dave.

Fork Davie...I think he's done...



Dave just called me names again in his response above. And I thought
he was ready to turn over a forest of new leaves. bb

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: on Sat 19 Nov 2005 06:22


wrote:
wrote:

Hello? Can we say Davie is also pompous and arrogant?

You just did, Len.

I third that motion.

Motion carried!

Nope. Extra Morsemen are allowed any kind of personal insult
against others while all NCTA have to be "kind," "gracious,"
and "civil" to them. :-)

Actually, it's the other way around.

I see it differently.

Careful, Brian, Sister Nun of the Above is ready to spank
your knuckles with her M-1 Ruler! She's locking and loading!


Using my RIGHTS as a citizen.

As are all of us who filed comments.

So what's your problem?

Nobody adores the Greatness that is Jimmie?


Tsk, tsk, Extra Morsemen want
NCTAs to abrogate their citizenship rights. Not good.

Also not true.

So what's your problem?

Nobody obeys his Greatness...


Yep, as Hans Brakob has pointed out on a number of occasions, Len is the
organ grinder; you are the red-hatted monkey.

Hans the Dump Huck caller?

Once more, Extra Morsemen think they have civility immunity.

I guess phrases like "shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel" are
Len's idea of civility.

I guess calling people the phonetic equivalent of "Dumb ****" meets
with your aproval?

It does, also you being called a "red-hatted monkey" and the
Imposter "signing off" with "Putz."

It's a one-sided thing with the big brothers of hammurika. Learn
code or die!


I'm only retired from REGULAR HOURS. :-)

So you're irregular, huh?

Jim making an insult?

Jimmie be trying out as stand-up comic. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Mitzi Shore won't be selling tickets for his performance at
the Comedy Store.


Just finished a contract
job trying to find a better way to protect against tin dendrites
in consumer-grade PCBs made with lead-free solder. We found a
slightly-better way that had already been done, but no cheap way,
sad to say.

In other words, you FAILED, Len....

RoHS failed humanity.

Tsk, Jimmie not know that aerospace and medical electronics
are exempt from RoHS insofar as lead-free soldering is
concerned.

Jimmie used lead-bearing solder in his "famous" Southgate
Type 7 built in 1990s. It was state-of-the-art using tubes.
No tin whiskers in HIS kludge, nossir! [has Jimmie started
shaving yet? he'd better get the lead out...]


In case anyone has been on the Outer Planets in the past decade,
the Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) is THE thing in
electronics production now.

We know, Len.

Multiple personality disorder "we," or papal "we," or royal "we?"

Prolly his we-we. He and Davie like to talk about johnsons.


Rather than trying to recycle and reuse, the regulators are trying to
stop the problem at the source. A bad solution, but you'd think the
PROFESSIONALS would have seen that one coming....

Regulators are not "PROFESSIONALS." They know nothing of the
environment nor electronics. And I've never seen Jim testifying on
CSPAN. Serves in other ways.

I think Jimmie actually works as a newsgroup correspondent,
paid for by a secret organization trying to make all of ham
radio into some Shaker cult frozen in the past. Puritans who
gave up sex and money and anything that was invented in the
past century. Sort of Amish on steroids.

Jimmie decries the very "professionals" that he claims to
belong to! To bad those "professionals" didn't see Jimmie
coming! [maybe they did...anyone check to see if his bath-
room door was open?]

I'm so glad to hear Jimmie is "serving." What's on the menu?

Does his ham taste like chicken?

As the paleontologist said, "Bone apetit!"

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: Dave Heil on Nov 19, 3:59 pm

wrote:
From: "K4YZ" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 20:30
wrote:
From: on Nov 16, 2:20 am
Dave Heil wrote:


In my comments to the Commission, I did not find it necessary to target
a single individual or group, nor did I use terms like "puffery",
"egregious" or "insulting".

Poor baby. Does Davie think that all against the code test
are equivalent to "two-year-olds refusing peas at dinner"
as Robert Rightsell did?

And once again Lennie digs in with personal attacks...Yet INSISTS
that he doesn't do such things...

I don't. Dudly the Imposter can't distinguish between STRONG
formal commentary to the federal government and his usual
"putzy" venalities she makes to others in here...

Tell us, Len, what is "STRONG formal commentary"?

Apparently, anything that sets off David! :-)

It doesn't matter to "judge' Heil since he discards any
"evidence" he doesn't like... :-)


Does formal
commentary look like your derogatory comments toward Mr. Rightsell?

Are you Major Dud?

Why do you "answer" to a reply to K4YZ?

Why is it that you couldn't use the term "formal commentary"?

Why is it you can't shut up? :-)

For what reason was the word "STRONG" used and capitalized?

For what reason can't you let others - to whom replies are
clearly identified - reply for themselves?

Why are you so fearful of opposing opinions against others?

Can't take it anymore?

You are no longer STRONG enough?


The rest of us readers have been waiting impatiently for the
PROOF of Dudly's claims.

I don't think so, Leonard. There is no evidence to support your statement.

There is no evidence to support your Johnson, either... :-)

[do you need a new supporter, scampering frisky one?]


Here's a DOS Tip, heaping-big chief-of-the-keys: Just
make a formal statement to the FCC. WT Docket 05-235 is
still OPEN. You can file your little black heart out,
taking me to task for DARING to comment on something you
have "vested interest" in. You WILL be in public view for
as long as the Commission keeps that Docket open for
public view.

[WT Docket 98-143 is still open to the public for viewing
long after FCC 99-412 ordered the Restructuring of 2000;
you can even file on that one arguing NPRM 98-143]

If you need a model for a denunciatory reply to anyone,
go to that WT Docket 98-143, search for surname Robeson
at date 25 January 1999. There it is, "saddled and
waiting."

Of course, the FCC isn't considering such Comments after
the official ending date, but that is irrelevant to your
lofty purpose, isn't it? You are busy, busy, busy in
trying to shut up opposing opinions any which way you
can. Better improve on that because it isn't working.

Keep the faith and keep on truckin to remove First
Amendment rights to every citizen who doesn't have an
official amateur radio license. Need a copy of "My
Camp" in its original language?

Seig Heil!

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs 17 Nov 2005 02:45

wrote:
From: on Nov 16, 2:20 am
Dave Heil wrote:

In other words, if it didn't make money for you, it wasn't going to
get your time and effort.

You really can't understand anyone who doesn't have YOUR
immaculate set of "standards" can you?

I've met people like you, Len. They're all about what positions they've
held, how much they made, the cost of their home(s), the brand and year
of the car they drive. They miss a lot of life. They never seem to do
anything for the love of it.

sounds more like you and Stevie than Len

You don't tell us why *you* are so interested in something you are
not a part of and most probably never will be.

Take off your baby shoes and quit bawling like an infant.

YOU, still in your baby shoes, aren't worthy of an answer
to your demands for "motivation." When given, you won't
accept any reasonable explanation.

I don't care to be a baby sitter for some puerile mewling
about "baby shoes."

It isn't just about baby steps (not baby shoes), is it? You don't care
to join an activity where you'd still be considered a beginner, do you?
I mean, you haven't achieved the neophyte level in amateur radio.

more projecting and assuming agains Alas for Dave he does not seem to
know what ASSuming leads to


Let's see...I am retired from a successful career (from regular
hours, I still do contract work IF I want to) in electronics
design engineering, have a fine house (all paid for), have a
wonderful wife (who was also my high school sweetheart), have
had enough TITLES and POSITIONS to satisfy me, half century,
a comfortable income to handle easy living now.

What do your former employment, income, home and marital status have to
do with your getting an amateur radio license, Len?

what does the sexual habits of anyone have to do with it either?

doesn't stop you and Stevie from making an issue of them

You've told us how great things are for you many, many times, Len.
As if all that somehow explains your obsession.

"Obsession?!?" :-)

Trying to change federal law is an "obsession?"

In your case, yes, it is. You are obsessed.

so what then?

Yes, I can see where baby shoe wearers would get petulant and
whiny if their hobby radio toys and merit badges are
threatened...

But you still haven't taken even the first baby step to getting an
amateur radio license.

Again with "baby shoes." Irrational.


I do NOT NEED TO PROVE ANYTHING by getting more TITLES, more
certificates suitable for framing.

Not about that at all.

YES, it IS, Jimmie. You haven't graduated to ADULT shoes
yet and you are in middle age.

You can write "YES it IS" all you want. Obtaining an amateur radio
license isn't about those things.

it should not be but many Hamas don't seem to show they are not into
such such things

Then why are you so unfriendly here, Len?

PCTAs are NOT a friendly sort when their radio toys and merit
badges are threatened.

How are you threatening anyone's radio equipment, Len? Tell us about
the merit badges. Back to the question: Why are you so unfriendly here?

indeed I would like to know how Len posting is threatening to anyone
radio toys or license status

Len however is not truely able to explain that

perhaps if you or esp Stevie took a long hard look in the mirror you
might enlighten us


Especially those who are still wearing
their baby shoes such as yourself.


We are secure
in ourselves. We've "done it" and DON'T need to brag, don't
need more pretty certificates suitable for framing.

Then why are you here?

It is part of a greater effort to eliminate morse code testing
from United States amateur radio regulations on license exams.

How many times must I repeat that before you understand?

It'll likely never be understood by folks, Len. After all, you aren't
remotely involved in amateur radio. It sounds as if you have an obsession.

It seems to me that what you most enjoy about amateur radio is insulting
and denigrating radio amateurs via the internet.

Sorry, Jimmie, I only "insult" those poor misguided souls
who think that morse code mode communications is still
"cutting-edge technology skill" in radio.

That's simply incorrect, Leonard. You insult anyone who favors
retention of morse testing in amateur radio. I don't recall a single
soul who claims that morse code represents cutting edge technology.

Jimmie, WHY do YOU continue to insult, demean, anatagonize all
who see to remove the code test?

"Jimmie", "Brother of Dudly", "Reverend Jimmie", "Nun of the Above". Do
any of those sound familiar to you? Would you prefer to see a more
complete list of your insulting, demeaning and antagonistic names for folks?

Why are YOU so obsessed with retaining it?

Why are YOU so obsessed with regressing U.S. amateur radio?

Please explain how retention of morse testing is regression in any form.

by defeating the aims of the ARS haven't you been reading anything all
these years

After all, morse code is used daily by thousands of radio amateurs.
had enough of dave flushing the rest

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

wrote:
From: "K؈B" on Fri 18 Nov 2005 01:16

wrote

We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has
ever "worked" him on the amateur bands.
(Best observed using non-porportional font)

(best heard with BFO on?)

HyperLog extract station K0HB

Date ?Time?Call ?rcv?snt?Bnd?QRG ?Emm?PWR ?Name ?QTH
11/19/00?0052?K4YZ ?59 ?59 ?20 ?14.191?A3J?100 ?Steve ?Dunlap, TN ?
11/05/00?0111?K4YZ ?599?599?20 ?14.032?A1A?100 ?Steve ?Dunlap, TN ?

July 2001 issue of QST reports that K4YZ earned a "Clean Sweep" trophy for
working at least one station in each of the 80 ARRL and RAC sections during the
phone Sweepstakes contest the previous November. PDF available for viewing on
the web at http://www.arrl.org/contests/results...one-sweeps.pdf

Sunuvagun!

...and the above "proves" Dudly the Imposter was in the USMC?

Of course it does. If any Extra Morseman says it, then it "must"
be true!

Okay, so someone works an amateur radio contest and that is a
"proof" of his/her military service?

Tsk, the military of the United States has entered a strange,
new world since 1989 where amateur radio contesting is somehow
an "honorable discharge."

What next, the Congressional Medal of Honor awarded to a ham
who relayed the most health and welfare traffic during hurricane
Katrina?

I see a large amount of your typical blather, Leonard. The fact remains
that you wrote (about K4YZ): "We have NOT seen where any other radio
amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands."

Now you've seen.

Dave K8MN

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

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...?!?!

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.

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

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

nobodys old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs 17 Nov 2005 02:45

wrote:
From: on Nov 16, 2:20 am
Dave Heil wrote:

In other words, if it didn't make money for you, it wasn't going to
get your time and effort.

You really can't understand anyone who doesn't have YOUR
immaculate set of "standards" can you?

I've met people like you, Len. They're all about what positions they've
held, how much they made, the cost of their home(s), the brand and year
of the car they drive. They miss a lot of life. They never seem to do
anything for the love of it.

sounds more like you and Stevie than Len

Then you've not been paying attention, Markie. (Like THAT'S
new......)

It isn't just about baby steps (not baby shoes), is it? You don't care
to join an activity where you'd still be considered a beginner, do you?
I mean, you haven't achieved the neophyte level in amateur radio.

more projecting and assuming agains Alas for Dave he does not seem to
know what ASSuming leads to

How do you see Dave as "projecting"...?!?!

Dave's name has appeared in EVERY Amateur Radio journal (save,
perhaps, for "Ham Radio" and "QEX") at one time or an other for the
last 10-15 years that I am aware of.

Lennie WILL be a "beginner" as it pertains to Amateur Radio. He
may know how the trons flow, but he can't seem to operate a station.

Let's see...I am retired from a successful career (from regular
hours, I still do contract work IF I want to) in electronics
design engineering, have a fine house (all paid for), have a
wonderful wife (who was also my high school sweetheart), have
had enough TITLES and POSITIONS to satisfy me, half century,
a comfortable income to handle easy living now.

What do your former employment, income, home and marital status have to
do with your getting an amateur radio license, Len?

what does the sexual habits of anyone have to do with it either?

Depends on if you try to do one or the otehr at the same time.

doesn't stop you and Stevie from making an issue of them

Just following the cue, Markie...Just following the cue....

You can write "YES it IS" all you want. Obtaining an amateur radio
license isn't about those things.

it should not be but many Hamas don't seem to show they are not into
such such things

Jesus Fa-reekin-Key-ryst!

Now the Hamas is using Amateur Radio...?!?!?!

Who next? al-Queda? The PFLP? Red Faction Group?

Then why are you so unfriendly here, Len?

PCTAs are NOT a friendly sort when their radio toys and merit
badges are threatened.

How are you threatening anyone's radio equipment, Len? Tell us about
the merit badges. Back to the question: Why are you so unfriendly here?

indeed I would like to know how Len posting is threatening to anyone
radio toys or license status

Lennie is a liar. A prolific one and an verbose one.
Unfortunately, many people only hear the loudest squeak, and if scum
like Lennie isn't kept in his place, he can get away with his mischief.

Len however is not truely able to explain that

Of course not. Lennie will reply with any one of several
pat-answers about his rights and his "true intent", then go right on
with his open warfare against Amateur Radio.

perhaps if you or esp Stevie took a long hard look in the mirror you
might enlighten us

The problem is not in mine or Dave's mirror...

Please explain how retention of morse testing is regression in any form.

by defeating the aims of the ARS haven't you been reading anything all
these years

This argument of "Amateur Radio can't progress while there is a
Morse test in place" is a BS argument, and has been for the 30 years
that I have been an Amateur.

Need proof?

Go find a copy of November QST, dated 1975, and then tell me
there's not been ANY "progress' since then, Markie.

And I can tell you what ELSE you can find in 1975...My name and
callsign.

Know what you WON'T find in a 1975 QST...?!?!?

Lennie's name and callsign.

After all, morse code is used daily by thousands of radio amateurs.

had enough of dave flushing the rest

What you MEAN is that you''re tired of trying to effectively dodge
the questions and answer them with some meaningful response.

Steve, K4YZ

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

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

wrote:
From: on Nov 17, 4:47 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:


It should come as no surprise that Len Anderson's eight pages of
pontificating, self-important reply to the comments of Robert G.
Rightsell read almost exactly like his frequent pontificating,
self-important rants in r.r.a.p.

It should come as no suprise that Dave/K8MN has just posted his longest
post ever not providing the details or tips for aspiring DXers, but in
rediculing someone who has had an -almost- lifelong interest in radio.

"Rediculing"? You've spent so much time conversing with Mark that
you're starting to write like him.

Dave is trying to insult me.

Yep, I'm responding in kind to your usual red-hatted monkey routine.

No. You're responding in your usual smug way.

Hello? Can we say Davie is also pompous and arrogant?

You could, but you'd come off as insincere. After all, you're the guy
who used a reply to comments to slam another individual, Windy.

Heil started this thread with an overt personal insult against
me. QED ("it is as demonstrated")


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


Do you have OnStar, Len? It seems geared to mothers with small children
and geezers. I don't use it. After all, I've got a 160m-70cm rig in my
car. I can use SSB/FM/CW with it. Maybe after I'm older I'll look into
the security and peace of mind offered by OnStar.

I do not have OnStar. I do not need any GPS device.

AAA membership and a cellular telephone serves adequately
for long automobile trips. Map services on the Internet
(from both AAA and MapQuest) provide detailed driving
directions and warnings of highway construction undwerway.
My wife and I recently completed a 5,200 mile trip to the
midwest and back. This is the third such long trip we have
done in six years. We have driven to Washington state many
times (a mere 1,000 miles) as well in those six years.

Whichever one of us is at the wheel during those trips
knows to pay primary attention to driving, not playing with
hobby radios.


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 it wasn't for the
impolite methods you used toward Mr. Rightsell, I wouldn't mind seeing
you submit more material in your inimitable style, Leonard. You're your
own worst enemy.

"Impolite?" :-)

Heil is terribly upset by ONE Reply to Comments. I have filed
SEVEN Replies to Comments plus one Comment on Docket 05-235.

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


Your organ grinder pal

Organ grinder pal?

Yep, as Hans Brakob has pointed out on a number of occasions, Len is the
organ grinder; you are the red-hatted monkey.

Hans the Dump Huck caller?

Once more, Extra Morsemen think they have civility immunity.

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


"Go fork yourself, Dudly. [he's done]"
"Go fork yourself, Jimmie. [he's done]"
"Go fork yourself, Davie. [he's done]"

A common cook's technique to ascertain the condition of meat
or fowl being cooked in an oven, grill, or barbeque. It
enables determining when it has been cooked enough.

It appears that the individuals alluded to have been roasted,
spitted, and grilled overmuch if they complain so readily. :-)

Maybe I should have used more marinade? I tried Tenderizer
but that didn't stay on their foul.

Bon apetit!

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

From: Dave Heil on Nov 19, 6:34 pm

wrote:
From: on Thurs 17 Nov 2005 02:45
wrote:
From: on Nov 16, 2:20 am
Dave Heil wrote:

In other words, if it didn't make money for you, it wasn't going to
get your time and effort.

You really can't understand anyone who doesn't have YOUR
immaculate set of "standards" can you?

I've met people like you, Len.

No you haven't, Heil. People like me would AVOID your kind.
Such avoidance allows you to continue living. Be greatful
for that.

They're all about what positions they've
held, how much they made, the cost of their home(s), the brand and year
of the car they drive.

Such as those who were "in the foreign service" now
living in a large residence with many antennas? That fancy,
expensive Orion transceiver? :-)

They miss a lot of life.

They do? Ohm my. Do you define "life" as only enjoying what
YOU enjoy?

I don't think that's right. Everyone ought to do what THEY
like...at least in my mind. You seem to think that is wrong.

What am I "missing?" I have many activities, all of which
I have selected based on what I enjoy.

I enjoy some luxuries in life and the freedom of retirement.
I enjoy the relationship I have renewed with my wife (after
a long absence since our days together in high school). I
enjoy a new car which is not a luxury vehicle and replaces
a 1992 model. I enjoy a number of friends both here and
around the country, just recently having a reunion with
family friends in the midwest plus good companionship with
my wife's classmates at their 50th Graduation Reunion.

They never seem to do anything for the love of it.

No? :-)

Have you ever considered that what YOU observe in others
might be flawed?

Nah. You are without flaw...you are an Extra Morseman!


It isn't just about baby steps (not baby shoes), is it? You don't care
to join an activity where you'd still be considered a beginner, do you?
I mean, you haven't achieved the neophyte level in amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...more arrogant superiority manifest there, Heil.

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. It isn't a craft, guild,
or union that demands some kind of "apprentice-journeyman-
master" hierarchial order...except in the minds of some olde
fahrts who love to talk down to "lesser folk" (the ones THEY
think are "lesser").

Am I some kind of "beginner" in radio after a half century
of experience in more parts of the EM spectrum than any
amateur is allowed? Am I some kind of "beginner" because I've
operated transmitters with far higher power outputs than
amateurs are allowed to have? Am I some kind of "beginner"
because long ago I learned how to design radio circuits from
a blank pad with pen on to the finished hardware and gotten
them to perform as originally specifed?

You seem to think so. What it really boils down to is
manual telegraphy.

I would be an absolute beginner at telegraphy, no dispute,
if I were to take that up again. All I know is the pattern
of dots and dashes and their corresponding English language
characters. That's suffed into a good memory with lots and
lots and lots of other data, some useful, some not.

But - and this is very important in the NPRM 05-143 decision -
the FCC has ALREADY made ALL ALLOCATED MODES OPTIONAL TO USE.
There just isn't ANY mandate to exclusively use radiotelegraphy
except on two small slivers of the lower end of 6m and 2m.
But, getting the amateur license to use ANY amateur band
below 30 MHz still requires passing a telegraphy test!

I'm seeking to eliminate that telegraphy test. There's no
point in having it except as a vestige of pride still felt
by those long-timers who once considered themselves as
'compagnons de telegraphe' because the human-made regulations
gave them status-rank-privileges BECAUSE of that telegraphy
test. I and thousands upon thousands of others have operated
radio transmitters legally and competently at frequencies
below 30 MHz without being required to know or use any radio-
telegraphy skills. That "plain, simple fact" shows the
hypocrisy of the PCTA in demanding the retention of the
telegraphy test. That test regulations does NOT serve the
public, only the few already-licensed in amateur radio who
consider, self-righteously superior through passing a
telegraphy test.

Now, if you wish to start some program to teach real
beginners in radio the skills of telegraphy, I am not
against that. Feel free to use what allocations you've
been granted. So far. Beep your little Orion to outer
space if you want.

Remember, what YOU consider to be "necessary" is NOT
shared by the public, is NOT a physical requirement to
operate any RF emitter below 30 MHz. It is just your
personal desire. You are not yet a god of anything,
are not divine. You are simply inflexible and self-
righteous, seeking to retain federally-mandated testing
in skills which you passed some time ago.


What do your former employment, income, home and marital status have to
do with your getting an amateur radio license, Len?

If you wish to make some kind of game out taking words
and sentences out of context, then I can beat your game
any time for amount that you can count. That's wasted
effort and impolite.


You've told us how great things are for you many, many times, Len.
As if all that somehow explains your obsession.

"Obsession?!?" :-)
Trying to change federal law is an "obsession?"

In your case, yes, it is. You are obsessed.

Incorrect. It is PERSISTENCE. It is IDEALISM, a quest to
make things better for others who share some of my interests.
It is many things but it is definitely not some deviant
obsession.

On the other hand, those who have met old test regulations
and insist and insist that those should be kept for the
future are suspect. Their self-righteousness is suspect.
Their failure to change with a changing reality is suspect.
Their obstinancy on keeping the old ways forever in this
new millennium are suspect. Their perceived self-worth
is threatened by feared loss of status and privilege,
perhaps even rank in the pecking order of the "amateur
community."

I've just rounded up the usual suspects and shown some light
on them. You complain of the glare in your eyes. Too bad,
that makes it hard for you to admire yourself in the mirror.
Apologies to you for that. I may have to change to a more
intense light source...


You can write "YES it IS" all you want. Obtaining an amateur radio
license isn't about those things.

True, the U.S. amateur radio test regulations have nothing
about baby shoes or taking little baby steps.

RIGHT NOW the U.S. amateur test regulations require a
telegraphy test for any class privileges below 30 MHz.
THAT is what many are trying to change.

NPRM 05-143 is about ELIMINATING that code test. Change
for the future, for the public...the public in the
Commission's language is ALL OF US, not just the personal
desires of the few who have met and passed telegraphy
tests.

Then why are you so unfriendly here, Len?

Because both Miccolis and Heil are decidedly unfriendly to
all who disagree with them. They will not bend from their
self-righteous opinions, offer no real concessions on the
code test, act arrogant and superior (Heil becomes abusive)
on the subject of radiotelegraphy. They increase all that
on replies having opposite opinions. They continue attempts
at "pushing buttons" of those opposed to them.

They have sown what they now reap in return.


That's simply incorrect, Leonard. You insult anyone who favors
retention of morse testing in amateur radio.

Miccolis and Heil both PERCEIVE insults where there is only
strong, sharp responses to their overbearing self-images.

This venue is a debate forum, not a gathering around the
bar at a local fraternal order. It does not have to be
"friendly" in the sense that all "must" think alike, have
the same opinions. If you wish "hail fellow well met"
gatherings, seek fellowship among your own kind. This
venue is open to ALL who are able to access it.


Please explain how retention of morse testing is regression in any form.
After all, morse code is used daily by thousands of radio amateurs.

Those radio amateurs - if operating legally - below 30 MHz
using radiotelegraphy have ALREADY passed a federal
telegraphy test. If they have already passed it, removal
of the code test regulation will not affect their operating
privileges.

However, the code test retention WILL affect all those
uncountable in the future who MAY want to get an amateur
radio license having below-30-MHz privileges. They are
not invisible, only uncountable because there is no
accurate way to get their numbers. At best, the Commission
gets only a general impression of their numbers in the
filings on Docket 05-235. So far, those numbers of the
public against code testing are about even with those
for its retention.

Care to see your special profile, Leonard?

A "profile" by whom? Someone who dislikes me intensely in
public? By someone who has no claimed training/schooling
in psychology? By someone who is a staunch, stubborn,
steadfast pro-code-test-advocate?

Feel free to post any "profile" you wish. I will repeat
it for the benefit of all those who might miss one...as I
have before. Feel free to make a Big Issue of it. All that
does is show what a self-righteous little spiteful
sociopath you are in here when your personal opinions are
countered.

You continue to complain that others insult or denigrate you. You've
told Jim that he never had any "PRIDE" in his work.

Yes, I should be taken to task on that, considering that
Miccolis has NEVER TOLD ANYONE HERE *EXACTLY* WHAT HE DOES
AT HIS *UNNAMED* EMPLOYMENT PLACE.

You go on to call him "Brother of Dudly".

In some ways Miccolis *IS* like Dudly the Imposter, yielding
only vague generalities of what he does/did without giving
more specific descriptions. You fit that description in some
posts...such as your "being in a country at war" implying that
you were somehow personally engaged in warfare...and that
later your only description of military experiences of any
specific nature involved operating some MARS radios in a
"behind the front lines" location. You've then made repeated
denigrating statements about my assignment at a "rear area,"
something that I had no choice but to accept at the time.

Do you consider your behavior to be rude?

No. It is strong and confrontational...which has been quite
normal in computer-modem networks since the original ARPANET
spread out into the world. These networks are not for the
faint of heart or the easily disturbed one-sided inflexible
ideological bigots who refuse to compromise.

NPRM 05-143 is a direct affront to the perception of some in
what constitutes "ham radio" or "amateur radio." Some insist
that radiotelegraphy is "the heart and soul of ham radio,"
therefore a test for that skill must "always" be in the
regulations. Those are repeated phrases (although not
necessarily verbatim) from many of the Comments found in
Docket 05-235 written by those in opposition to the NPRM.
That is the "world" to them and, should the telegraphy test
be eliminated, will result in the END of that "world" to
them. Naturally those people will be disturbed, distraught,
angry, or outraged at the very idea that their "world" is
"threatened." They become surly and resentful in their
anxiety and thus perceive that loss of a telegraphy test is
a "threat" to them. They also perceive that anyone who is
for the elimination of the telegraphy test is, in some way,
"unacceptible" to their "world." They can think of only
Their "world" and show no consideration of the rest of the
public. In their perceptions they have become selfish,
self-centered and lose their capability of accepting that
others of the public do not share their internal "world"
image. They get ANGRY at the public desiring change and
try to quash any thought of change. That ANGER manifests
itself in attempts to denigrate the person who challenges
them. Quite a common syndrome not confined to amateur
radio matters but to all human endeavor.

Are the smileys supposed to excuse your churlish manner?

"Smileys" are just emoticons that represent my mood after
having made some statement. In-person, there would be
much more in the way of expressed emotion, tone of voice,
"body language" and so forth to indicate my mood at any
particular time. Given the limitations of allowed
character limitations in this particular medium, emoticons
are a minimal extension of what would be readily apparent
during in-person encounters.

Your use of "churlish" is inappropriate and a bit insulting.
"Churl" is a rather old descriptor of "1. a peasant, 2.
a surly, ill-bred person; a boor." You wish to place
yourself "above" others, to be "their superior." [that is
readily apparent in your many previous postings in here]
Your general attitude seems to be nothing more than
bullying with strong overtones of bravado, a "don't mess
with ME" sort of thing. That reveals much to all other
readers.

If I use "smileys" [ :-) ] that only indicates I am
actually physically smiling on having written something.
I rarely use other emoticons, such as a mild frown
or disagreement [ :-( ] because I am more amused at
the general commentary in here than disapproving. :-)


Talk about misdirection. You dodged the question, Leonard.

Tsk, tsk. There is NO imperative or mandate that all
"must" answer someone's question. You presume too much
authority. An infinite amount of presumptions since you
are not the moderator in here.

We readers will just put you down as either NOT WORKING or
at some place not associated with electronics at all.

We readers? You're now speaking for all other readers of this newsgroup?

Not at all. I read ALL postings in this public venue,
therefore reiterating that I am one of those readers.

I speak only for myself. For whom do you speak as your
"authority?"


You can't blame Jim for not wanting to talk shop with you. Look what
has happened to others who have revealed details of their work (and who
happen to favor retention of morse testing).

Miccolis has not revealed any details of what he does for
a living...other than he is a "professional" and is "proud
of his work." Miccolis has expressed a number of varying
opinions of alleged knowledge, even expertise in areas
where he has not claimed any experience (aerospace,
specifically on spacecraft; non-amateur communications
where he refused to give anything specific on where or what),
yet has been highly confrontational, even antagonistic to
those who HAVE had experience. Miccolis has admitted that
he has NEVER served in any military postion, yet he chides
veterans who have served by claiming expertise in military
matters and military life.

Look at Steven James Robeson who has woven a veritable,
virtual straw skyscraper of claims in here. He is exposed
constantly on his outright fraudulent claims, yet he
persists. I have drawn a parallel to his actions in here
to the "Dudley" description found in Ernest K. Gann's
auotbiographical book "Fate Is The Hunter." That Dudley
was an outrageous fraud in commercial aviation and
eventually killed himself and his passengers in a crash
caused by his incompetence. The "Major Dud" label he got
(and deserved) is a play on words, a contraction of my
comparison to Gann's presented example with the name
contracted...Frank Gilliland applied the "major" both
from Robeson's claim of rank of major in the CAP and the
former half-hour TV sitcom "Major Dad" about an active-
duty USMC officer. Marine veterans, indeed most veterans
of any branch with a pride in their military service, are
justifiably insulted both personally and as a group at
ANY poseur, any fake "veteran" who makes claims of
machismo and/or heroism when they have NO PROOF of such
claims.

YOU have made numerous denigratory personal insults about
my "rear area service" in my military experience, a
voluntary enlistment in the Army, a branch that had
selective service draftees during a definite war period.
If you are a REAL military veteran, then you should know
that no one in the military, especially in the enlisted
ranks, has much choice of where they are assigned. I went
where I was told, did my duties, got promotions because I
did my duties competently. That my assignment involved
HF radio communications on a large scale was an eye-
opening revelation into the much larger world of radio.
It was "the luck of the draw" and it resulted in a major
life career change for me that I never regretted. That
you were resentful of that fortuitous circumstance is
not my problem. The ACAN-STARCOM-DCS worldwide net was
and remains far larger than any Department of State
communications network; the military nets did carry State
communications then and both share the DSN now.

Brian Kelly, formerly a regular in here, vacillated on
his postings, taking several "sides." While NEVER having
served, he boasted of "more important work" for the
military than I, negatively criticized what I did as both
a military and a civilian person, yet made a number of
embarassing faux pas on his knowledge of the military,
including the activities of the now-closed NADC in
Pennsylvania. He might have changed his mind on NPRM
05-143, maybe not. He has stopped posting in here.

Hans Brakob, a proud morseman and USN veteran, a Master
Chief Petty Officer, has gone on the record as favoring
the elimination of the U.S. amateur radio code test. I
respect his military service and I think he respects mine.
My only "disagreement" with Hans is his penchant for
posting/forwarding so many stories/tales on USN life,
some of them of quite an emotional nature. While the
USN and the entire maritime world enthusiastically
boosted the use of early radio a century ago, there is
a sense of overkill in boosting morsemanship from an
emotional, visceral level a century later...especially
given the enormous improvements in all radio techniques
and technologies during that century.

Brian Burke is a USAF veteran and I do not discredit his
service nor insult his active-duty assignments. Robeson
does that for no reason. Brian is a meteorologist, not
one directly involved in the worldwide USAF radio network,
but he is conversant and knowledgeable about military
radio procedures on land. Burke favors the elimination
of the U.S. amateur radio license exam code test and is
a code-tested radio amateur licensee.

Frank Gilliland is a USMC veteran and works IN radio,
does not have an amateur radio license yet takes the
side against the NPRM. That's fine with me. Frank
does not insult me yet we have had some mild disagreements
in here. Frank is frank and believable. His postings
have an air of honesty. Frank takes no guff from Dudly
and speaks up on Dudly's fakery, misuse of what is
known jargon in the Corps, and Dudly's general weird
attitude.

You make up derogatory
names for those folks and you insult their jobs and military service.

I WILL endeavor to insult, demean, and generally despise
ANY military veteran FAKE that exists or shows up. That
is a PROMISE.

I WILL endeavor to insult, demean, and generally despise
anyone who attempts the same sort of insults, denigrations,
and personal insults on ME. They get back what they hurl.

I have digitized records of proof of my military service,
my civilian jobs, personal references (both mentioned in
here in specifics plus those not yet mentioned), plus
some additional verification documents from government
agencies on my ordinary life. While not an exceptional
life, it exists, has existed, and was real. Anyone who
challenges that, in any way, shape, or form had damn
well be able to PROVE their charges beyond any doubt.
If they cannot prove what they charge, they will get
much worse than they try to give.

In my life experience I've encountered a number of
"churlish" bullies who've attempted many things against
me, including physical violence. I learned to stand up
to them, face them down, and, in a few cases, had to
physically defeat them when they were not able to control
themselves. I'm not looking for trouble but if trouble
finds me, then woe is that trouble; such will not find
an easy adversary.



Gee, Lennie, you are constantly AGAINST the retention of morse code
testing in amateur radio. Imagine that.

TS.


...and, poor baby, you still wonder why you are insulted and denigrated?

Up yours.

You can continue to maintain the code test on your purely
personal level of your targeted insults to me specifically.
You have received responses. You apparently don't like
being countered on the personal level. Your problem. If
I have the time you will get replies as I choose.

Since you started this thread with an overt personal insult
as the title, you are in no position to claim yourself
either "civil" in this war of words or as the "neutral
judge" of What Should Be. You are neither "neutral" nor
"judge."

Or, it could shift to the broader perspective of actually
talking regulation policy and arguing on that plane. If
you choose to resort to the personal level again, you are
the one to have failed in the shift. You get NO points
for already being IN amateur radio through licensing since
the code test regulations affect only those who are either
not in amateur radio or those inside who wish to "upgrade."
You are in neither category. You are not in the FCC nor
do you control any licensing regulations. You have no
qualifications that make you "superior" for arguing policy
on the public level, can only resort to puerile personal
insults. QED.

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

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


wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 18, 6:11 pm
wrote:
From: K4YZ on Nov 17, 7:15 pm
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:


You're the oldest fart here, Len and you aren't involved in amateur
radio. Like I said, you have a fetish.

You mean LICENSED amateur radio...as in having an HF transceiver
and "working DX on HF with CW." :-)


I made no excuses and you weren't involved in my work any more than you
are involved in amateur radio.

"Not involved with your [Department of State] work?" Not in
the 1980s. I was involved in the 1950s. "State" had their
own TTY nodes in the ACAN-STARCOM-DCS worldwide in the 1950s
and 1960s. 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.

"State" never used an RCA Corporation RACES (Random Access
Card Extract System) archival memory storage machine? On
the contrary, "State" had two of them in Washingdon DC as
prime electronic back-up. Back in the late 1960s. I know
because I worked at the RCA division that made them and I
got in on some of their final testing. 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. :-)

I'm not involved in the operation of LICENSED amateur radio
on-the-air. I can and have helped other amateurs fix/align
their radio equipment. However, you want to dismiss a great
big hobby area involving not just radio but all of electronics
in the United States. Unpaid work. In a hobby. That's
were I am.

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


You've been recycling here too. You've certainly gotten mileage out of
your irrelevant military experiences of better than half a century ago.

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. Bugs the hell
out of devout Believers in the Church of St. Hiram,
so I bring it up. :-)

2. I've mentioned a considerable amount of civilian
programs I've worked on in the last 49 years.
Interestingly, there's more "sensitivity" on that
than on old military activities due to Trade
Secrets, Corporate Confidential, and general Non-
Disclosure demands. Unless I have press release
or other public information on that, I don't even
mention them.

3. Before the advent of communications satellites,
wideband fiber optic cable, improved underwater
cable, the U.S. military depended primarily on HF
radio for their worldwide communications networks.
That HF network equipment operated by the very same
laws of physics which governed amateur radio then
and now. Technology transfer was directly applicable
between the military of that time and amateur radio
of that time. However, military radio then (and
still does) employ more modes and techniques than
are allowed by U.S.radio amateurs now.


Did you know that both Tech classes together constitute almost
HALF of all U.S. amateur radio license grants? True!

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. :-) 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."



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

Not my fault. shrug

I've met lots of notable people while in the Foreign Service--a U.S.
President, his wife, two Secretaries of State, a number of U.S.
Congressmen and Senators, former Finnish President Mauno Koivisto,
Forumula 1 driver Mika Salo and even trumpeter Clark Terry among others.
I got to see a number of other people of note--Secretary of State
George Schultz, Boris Yeltsin.

Wow! All because you worked for the Department of State?

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

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

Hmmm...I could do the same schtick with some show business
folks, some high up, some not well known, lots of behind
the scenes guild people, plus a couple of big corporation
founders, three federal representatives (Barry Goldwater's
son, once on politics, the other on a visit to RCA EASD in
Van Nuys about the time his district was gerrymandered out
of my area). I was quite taken with meeting Stockard
Channing briefly during a party in the Hollywood Hills, she
is tinier in real life than in reel life and is charming
without needing a script. [Stockard was in "West Wing"
as a semi-regular, is now on another show about doctors]

I've not met any Heads of State. Few get involved in the
nittygritty of aerospace. Representative Goldwater did
but then he was bigger on flying and piloting than his
father. The late General Bernard Shriever, USAF Missle
Command (or whatever its final name was) attended a
briefing I gave and we had a chat afterwards. Impressed
me as having the "right stuff." John Young and Bob Crippen
were at Rocketdyne, meeting and greeting the folks there
who made the Space Shuttle Main Engines (shuttle space-
frame was made "over the hill" at the B-1 Division). That
right after the first space flight of the STS; they also
were the crew of the air-drop-only Enterprise test shuttle.

Your name didn't come up.

Tsk.



It [Newington] isn't even the center of the hamiverse.

Actually, in this country, it is the closest thing we've got.

Only in your perception.



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

Inquire of REAL USMC veterans about "yellow footsteps."

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


Sorry, lil Davie, but there was a "comment march" on Washington.
3,786 filings worth on WT Docket 05-235.

What, pray tell, is a "comment march".

On alliterations you seem illiterate.

There was no human parade march on Washington in regards to
amateur radio. There were (to date) 3,786 filings on WT
Docket 05-235, that Docket devoted to only one subject, the
elimination or retention of the morse code test in federal
amateur radio regulations. 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.


The anti-code-test movement is gaining momentum.

Not to the tune of 3,786 filings on 05-235, it isn't.

See preceding.


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.



Would you care to see your own special profile again?

Do whatever you like. The "profiles" generated by Miccolis
are not official, not accurate, are biased to an extreme
due to past differences in here and my not obliging him
with the respect and reverence he thinks is so richly
deserving.

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


I've been paid as a musician.

Union or scab? [wanna see my AFTRA card? :-) ]

Were you an actor portraying a musician? :-)

American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

Question reiterated: Were YOU ever in a musician's
guild, union, or craft?


What's your point? Amateurs at anything, aren't paid. They do things
for the love of doing them.

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

Your motivation is at question there.


Does Palomar know about you? Does Schmidt help you?

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





No, I don't think you need anything additional to brag about, Len.

Davie, baby, "it ain't braggin' if ya DONE it. I done it."

Then you don't have a "braq quotionent", Len. You have an "I DONE it
quotionent", except that when it comes to amateur radio, you ain't done it.

I have not obtained any amateur radio license, true, but
to attempt semi-insult at claiming I've never been IN
radio would be a disasterous fabrication for you on the
order of Dudly the Imposter level.


Remember who used that Dizzy Dean misquote in here first?

The quote has been attributed to a number of people over the years.

The one who USED it first in here was James P. Miccolis,
license N2EY. ["Used," Davie, not 'attributed to']

Tsk, that misquote wound up blowing his words off...


I didn't write about anything particularly new, Len.

All readers here realize that...do not state the obvious.

I asked about the things you are unable to do.

For what reason? To attempt more denigrations?

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


Some of your stuff defies response.

Try to stay with the program.

We all know you have difficulties with analogies, please
do not state the obvious.



You poor, ignored blighter. You're still standing out in the cold and
looking in. I guess you showed us.

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...]

It couldn't have been Val, Leonard. He's a licensed ham. He is
permitted full voting membership in the old lodge.

In the NAAR, if he is a member there. The Commission doesn't
have "voting" or "membership" through license granting...it
just grants licenses and regulates all civil radio in the
United States. The NAAR (old name ARRL, but NAAR seems to be
the new name used by Imlay in Comments) membership is only
1 in 5 of all United States amateur radio licenses.

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


I was hangin' with some NBC West Coast Hq types at lunch. We
weren't talking about hamme raddddio.

No doubt. They probably weren't even discussing ham radio.

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.

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.

Irrelevant.

Only to your extreme literalism. Tsk, tsk. Relax, learn
to live with things. It will be better for you now that
you are over the middle aged hill.


As a matter of fact, Leonard, I've been watching HDTV for better than
the past two years. Get your enjoyment where you can. For watching TV,
you're an insider. For amateur radio, you're an outsider.

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

Were you born with that elitist attitude? Or was it
acquired in "the foreign service?" :-)

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. :-)

By the way, I've actually been watching HDTV, the present
system in the regulations, since SIX years ago. Since a
demonstration by the "Grand Alliance" group on the west
coast. I've seen "HD" systems demonstrated much earlier,
but those were not picked up in the FCC regulations.



I worked a few Europeans and some South Americans last night on 160m CW,
Len. I did some testing of a 6m FM link to an area 70cm repeater last
evening with W8MSD and I squeezed in some HDTV viewing of college
football. You do as you can and I'll do as I choose.

Ohm my! I now get to actually CHOOSE FOR MYSELF?!?

Oh heavenly day, the "Godfather" has allowed me a choice!
I cannot refuse it! :-)


Your stuff died with Vaudeville.

Vaudeville isn't "dead," Godfather. It isn't healthy but
you can find it still going strong in the Catskills. Nu?

Vaudeville is alive and well but musclebound in the World
Wrestling Federation.

Morse code is alive but unwell, dwelling only in the
musculeminds of stubborn, hidebound, self-righteous
old and middle-aged morsemen bound and determined to
force the code test down newcomer's throats until their
code keys are pried out of cold, dead fingers.



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!
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.

I will think back on you then.

Buy.

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

You exhibit a lack of class, Len.

Incorrect. I have several FIRST CLASS Radiotelephone (Commercial)
license certificates. Want to see them? :-)

Buy,

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

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.

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.

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. Hans tried, bless his heart.

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?

Good luck.

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

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.

Otherwise why manufacture the Somalia 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.

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

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".

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.

Hans tried, bless his heart.

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

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.

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.

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

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

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?

because it is an uncoporatble source that is neded to make your case

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

meaning you don't have access to any such source

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.

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

Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
 

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


wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 18, 6:11 pm
wrote:
From: K4YZ on Nov 17, 7:15 pm
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:


You're the oldest fart here, Len and you aren't involved in amateur
radio. Like I said, you have a fetish.

You mean LICENSED amateur radio...as in having an HF transceiver
and "working DX on HF with CW." :-)

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 made no excuses and you weren't involved in my work any more than you
are involved in amateur radio.

"Not involved with your [Department of State] work?" Not in
the 1980s.

Not in the 1980's, not in the 1990's and not in 2000. You weren't
involved in any fashion.

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.

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. Why do you live in the past?

"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. Back to my
employment: You were never involved.

On
the contrary, "State" had two of them in Washingdon DC as
prime electronic back-up. Back in the late 1960s. I know
because I worked at the RCA division that made them and I
got in on some of their final testing.

How does that make you involved in my employment?

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?

I'm not involved in the operation of LICENSED amateur radio
on-the-air.

Precisely. ZIC/ZID.

I can and have helped other amateurs fix/align
their radio equipment.

Bully for you. No license is required as long as you don't put it on
the air.

However, you want to dismiss a great
big hobby area involving not just radio but all of electronics
in the United States. Unpaid work. In a hobby. That's
were I am.

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.

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...ient=firefox-a

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

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


You've been recycling here too. You've certainly gotten mileage out of
your irrelevant military experiences of better than half a century ago.

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. Bugs the hell
out of devout Believers in the Church of St. Hiram,
so I bring it up. :-)

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.


2. I've mentioned a considerable amount of civilian
programs I've worked on in the last 49 years.
Interestingly, there's more "sensitivity" on that
than on old military activities due to Trade
Secrets, Corporate Confidential, and general Non-
Disclosure demands. Unless I have press release
or other public information on that, I don't even
mention them.

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

3. Before the advent of communications satellites,
wideband fiber optic cable, improved underwater
cable, the U.S. military depended primarily on HF
radio for their worldwide communications networks.
That HF network equipment operated by the very same
laws of physics which governed amateur radio then
and now. Technology transfer was directly applicable
between the military of that time and amateur radio
of that time. However, military radio then (and
still does) employ more modes and techniques than
are allowed by U.S.radio amateurs now.

That's nice, but not really relevant.


Did you know that both Tech classes together constitute almost
HALF of all U.S. amateur radio license grants? True!

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. :-)

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.



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.

I've met lots of notable people while in the Foreign Service--a U.S.
President, his wife, two Secretaries of State, a number of U.S.
Congressmen and Senators, former Finnish President Mauno Koivisto,
Forumula 1 driver Mika Salo and even trumpeter Clark Terry among others.
I got to see a number of other people of note--Secretary of State
George Schultz, Boris Yeltsin.

Wow! All because you worked for the Department of State?

That's absolutely correct.

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.

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

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

Hmmm...I could do the same schtick with some show business
folks, some high up, some not well known, lots of behind
the scenes guild people, plus a couple of big corporation
founders, three federal representatives (Barry Goldwater's
son...

Barry Goldwater's son? Wow! I met the Duchess of Windsor's waiter in
Palm Beach when I was a kid. I saw Fred Astaire's dancing shoes at a
well known English manor house where Eisenhower planned the Normandy
Invasion. Imagine! Goldwater's son!

once on politics, the other on a visit to RCA EASD in
Van Nuys about the time his district was gerrymandered out
of my area). I was quite taken with meeting Stockard
Channing briefly during a party in the Hollywood Hills, she
is tinier in real life than in reel life and is charming
without needing a script. [Stockard was in "West Wing"
as a semi-regular, is now on another show about doctors]

I've not met any Heads of State. Few get involved in the
nittygritty of aerospace. Representative Goldwater did
but then he was bigger on flying and piloting than his
father. The late General Bernard Shriever, USAF Missle
Command (or whatever its final name was)...

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't "Missle Command". :-)

It [Newington] isn't even the center of the hamiverse.

Actually, in this country, it is the closest thing we've got.

Only in your perception.

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


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

Inquire of REAL USMC veterans about "yellow footsteps."

Why?

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.


Sorry, lil Davie, but there was a "comment march" on Washington.
3,786 filings worth on WT Docket 05-235.

What, pray tell, is a "comment march".

On alliterations you seem illiterate.

Off hand, I'd say the guy who penned "comment march" seems lacking in
literary skills.

There was no human parade march on Washington in regards to
amateur radio.

I knew that.


There were (to date) 3,786 filings on WT
Docket 05-235, that Docket devoted to only one subject, the
elimination or retention of the morse code test in federal
amateur radio regulations.

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?

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?


The anti-code-test movement is gaining momentum.

Not to the tune of 3,786 filings on 05-235, it isn't.

See preceding.

I read the "preceding". It said, "Not to the tune of 3,786 filings on
05-235, it isn't".

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.

Would you care to see your own special profile again?

Do whatever you like. The "profiles" generated by Miccolis
are not official, not accurate, are biased to an extreme
due to past differences in here and my not obliging him
with the respect and reverence he thinks is so richly
deserving.

While not official, that profile is based upon long experience in
reading your posted material. It appears to be quite accurate in that
you live up to it time and again.

"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?

I've been paid as a musician.

Union or scab? [wanna see my AFTRA card? :-) ]

Were you an actor portraying a musician? :-)

American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

That isn't a musician's union at all. The AFofM is the musician's union.

Question reiterated: Were YOU ever in a musician's
guild, union, or craft?

What's it to you?


What's your point? Amateurs at anything, aren't paid. They do things
for the love of doing them.

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

I do not.

Your motivation is at question there.

Your understanding of logic is at question here.


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? :-)

No, I don't think you need anything additional to brag about, Len.

Davie, baby, "it ain't braggin' if ya DONE it. I done it."

Then you don't have a "braq quotionent", Len. You have an "I DONE it
quotionent", except that when it comes to amateur radio, you ain't done it.

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

Precisely!


...but
to attempt semi-insult at claiming I've never been IN
radio would be a disasterous fabrication for you on the
order of Dudly the Imposter level.

Then it is probably a good thing that I've never done any such thing.

Remember who used that Dizzy Dean misquote in here first?

The quote has been attributed to a number of people over the years.

The one who USED it first in here was James P. Miccolis,
license N2EY. ["Used," Davie, not 'attributed to']

"Attributed to", Leonard, not "used". The quote has been attributed to
Babe Ruth, Dizzy Dean and others.

Tsk, that misquote wound up blowing his words off...

Did it, Lennie?

I didn't write about anything particularly new, Len.

All readers here realize that...do not state the obvious.

I asked about the things you are unable to do.

For what reason? To attempt more denigrations?

There's no need for more ammunition there.

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?

You poor, ignored blighter. You're still standing out in the cold and
looking in. I guess you showed us.

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?

It couldn't have been Val, Leonard. He's a licensed ham. He is
permitted full voting membership in the old lodge.

In the NAAR, if he is a member there.

Do you mean the ARRL? Yes, if he is a member. Even if he isn't an ARRL
member, he's a member of the cozy lodge made up of all licensed radio
amateurs. The guy who passed his Tech last week is a member. The guy
who has been licensed since 1928 is a member. Kids of eight or nine
years of age are members. You are not a member.

The Commission doesn't
have "voting" or "membership" through license granting...it
just grants licenses and regulates all civil radio in the
United States. The NAAR (old name ARRL, but NAAR seems to be
the new name used by Imlay in Comments) membership is only
1 in 5 of all United States amateur radio licenses.

Can you name any single U.S. amateur radio organization with as much as
1/10th the membership of the ARRL? How about 1/5th?

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

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

I was hangin' with some NBC West Coast Hq types at lunch. We
weren't talking about hamme raddddio.

No doubt. They probably weren't even discussing ham radio.

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.

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.

Irrelevant.

Only to your extreme literalism. Tsk, tsk. Relax, learn
to live with things. It will be better for you now that
you are over the middle aged hill.


As a matter of fact, Leonard, I've been watching HDTV for better than
the past two years. Get your enjoyment where you can. For watching TV,
you're an insider. For amateur radio, you're an outsider.

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

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

Were you born with that elitist attitude? Or was it
acquired in "the foreign service?" :-)

"Foreign Service". Were you in "the army"? :-)


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. :-)

By the way, I've actually been watching HDTV, the present
system in the regulations, since SIX years ago. Since a
demonstration by the "Grand Alliance" group on the west
coast. I've seen "HD" systems demonstrated much earlier,
but those were not picked up in the FCC regulations.

There would have been no point in my obtaining anything for HDTV
SIX years ago. I've been back in the U.S. for five years. Large
amounts of programming wasn't available nationally and regional and
local stations weren't transmitting it. While Dish Network offered
digital television, it did not offer HD at that time.

I worked a few Europeans and some South Americans last night on 160m CW,
Len. I did some testing of a 6m FM link to an area 70cm repeater last
evening with W8MSD and I squeezed in some HDTV viewing of college
football. You do as you can and I'll do as I choose.

Ohm my! I now get to actually CHOOSE FOR MYSELF?!?

Yes, within the limited options open to you.

Oh heavenly day, the "Godfather" has allowed me a choice!
I cannot refuse it! :-)

Your stuff died with Vaudeville.

Vaudeville isn't "dead," Godfather. It isn't healthy but
you can find it still going strong in the Catskills. Nu?

Vaudeville is deader than Burns and Allen.

Vaudeville is alive and well but musclebound in the World
Wrestling Federation.

Do you watch the World Wrestling Federation, Len? Who are some of the
song and dance men?

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.

... dwelling only in the musculeminds...

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


...of stubborn, hidebound, self-righteous
old and middle-aged morsemen bound and determined to
force the code test down newcomer's throats until their
code keys are pried out of cold, dead fingers.

You aren't wrapped too tight.

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. The League
doesn't publish Silent Key notices in a newsletter. They're published
in QST. I'll likely not see any notice of your passing there.

I will think back on you then.

I guess you told me.

Dave K8MN

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.