|
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands. Is that the papal 'we' or the royal 'we'? Probably the multiple personality disorder "we." Does it matter? It would to a mental health professional. None of them include you...Or Lennie...Or Markie...Or Toiddie...Or Frankie... That would be Len, Mark, Todd, and Frank. What's with the constant dishing out of the diminuitives? |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote cuting back to a len remark some time ago quote We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands. unquote I can attest that several folks have in fact worked or should I say have been worked over by K4YZ they to a man they proclaim him a "papa oscar serria" Is that the papal 'we' or the royal 'we'? Probably the multiple personality disorder "we." Does it matter? It would to a mental health professional. None of them include you...Or Lennie...Or Markie...Or Toiddie...Or Frankie... That would be Len, Mark, Todd, and Frank. What's with the constant dishing out of the diminuitives? it is ok for him we force to do it to us but at least for my part I settle for him to stop with aids and pedophilia crap I don't mind the "markie" bit so much. it is amoug the least of Stevie many sins |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: on Nov 22, 4:08 am
wrote: 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. Not. True, but Dud is still trying to use that as a rationale. 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. Not. Still true, but Dud has bluffed so many times he can't under- stand that others are wise to him. A five minute phone call could verify my original statements. Phone call to whom? :-) The National Command Authority. Har! :-) Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task. Dialling fingers are busy poking holes in Dudly's "arguments." :-) Has Steve ever been able to provide a straight-forward answer on anything? Not in here. Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD. SOP for Dudly...when unwilling to stick to an "argument" he resorts to name-calling. That was the "old" Steve. He's a new man now. He's trying to imitate NEWMAN?!? In trying to market salad dressing through supermarkets? 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... I sure wish I had the 2005 Accounting and Finance regulations in-place when I served. I've got the idea that Jimmy Noserve has, and is sending them around in private e-mail. :-) Morsemen can do anything in impunity...or is it "special dispensation?" They have a "mass" of lies. If only they would go to confessional and admit them... Not to worry for Thanksgiving. We have lots of morse turkeys in here. |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
N0IMD wrote Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg??? Sumptin wrong there. My son-in-law, a Major in USMC reserve, is Admin Officer of his unit. I QSP'd the thread to him, and he sent me a .pdf of the applicable MCO. Sumpin wrong with dat? Sunuvagun! Beep-beep Little Billy |
Steve, as usual, Mike's BBS, etc... was: Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
an old friend wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: Dave Heil wrote: KØHB wrote: wrote cuting back to a len remark some time ago quote We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands. unquote I can attest that several folks have in fact worked or should I say have been worked over by K4YZ they to a man they proclaim him a "papa oscar serria" Is that the papal 'we' or the royal 'we'? Probably the multiple personality disorder "we." Does it matter? It would to a mental health professional. None of them include you...Or Lennie...Or Markie...Or Toiddie...Or Frankie... That would be Len, Mark, Todd, and Frank. What's with the constant dishing out of the diminuitives? it is ok for him we force to do it to us but at least for my part I settle for him to stop with aids and pedophilia crap I don't mind the "markie" bit so much. it is amoug the least of Stevie many sins As one of the few Christians on RRAP that Mike, Dave, Jim and Hans absolutely won't make fun of, Steve will probably burn for his sins. I wonder how Mike's BBS is coming along? Is there anyone out there who can give him a hand??? Speed is of the utmost importance. "rape an old friend" says Tennessee Nurse, Steven J Robeson, LPN Hope he exits to the BBS soon. |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote: From: on Nov 22, 4:08 am wrote: 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. Not. True, but Dud is still trying to use that as a rationale. Typical assertion of a liar. 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. Not. Still true, but Dud has bluffed so many times he can't under- stand that others are wise to him. Correction. Steve THINKS he has bluffed.... He has the mentality of an idiot. Thinks all others are idiots. Look at his use of the concept of "standard." A five minute phone call could verify my original statements. Phone call to whom? :-) The National Command Authority. Har! :-) Wouldn't suprise me if he was on a first name basis with the receptionist. Unfortunately you are incapable of that simple task. Dialling fingers are busy poking holes in Dudly's "arguments." :-) Has Steve ever been able to provide a straight-forward answer on anything? Not in here. "... assertion of fact..." His second most used phrase. "Coward and Liar..." His first most used phrase. "raped an old friend" is a recent invention of Tennessee Nurse, Steven J Robeson, LPN. Or unwilling...In short, a COWARD. SOP for Dudly...when unwilling to stick to an "argument" he resorts to name-calling. That was the "old" Steve. He's a new man now. He's trying to imitate NEWMAN?!? Balding? Pudgy? In trying to market salad dressing through supermarkets? Sorry, I was thinking of Frazier. 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... I sure wish I had the 2005 Accounting and Finance regulations in-place when I served. I've got the idea that Jimmy Noserve has, and is sending them around in private e-mail. :-) Make sure he plusses up my direct deposit. Morsemen can do anything in impunity...or is it "special dispensation?" They have a "mass" of lies. If only they would go to confessional and admit them... They have black mass and wrenchysnitch. Egg nog afterwards. Not to worry for Thanksgiving. We have lots of morse turkeys in here. And hamsticks, the other white meat. |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
KØHB wrote: N0IMD wrote Yet Hans, long retired, has a current copy of the uniform reg??? Sumptin wrong there. My son-in-law, a Major in USMC reserve, is Admin Officer of his unit. I QSP'd the thread to him, and he sent me a .pdf of the applicable MCO. Sumpin wrong with dat? Sunuvagun! Beep-beep Little Billy Definitely sumptin wrong. You presented it as if it were applicable to 1974. Why did you do that? Can you also have your MAJOR Son-in-Law make the 2005 pay scales applicable to 1974??? Hi! Gotta love Hans constant trolling. |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
N0IMD wrote Why did you do that? Because it was the only version he had. Can you also have your MAJOR Son-in-Law make the 2005 pay scales applicable to 1974? Naw, he's the Admin Officer, not the Disbursing Officer. Darn it, I wish he could though, because I'd be due a nice fat lump-sum in overdue back pay! Beep-beep Little Billy |
Steve, as usual, Mike's BBS, etc... was: Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
N0IMD wrote As one of the few Christians on RRAP that Mike, Dave, Jim and Hans absolutely won't make fun of, Steve will probably burn for his sins. "God loves you, and you'd better believe it, or he'll condemn you to burn in hell." Glad I don't belong to THAT cult! Beep-beep Little Billy |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: cuting back to a len remark some time ago quote We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands. unquote I can attest that several folks have in fact worked or should I say have been worked over by K4YZ they to a man they proclaim him a "papa oscar serria" No you can't. Not a one. Provide some callsigns, Markie, otherwise you're just manufactuing yet ANOTHER of your great many bits of deceit. Is that the papal 'we' or the royal 'we'? Probably the multiple personality disorder "we." Does it matter? It would to a mental health professional. None of them include you...Or Lennie...Or Markie...Or Toiddie...Or Frankie... That would be Len, Mark, Todd, and Frank. What's with the constant dishing out of the diminuitives? it is ok for him we force to do it to us but at least for my part I settle for him to stop with aids and pedophilia crap I don't mind the "markie" bit so much. it is amoug the least of Stevie many sins As one of the few Christians on RRAP that Mike, Dave, Jim and Hans absolutely won't make fun of, Steve will probably burn for his sins. Hey Brian...Why are you manufacturing yet another bit of deceit? Hans has roasted me rather thoroughly on occassions...Sometimes rightfully so, others not to... Jim doesn't mid at all going toe-to-toe with me when he feels he's got a point to make. Yet you never see him call me a name, not I him. Hmmmmmmmm...Guess that pretty well throws some of the "can't participate in civil debate" rants out the window.... Not that they weren't out the window YEARS ago..... I wonder how Mike's BBS is coming along? Is there anyone out there who can give him a hand??? Speed is of the utmost importance. "rape an old friend" says Tennessee Nurse, Steven J Robeson, LPN Nope. That's NOT what I said. If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately, Brian. Steve, K4YZ |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
K4YZ wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: cuting back to a len remark some time ago quote We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands. unquote I can attest that several folks have in fact worked or should I say have been worked over by K4YZ they to a man they proclaim him a "papa oscar serria" No you can't. wrong again i have therefore i can Not a one. Provide some callsigns, Markie, otherwise you're just manufactuing yet ANOTHER of your great many bits of deceit. no way and subject them to YOU for further abuse no way I am much more polite than that cut but at least for my part I settle for him to stop with aids and pedophilia crap I don't mind the "markie" bit so much. it is amoug the least of Stevie many sins As one of the few Christians on RRAP that Mike, Dave, Jim and Hans absolutely won't make fun of, Steve will probably burn for his sins. Hey Brian...Why are you manufacturing yet another bit of deceit? what deceit? Hans has roasted me rather thoroughly on occassions...Sometimes rightfully so, others not to... Jim doesn't mid at all going toe-to-toe with me when he feels he's got a point to make. Yet you never see him call me a name, not I him. Hmmmmmmmm...Guess that pretty well throws some of the "can't participate in civil debate" rants out the window.... Not that they weren't out the window YEARS ago..... I wonder how Mike's BBS is coming along? Is there anyone out there who can give him a hand??? Speed is of the utmost importance. "rape an old friend" says Tennessee Nurse, Steven J Robeson, LPN Nope. That's NOT what I said. If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately, Brian. it is acurate more accurate than yourself Steve, K4YZ |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 22 2005 8:12 pm Hmmm...not a brand I recognize in this corner of the USA. The "Newman's Own" line of food products may not be popular farther east in the USA? I've tried "Newman's Own" Ranch dressing but personally prefer the "Hidden Valley" brand for Ranch dressing. I had you pegged as a "Hidden Agenda" man. Morsemen can do anything in impunity...or is it "special dispensation?" They have a "mass" of lies. If only they would go to confessional and admit them... They have black mass and wrenchysnitch. Egg nog afterwards. Some have "hot buttered rum" in foursomes around a fire of oak leaves and discuss Anderson PowerPole connectors. That may have been the topic in the cozy lodge or it may have been your tiny, old, dusty Johnson. That Anderson Powerpole bit may be a bit of self-aggrandizement on your part. Appears to be a popular ceremony along the Atlantic states. What was it that your Nordic ancestors did--paint their faces blue and howl at the moon? See you in the CQ Worldwide DX CW 'test this weekend, Len or do you plan to stick with the Wordwide? Dave K8MN |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
an old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: cuting back to a len remark some time ago quote We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands. unquote I can attest that several folks have in fact worked or should I say have been worked over by K4YZ they to a man they proclaim him a "papa oscar serria" No you can't. wrong again i have therefore i can No, you can't and no you havne't. Not a single callsign. A lie. Well, "several lies" since you said "several folks" made these allegations. Not a one. Provide some callsigns, Markie, otherwise you're just manufactuing yet ANOTHER of your great many bits of deceit. no way and subject them to YOU for further abuse The ABUSE comes from you suggesting these people made some "comment". What we have here is a point blank lie, Colonel. Not that we're not used to it from you or anything! no way You mean "no way that I can make up calls that you'd not be able to actually follow-up on and find out I was lying...AGAIN! I am much more polite than that Oh? It's "polite" to put lies in other people's mouths, Markie? but at least for my part I settle for him to stop with aids and pedophilia crap I don't mind the "markie" bit so much. it is amoug the least of Stevie many sins As one of the few Christians on RRAP that Mike, Dave, Jim and Hans absolutely won't make fun of, Steve will probably burn for his sins. Hey Brian...Why are you manufacturing yet another bit of deceit? what deceit? I'd point it out to you, but you'd forget in 2 minutes and I'd have to do it all over again. Hans has roasted me rather thoroughly on occassions...Sometimes rightfully so, others not to... Jim doesn't mid at all going toe-to-toe with me when he feels he's got a point to make. Yet you never see him call me a name, not I him. Hmmmmmmmm...Guess that pretty well throws some of the "can't participate in civil debate" rants out the window.... Not that they weren't out the window YEARS ago..... I wonder how Mike's BBS is coming along? Is there anyone out there who can give him a hand??? Speed is of the utmost importance. "rape an old friend" says Tennessee Nurse, Steven J Robeson, LPN Nope. That's NOT what I said. If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately, Brian. it is acurate more accurate than yourself No, it's NOT "acurate", Markie. Steve, K4YZ |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
K4YZ wrote: an old friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: cuting back to a len remark some time ago quote We have NOT seen where any other radio amateur has ever "worked" him on the amateur bands. unquote I can attest that several folks have in fact worked or should I say have been worked over by K4YZ they to a man they proclaim him a "papa oscar serria" No you can't. wrong again i have therefore i can No, you can't and no you havne't. I have attested that severla folks have said your are a POS Not a single callsign. no callsgins provided A lie. Well, "several lies" since you said "several folks" made these allegations. nope a simple truth are you realy so nuts as to think everyone in the ARS aside from the Five of us likes you? Not a one. Provide some callsigns, Markie, otherwise you're just manufactuing yet ANOTHER of your great many bits of deceit. no way and subject them to YOU for further abuse The ABUSE comes from you suggesting these people made some "comment". nope wrong again you are abusive What we have here is a point blank lie, Colonel. Not that we're not used to it from you or anything! nope we have a statement I refuse to support as you wish since i do am ethical enough to protect my sources no way You mean "no way that I can make up calls that you'd not be able to actually follow-up on and find out I was lying...AGAIN! nope your are lying agian I am much more polite than that Oh? It's "polite" to put lies in other people's mouths, Markie? well you do that and claim you are polite but I was making no such claim but at least for my part I settle for him to stop with aids and pedophilia crap I don't mind the "markie" bit so much. it is amoug the least of Stevie many sins As one of the few Christians on RRAP that Mike, Dave, Jim and Hans absolutely won't make fun of, Steve will probably burn for his sins. Hey Brian...Why are you manufacturing yet another bit of deceit? what deceit? I'd point it out to you, but you'd forget in 2 minutes and I'd have to do it all over again. no the problem is you have never poined out any deceit from brain just places where he disagrees with you cut "rape an old friend" says Tennessee Nurse, Steven J Robeson, LPN Nope. That's NOT what I said. If you're going to quote me, quote me accurately, Brian. it is acurate more accurate than yourself No, it's NOT "acurate", Markie. yes it is Steve, K4YZ |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Nov 22 2005 8:12 pm Hmmm...not a brand I recognize in this corner of the USA. The "Newman's Own" line of food products may not be popular farther east in the USA? I've tried "Newman's Own" Ranch dressing but personally prefer the "Hidden Valley" brand for Ranch dressing. I had you pegged as a "Hidden Agenda" man. Says "Sun-dried Tomato" from WV. Morsemen can do anything in impunity...or is it "special dispensation?" They have a "mass" of lies. If only they would go to confessional and admit them... They have black mass and wrenchysnitch. Egg nog afterwards. Some have "hot buttered rum" in foursomes around a fire of oak leaves and discuss Anderson PowerPole connectors. That may have been the topic in the cozy lodge or it may have been your tiny, old, dusty Johnson. That Anderson Powerpole bit may be a bit of self-aggrandizement on your part. Everyone seems to have "thier" own opinion on the subject. Appears to be a popular ceremony along the Atlantic states. What was it that your Nordic ancestors did--paint their faces blue and howl at the moon? Or ate sardines for breakfast? See you in the CQ Worldwide DX CW 'test this weekend, Len or do you plan to stick with the Wordwide? Dave K8MN Is there a CQ WWW this weekend? Never heard of it. Maybe John Dorr could shed some light on your "assertion of fact." |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
|
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote:
wrote: 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. That's a very good thing! ....and it is the only legal option available to Len at the moment. Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without an amateur radio license or using morse code! But not by direct radio contact. He doesn't have to be "bothered" with direct radio contact. And 24/7 without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-) Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len. Anybody with enough money to pay his monthly ISP or telephone bill can get in on that action. Why do you live in the past? Tsk, I don't. You sure talk about it a lot, though. Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history that happened before his time. Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of history that happened before *your* time. Are you the only one allowed to do that? That's the way it works with Len. He does it but neither you nor I should do it. 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?" The two are not the same. It does not equate with "amateur radio?" No, they don't. "Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering. "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering. Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not identical, and one is not a subset of the other. Thanks for clearing that up for Len. I think he may have been confused. Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY? And much more. 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. :-) Who would they be, Len? Why, *any* long-time amateur radiotelegraphers, Jim. It doesn't apply to radiotelephonists. Your clause doesn't address limited privileges. :-) I didn't have any "clause." I asked a question. Pay attention. What question? ....and what sentence? 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.' Len was talking about radiotelegraphers. An operator who uses SSB or FM or AM is a radiotelephonist. A radiotelegrapher uses radiotelegraphy. A radiotelephonist uses radiotelephony. You'd think a PROFESSIONAL writer would have figured that out. Yet you know they exist. Sure, he knew. 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. So? Why is that significant? 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. And that's a good thing. The written test elements are prepared, both questions and multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC. And approved by the FCC 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. Who would they be, Len? Len seems to pick his "facts" from thin air. Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about radio theory? ABSOLUTELY. Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not exactly unbiased in your opinions. ....nor is he necessarily factually accurate. Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than you, Len. Thousands of them have much more HF radio experience than Len. I charge that based on MY life experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions of rather elementary level on radio theory. Your politeness isn't exactly legendary, Len. 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. By what standard? ....and how do we know that Len provided CORRECT answers. How did they pass their written tests if they're so ignorant? Did they get a look at a 1957 Extra test? 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. Yet FCC disagrees with you, Len. You see, amateur radio is mainly about operating radios. Sure, some technical knowledge is needed, and some of us do things like design and build our own amateur radio stations (something you've never done, btw.) But the license isn't for building - it's for operating. Operating is what amateur radio is really all about. All types of operating, with all sorts of modes and equipment. Technical stuff is just a means to that end. You just don't seem to understand that. 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. It's very unlikely you'll ever be either, Len. That saves him both effort and money. 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? Some disagree with League policies Some think membership costs too much. Some are inactive Some don't understand why a national organization is needed. The percentages of membership have never become greater than a quarter of all licensees. Not true, Len. Len doesn't like to have his factual errors pointed out, Jim. btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires. But NCI is supposedly a one issue organization. I've asked Len to point to one general interest amateur radio organization in this country which has more than a tiny fraction of the ARRL membership. Your blatant problem is some weird self-righteous elitism wherein you claim that no one licensed can "know" anything about amateur radio. Where is that claimed? I haver certainly never claimed that. 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." That's because she was in support of continued Morse Code testing. You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst almost six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license. So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement. Len was quick to point out the percentage of licensed radio amateurs who participated in comments and replies. I asked him a simple question about the perentage of U.S. citizens who participated and he tells me to ask Joe Speroni. That's very peculiar. 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're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur 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. Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len. 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. "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. You're spelling isn't. Shhhhh. PROFESSIONAL writers are very sensitive. 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! Who wrote that? There is what is written and there is what Len thinks has been written. Morse code is alive but unwell... Actually it's quite well. 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. Afraid you'll be proven wrong? He *knows* he'd be proven wrong, if the Icom receiver is within its specs as manufactured and he has more than a rain gutter to attach to its antenna port. There's enough RF floating around Los Angeles County this weekend to lift Len's receiver off the table. One can listen OUTSIDE the amateur radio bands and NOT hear much radiotelegraphy. An amateur license permits the licensee to operate INSIDE the amateur bands, not OUTSIDE. 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. Why is that important to what happens inside the amateur bands? Len is driven by such things. He desperately needs to prove that morse has no place in "modern" communications. Dave K8MN |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am 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. That's a very good thing! Why? Are you morsemen so elitist you can't get along with others? Yet I am able to communicate worldwide without an amateur radio license or using morse code! But not by direct radio contact. Most absolutely INCORRECT, Jim-Jim. DIRECT from a maritime transceiver as a civilian. DIRECT from a government radio transmitter. DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. And 24/7 without worrying about the ionospheric conditions! :-) Telephone and internet. We can all do that, Len. Then why do you fuss with morse and standards that are over 70 years old? Why do you live in the past? Tsk, I don't. You sure talk about it a lot, though. You were born before 1951? YOU talked much of it in previous post. YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in- the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900. Are you 105 years old?!? Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history that happened before his time. Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of history that happened before *your* time. When did MY "time" begin, Jimmy? My "first radio job" in HF comms began in 1953. I was there then, did it, came back. Never used any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to. Are you the only one allowed to do that? Tsk, you are getting disturbed. Calm down, just keep on bringing up all those tidbits of "radio history" as you need to. Be mindful of some critics, though. Not all of those are me. :-) "Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering. Incorrect. It is a part of electronics, a technology discipline. "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering. INCORRECT. Electronics is one TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINE of physics. Didn't Dexter teach you the correct way to look at physics...like everyone else does? Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not identical, and one is not a subset of the other. Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the world of electronics...and radio. :-) Do you consider U.S. amateur radio to be a HOBBY? And much more. And, of course, YOU do so much more... :-) Have you defeated any enemies of Homeland Security with your amateur morsemanship? Have you saved any lives in the Gulf States with your amateur morsemanship? 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. So? Why is that significant? Why do you consider yourself so "significant?" :-) 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. And that's a good thing. It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops" of "tradition." :-) The written test elements are prepared, both questions and multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC. And approved by the FCC Who else? :-) YOU are NOT in the FCC. Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about radio theory? ABSOLUTELY. Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not exactly unbiased in your opinions. Yes, MY OPINION! :-) Do you think someone else is writing all this? :-) Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than you, Len. Why is that a factor in AMATEUR radio? Other than your puerile little nyah-nyah, that is... I charge that based on MY life experience in answering, as politely as possible, questions of rather elementary level on radio theory. Your politeness isn't exactly legendary, Len. Tsk, your definition of "polite" seems to be everyone agreeing with you and giving your gratuitous praise for whatever you do. shrug How did they pass their written tests if they're so ignorant? Did they get a look at a 1957 Extra test? Why is that important here...other than satisfying your nasty little nyah-nyahs? Yet FCC disagrees with you, Len. No, sweetums, YOU disagree with me. YOU are NOT the FCC. Operating is what amateur radio is really all about. All types of operating, with all sorts of modes and equipment. INCORRECT. Modes and frequencies are specifically allocated and given in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. NOT "all types" as you state. [tsk, tsk] NOT "all sorts of modes" since those are limited. NOT "all sorts of equipment" either since there are exceptions stated in Part 97. Look those up. Technical stuff is just a means to that end. Unimportant? Hardly important? Irrelevant? Then why do you permit the FCC to keep all those TECHNICAL regulations? You just don't seem to understand that. I just don't understand YOU, Jimmy. 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? Some disagree with League policies Some think membership costs too much. Some are inactive Some don't understand why a national organization is needed. You have taken a Poll to confirm this? :-) Jimmy boy, YOU are a League BELIEVER. You are so far into bias on that that all you generate are square waves. btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires. Highly irrelevant. NCI is NOT a "national association for amateur radio." It exists for ONE purpose: Elimination of the code test from amateur radio license examinations worldwide. That's it. You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst almost six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license. "Outburst?!?" BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why, oh WHY must I show "an indication of interest?!?" Who the fork are you to presume *I* MUST demonstrate to YOU some kind of committment and dedication?!?!? If your ego is THAT big, then you should go over to Coslo's BBS since you will "reach the threashold of space" long before his big balloon will... So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement. Nope. I am as involved as can be with my wife. None other. As a bachelor I had an "involvement" with an English teacher, a very nice one, in fact. Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you less of a one-track Believer. You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license. Oh, oh, there goes that control-freak EGO again, Jimmy. Work on that. It's bad socially. Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len. Irrelevant. Chances are they will take my comments seriously. Doesn't matter, the PUBLIC has spoken to the FCC 3,794 times through WT Docket 05-235. 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! Who wrote that? Dave Heil. Why aren't you paying ATTENTION to the flow? :-( 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. Afraid you'll be proven wrong? Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude. An evangelical Believer, wet proselyte for a battery of morse gods, an acidic base. Jimmy boy, I'm quite aware of the EM spectrum and who occupies what "bands." Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my "first job in radio." I know spectrum occupany OUTSIDE of the ham bands on HF, on MF, on VHF, on UHF, and on up to 2.4 GHz. WHAT are YOU going to tell ME? That contests are "popular?" I could find that out by seeing the boosterism for that in print in CQ or QST. Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio? Are you more interested in awards, trophies, pretty certificates than radio for radio's sake? It sure sounds like it since you love getting praise, even from friends and neighbors. :-) This Thursday and Friday I was involved in Thanksgiving in the literal sense. Good friends got together, didn't talk at all about amateur radio or morse code. Sunday is another nice get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or the beeping state of the radio art. No "contests" of any real kind. Sunnuvagun! Have fun in your amateur beeping contests. Those sound very, Very, VERY important to you. Enjoy. |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: on Sat, Nov 26 2005 4:49 pm
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Nov 22 2005 8:12 pm Hmmm...not a brand I recognize in this corner of the USA. The "Newman's Own" line of food products may not be popular farther east in the USA? I've tried "Newman's Own" Ranch dressing but personally prefer the "Hidden Valley" brand for Ranch dressing. I had you pegged as a "Hidden Agenda" man. Says "Sun-dried Tomato" from WV. Squash him before he spoils everything... Morsemen can do anything in impunity...or is it "special dispensation?" They have a "mass" of lies. If only they would go to confessional and admit them... They have black mass and wrenchysnitch. Egg nog afterwards. Some have "hot buttered rum" in foursomes around a fire of oak leaves and discuss Anderson PowerPole connectors. That may have been the topic in the cozy lodge or it may have been your tiny, old, dusty Johnson. That Anderson Powerpole bit may be a bit of self-aggrandizement on your part. Everyone seems to have "thier" own opinion on the subject. "Obvioulsy" Appears to be a popular ceremony along the Atlantic states. What was it that your Nordic ancestors did--paint their faces blue and howl at the moon? Or ate sardines for breakfast? Marinated herring is pretty good with rye bread, but kippers became the IN thing for breakfast in jolly old UK. The British Isles had the blue face paint thing. See the fictious film biography of Scotsman William Wallce in "Braveheart." See you in the CQ Worldwide DX CW 'test this weekend, Len or do you plan to stick with the Wordwide? Dave K8MN Is there a CQ WWW this weekend? Never heard of it. :-) Maybe John Dorr could shed some light on your "assertion of fact." Don't let the Dorr hit Davie's assertion on the way out... |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote: From: on Sat, Nov 26 2005 4:49 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Nov 22 2005 8:12 pm Hmmm...not a brand I recognize in this corner of the USA. The "Newman's Own" line of food products may not be popular farther east in the USA? I've tried "Newman's Own" Ranch dressing but personally prefer the "Hidden Valley" brand for Ranch dressing. I had you pegged as a "Hidden Agenda" man. Says "Sun-dried Tomato" from WV. Squash him before he spoils everything... Too late. He's gone balsamic on us. Morsemen can do anything in impunity...or is it "special dispensation?" They have a "mass" of lies. If only they would go to confessional and admit them... They have black mass and wrenchysnitch. Egg nog afterwards. Some have "hot buttered rum" in foursomes around a fire of oak leaves and discuss Anderson PowerPole connectors. That may have been the topic in the cozy lodge or it may have been your tiny, old, dusty Johnson. That Anderson Powerpole bit may be a bit of self-aggrandizement on your part. Everyone seems to have "thier" own opinion on the subject. "Obvioulsy" Anyway, probably a better solution than a twisted pair and a wire nut. ;^) Appears to be a popular ceremony along the Atlantic states. What was it that your Nordic ancestors did--paint their faces blue and howl at the moon? Or ate sardines for breakfast? Marinated herring is pretty good with rye bread, but kippers became the IN thing for breakfast in jolly old UK. The British Isles had the blue face paint thing. See the fictious film biography of Scotsman William Wallce in "Braveheart." That wasn't factual? See you in the CQ Worldwide DX CW 'test this weekend, Len or do you plan to stick with the Wordwide? Dave K8MN Is there a CQ WWW this weekend? Never heard of it. :-) Maybe John Dorr could shed some light on your "assertion of fact." Don't let the Dorr hit Davie's assertion on the way out... A free issue of World Radio magazine showed up in my mail last week. One editorial had some interesting things to say about emergency comms (or is that "coms?") being incompatible with a rtty contest. |
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: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am 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. That's a very good thing! Why? Because if you did "RF transmission in amateur bands" without the proper license, you could be breaking the law, Len. That would be a very bad thing. not to condone the full range of freebanding but isn't this sentment going a bit far generating RF in Ham Bands without a license should be relitively low on the rangeof Good/Bad stuff Murder is generaly very bad cut Worldwide? I don't think so. DIRECT from a government radio transmitter. Are you authorized to do so? why is it your place to ask? cut. Then why do you fuss with morse and standards that are over 70 years old? The standards are a lot newer than "70 years old", Len. not realy cut |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. You sure talk about it a lot, though. You were born before 1951? YOU talked much of it in previous post. YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in- the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900. Are you 105 years old?!? You've written about Fessenden a number of times. Aren't you nearly thirty-five years shy of 105? All that noise is Len's diversion from the fact that Fessenden was transmitting understandable voice by radio in 1900, and by November 1906 had reliable two-way transatlantic *voice* communication working. When Len doesn't like facts, he goes for the messenger. Jimmy Noserve loves the past, always bringing up little factoids of amateur radio history that happened before his time. See? Just like that. Gee, Len, you're always bringing up little factoids of history that happened before *your* time. When did MY "time" begin, Jimmy? My "first radio job" in HF comms began in 1953. I was there then, did it, came back. Never used any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to. ...and because you never had to (in your time), no one should be using morse code in this enlightened day and age? That about sums it up. Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not identical, and one is not a subset of the other. Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the world of electronics...and radio. :-) They seem to track pretty well, Len. You, on the other hand, haven't done very well in here with definitions. "Usenet"...."UCMJ"....... 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. And that's a good thing. It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops" of "tradition." :-) That sounds like sour grapes on your part, Leonard. Those of us who took and passed such an exam demonstrated that we'd reached a certain level of competence in what is a useful skill in amateur radio. Like I said about Len not valuing operating skills.... The written test elements are prepared, both questions and multiple-choice question answers, by the VEC QPC. And approved by the FCC Who else? :-) YOU are NOT in the FCC. I didn't see any statement by Jim that he's the FCC. Am I saying that many radio amateurs don't know squat about radio theory? ABSOLUTELY. Your opinion only. And as you have demonstrated, you are not exactly unbiased in your opinions. Yes, MY OPINION! :-) Do you think someone else is writing all this? :-) It would seem to be that you've not bothered to substantiate your opinion with fact. How many is many? How many radio amateurs have you encountered who are deficient. What percentage of all licensed radio amateurs do they represent? Most important of all - what level would be adequate? And what has Len done to make hams reach that level? (Recommending an age requirement doesn't cut it). Many radio amateurs know much more about radio theory than you, Len. Why is that a factor in AMATEUR radio? I'd think it'd be something to crow about. I think many folks would be pleased to know more about radio theory than a PROFESSIONAL. 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? Some disagree with League policies Some think membership costs too much. Some are inactive Some don't understand why a national organization is needed. You have taken a Poll to confirm this? :-) You can take it upon yourself to conduct one, Len. If you weren't prepared to accept Jim's answers, why'd you pose the question? Jimmy boy, YOU are a League BELIEVER. You are so far into bias on that that all you generate are square waves. Well, Lennie boy, what is it that you believe in? Do you believe that the ARRL is an evil organization? You've leveled charges of dishonesty toward the League, but you never substantiated them. I'd almost forgotten that. btw, No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US amateurs even though there are no dues and NCI membership never expires. Highly irrelevant. NCI is NOT a "national association for amateur radio." No, it isn't. Can you name any such organization except for the ARRL? It exists for ONE purpose: Elimination of the code test from amateur radio license examinations worldwide. That's it. There seems to have been at least one exception to that stated purpose already. Actually, at least two: NCI opposed "weak signal" subbands on the 50, 144 and 432 MHz bands. The proposal was intended to create subbands where Morse Code, SSB, PSK31 and other relatively-narrow-bandwidth signals would be free of QRM from FM and other wider-bandwidth signals. Had absolutely *nothing* to do with Morse Code testing, yet NCI opposed it. NCI also supported an ARRL proposal that would have given automatic free upgrades to a significant number of amateurs by waiving the *written* tests for those upgrades. Again, had absolutely *nothing* to do with Morse Code testing, yet NCI supported it. You have no activity in amateur radio and except for one outburst almost six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license. "Outburst?!?" BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I prefer to call it an episode of braggadocio. It has come back to haunt you repeatedly. Jan 19, 2000, as Lenof21 IIRC. (Len has had multiple screen names here for some unfathomable reason). Why, oh WHY must I show "an indication of interest?!?" One reason could be that you'd be seen as something other than a sidewalk superintendent in amateur radio. If you have no interest, as you've alternately claimed, you are irrelevant to amateur radio and you become a kook who haunts an amateur radio newsgroup. Who the fork are you to presume *I* MUST demonstrate to YOU some kind of committment and dedication?!?!? "Commitment", Len. Nobody forces you to show commitment or dedication. You needn't obtain or even attempt to obtain an amateur radio license. If you don't, you won't appear to be very credible. Your extensive rants will be marginalized. You'll be in the same boat as a certain English teacher. Actually the English teacher is more credible because she admits her lack of involvement and interest. If your ego is THAT big, then you should go over to Coslo's BBS since you will "reach the threashold of space" long before his big balloon will... Are you telling him to leave, Len? So you and the English teacher have the same level of involvement. Nope. I am as involved as can be with my wife. None other. ...and you wife isn't amateur radio. ZIC/ZID. As a bachelor I had an "involvement" with an English teacher, a very nice one, in fact. Sure, Leonard, and you're getting an "Extra right out of the box". Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you less of a one-track Believer. When it was said that you have the same level of involvement as the English teacher, you said, "I am as involved as can be with my wife. None other". Here you seem to indicate that marriage makes one "less of a one-track Believer". You can't even agree with you. You're not a licensee and and except for one outburst almost six years ago, there's no indication you'll ever get an amateur license. Oh, oh, there goes that control-freak EGO again, Jimmy. Nobody is controlling you, including yourself. You shot off your mouth when you made your boast six years ago. You haven't lived up to that billing. Suppose the FCC does drop Element 1 (which is really quite likely). Does anyone think Len will become a ham, set up a station, and get on the air? Work on that. It's bad socially. If you think that's bad socially, you should be in the shoes of one who shoots off his yap, saying he's going to do something, but who doesn't follow through. Perhaps the FCC chuckles over your comments, Len. Irrelevant. Chances are they will take my comments seriously. I don't think you should make that assumption, Len. Doesn't matter, the PUBLIC has spoken to the FCC 3,794 times through WT Docket 05-235. It matters. How many times were you "the public" in regard to 05-235? Of the members of the PUBLIC who spoke, how many (excluding you) didn't share your view? 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! Who wrote that? Dave Heil. Why aren't you paying ATTENTION to the flow? :-( You've made another factual error, Leonard. You seem to be the person who needs to pay ATTENTION. 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. Afraid you'll be proven wrong? Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude. An evangelical Believer, wet proselyte for a battery of morse gods, an acidic base. I offered a simple experiment. You declined. You shrunk from the challenge. Jimmy boy, I'm quite aware of the EM spectrum and who occupies what "bands." Well, Lennie boy, you'll find those radio amateur morse signals at the low end of the bands marked "160, 80, 40, 20, 15 and 10 meters" this weekend. They're there all the time but you'll find them in profusion this weekend. Len doesn't listen. Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my "first job in radio." I know spectrum occupany OUTSIDE of the ham bands on HF, on MF, on VHF, on UHF, and on up to 2.4 GHz. WHAT are YOU going to tell ME? It'd be tough to reach you. You spend too much time with your transmitter on and not enough time using the receiver. That contests are "popular?" I could find that out by seeing the boosterism for that in print in CQ or QST. Was the intent to prove that contests are popular or was it to show that morse code is alive and well in amateur radio? Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio? Are you more interested in awards, trophies, pretty certificates than radio for radio's sake? It sure sounds like it since you love getting praise, even from friends and neighbors. :-) What would any of that be to you, Len? You aren't in amateur radio and you wouldn't even turn on your receiver to find if the morse code is alive and well. This Thursday and Friday I was involved in Thanksgiving in the literal sense. Good friends got together, didn't talk at all about amateur radio or morse code. Sunday is another nice get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or the beeping state of the radio art. No "contests" of any real kind. Sunnuvagun! I went to an apple festival this fall. No one there talked about amateur radio or morse code. Is that supposed to prove that morse code is dead? I didn't hear a single person there discussing NASA, Darwin or jazz either. Have fun in your amateur beeping contests. Those sound very, Very, VERY important to you. Enjoy. Thanks for your good wishes. Those things are far more important to me than obtaining an amateur radio license seems to be for you. Your participation is not required. Len's hobby is wasting time. Your time. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. a fair enough assesment of len views but your point cut |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: on Nov 27, 7:21 am
wrote: From: on Sat, Nov 26 2005 4:49 pm Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Tues, Nov 22 2005 8:12 pm Hmmm...not a brand I recognize in this corner of the USA. The "Newman's Own" line of food products may not be popular farther east in the USA? I've tried "Newman's Own" Ranch dressing but personally prefer the "Hidden Valley" brand for Ranch dressing. I had you pegged as a "Hidden Agenda" man. Says "Sun-dried Tomato" from WV. Squash him before he spoils everything... Too late. He's gone balsamic on us. ...forever sour and bitter... :-) That may have been the topic in the cozy lodge or it may have been your tiny, old, dusty Johnson. That Anderson Powerpole bit may be a bit of self-aggrandizement on your part. Everyone seems to have "thier" own opinion on the subject. "Obvioulsy" Anyway, probably a better solution than a twisted pair and a wire nut. ;^) Tsk, Davie missed the discussion on Anderson PowerPole connectors for mobile and portable radio installations that went on for quite a while in rec.radio.amateur.homebrew. I think he should have jumped right in and sprinkled his usual balsamic vinegar in there...showing everyone his mighty radioness... :-) Marinated herring is pretty good with rye bread, but kippers became the IN thing for breakfast in jolly old UK. The British Isles had the blue face paint thing. See the fictious film biography of Scotsman William Wallace in "Braveheart." That wasn't factual? Names and dates were correct. The rest is up to history buffs of the northern British Isles... Heil wishes to have all who disagree with him drawn and quartered in the manner of William Wallace? [with the five remaining body parts buried in far-distant locations?] Is there a CQ WWW this weekend? Never heard of it. :-) Maybe John Dorr could shed some light on your "assertion of fact." Don't let the Dorr hit Davie's assertion on the way out... A free issue of World Radio magazine showed up in my mail last week. One editorial had some interesting things to say about emergency comms (or is that "coms?") being incompatible with a rtty contest. shrug Morse code MUST shine forever and ever just as it did in 1912. Radio amateurs have always been first responders in each and every emergency/disaster with their miraculous CW rigs that managed to survive when the entire infrastructure of commercial/professional communications failed. Ergo, cellphones are no huckin good for anything. :-) |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. a fair enough assesment of len views I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio operator's license. The FCC has had that viewpoint. They said so in public documents. Stupor-patriot morsemen think morse code telegraphy skills are all that is "operating skill." |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm
wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am Because if you did "RF transmission in amateur bands" without the proper license, you could be breaking the law, Len. That would be a very bad thing. Feel free to attempt a citizens' arrest any time... :-) I get along with all sorts of people, Len. Including many who disagree with me. Not absolutely true... :-) You're the one that has the problem getting along with others if they don't agree with everything you say. Tsk, with Jimmy it's always the other guy's fault... :-) DIRECT from a maritime transceiver as a civilian. Worldwide? I don't think so. Depends on the ionosphere... :-) DIRECT from a government radio transmitter. Are you authorized to do so? Yes. :-) DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. Neither of those are *your* equipment, licensed to *you*, are they? No problem on whose radios those are..."direct operation" is just doing as I said... :-) The standards are a lot newer than "70 years old", Len. Name some. The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations for 71 years. :-) As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with: - cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto. Didn't have to know morse code to drive... - sailboats instead of power boats Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats...and it is nice to do. didn't have to know morse code to sail. - Drawing and painting instead of photography No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do. Didn't have to know morse code to do any of those three. - Performing music instead of playing recordings Tsk, how do you think recordings got to BE recordings? :-) No morse code knowledge required in music. - Bicycles, running and walking for transport instead of motor vehicles No problem to me. Last California DMV retest (and every one before that) didn't require any morse code skill. - Stairs instead of elevators How do you categorize escalators? :-) No morse code knowledge required for stairs, escalators, or elevators. - Homemade food instead of packaged How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-) Cooking doesn't require morse code knowledge. Because I know something of those times and the creation of the Extra class license. Ah, but you weren't THERE in all those times... :-) YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in- the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900. That's right. Was any of my information incorrect? Weren't you reading from your own lab notes when you described all that happening 99 to 105 years ago? :-) Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead... :-) I was there then, did it, came back. Never used any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to. Because you were a transmitter technician, not a radio operator. That's not what the U.S. Army said. :-) Wasn't a single morse code "operating" facility in that whole large station, Jimmy. It's odd that you take pride in what you did *not* do... You betcha...I took pride in NOT breaking any regulations or Articles in the UCMJ. :-) It sure does seem that you talk about things that happened long before you were born, but get mad when others talk about things that happened long before *they* were born. As if it's OK for you to do but not others. Tsk, I was 20 years old in 1953, Jimmy. Already been born two decades prior. :-) "Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering. Incorrect. It is a part of electronics, a technology discipline. Nope. It's a separate subset. Electronics does not include things like antennas. Radio does. Are "antennas" a whole separate field of physics? :-) "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering. INCORRECT. What parts of electronics are not covered by electrical engineering, Len? Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in "engineering?" :-) Electronics is one TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINE of physics. No, it isn't. Physics is a science. Electrical engineering is a form of engineering, and electronics is a subset of that. Sigh...you still haven't gotten the correct definitions... :-( Your mistakes (like the ones Hans pointed out about DD-214s) are embarrassing. You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s. I have one. You don't have one, can never have one... Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not identical, and one is not a subset of the other. Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the world of electronics...and radio. :-) Yours don't jive with anything - like your spelling. The word "jibe" (with a B, not a V) is perfectly correct in my context. Look it up. :-) 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. So? Why is that significant? Why do you consider yourself so "significant?" :-) It's not about me, Len. Tsk, everything you post in here is about YOU. :-) 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. And that's a good thing. It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops" of "tradition." :-) Incorrect. There were comments to the FCC by people who had not passed the Morse Code test which said it was a good thing and should be retained. Sorry, Jimmy, they were outnumbered by those who wanted the TEST gone. :-) If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that. Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005. 3,795 of them. :-) When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's basic logic. No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-) There's NO "logic" in your exceptions statements, only spite... YOU are NOT in the FCC. Neither are you, Len. YOU are NOT in the FCC. Never were. It doesn't look like you will ever be in the FCC... Tsk, your definition of "polite" seems to be everyone agreeing with you and giving your gratuitous praise for whatever you do. Nope. That's *your* definition. Tsk, another morseman with the "mirror syndrome" displayed. Whatever will your friends and neighbors think? :-) FCC does not consider *you* to be qualified to operate an amateur radio station, though. Wrong on two accounts. First of all, I already got a Commercial Radiotelephone license 49 years ago so the FCC "qualified" me (legally) to do so. Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur radio license so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or "unqualified." Third, by law, to operate ON THE FREQUENCIES allocated only to radio amateurs requires an amateur radio license, neither "qualification" or "unqualification" but just a condition of the regulations. limited. NOT "all sorts of equipment" either since there are exceptions stated in Part 97. Look those up. Don't have to look them up, I know them. Try a dictionary...look up "jibe." :-) It's understandable that you'd not understand a superior intellect, Len When one shows up, I'll be sure NOT to understand them. OTOH I understand you all too well. That's why you're so hostile to me. "Hostile?" What you mean "hostile," white man? Po' bebbe, y'all been trin' ta shoot down all them NCTAs fer years and ya dint do it. Tsk, tsk. All dat HOSTILE in-tent of yourn. You have taken a Poll to confirm this? :-) Yes ;-) Prove that. Len, you're and NCI BELIEVER. You're so biased that you cannot conduct enough to see what really happens. Oh, my, you are doing the word-twisting thing today! I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI together. Pay attention. I don't speak FOR NCI but you are going to try to MISDIRECT the thread flow to make that a cause celebre'. Not buying that. Who the fork are you to presume *I* MUST demonstrate to YOU some kind of committment and dedication?!?!? Who do I have to be? A normal, logical person instead of the behavior you display here. Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you less of a one-track Believer. Len, for all you know, I could have more marriage experience than you have. Judging by all the time you spend in here...I'd say you have NO "experience" right now. :-) Or you don't really work for a living (thereby getting more free time to surf the newsgroup). You are already in the Dudly the Imposter category, saying so many things yet not proving them. Yes, Len, your control-freak ego sure does go off at times. Telling everyone How It Should Be. Tsk, more mirror gazing on your part, Jimmy. All I'm doing - in between replying to some of the PCTA heckling - is trying to get rid of the code test. You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that license. YOU are telling ALL NEWCOMERS to test for morse code. You've been doing that for years. Why are you so hostile to newcomers? Afraid you'll be proven wrong? Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude. IOW, yes, you're afraid. You are nuts. Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my "first job in radio." So you're old. Big deal. You want a merit badge? At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't have one. You will never have one of your own. You are too old. WHAT are YOU going to tell ME? That Morse Code is alive and well in the amateur bands. Wonderful for you, then. You will always have a morseman to play with. Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio? One of my main interests in amateur radio. I have several. You don't seem to have any. "It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-) Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those subjects. "Near-complete ignorance?!?" insert three lines of Dudly cackling in here Sunday is another nice get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or the beeping state of the radio art. That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model. "Hardly a good role model?!?" Tsk, tsk, that is HOSTILITY, Jimmy. Why are you so hostile? No "contests" of any real kind. Sunnuvagun! Can't take the competition, huh? Try to understand that normal social behavior is NOT about "competition." Normal, that is, not some HOSTILE type who always has to sound more important than the group...such behavior exemplified by the PCTA. This past weekend I hosted Thanksgiving for 12 people ? friends and family. What has that to do with amateur radio? I cooked a 21 pound turkey with homemade stuffing, made homemade bread, did it up right. Others did the vegetables and desserts. Do you want a BSA cooking merit badge for that? Can you cook, Len? Of course I can...do you need lessons? |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. a fair enough assesment of len views I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio operator's license. my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave The FCC has had that viewpoint. They said so in public documents. Stupor-patriot morsemen think morse code telegraphy skills are all that is "operating skill." |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:03 pm
wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. a fair enough assesment of len views I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio operator's license. my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave I understand your posting, Mark. I was, once again, trying to make my position clear in this din of inequity. Jimmie Noserve and Kernal Klunk love to argue for argument's sake. They seem to be addicted to WIN arguments at all costs! They frequently take quotes out of context and make disparaging remarks on those as if they were stand-alone statements. They MUST win. They are very sore losers, can't take pain. They both use "operating skills" as if the ONLY kind of operation of radio involves morse code. In every other radio service, there is NO "operating skill" of the amateur variety involved. Klunk should know that but he is no longer in the furrin servuss, busy using his "operating skills" out of exotic countries such as Guinea-Bisseau. He probably misses BEING "rare DX." The FCC has had that viewpoint. They said so in public documents. As early as 1990, as in FCC 90-53. Anyone can see a copy of that at the NCI website. They said the same thing, although in slightly different works, in NPRM 05-143 released on 15 July 2005. Stupor-patriot morsemen think morse code telegraphy skills are all that is "operating skill." That's how it is with them extra morsemen. Failure to agree with them results in immediate dismissal under BUPERINST something or other. |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
|
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am
wrote: From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am I get along with all sorts of people, Len. Including many who disagree with me. Not absolutely true... :-) My statement (taken as a whole) is absolutely true, Len. ;-) No, not "absolute." You become upset and combative to any remark not accepting morse code as the finest mode in radio. You're the one that has the problem getting along with others if they don't agree with everything you say. Tsk, with Jimmy it's always the other guy's fault... :-) No, Len. Just a simple statement of fact that you have a problem getting along with people who don't agree with everything you say. Tsk, tsk..."always the other guy's fault. The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations for 71 years. :-) That's true ;-) It's also been in the regulations for 72 years, and 73 years, and 74 years, Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC. It was created in 1934. As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with: - cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto. Ancient history. ;-) You have no valid comparison to morse code. Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence. When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro (as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual gear changing. Didn't have to know morse code to drive... But isn't manual transmission a "dying" technology? Why would anyone bother to learn it in 2005? Manual transmission is not favored in many states due to emission limits, by law, not by the fact that manual transmissions are a decided inconvenience. Truck-tractors have manual transmissions. Most cars equipped with automatic transmissions can also do manual gear changing; they just don't have any clutch. - sailboats instead of power boats Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats... Morse Code takes less power than voice transmission. There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order to pilot a sailing vessel. Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound- powered" telecommunications sets. No DC or AC power needed to operate them. There is no equivalent for telegraphy. Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using sail power about 100 years ago. Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are real. No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat. There are almost no commercial uses for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating, and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well. That is an absolute? Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft." There are NO commercial uses for morse code skill in the USA except for the companies selling morse code practice material. - Drawing and painting instead of photography No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do. Still have your crayons, huh? Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles. Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that. When I went to Art Center it was in the city of Los Angeles, on 3rd Street, somewhat near CBS City and the Pan-Pacific Auditorium. Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography? I can give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My photographs and illustrations have been published in national magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints, brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for painting in preference for the finer linen media. Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or photography? Didn't have to know morse code to do any of those three. Still don't. - Homemade food instead of packaged How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-) Is that where your cooking winds up, Len? Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow campers. Try not to "get along so well with others" in your writing. It looks hostile and argumentative. Cooking doesn't require morse code knowledge. Tsk, it still doesn't. Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead... :-) Why? It would further prove the efficacy of "morse code efficiency" to all others. You have a need to be "superior." Demonstrate that with more of your little factoids. Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in "engineering?" :-) What gaffe, Len? "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering. Electronics is a part of Physics. Part of Electronics is SCIENCE. What isn't science is technology. Application of electronic technology is done in electrical and electronic engineering. You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s. Yes, you did. Also UCMJ, usenet, and many others. Buck up and learn to live with your own imperfections, Len. You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ other than some casual thing that applies only to others. For someone who uses so many smileys, you're certainly humor-impaired, Len. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that. Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005. 3,795 of them. :-) So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one more has been added in the ECFS. There is NO "evidence" at www.ah0a.org except in the highly- biased opinion of a long-time morseman...one whose Petitions before the Commission have been DENIED. When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's basic logic. No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-) In your illogical mind, I suppose. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. Your Commercial license does not qualify you to operate an amateur radio station. Your amateur radio operator's license does NOT "qualify" you to operate any commercial radio station, radionavigation station, space-communications station, radiosonde station, radar of any kind, television transmitter, aircraft transmitter, maritime vessel transmitter, land mobile radio service transmitter, or microwave radio relay station. Mine does. Legally, you are the same as a person with no license at all when it comes to operating an amateur radio station. Do you wish to take me to civil court? Federal court? Why all the hostility and combative behavior on your part over NPRM 05-143? Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur radio license (that's good) Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or "unqualified." Incorrect again! You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and AUTHORIZED. FCC considers every unlicensed person to be unqualified to operate an amateur radio station. That's why they issue licenses - to identify those who are qualified. Wrong. The FCC issues licenses as part of their overall civil radio regulatory task. The FCC was never chartered by LAW to be an academic or skill- achievement agency. They AUTHORIZE license holders to operate and transmit RF energy according to the regulations pertaining to the type and kind of radio service they are AUTHORIZED in. FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. The FCC has "said" no such thing to me. They've never once written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything... The license is the qualification. It is an AUTHORIZATION. It is a PERMISSION. It is a GRANT. By definition. FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. No, I am not permitted - by regulation - to transmit RF energy exceeding incidental RF radiation limits on allocated amateur- only frequencies without possessing an amateur radio license grant. The military of the United States and the federal government of the United States (other than the FCC) have QUALIFIED me to operate radio transmitters according to military/government regulations. Experience in actual successful transmission of RF energy has furthered that qualification. Oh, my, you are doing the word-twisting thing today! Just the facts. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. Some of your facts are mistaken. That's just the way it is. I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI together. Prove it. Go to the FCC Reading Room and look up correspondence to them prior to the earliest ECFS-available date. That is an un- alterable third-party reference. I did not keep ALL correspondence I've done in the last four decades. I cannot digitize and present what I no longer have. The FCC Reading Room keeps records intact, archived. I don't speak FOR NCI but you are going to try to MISDIRECT the thread flow to make that a cause celebre'. Not buying that. Fact is, I proved you wrong. Incorrect. I've pointed out your mistakes. You refuse to accept them. That's just the way you are. You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that license. Doesn't matter - I could pass it again easily. You can't even pass it once. More hostility and combativeness. Tsk, NOT "getting along with others" on your part. I have never taken any amateur radio license test, therefore I neither "passed" nor "failed" it. That only proves the PAST. You stated what I allegedly "could not do" in the future. You are not prescient, cannot tell the future. Ergo, your remark is simply one of hostility and combatativeness. Telling someone the Morse Code test is a good thing isn't hostile, Len. Sorry, it IS hostile when you presume your opinion to be an absolute. It is only your opinion. You frequently try to make your opinions as absolutes. That is wrong. Not me. I'm not the one who's afraid to turn on a receiver and listen to the low ends of the HF amateur bands.... Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced. First, I was not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day holiday weekend. Second, I've already "turned on and listened" to all parts of the MF and HF spectrum...many times...even looked at it with a spectrum analyzer. At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't have one. How do you know, Len? You've never served in the armed forces of the United States. Had you done so, you would have received a DD-214 as a release from active duty. You've said you did not serve, ergo you cannot have a DD-214. You will never have a DD-214. "It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-) I know what they are, Len. Incorrect again. All you "know" is what I've written in here. I've not written about all of my "interests" or "what I've done" or "what I do." Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those subjects. "Near-complete ignorance?!?" Yes. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model. "Hardly a good role model?!?" Yep. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. Tsk, tsk, that is HOSTILITY, Jimmy. Why are you so hostile? I'm not the one calling people names, Len. True, you are just hostile and combative. The ones who call others "names" in here is Dudly the Imposter and a few other anonymous posters. Can't take the competition, huh? Try to understand that normal social behavior is NOT about "competition." Normal, that is, not some HOSTILE type who always has to sound more important than the group...such behavior exemplified by the PCTA. Gee, Len, almost all of your postings here are your attempt to sound smarter than the group. Tsk, subjective opinion on your part. Can't take competition? |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
an old friend wrote:
wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am DIRECT as in laying on of hands, moving controls, operating, all that stuff. I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under "all that stuff"? Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value. a fair enough assesment of len views I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio operator's license. my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim... Paper? Where's the paper? ...as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill... I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel. (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody. Dave K8MN |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm cut my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim... Paper? Where's the paper? gog find it ...as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill... I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel. beg all you like I can't help (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody. did you have anything to say? it doesn't look like it Dave K8MN |
Not Qualified
wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am wrote: From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm wrote: From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm wrote: From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41 wrote: From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations for 71 years. :-) That's true ;-) It's also been in the regulations for 72 years, and 73 years, and 74 years, Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC. You didn't specify "regulations of the FCC" before. Now you're trying to change the boundary conditions. Old trick, doesn't work. It was created in 1934. As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with: - cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto. Ancient history. ;-) You have no valid comparison to morse code. Yes, I do. Manual transmissions are a valid comparison to Morse Code. Someone who was really interested in a logical argument could point out that there is no separate skill test for manual transmission skill anymore. Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence. I don't do that, Len. I am skilled in both manual transmission operation and Morse Code operation. You, on the other hand, have no competence in Morse Code operation, yet you blather on about it endlessly. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence." When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro (as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual gear changing. But they are not manual transmissions. They are automatic transmissions. Didn't have to know morse code to drive... But isn't manual transmission a "dying" technology? Why would anyone bother to learn it in 2005? Manual transmission is not favored in many states due to emission limits, by law, not by the fact that manual transmissions are a decided inconvenience. Doesn't answer the question, Len. Truck-tractors have manual transmissions. For various reasons. Most cars equipped with automatic transmissions can also do manual gear changing; they just don't have any clutch. There are more differences than "they just don't have any clutch", however. But that is all beside the point. - sailboats instead of power boats Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats... Morse Code takes less power than voice transmission. There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order to pilot a sailing vessel. Not the point. Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound- powered" telecommunications sets. Actually, I have. No DC or AC power needed to operate them. There is no equivalent for telegraphy. Sure there is - it's called wigwag. Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using sail power about 100 years ago. Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are real. Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces. They represent less than 1% of the fleet of those military services. Morse Code, OTOH, represents much more than 1% of amateur radio operation. No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat. There are almost no commercial uses for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating, and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well. That is an absolute? Yes - is it not true? Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft." Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple facts. Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating? There are NO commercial uses for morse code skill in the USA except for the companies selling morse code practice material. And the companies selling Morse Code equipment. In any event, the analogy between sailing and Morse Code is obvious, valid, and very clear. - Drawing and painting instead of photography No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do. Still have your crayons, huh? Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles. Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there? Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that. Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a simple question? Sure looks like it. When I went to Art Center it was in the city of Los Angeles, on 3rd Street, somewhat near CBS City and the Pan-Pacific Auditorium. Do you still have your crayons, Len? Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography? No. I can give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My photographs and illustrations have been published in national magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints, brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for painting in preference for the finer linen media. That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies. Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer graphics. Why do you live in the past? Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or photography? By analogy. - Homemade food instead of packaged How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-) Is that where your cooking winds up, Len? Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow campers. I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-) Try not to "get along so well with others" in your writing. It looks hostile and argumentative. Awwww...can't you take a little humor, Len? :-) Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten others? Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead... :-) Why? It would further prove the efficacy of "morse code efficiency" to all others. How? The point is simply that Fessenden was using AM voice effectively more than 100 years ago. You deny and denigrate his successes, but they are well documented all the same. Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in "engineering?" :-) What gaffe, Len? "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering. Electronics is a part of Physics. No, it isn't. I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college. None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical engineering covered electronics. Part of Electronics is SCIENCE. What isn't science is technology. No, it's all part of engineering. Application of electronic technology is done in electrical and electronic engineering. Says who? You? Bwaaahaahaa! Science is about discovering the laws of nature. Engineering is about doing practical things. Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous) kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God, celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly thought at the time. Franklin the scientist determined the nature of lightning. But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree) didn't stop with just the scientific discovery of the nature of lightning. He went on to develop the first systems of lightning protection (commonly known even today as "lightning rods" to protect structures. His system was the first practical electrical device or system, earning him the honor of being the first Electrical Engineer. You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s. Yes, you did. Also UCMJ, usenet, and many others. Buck up and learn to live with your own imperfections, Len. You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ other than some casual thing that applies only to others. Irrelevant - you didn't even know what the acronym "UCMJ" stood for. You made a mistake. If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that. Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005. 3,795 of them. :-) So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one more has been added in the ECFS. You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len, even though the url was given in the filed comments. If you'd actually read and understood them, you'd know have seen it and been able to compare it with your own. There is NO "evidence" at www.ah0a.org Yes, there is. Each filing is categorized, and a direct, automatic link provided so that anyone can compare the categorization to the actual filing documents. I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments so accessible. except in the highly- biased opinion of a long-time morseman... How are those results "biased", Len? How are they any more "biased" than yours, in which you count multiple filings by the same person as separate opinions, as long as they are not exactly identical? Do you think your anticodetest opinion is 10 times more valid than the procodetest opinion of someone who simply filed a comment? one whose Petitions before the Commission have been DENIED. Lots of people have had their petitions DENIED, either in whole or in part: NCI's petition to have a "sunset" clause on Morse Code testing was DENIED NCI and NCVEC's petitions to simply dump Element 1 by Memorandum Report and Order, and to avoid the whole NPRM cycle, were both DENIED ARRL and NCI's petitions to give free upgrades to over 300,000 amateurs were DENIED NCVEC's petition to create a new "Communicator" license class was DENIED. And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age requirement for an amateur radio license was DENIED. Have you *ever* filed a real petition with FCC, Len? One that got an RM number, drew comments, etc.? I think not. When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's basic logic. No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-) In your illogical mind, I suppose. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine. I will not stop writing facts and truth just because they bother you. Your Commercial license does not qualify you to operate an amateur radio station. Your amateur radio operator's license does NOT "qualify" you to operate any commercial radio station, radionavigation station, space-communications station, radiosonde station, radar of any kind, television transmitter, aircraft transmitter, maritime vessel transmitter, land mobile radio service transmitter, or microwave radio relay station. Never said it did. Mine does. Do you own any of those? Legally, you are the same as a person with no license at all when it comes to operating an amateur radio station. Do you wish to take me to civil court? Federal court? If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job, not mine. Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur radio license (that's good) Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or "unqualified." Incorrect again! You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and AUTHORIZED. Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station. FCC considers every unlicensed person to be unqualified to operate an amateur radio station. That's why they issue licenses - to identify those who are qualified. Wrong. No, it's exactly right. Those whom the FCC considers qualified are issued licenses. FCC does not consider any unlicensed person to be qualified to operate an amateur radio station. The FCC issues licenses as part of their overall civil radio regulatory task. FCC only issues licenses to those who demonstrate that they are qualified. The licenses can be revoked if the licensee demonstrates that they are not qualified. All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither qualified nor authorized. The FCC was never chartered by LAW to be an academic or skill- achievement agency. They AUTHORIZE license holders to operate and transmit RF energy according to the regulations pertaining to the type and kind of radio service they are AUTHORIZED in. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station, Len. FCC says so. FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. The FCC has "said" no such thing to me. Yes, they have. They've never once written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything... They don't have to, Len. The regulations clearly define what an amateur radio station is, and what license is required to operate one. You don't have the required license, so by definition you are not qualified - and not authorized - to operate an amateur radio station. The license is the qualification. It is an AUTHORIZATION. It is a PERMISSION. It is a GRANT. You have none of those. By definition. FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. No, I am not permitted - by regulation - to transmit RF energy exceeding incidental RF radiation limits on allocated amateur- only frequencies without possessing an amateur radio license grant. True, but incomplete. By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur radio station. The military of the United States and the federal government of the United States (other than the FCC) have QUALIFIED me to operate radio transmitters according to military/government regulations. Experience in actual successful transmission of RF energy has furthered that qualification. None of which extends to amateur radio stations. You are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur radio station. Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio station, Len? I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI together. Prove it. Go to the FCC Reading Room and look up correspondence to them prior to the earliest ECFS-available date. That is an un- alterable third-party reference. What date should I look for? I did not keep ALL correspondence I've done in the last four decades. So you have no proof. I cannot digitize and present what I no longer have. The FCC Reading Room keeps records intact, archived. And what date are you claiming? You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that license. Doesn't matter - I could pass it again easily. You can't even pass it once. More hostility and combativeness. Tsk, NOT "getting along with others" on your part. I'm just telling you the facts. I have never taken any amateur radio license test, therefore I neither "passed" nor "failed" it. That only proves the PAST. You can't even pass the tests once. Not all of them, anyway. You stated what I allegedly "could not do" in the future. You are not prescient, cannot tell the future. Ergo, your remark is simply one of hostility and combatativeness. No, I simply point out what you can't do *now*.... Telling someone the Morse Code test is a good thing isn't hostile, Len. Sorry, it IS hostile when you presume your opinion to be an absolute. It is only your opinion. You frequently try to make your opinions as absolutes. That is wrong. Where have I made my opinions absolute? Give us a concrete example. Also consider how many times you have stated your opinions as facts, then had them shown to be unsupported by facts. Not me. I'm not the one who's afraid to turn on a receiver and listen to the low ends of the HF amateur bands.... Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced. Really? ;-) First, I was not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day holiday weekend. But you could have been... Second, I've already "turned on and listened" to all parts of the MF and HF spectrum...many times...even looked at it with a spectrum analyzer. But you avoid those parts where Morse Code can most likely be found, right? At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't have one. How do you know, Len? You've never served in the armed forces of the United States. How do you know? Had you done so, you would have received a DD-214 as a release from active duty. You've said you did not serve, When? I have never claimed to have served in any military. That does not mean I never served. There's a lot of things I have done which I have not mentioned here. That really seems to bother you. "It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-) I know what they are, Len. Incorrect again. All you "know" is what I've written in here. I've not written about all of my "interests" or "what I've done" or "what I do." You've written such long diatribes about your activities that it's hard not to know, Len. Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those subjects. "Near-complete ignorance?!?" Yes. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. It's a fact that you have near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, Len. That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model. "Hardly a good role model?!?" Yep. Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of ability to get along with others on your part. Do you think others should act like you, Len? Do you think you're a good role model of professional - or amateur - behavior? Or are you one of those who think that others should do as you say, not as you do? |
Not Qualified
From: on Dec 2, 5:33 pm
wrote: From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am wrote: From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC. You didn't specify "regulations of the FCC" before. Now you're trying to change the boundary conditions. Old trick, doesn't work. "Boundary conditions?" :-) Tsk, you aren't old enough to have been licensed under any other federal radio agency besides the FCC. :-) You have no valid comparison to morse code. Yes, I do. Manual transmissions are a valid comparison to Morse Code. Sorry, but that's really so far out of "boundary conditions" that it is a ridiculous analogue. :-) I don't do that, Len. I am skilled in both manual transmission operation and Morse Code operation. Oh? Tsk, I didn't see you at that NASCAR awards banquet telecast tonight...were you waiting in the wings or something? Can you hop into any 18-wheeler's tractor and "skillfully" operate the gear shifting there? :-) You, on the other hand, have no competence in Morse Code operation, yet you blather on about it endlessly. Perhaps you should take your own advice of "Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence." Now, now, your "boundary conditions" are getting blurred by the red haze of your hostility... :-) When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro (as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual gear changing. But they are not manual transmissions. They are automatic transmissions. Funny! Takes MANUAL MOVEMENT by hands to set the right gear. :-) Doesn't answer the question, Len. What "question?" Vehicle transmissions aren't involved in any amateur radio license examinations. My, you DO stray from the subject a lot when misdirecting... :-) There are more differences than "they just don't have any clutch", however. But that is all beside the point. Ah! NOW you are getting the point. Took you long enough... There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order to pilot a sailing vessel. Not the point. Ah, but YOU brought that up to begin with... :-) Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound- powered" telecommunications sets. Actually, I have. Oh, my, you "have" done everything? :-) Sure there is - it's called wigwag. No, those are called SEMAPHORE FLAGS. Those are useless at night so the U.S. Army Signal Corps used TORCHES at night. Both kinds on both sides during the U.S. Civil War. The very same flag/torch positions, too! :-) The flags crossed, overlaid by a single torch, appear as the collar insignia of all U.S. Army signal persons today...the same as they did when I served in the U.S. Army as a signalman. Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using sail power about 100 years ago. Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are real. Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces. Funny! I suppose lots of USN and USCG academy midshipmen "train to be museum curators?" :-) They represent less than 1% of the fleet of those military services. How do you KNOW? :-) No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat. There are almost no commercial uses for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating, and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well. That is an absolute? Yes - is it not true? Yes, it is not true. :-) Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft." Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple facts. Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating? I think your terms are a bit wrong. It is PLEASURE boating, not "hobby" boating. :-) So, is morse code skill required to pilot ANY boat or ship? In any event, the analogy between sailing and Morse Code is obvious, valid, and very clear. Only in a dense fog of your own making. Sound your foghorn like a good little "hobby" mariner...toot, toot! :-) - Drawing and painting instead of photography No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do. Still have your crayons, huh? Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles. Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there? I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on 3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-) Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that. Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a simple question? Sure looks like it. BWWAAAAAAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!! Poor lad, you are WORRIED? :-) Do you still have your crayons, Len? A couple of "Conte crayons." Stubs, left-overs. Few use Conte crayons now. As far as I know, those weren't made by Crayola. Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography? No. You might find references to Conte crayons in an old art text. Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience." I can give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My photographs and illustrations have been published in national magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints, brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for painting in preference for the finer linen media. That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies. Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer graphics. Oh, my, you'll have to tell all the illustrators everywhere that their techniques are "dying!" All the lithography producers will have to shut down! All the Art Schools have to shut down! Oh, my, all that commotion! :-) Why do you live in the past? I live in the past?!? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or photography? By analogy. Is "analogy" a new kind of art media? [yes, I Gesso... :-) ] - Homemade food instead of packaged How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-) Is that where your cooking winds up, Len? Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow campers. I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-) How do you KNOW? Tsk, tsk, more HOSTILITY showing there... Awwww...can't you take a little humor, Len? :-) I love humor. Too bad you don't display any. Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten others? I "threatened" you? How so? Are you worried about "threats?" Are you insecure? How? The point is simply that Fessenden was using AM voice effectively more than 100 years ago. You deny and denigrate his successes, but they are well documented all the same. Tsk. Show me ANY OTHER AM transmitter that "modulates" by putting a carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead. :-) ... I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college. None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical engineering covered electronics. Tsk. "As you studied it" so goes the world? :-) Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous) kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God, celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly thought at the time. Tsk, tsk. I read Ben's biography entitled "Benjamin Franklin - An American Life," by Walter Isaacson. Franklin the scientist determined the nature of lightning. Franklin was hardly schooled. He had only HONORARY degrees. But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree) Yes, yes, on and on with the Philly stuff. :-) Franklin died in 1790. The first morse code wasn't used until 1844. "Radio" was still very unknown as to what it was in 1844. You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ other than some casual thing that applies only to others. Irrelevant - you didn't even know what the acronym "UCMJ" stood for. You mean UNIFORM Code of Military Justice? :-) I knew full well what it "stood for." I was subject to it for four years of active duty in the United States Army. You made a mistake. Oh HORRORS! A MISTAKE! :-) Let's see...this is the year 2005...and the last time I wore a full U.S. Army UNIFORM was in 1956. That's 49 years in the past. I still have one set of winter, one set of summer UNIFORM clothing in a clothing bag stored in the empty space of the guest room at the southern house. All mine. Has the last four digits of my Army serial number stamped on the clothing. Do you have anything like that? I don't think so. If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that. Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005. 3,795 of them. :-) So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one more has been added in the ECFS. You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len, even though the url was given in the filed comments. I don't really care one lil bitty rat snit about those "other analyses." :-) I did mine. The Commission knows it. That's enough for me. By the way, as of 2 PM EST on 2 December 2005, there were exactly 3,800 filings in WT Docket 05-235. Haven't you been keeping up? I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments so accessible. "Jealous" of Joe Speroni? The Hawaiian Morseman? Hardly. All his Petitions before the Commission have been DENIED. Lots of people have had their petitions DENIED, either in whole or in part: Speroni's have been DENIED in WHOLE. :-) And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age requirement for an amateur radio license was DENIED. Tsk, my SUGGESTION to the Commission (filed on 13 January 1999) on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to Comments wasn't even mentioned in FCC 99-412, the R&O for Restructuring. :-) Those are the breaks in regulatory politics. :-) You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine. Nope, NOT "my problem." You are simply hostile to anyone who won't accept morse code wholeheartedly. You insist on keeping the code test and don't have any valid reasons for doing so except for canned phrases that were conditioned into your mind by the league. Why ARE you so obsessed with putting down all who want the code test eliminated? I won't matter to you, personally. You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays. Not to worry. There will always be some morseperson around to play with you in your morse playground. If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job, not mine. Oh, my...do you carry a "shield" that states you are an "official" radio person "authorized by the federal government" or something like that? Tsk, tsk, you ought to hang around truck stops and butt in on truckers who you suspect are doing "illegal" CB activity! Why, you could even be a RADIO BOUNTY HUNTER! Might even get a movie done on your life a la Domino Harvey! You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and AUTHORIZED. Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you have no "boundary conditions" there, senior. [ chuckle, chuckle ] All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither qualified nor authorized. [ remember the "boundary conditions!" :-) ] FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. The FCC has "said" no such thing to me. Yes, they have. In a real document addressed to ME? :-) Maybe in a telephone call? :-) They've never once written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything... They don't have to, Len. Please make up your mind. :-) First you said the FCC "said something to me," now you say "they don't have to." You contradict yourself. You have none of those. None of what? You have no DD-214 form. You will never have a DD-214 form. Yet you claim to have knowledge of "how military life is." Hey, no problem with me. Dudly the Imposter probably does all your fantasizing for you. :-) By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur radio station. Wow! Several months ago I was looking at the Burbank HRO store station, even tweaked a transceiver dial to tune in a SSB signal clearer! Hey, get the surveilance camera tapes! You might find me on them doing that! Wowee! You can make an ARREST! You might even make the cover of QST for doing that! Fame! :-) Article 73 of the UNIFORM Code of Amateur Morse Excellence? [ UCAME ] [ I'll bet you did! ] Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio station, Len? Tsk, why SHOULD I do such a thing? :-) You might ARREST me or something! BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What date should I look for? Yours for Saturday night...you need to get out more... I'm just telling you the facts. Before you kept on saying "all I'm doing is asking questions." Which is it? You can't even pass the tests once. Not all of them, anyway. How do you KNOW that? :-) Where have I made my opinions absolute? Give us a concrete example. What kind of mix? Structural? Fill? Fine-sand type? Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced. Really? ;-) I have served in the military of the United States. Volunteering during a war time. Taking an oath to defend the United States and its Constitution with my life if needs be. You've NEVER done that, haven't served, don't know dink about real military life...yet you imply "cowardice" on the part of others and try to tell them what real military life is like. Yes, really, no-guts. First, I was not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day holiday weekend. But you could have been... BBWWWAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never claimed to have served in any military. That does not mean I never served. You served as a civilian waiter in an officer's club? :-) There's a lot of things I have done which I have not mentioned here. You and Dudly the Imposter ought to get together and write a book about "all the things you've not mentioned here!" It ought to be a best smeller on some newspapers' literary section! It's a fact that you have near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and amateur radio, Len. Oh, dear, there you go again...all that HOSTILITY! :-) Near-COMPLETE Ignorance! :-) Do you think others should act like you, Len? Considering I'm NOT in show business, yes, I don't think so! :-) My acting would return Hollywood productions back to the silent era. :-) Not to worry. I'll wait patiently for amateur agents of the UNIFORM Code of Amateur Morsemanship Excellence (UCAME) to arrest me for "cowardice" and "being a bad role model", perhaps some unspecified "charges" which are considered heretical to the mighty Church of St. Hiram! Captain Code! Captain Code! Where is Captain Code when he is needed?!? Help! Help! Call Isaac...I'm laughing my ass-im-off! |
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
an_old_friend wrote: Dave Heil wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm cut my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim... Paper? Where's the paper? gog find it Gog find it? Isn't "Gog" that troll-like character in the comic strip "B.C."...?!?!? ...as a Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that says Cw test was the same as operating skill... I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel. beg all you like I can't help There's so little you CAN help with, Markie. (just tryin some hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as traped as Stevie and Dave Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody. did you have anything to say? it doesn't look like it The point he was making, Blockhead, is that who can understand YOUR point...?!?! E N G L I S H ! ! ! ! S P E L L C H E C K E R ! ! ! ! H O O K E D O N P H O N I C S ! ! ! ! Steve, K4YZ |
Not Qualified
wrote They're floating museum pieces. In your dreams, landlubber! Just a couple of examples for you..... The USS Constitution, homeported at Boston, is a commissioned US Navy ship (in fact the flagship of the US Navy) with a full active duty crew of sailors. Not a museum (the museum is across the street from her berth). The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Not Qualified
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com