|
stevie hijacks another thread
On 3 Dec 2005 07:40:17 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:
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."...?!?!? nope ...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. ltle or not it is more than you seem to manage (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...?!?! I am not responaible for your lack of reading skill 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 everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
KØHB wrote:
The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. You knew it was coming, I'm su Why would those otherwise qualified, future seagoing officers have to jump through the sailing ship hoops when they have no intention of using anything with a sail on it. After all, couldn't they just learn to sail if they needed to? ;-) Dave K8MN |
K4YZ Out of Control Yelling Again, was: Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
K4YZ wrote: 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 Get help. |
Not Qualified
KØHB wrote: 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). Wow! The flagship of the US Navy is a wooden boat. I guess that just shows the differences in the services. Even if the Air Force could train it's Airmen in the Wright Flyer, we wouldn't. The Navy probably makes all communicators learn Morse Code, too. |
Not Qualified
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:14:33 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: 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). bull**** she may have an active duty crew but NO ONE IS ever going to allow to to sail into into battle 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 everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
K4YZ Out of Control Yelling Again, was: Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments
On 3 Dec 2005 13:55:24 -0800, wrote:
K4YZ wrote: 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 Get help. soon you need it bad everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
KØHB wrote:
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). Been there, Hans. "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. Does she go out on search and rescue? Or is her purpose mostly historic and educational? I'm glad those ships are kept in operation. But in reality they are working museum pieces. They're like the steam and first-generation diesel locomotives that a few Class 1 American railroads have kept on their rosters. Those old locos spend most of the time in storage, but are occasionally brought out and run for special purposes. They still work, meet all applicable requirements, and are technically on the active roster - but in reality they're museum pieces. And the main point remains: Sailboats make up far less than 1% of the US military fleet. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Not Qualified
wrote "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Her "main function" is to serve as the Flagship of the Navy. That's a military function, not a "museum" function. Certainly she also serves as a "history lesson incarnate", but that is not her "main" function. If it were, she'd be property of the National Park Service, not the Department of Defense. And to answer the comment of Clown Prince of Spamalot (aka KB9RGZ), many US Navy ships are not intended to "sail into battle" (a quaint phrase, but it reveals your ignorance of military matters). YTB's tugs don't "sail into battle", DSRV's don't "sail into battle", AD's don't "sail into battle", AOE's don't "sail into battle", AS's don't "sail into battle", ATB's don't "sail into battle", ARS's don't "sail into battle", in fact CVA's don't "sail into battle", and no, the USS Constitution will not "sail into battle", but she's still a fully commissioned ship of the line in the US Navy. The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. Does she go out on search and rescue? Probably not, but I'm sure she teachs some of the elements of SAR. Navigation is a big part of her training mission, and you can bet that includes things like plotting an expanding-squares search pattern, calculating set and drift, and other topics useful in real world SAR operations. Regardless of that, not all USCG ships "go out on search and rescue". Some go out an tend bouys. Some go out and break ice. Some go out on training missions. Etc., etc., etc. Or is her purpose mostly historic and educational? Very little "historic" about the Eagle. Her purpose is a training ship for Coast Guard Midshipmen. That's just as much a "purpose" as SAR. And the main point remains: Sailboats make up far less than 1% of the US military fleet. Nobody is trying to argue that point, are they? By the same token, CVA's make up a tiny percent of the US military fleet also, as do ARS's, AOE's, DSRV's, LPH's, and a host of other types. Doesn't make their mission any less important, or relegate them to "nothing more than museum pieces". Ding ding, ding ding, ding ding, ding ding. Eight bells and all's well. de Hans, K0HB |
Not Qualified
The Clown Prince of Spamalot wrote: 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). bull**** No bull****, Mark. Every word is absolutely true. Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB |
Not Qualified
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:34:30 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: The Clown Prince of Spamalot wrote: 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). bull**** No bull****, Mark. absolutely bull**** Han The USS Constitution, is moremore a functioning naval vessal than the USS Arizonia Every word is absolutely true. being true does not prevent something from being bull**** han Sunuvagun! de Hans, K0HB everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
Clown Prince of Spamalot wrote absolutely bull**** Han The USS Constitution, is moremore a functioning naval vessal than the USS Arizonia In case it escaped your attention, Mark, all the sailors now serving on USS Arizona are deceased and it is designated as a military cemetary. It was stricken from the rolls of the registry of US Naval vessels in 1942. The USS Constitution is designated as the Flagship of the US Navy. It is commissioned as an active ship in the US Navy and carries a crew of about 45 active duty officers and enlisted ranks. Sunuvagun! Sorry to spoil your ignorant claim. (Well, actually I'm HAPPY to spoil your ignorant claim.) Beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
Not Qualified
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:49:13 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: Clown Prince of Spamalot wrote more fraud from hans absolutely bull**** Han The USS Constitution, is moremore a functioning naval vessal than the USS Arizonia In case it escaped your attention, Mark, all the sailors now serving on USS Arizona are deceased and it is designated as a military cemetary. It was stricken from the rolls of the registry of US Naval vessels in 1942. no it is hasn't indeed it was my point the USS Constitution is no more a warship than the Arizonia The USS Constitution is designated as the Flagship of the US Navy. It is commissioned as an active ship in the US Navy and carries a crew of about 45 active duty officers and enlisted ranks. so what it is no warship not even realy a support ship Sunuvagun! Sorry to spoil your ignorant claim. (Well, actually I'm HAPPY to spoil your ignorant claim.) well then you need to in fact spoil a claim Beep beep de Hans, K0HB everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:31:36 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: wrote "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Her "main function" is to serve as the Flagship of the Navy. That's a military function, not a "museum" function. Certainly she also serves as a "history lesson incarnate", but that is not her "main" function. If it were, she'd be property of the National Park Service, not the Department of Defense. And to answer the comment of Clown Prince of Spamalot (aka KB9RGZ), many US Navy ships are not intended to "sail into battle" (a quaint phrase, but it reveals your ignorance of military matters). YTB's tugs don't "sail into battle", DSRV's don't "sail into battle", AD's don't "sail into battle", AOE's don't "sail into battle", AS's don't "sail into battle", ATB's don't "sail into battle", ARS's don't "sail into battle", in fact CVA's don't "sail into battle", and no, the USS Constitution will not "sail into battle", but she's still a fully commissioned ship of the line in the US Navy. so but the USS Constitution serves NO military function can't even truly serve as a flag unless they have finaly instaled a radio on board all she does is serves as a floating relic of that bygone era The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. Does she go out on search and rescue? Probably not, but I'm sure she teachs some of the elements of SAR. Navigation is a big part of her training mission, and you can bet that includes things like plotting an expanding-squares search pattern, calculating set and drift, and other topics useful in real world SAR operations. Regardless of that, not all USCG ships "go out on search and rescue". Some go out an tend bouys. Some go out and break ice. Some go out on training missions. Etc., etc., etc. Or is her purpose mostly historic and educational? Very little "historic" about the Eagle. Her purpose is a training ship for Coast Guard Midshipmen. That's just as much a "purpose" as SAR. And the main point remains: Sailboats make up far less than 1% of the US military fleet. Nobody is trying to argue that point, are they? By the same token, CVA's make up a tiny percent of the US military fleet also, as do ARS's, AOE's, DSRV's, LPH's, and a host of other types. Doesn't make their mission any less important, or relegate them to "nothing more than museum pieces". Ding ding, ding ding, ding ding, ding ding. Eight bells and all's well. de Hans, K0HB everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
Clown Prince of Spamalot wrote: the USS Constitution serves NO military function Pay attention Mark. I'll type slow so you can keep up. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) is the senior military officer of the Department of the Navy (that makes him a military officer). The CNO is a four-star admiral (that makes him a military officer) and is responsible to the Secretary of the Navy for the command, utilization of resources and operating efficiency of the operating forces of the Navy (that makes him a military officer). A member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CNO is the principal naval adviser to the President and to the Secretary of the Navy on the conduct of war (that makes him a military officer), and is the pricipal adviser and naval executive to the Secretary on the conduct of activities of the Department of the Navy (that makes him a military officer). This high ranking military officer has as his flagship the USS Constitution. Can't get much more "military" than that. Ding ding, ding ding. Four bells and all is well. de Hans, K0HB |
Not Qualified
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:00:30 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: Clown Prince of Spamalot wrote: the USS Constitution serves NO military function Pay attention Mark. I'll type slow so you can keep up. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) is the senior military officer of the Department of the Navy (that makes him a military officer). so he can't do his job form there The CNO is a four-star admiral (that makes him a military officer) and is responsible to the Secretary of the Navy for the command, utilization of resources and operating efficiency of the operating forces of the Navy (that makes him a military officer). A member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CNO is the principal naval adviser to the President and to the Secretary of the Navy on the conduct of war (that makes him a military officer), and is the pricipal adviser and naval executive to the Secretary on the conduct of activities of the Department of the Navy (that makes him a military officer). This high ranking military officer has as his flagship the USS Constitution. Can't get much more "military" than that. as a show Ding ding, ding ding. Four bells and all is well. de Hans, K0HB everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
wrote in message ... On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:00:30 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: Richard Cranium wrote And so what? By posting the name and address of others is this supposed to cause them to cower in a corner? You and others of your ilk are, what to say? Dickheads? Anal apertures? Troll artists? No call sign, no credibility? Only a dumbass adheres to this mindset. |
Not Qualified
|
Not Qualified
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:04:38 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:31:36 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: wrote "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Her "main function" is to serve as the Flagship of the Navy. That's a military function, not a "museum" function. Certainly she also serves as a "history lesson incarnate", but that is not her "main" function. If it were, she'd be property of the National Park Service, not the Department of Defense. And to answer the comment of Clown Prince of Spamalot (aka KB9RGZ), many US Navy ships are not intended to "sail into battle" (a quaint phrase, but it reveals your ignorance of military matters). YTB's tugs don't "sail into battle", DSRV's don't "sail into battle", AD's don't "sail into battle", AOE's don't "sail into battle", AS's don't "sail into battle", ATB's don't "sail into battle", ARS's don't "sail into battle", in fact CVA's don't "sail into battle", and no, the USS Constitution will not "sail into battle", but she's still a fully commissioned ship of the line in the US Navy. so but the USS Constitution serves NO military function can't even truly serve as a flag unless they have finaly instaled a radio on board all she does is serves as a floating relic of that bygone era Trying to explain anything to you is much like taking a Neanderthal Man to a hardware store and expecting him to understand all that he sees. reealy? you think that? then you are dumber than I thought Dave K8MN everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:04:38 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: wrote: On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:31:36 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: wrote "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Her "main function" is to serve as the Flagship of the Navy. That's a military function, not a "museum" function. Certainly she also serves as a "history lesson incarnate", but that is not her "main" function. If it were, she'd be property of the National Park Service, not the Department of Defense. And to answer the comment of Clown Prince of Spamalot (aka KB9RGZ), many US Navy ships are not intended to "sail into battle" (a quaint phrase, but it reveals your ignorance of military matters). YTB's tugs don't "sail into battle", DSRV's don't "sail into battle", AD's don't "sail into battle", AOE's don't "sail into battle", AS's don't "sail into battle", ATB's don't "sail into battle", ARS's don't "sail into battle", in fact CVA's don't "sail into battle", and no, the USS Constitution will not "sail into battle", but she's still a fully commissioned ship of the line in the US Navy. so but the USS Constitution serves NO military function can't even truly serve as a flag unless they have finaly instaled a radio on board all she does is serves as a floating relic of that bygone era Trying to explain anything to you is much like taking a Neanderthal Man to a hardware store and expecting him to understand all that he sees. reealy? you think that? Reealy! then you are dumber than I thought That's odd. You're just about as dumb as I thought. Dave K8MN |
Not Qualified
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:15:53 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:04:38 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: cut all she does is serves as a floating relic of that bygone era Trying to explain anything to you is much like taking a Neanderthal Man to a hardware store and expecting him to understand all that he sees. reealy? you think that? Reealy! then you are dumber than I thought That's odd. You're just about as dumb as I thought. humm you arelying then since i am far more inteligent than you think unless you were lying before you can't even keep your lies straight Dave K8MN everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Not Qualified
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:15:53 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: wrote: On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:04:38 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: cut all she does is serves as a floating relic of that bygone era Trying to explain anything to you is much like taking a Neanderthal Man to a hardware store and expecting him to understand all that he sees. reealy? you think that? Reealy! then you are dumber than I thought That's odd. You're just about as dumb as I thought. humm you arelying then since i am far more inteligent than you think unless you were lying before You're more intelligent than I think? No, Mark, I've never thought of you as particularly intelligent at all. Did you think you'd seen a post where I praised your intellect? you can't even keep your lies straight Do I have it straight? I tell you that you are about as dumb as I thought and you think I'm lying and that I don't believe you to be a mental no-load? Dave K8MN |
Not Qualified
KØHB wrote:
wrote "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Her "main function" is to serve as the Flagship of the Navy. That's a military function, not a "museum" function. Certainly she also serves as a "history lesson incarnate", but that is not her "main" function. If it were, she'd be property of the National Park Service, not the Department of Defense. Well, Hans, it looks like we have different definitions of "museum piece" and "military function". I'll defer to your definitions because the USS Constitution is, in fact, the Flagship of the US Navy and is fully operational, with a full time crew. She just doesn't sail very often. And to answer the comment of Clown Prince of Spamalot (aka KB9RGZ), many US Navy ships are not intended to "sail into battle" (a quaint phrase, but it reveals your ignorance of military matters). YTB's tugs don't "sail into battle", DSRV's don't "sail into battle", AD's don't "sail into battle", AOE's don't "sail into battle", AS's don't "sail into battle", ATB's don't "sail into battle", ARS's don't "sail into battle", in fact CVA's don't "sail into battle", and no, the USS Constitution will not "sail into battle", but she's stilla fully commissioned ship of the line in the US Navy. Actually, I suppose that a considerable number of ships would intentionally sail *away* from battle, because they're not meant to be combat ships. The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. Does she go out on search and rescue? Probably not, but I'm sure she teachs some of the elements of SAR. Navigation is a big part of her training mission, and you can bet that includes things like plotting an expanding-squares search pattern, calculating set and drift, and other topics useful in real world SAR operations. Regardless of that, notall USCG ships "go out on search and rescue". Some go out an tend bouys. Some go out and break ice. Some go out on training missions. Etc., etc., etc. Or is her purpose mostly historic and educational? Very little "historic" about the Eagle. Her purpose is a training ship for Coast Guard Midshipmen. That's just as much a "purpose" as SAR. And the main point remains: Sailboats make up far less than 1% of the US military fleet. Nobody is trying to argue that point, are they? Len was. He seems to be unable to deal with analogies. By the same token, CVA's make up a tiny percent of the US military fleet also, as do ARS's, AOE's, DSRV's, LPH's, and a host of other types. Of course. But they're all "power boats", not "sailboats". Doesn't make their mission any less important, or relegate them to "nothing more than museum pieces". Nor is the Constitution's mission unimportant - although some folks don't value history very much... Ding ding, ding ding, ding ding, ding ding. Eight bells and all's well. Did you get EPA? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Not Qualified
|
Not Qualified
Correction to earlier posting:
Some sources say the R-14 ran out of fuel; others say she lost her powerplant and could not effect repair at sea. Some sources say the periscope was used as the mast, others refer to the torpedo loading crane. In any event the sub made it to port under sail: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/s...nsh-r/ss91.htm (scroll down to see a picture) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Not Qualified
|
Not Qualified
wrote in message ... On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:15:53 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: wrote: If ignorance is indeed bliss, KB9RQZ HAS to be one of the most joyful souls walking this earth. |
Not Qualified
From: "K0HB" on Sun, Dec 4 2005 1:31 am
wrote "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Her "main function" is to serve as the Flagship of the Navy. That's a military function, not a "museum" function. Certainly she also serves as a "history lesson incarnate", but that is not her "main" function. If it were, she'd be property of the National Park Service, not the Department of Defense. Don't be too hard on Jimmie, Hans, he learned all his "military expertise" from books. [sometimes I think they were coloring books] And to answer the comment of Clown Prince of Spamalot (aka KB9RGZ), many US Navy ships are not intended to "sail into battle" (a quaint phrase, but it reveals your ignorance of military matters). YTB's tugs don't "sail into battle", DSRV's don't "sail into battle", AD's don't "sail into battle", AOE's don't "sail into battle", AS's don't "sail into battle", ATB's don't "sail into battle", ARS's don't "sail into battle", in fact CVA's don't "sail into battle", and no, the USS Constitution will not "sail into battle", but she's still a fully commissioned ship of the line in the US Navy. Most civilians don't understand that every servicemember does NOT "go into battle." Somehow they think that "battle" is like a street gang fight between small groups. Problem is, "battle" can catch up to everyone in the military service when no one is expecting it. The USS Indianapolis' crew found that out late in WW2 when it was torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine. The Army found that out during the Battle of the Bulge...where every soldier, regardless of MOS, were suddenly IN "battle." Ever since the U.S. Army has made it a point to continue basic battle training long after soldiers have finished basic training. Jimmie Noserve and Der Klunk both thought of Japan as "rear area" in the 1950s...a place where all are "safe." However, the USSR did have a combat reach into Japan and did have the special weapon. The USA, USAF, and USN all knew that and tried to prepare for it. Now, they might or might not have been Soviet "Bear" bombers when I was in Japan...the exact type is irrelevant...but they did have aircraft that could reach the Kanto Plain area of Honshu (where Tokyo is located). Jimmie wanted to make a Big Thing about USSR aircraft so that he could make message points and show everyone how "good" and "expert" he is. Jimmie was never in danger of anything but diaper rash in the 1950s. Jimmie might have been in a moderate danger zone in the 1960s when, first, IRBMs were being targeted on east coast positions from Cuba, then later, from ICBMs that were targeted all over the USA. Right now he is acting like an acting secretary of the navy with his navel history. [no Oscars for him...] The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. Does she go out on search and rescue? Probably not, but I'm sure she teachs some of the elements of SAR. Navigation is a big part of her training mission, and you can bet that includes things like plotting an expanding-squares search pattern, calculating set and drift, and other topics useful in real world SAR operations. Regardless of that, not all USCG ships "go out on search and rescue". Some go out an tend bouys. Some go out and break ice. Some go out on training missions. Etc., etc., etc. Well, if Jimmie Noserve said it, it must be............something. Or is her purpose mostly historic and educational? Very little "historic" about the Eagle. Her purpose is a training ship for Coast Guard Midshipmen. That's just as much a "purpose" as SAR. Follows the USN academy pattern in that, yes? I thought Annapolis had their own "tall ship" for midshipman sailing training? Lots of other nations' naval academies have those...most were present at the "Parade of the Tall Ships" on TV here in 1976 during the U.S. Bicentennial celebrations. And the main point remains: Sailboats make up far less than 1% of the US military fleet. Nobody is trying to argue that point, are they? By the same token, CVA's make up a tiny percent of the US military fleet also, as do ARS's, AOE's, DSRV's, LPH's, and a host of other types. Doesn't make their mission any less important, or relegate them to "nothing more than museum pieces". Tsk, the ideas that some civilians have. :-) [you've lost this land person on some of those acronyms... :-) ] Ding ding, ding ding, ding ding, ding ding. Eight bells and all's well. Not quite...Army lost to Navy in football Saturday...saw only last half in widescreen TV. [thank you for that other "notice"...not] Rancors away! |
Not Qualified
From: on Sat, Dec 3 2005 8:28 am
wrote: 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 Tsk, you aren't old enough to have been licensed under any other federal radio agency besides the FCC. :-) Neither are you, Len ;-) ;-) W R O N G ! ! ! Sure there is - it's called wigwag. No, those are called SEMAPHORE FLAGS. No, they're not. Semaphore and wigwag are two different things. Look it up. Two dictionaries I have say "see 'semaphore'" under several different definitions of "wigwag." Can you wigwag in morse? [no such thing] Can you wigwag from a wigwam? Or is your hairpiece already warm? I've already worn the collar insignia of the United States Army Signal Corps, a torch over two crossed signal flags. You've never done that. You can never do that. 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. You've already argued with Hans Brakob on that. You wound up all wet. Why isn't it true, Len? What isn't it true? It's amateur radio, not "hobby" radio... You don't engage in amateur radio as a HOBBY?!? Did you think you were QUALIFIED as some kind of para-military "service" with that amateur radio license?!? I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on 3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-) Did you flunk out? Or perhaps you just GAVE UP? I changed my studies from illustration to engineering. Career choice change. I can't "give up" something I have a natural talent for...that's built-in, has been used in previous employment. I was accepted by Art Center on the basis of submitted work that I sent them. Tsk. You are being HOSTILE again, trying to say I "flunked out" or "gave up." "Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that." What did you mean by that sentence? Maybe they want to be on TV? You know, like "CSI" (the first one from Las Vegas), "CSI: Miami," and "CSI: New York"? :-) All are popular shows about forensics and criminology. Then there's "Bones" on the Fox network, the various "Law and Order" crime dramas. Viewing audience likes that stuff. Pasadena isn't far from the center of movie-TV production in Los Angeles. Gosh, you could be on TV! :-) Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience." Well, you're wrong about that. That MUST have been where you got all your "military expertise." Oh, my, you'll have to tell all the illustrators everywhere that their techniques are "dying!" It's what you've told us about Morse Code, even though you're not involved. Sorry, I was VERY INVOLVED in illustration. I was VERY INVOLVED in radio and electronics. Both for over a half century. Where are all the commercial morse code communications sites now? Where are all the military morse code communications sites now? Once there was nothing else besides morse code in radio communications. Now all there is of that is on amateur bands. Tsk, you aren't "dying" but your time in Intensive Care Unit is coming to a close... I live in the past?!? Yes. No, I live in the house. I have lived in motels and hotels. "Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that." What did you mean by that? You tell me... :-) Can you show any physics textbooks or courses that include electronic design or analysis? Yes. Tsk, tsk. I read Ben's biography entitled "Benjamin Franklin - An American Life," by Walter Isaacson. So? It's a relatively recent biography, extensively researched, takes an objective look at the life of Franklin. It does not glorify him with gratuitous phrases but explains what he did during his long lifetime...facts that were referenced by historical documents. Franklin the scientist determined the nature of lightning. Franklin was hardly schooled. He had only HONORARY degrees. So he founded a great University that thrives today. Franklin was a prosperous printer and a POLITICIAN. Money and power can do lots of things. He also got current flow in the wrong direction...:-) It's good stuff. Our country was born right here in Philadelphia. Been there. However, the center of United States government is in the District of Columbia, not even in Pennsylvania. You mean UNIFORM Code of Military Justice? :-) Yep - not "universal" as you mistakenly wrote. I've worn the UNIFORM of the United States Army. I've been under the UNIFORM Code of Military Justice for four years. You've done nothing like that. You can never do anything like that. I knew full well what it "stood for." No you didn't. You messed up. Nope. Not once when serving in UNIFORM and being under the UNIFORM Code of Military Justice. You can't say that. You will never be able to say that. I think you didn't really read and understand all the comments. Doesn't bother me at all what you think of me now. I do have all 3,800 filings in WT Docket 05-235 on both hard disk and CD archives. As far as I'm concerned, there was NO "vote for 'CW'" as Speroni put his "analysis" of NPRM 05-143 commentary in WT Docket 05-235. The Commission was notified on what I thought/analyzed in my Exhibit filing of 25 Movember 2005 along with a final tally sheet of the four categories of general comment opinions. Yes, Len, we know you can't deal with facts and opinions different from your own. :-) You are really going the way of Dudly the Imposter. I DEAL with them as they occur. Your problem is that YOU don't like differing opinions. Boo-hoo on you. Yes. You're obviously very jealous. Green with envy. Your behavior shows it. The Hawaiian Morseman? There you go, acting all jealous and envious because someone did a better analysis than you did. "Better?" :-) Ah! Jimmie the Miccolis Morseman loves and cherishes morse code so anything anyone says against it is called "cowardly" under YOUR fabrications. You don't have any Petitions before the Commission, Len. You're too afraid to write one and have it DENIED. Tsk. You are teetering on the edge of sanity. :-) Wait...where is the MICCOLIS Petition? We don't see it! Could it be that Miccolis is "afraid?" More important, you didn't follow the rules on Reply Comments back in 1999. "Rules?" The "rules" are given by the Commission, not by a Miccolis or "the amateur community." :-) Reply Comments are only supposed to be a reply to comments made by others - they are not supposed to bring up new suggestions. Show us that "regulation" or "law," Jimmie. If you wanted to suggest an age requirement, the time to do that was during the Comment period, not the Reply Comment period. Show us that "regulation" or "law," Jimmie. You're just as guilty of procedural mistakes as the folks who send in comments long after the deadline. Show us the "procedural regulations/rules/law" applying to filings' CONTENT, Jimmie. You are simply hostile to anyone who won't accept morse code wholeheartedly. Wrong! R I G H T ! ! ! :-) and don't have any valid reasons for doing so except for canned phrases that were conditioned into your mind by the league. That's simply not the case, Len. You're completely wrong on that. Grow up and accept that yours is not the only way of looking at things. Tsk. I "grew up" in HF radio communications beginning in early 1953. Three dozen high-power transmitters, message traffic 220 thousand per month. Here's a link to that: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf Never used, nor had to use any morse code modes on those three dozen HF transmitters at any time. Why ARE you so obsessed with putting down all who want the code test eliminated? Where have I done that? In this newsgroup. "Google provides." :-) You don't matter to me at all, Len. Then why do you make all those "replies" to me? :-) You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays. It's not about those things at all, Len. No? Then why are you so worried and agitated by it? Code testing doesn't involve you at all. It's about what's good and bad for the Amateur Radio Service. Well there we have it! The Lord High Commissioner of Goodness has RULED on what is "good" and what is "bad!" I see the code test as being a good thing for the Amateur Radio service. Sorry, NOT strong enough. As self-appointed Lord High whatever, you MUST state firmly and resolutely ALL that everyone MUST do! Not to worry. There will always be some morseperson around to play with you in your morse playground. Can you be sure? Can you? :-) 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? Don't need any such thing. Yes, we know, you HAVE THE POWER! :-) [hey, Brian, here's another one of those idiots ready to "dial"...] You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station, Len. How do you know? :-) 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? :-) In the regulations. My name isn't mentioned once in the five-volume bound set of Title 47 C.F.R. Not in any Part therein. The ONLY place where my name appeared was on the Government Post Office shippling label that sent me those five volumes. Show us WHERE my name, with appropriate statement of "unqualifications" appears in Title 47 C.F.R. 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! That's not "operating". Define OPERATING. :-) 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. That's a brave act, Len. But it was more than a half-century ago. Tsk. It's something you've NEVER done, Jimmie. I decided it was time to serve my country and volunteered to do so during a war time. You've done NOTHING like that at any time. Not me, Len. We KNOW that, Jimmie. You've NEVER done that. I said you were afraid - and you are. "Afraid of what?" :-) People are afraid of all sorts of things. You must have been AFRAID to risk your precious body in real military service since you didn't volunteer. shrug You were afraid to let your neighbors build two-story houses.... W R O N G . NOT "afraid." MY neighbors did not want the development started that would cut off our view...so much so that we all formed an action committee and we presented our case to the zoning commission in a regular meeting. That VACANT land (about 15 acres) was then UNdeveloped. The contractor won a change of zoning from only Residential to Residential-with- apartments...the existing neighbors lost that fight. The contractor went bankrupt, couldn't develop the land, sold the land to another contractor. THAT contractor built 44 homes (average price $500,000 five years ago) after spending 9 months of re-arranging the vacant land. Our (original 'neighbors') views' were spoiled by those new homes. My neighborhood was NOT "afraid." We took ACTION. That is recorded in the minutes of the City Zoning Commission's meetings. Okay, we neighbors tried and lost. That's the breaks in politics. What you've done is to RE-WRITE what was originally written in here with some weird spin on "courage" and "fear" that YOU invented, fabricated, LIED about. That shows the kind of hostility you exhibit in here. ["Google provides"] But you sure don't display any courage or bravery here.... How so, Lord High Whatever? Is it something about "not following YOUR orders/commands?!?" Fork you, yer Lordship...you don't get to GIVE orders in here. You are NOT QUALIFIED to give orders, you are NOT AUTHORIZED to give orders. You aren't even QUALIFIED to be a barracks lawyer, yet you pretend to be one with your "rules" on comment content! |
Not Qualified
From: on Dec 3, 3:01 pm
K؈B wrote: 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). Been there, Hans. There we have it! Presence of his Body makes Him "official." :-) "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Morse code testing for an amateur radio license is then also a "museum piece" of no educational or historic (nor military) need. There are many morse code museums around the USA to display the "educational and historic needs" for morse code...no federal license testing is needed to keep up those museums. If morse code is so damn good as a communications mode, then it will survive quite well on its own WITHOUT federal license testing requirements. Strange that all other radio services of the USA quit using morse code for communications... The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers. Does she go out on search and rescue? Is morse code part of search and rescue? Can you shed some light on that or are you blinking in puzzlement? [a clue a la "Jeopardy"] Or is her purpose mostly historic and educational? I'm glad those ships are kept in operation. Why? You are NOT in the USN or USCG, have never served in uniform. You are NOT INVOLVED. But in reality they are working museum pieces. Tsk, tsk. Jimmie should go on a "cruise" (or "float", whatever) with the midshipmen of either academy and see for himself. :-) They're like the steam and first-generation diesel locomotives that a few Class 1 American railroads have kept on their rosters. Those old locos spend most of the time in storage, but are occasionally brought out and run for special purposes. They still work, meet all applicable requirements, and are technically on the active roster - but in reality they're museum pieces. Those old choo-choos are in the military? Do prospective Army Corps of Engineers cadets from West Point, NY, go on railroad "cruises" also? I think not. :-) Do those old choo-choos use morse code for communications? And the main point remains: Sailboats make up far less than 1% of the US military fleet. Was that the "main point?" :-) Bad on me...I thought that AMATEUR RADIO LICENSING was the "main point" in this thread. Must be "wrong." :-) Well, we've all Heard the Word from the Master Mariner of the navel academy. Up-anchor and sail away into the susnet, beeping all the way... :-) |
Not Qualified
Whiny****_Wussman wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 07:15:53 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: wrote: If ignorance is indeed bliss, KB9RQZ HAS to be one of the most joyful souls walking this earth. If we all were children playing on the playground, KB9RQZ is the one we would call "stinky'. |
Not Qualified
From: on Dec 4, 5:08 am
wrote: K0HB wrote: wrote "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Speaking of sailboats, there was at least one use of sail on a USN submarine - and it was in the 20th century. Was this thread about "sailboats?" Hot darn, I coulda sworn it was all about Replies to Comments on NPRM 05-143! In May of 1921, submarine R-14 was in the Pacific on a search-and-rescue for fleet tug Conestoga. Did the USN use the term "search-and-rescue" then, olde-tyme Mister Mariner? Do you understand how FAR BACK in time 1921 is? Hint: 84 years! Why are you dredging up so much muck of the PAST? Especially when this new misdirection isn't even close to NPRM 05-143 subject? Somehow the R-14 crew managed to run the boat out of fuel. "...run the boat out of fuel?!?" Did they fire up the spark transmitter on battery power and make a DASH for port with their code key? Didn't the crew hop on the long crankshaft like they did on the Hunley? Jimmie boy, I think you've run out of fuel on this thread. Crude. So they sewed mattress covers and blankets together, and using the torpedo loading derrick, made a sail. After 5 days sailing, R-14 arrived in Hilo, Hawaii. Could it make even 2 Knots with that rigging? Jimmie, ALL manned submarines made after WW2 have a SAIL. Meanwhile, if you want to get into maritime lore, just go to the appropriate newsgroup for it. This one is about amateur RADIO policy. So far you've been all a-sea and a-drift here. |
Not Qualified
wrote:
From: on Sat, Dec 3 2005 8:28 am wrote: 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 Sure there is - it's called wigwag. No, those are called SEMAPHORE FLAGS. No, they're not. Semaphore and wigwag are two different things. Look it up. Two dictionaries I have say "see 'semaphore'" under several different definitions of "wigwag." Wig-wag and sempahore are not the same thing. Can you wigwag in morse? Yes. [no such thing] You are mistaken, Len. As usual, you are resistant to new information. http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/Muse...GES/wigwag.gif I've already worn the collar insignia of the United States Army Signal Corps, a torch over two crossed signal flags. The US Army also used wig wag signalling http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/Muse...GES/wigwag.gif but you don't seem to know about that. You've never done that. You can never do that. I can never wear the insignia of the Signal Corps? You are quite mistaken, Len. 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. You've already argued with Hans Brakob on that. You wound up all wet. How did I wind up "all wet", Len? I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on 3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-) Did you flunk out? Or perhaps you just GAVE UP? I changed my studies from illustration to engineering. Career choice change. In other words, you GAVE UP on illustration as a career after a year of school. Tsk, tsk. You do seem to flit about, Len, with all those different jobs and activities... I can't "give up" something I have a natural talent for. "Talent"? ..that's built-in, has been used in previous employment. I was accepted by Art Center on the basis of submitted work that I sent them. Yet after a year you GAVE UP. Tsk. You are being HOSTILE again, trying to say I "flunked out" or "gave up." How is it being hostile? I'm pointing out that you GAVE UP on illustration as a career. "Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that." What did you mean by that sentence? Maybe they want to be on TV? You know, like "CSI" (the first one from Las Vegas), "CSI: Miami," and "CSI: New York"? :-) I don't think so. All are popular shows about forensics and criminology. Then there's "Bones" on the Fox network, the various "Law and Order" crime dramas. Viewing audience likes that stuff. Doesn't fit Pasadena isn't far from the center of movie-TV production in Los Angeles. Gosh, you could be on TV! :-) Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience." Well, you're wrong about that. That MUST have been where you got all your "military expertise." Nope. Guess again. Oh, my, you'll have to tell all the illustrators everywhere that their techniques are "dying!" It's what you've told us about Morse Code, even though you're not involved. Sorry, I was VERY INVOLVED in illustration. But not in Morse Code. And you GAVE UP on both illustration as a career and learning Morse Code at the very modest speed of 13 wpm. I was VERY INVOLVED in radio and electronics. Both for over a half century. Past tense, I see. Where are all the commercial morse code communications sites now? Where are all the military morse code communications sites now? Where are all the 100 wpm mechanical teleprinters now? Where are all the big multitransmitter HF sites like ADA now? Once there was nothing else besides morse code in radio communications. That ended about 1900 when Reginald Fessenden began transmitting voice and music by radio. Now all there is of that is on amateur bands. Not true, Len. Have you not heard of KSM/KPH? Tsk, you aren't "dying" but your time in Intensive Care Unit is coming to a close... ?? I'm a lot healthier than you, Len. "Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying that." What did you mean by that? You tell me... :-) You were trying to threaten me physically. You've done that before, Len. Can you show any physics textbooks or courses that include electronic design or analysis? Yes. Such as? Tsk, tsk. I read Ben's biography entitled "Benjamin Franklin - An American Life," by Walter Isaacson. So? It's a relatively recent biography, extensively researched, takes an objective look at the life of Franklin. It does not glorify him with gratuitous phrases but explains what he did during his long lifetime...facts that were referenced by historical documents. Such as invent lightning protection systems - the first practical electrical devices. Franklin the scientist determined the nature of lightning. Franklin was hardly schooled. He had only HONORARY degrees. So he founded a great University that thrives today. Franklin was a prosperous printer and a POLITICIAN. Also a genius. Money and power can do lots of things. Not without direction. His University flourishes today. Also the hospital he founded (first in the USA), his fire-protection societies, his free-library concepts, and much more. He also got current flow in the wrong direction...:-) Nope, he was just ahead of his time. He described the flow of holes rather than electrons. It's good stuff. Our country was born right here in Philadelphia. Been there. NADC to be exact, right? You weren't exactly begged to stay there, were you, Len? However, the center of United States government is in the District of Columbia, not even in Pennsylvania. That's a good thing! The District of Columbia was invented so that the nation's capital would not be inside any state. The nation's capital is nowhere near California, either... You mean UNIFORM Code of Military Justice? :-) Yep - not "universal" as you mistakenly wrote. I've worn the UNIFORM of the United States Army. I've been under the UNIFORM Code of Military Justice for four years. Yet you messed up on what "UCMJ" meant. You've done nothing like that. How do you know for sure? You can never do anything like that. What does it matter? I think you didn't really read and understand all the comments. Doesn't bother me at all what you think of me now. Apparently it does, because you get so defensive. I do have all 3,800 filings in WT Docket 05-235 on both hard disk and CD archives. Bully for you. As far as I'm concerned, there was NO "vote for 'CW'" as Speroni put his "analysis" of NPRM 05-143 commentary in WT Docket 05-235. There are none so blind as those who will not see. You can deny all you want, but 55% of those individuals who expressed a preference in comments on 05-235 supported at least some Morse Code testing. Only 45% supported complete removal of all Morse Code testing. That's a "vote for CW" to anyone who thinks rationally. Of course the FCC doesn't have to follow that "vote" and probably won't. But to deny its existence is to deny reality. The Commission was notified on what I thought/analyzed in my Exhibit filing of 25 Movember 2005 along with a final tally sheet of the four categories of general comment opinions. Yes, you spammed them with dozens and dozens of pages of your verbiage. I feel sorry for the poor souls at FCC who have to read all the worthless junk you send them, Len. ;-) Yes, Len, we know you can't deal with facts and opinions different from your own. :-) You are really going the way of Dudly the Imposter. I DEAL with them as they occur. You deal by denial. Yes. You're obviously very jealous. Green with envy. Your behavior shows it. The Hawaiian Morseman? There you go, acting all jealous and envious because someone did a better analysis than you did. "Better?" :-) Yes. Your analysis counts those who file multiple comments as if they are separate opinions. As if the wordiest person's opinion somehow counts more because they typed more. If someone had written Reply Comments to every procodetest comment, your system would have counted them as separate opinions even though they had the same author. That's not a valid way of analyzing opinion. In short, it stinks. You don't have any Petitions before the Commission, Len. You're too afraid to write one and have it DENIED. Tsk. You are teetering on the edge of sanity. :-) Wait...where is the MICCOLIS Petition? We don't see it! Could it be that Miccolis is "afraid?" You didn't recognize it when you saw it, Len. More important, you didn't follow the rules on Reply Comments back in 1999. "Rules?" The "rules" are given by the Commission, That's right. And you didn't follow them back in 1999. Reply Comments are only supposed to be a reply to comments made by others - they are not supposed to bring up new suggestions. Show us that "regulation" or "law," Jimmie. Look up the definition of "Reply Comments", Len. If you wanted to suggest an age requirement, the time to do that was during the Comment period, not the Reply Comment period. Show us that "regulation" or "law," Jimmie. Look up the definition of "Reply Comments", Len. You're just as guilty of procedural mistakes as the folks who send in comments long after the deadline. Show us the "procedural regulations/rules/law" applying to filings' CONTENT, Jimmie. Look up the definition of "Reply Comments", Len. Why ARE you so obsessed with putting down all who want the code test eliminated? Where have I done that? In this newsgroup. "Google provides." :-) Then show us a link to this alleged "putting down". You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays. It's not about those things at all, Len. No? Then why are you so worried and agitated by it? Code testing doesn't involve you at all. Yes, it does. If the Amateur Radio Service is changed for the worse, I am affected. It's about what's good and bad for the Amateur Radio Service. Well there we have it! The Lord High Commissioner of Goodness has RULED on what is "good" and what is "bad!" Anyone who comments to FCC is saying what is good and what is bad. I see the code test as being a good thing for the Amateur Radio service. Sorry, NOT strong enough. As self-appointed Lord High whatever, you MUST state firmly and resolutely ALL that everyone MUST do! Why? You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio station, Len. How do you know? :-) Because you're not licensed. 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? :-) In the regulations. My name isn't mentioned once in the five-volume bound set of Title 47 C.F.R. Not in any Part therein. The ONLY place where my name appeared was on the Government Post Office shippling label that sent me those five volumes. Show us WHERE my name, with appropriate statement of "unqualifications" appears in Title 47 C.F.R. Your name is not in the FCC database of amateur radio licenses. Therefore you are not qualified. 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! That's not "operating". Define OPERATING. :-) Being the control operator of an amateur radio station. You are not qualified to do that - have never been qualified. I've been qualified, and doing that, since 1967. 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. That's a brave act, Len. But it was more than a half-century ago. Tsk. It's something you've NEVER done, Jimmie. How do you know? I decided it was time to serve my country and volunteered to do so during a war time. You've done NOTHING like that at any time. How do you know? Besides, you seem to think that one brave act means all must defer to your opinions and whims. Doesn't work that way. I said you were afraid - and you are. "Afraid of what?" :-) People are afraid of all sorts of things. You must have been AFRAID to risk your precious body in real military service since you didn't volunteer. shrug Suppose you had been born in 1954, Len. Would you have volunteered to fight in Vietnam in 1972? You were afraid to let your neighbors build two-story houses.... W R O N G . (Cluck-cluck!) NOT "afraid." You were afraid of how the neighborhood would change. MY neighbors did not want the development started that would cut off our view...so much so that we all formed an action committee and we presented our case to the zoning commission in a regular meeting. Just your neighbors? Or you too? That VACANT land (about 15 acres) was then UNdeveloped. The contractor won a change of zoning from only Residential to Residential-with- apartments...the existing neighbors lost that fight. In other words, you and your neighbors wanted to stop other people from building certain types of buildings on *their own land* - because it would mess up your *view*. The contractor went bankrupt, couldn't develop the land, sold the land to another contractor. So what? THAT contractor built 44 homes (average price $500,000 five years ago) So they were worth more than your house.... after spending 9 months of re-arranging the vacant land. How does anyone "rearrange" land? With a bulldozer? 44 homes on 15 acres is about a third of an acre each. Half a million each is a starter home, right? Our (original 'neighbors') views' were spoiled by those new homes. So - you thought your "view" was more important than the newcomers' property rights. You thought that those 15 acres should not be developed, even though you didn't own them. You resisted changes that brought in new people and more progress. You clung to the past and tried to hold back the future. And you failed. My neighborhood was NOT "afraid." Yes, you were. You feared the loss of your "views". We took ACTION. And you FAILED. That is recorded in the minutes of the City Zoning Commission's meetings. Okay, we neighbors tried and lost. That's the breaks in politics. What I find most interesting is that you fought change, progress, and newcomers. And you thought your views should count for more than the wants and needs of those who owned the land. What you've done is to RE-WRITE what was originally written in here with some weird spin on "courage" and "fear" that YOU invented, fabricated, LIED about. What spin? What fabrication? What lies? I simply point out that you and your neighbors feared and opposed change in the neighborhood. That's the truth. |
Not Qualified
|
Not Qualified
|
Not Qualified
From: on Sun, Dec 4 2005 4:35 pm
wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 3 2005 8:28 am wrote: 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 Wig-wag and sempahore are not the same thing. Can you wigwag in morse? Yes. [no such thing] You are mistaken, Len. As usual, you are resistant to new information. "New" information? No. You did, indeed, provide a link for OLD information that was made obsolete in ACTUAL USE by the U.S. Army Signal Corps prior to the U.S.' entry into World War One. Note: I am familiar with Fort Gordon as the "home" of the Signal Corps ever since it was known as Camp Gordon. That is where I and other signalmen did our Basic Training as soldiers. http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/Muse...GES/wigwag.gif For some more information on the HISTORY of the Signal Corps, United States Army, go to: http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/museum/ I've already worn the collar insignia of the United States Army Signal Corps, a torch over two crossed signal flags. The US Army also used wig wag signalling Okay, they did up to 1912. ? This is 93 years later. The U.S. Army ALSO used carrier pigeons and spark transmitters for communications. That ended after WW1. The U.S. Army once used smoothbore muskets and sabers for weaponry. That ended prior to WW1. ONE-FLAG signaling ended in 1912...according to the same museum source. but you don't seem to know about that. I know far more than you ever will about what the United States Army Signal Corps has done in the last half century plus a lot more. I was IN it, you were NOT. I can never wear the insignia of the Signal Corps? You are quite mistaken, Len. Anyone can go purchase (or steal) some insignia and put it on. The entertainment business has been allowed to do that for a very long time...as COSTUMES. Play-acting. Dudly the Imposter tries to get away with his impersonation of "being a Marine." Here's some more from Regimental Division, Office Chief of Signal, United States Army Signal Center, Fort Gordon, GA: ------------------------------------------------------------- CROSSED FLAGS "Crossed flags" have been used by the Signal Corps since 1864, when they were prescribed for wear on the uniform coat by enlisted ment of the Signal Corps. In 1884, a burning torch was added to the insignia and the present design adopted on 1 July of that year. The flags and torch are symbolic of signaling or communication. Two signal flags crossed, dexter flag - the flag on the right, white with red center, the sinister flag on the left, red with white center, staffs of gold, with a flaming torch of gold color upright at the center of crossed flags. Branch colors: Orange trimmings and facings were approved for the Signal Service in 1872. The white piping was added in 1902, to conform to the custom which prevailed of having piping of a different color for all except the line branches. ------------------------------------------------------------- To explain some terms: "Line" branches are those of the Army directly involved with warfighting; i.e., infantry, artillery, armor. Infantry uniform piping is, has been, light blue. If memory serves, artillery had red piping. "Piping" was principally the thin edge trimming on the soft cap (sometimes called an "overseas cap" as well as a vulgar feminine name). Branch COLOR is a heritage symbol, found on branch flags and, in 1950-1960 used in an issued scarf that replaced the tie for certain ceremonial functions. [I still have mine as a memento] The "crossed flags" have been a collar insignia for enlisted signalmen for 121 years, and remains. Signal officers have a similar collar insignia (on the lapels of coats and shirts worn beneath the letters "U.S." in gold and with color added to the flags. Date of adoption of that style depends on adoption of the officer's uniform style that changed between WW1 and WW2. Enlisted collar branch insignia has been all gold, no other color, mounted on a disc of gold. Date of adoption of that collar insignia style (to differentiate officers and enlisted) unknown exactly but was done prior to WW2. As a never-served civilian, you no doubt feel free to ridicule the U.S. military, especially in areas of tradition, heritage, heraldry, branch colors, and so forth. That is understood. Having never been a part of an active military you would be ignorant of the experience of being part of a fighting force that was born during the "Spirit of '76." Some other facts about the U.S. Army Signal Corps: It is the birth-branch of the United States Air Force, having issued the very first purchase of a heavier-than-air aircraft in the military (for observation purposes). Note: The USAF was once a part of the Army, the "Air Corps", but became a separate service branch in 1948. The ubiquitous superheterodyne receiver was born in the mind of Major Edwin Armstrong while he was on duty with the United States Army Signal Corps in Paris, 1918. The "superhet" receiver has been made by the millions worldwide since then. The first field use of balloons for observation were done during the American Civil War, including the first "airborne" telegraphy tried then between a lofted balloon and ground. [that preceded the later massive lighter-than-air ship effort of the United States Navy] The first weather stations and their communications of weather conditions was pioneered prior to the formation of the "National Weather Service" that was absorbed by NOAA. The first use of carrier pigeons on a large scale for communications was done just prior to and during WW1. Signal Corps developed a field-transportable pigeon coop on a vehicle. Unfortunately, the pigeons being conscripts did not want to cooperate fully and that was disbanded after WW1. The first handheld Transceiver ("handie-talkie") was the brainchild of Galvin Manufacturing, Chicago, (legally changed to Motorola after WW2) and the Fort Monmouth Signal Office in 1940. Galvin designed, with Signal Corps' enthusiastic support, the first useable backpack "walkie- talkie" FM voice radio that saw its first baptism of fire in the Italian campaign of 1943. [SCR-300 with its 18 tube radio the BC-1000] The Signal Corps designed, and Galvin later made, the first horse mobile radio that could be used by a cavalry- man en ride ("in motion" for you non-equine humans). The resulting "pogo stick" (for its guidon socket bottom support pole) radio chest unit may have featured the first use of a combined speaker-microphone; that combined speaker-microphone is now a standard feature of public safety manpack radios. Mounted cavalry was disbanded during WW2 but those "pogo stick" radios remained in service, seeing their baptism of fire on Guadalcanal, man-carried in infantry units. 100 Watt semi-portable spark transmitters were used by the Army Air Corps in France in 1917-1918, those lap- held units designed by the Signal Corps. [as far as can be determined, those were one-way transmissions, air to ground only due to noise of open-cockpit aircraft] The first use of regular communications satellite message relay for military communications, Vietnam, late 1960s, using a mobile commications van containing microwave and multi-channel circuits, designed for the purpose by the Signal Corps. The first precision target acquisition and gun-tracking radar, the SCR-584, a joint design by MIT Radiation Lab and Signal Corps, transportable, saw service in Italy and France during WW2. Signal Corps had already designed and contracted out the radar that sighted the first Japanese air attackers in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. Signal Corps is the birthplace of the SCR-584 radar replacement, the MA-1 fire-control system which featured a Luneberg lens antenna. Radar set design at Fort Monmouth was transferred to Artillery in the 1960s. The very first moonbounce proved at Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories (just outside Fort Monmouth) in 1946. Proved that the moon can be a reflector of radio waves. See "Project Diana" for more references. That used a modified wartime radar set, including its unmodified antenna. Those laboratories were visible from the main road connecting Fort Monmouth with Red Bank, NJ. [Coles, Evans, and Squire laboratories] With the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army provided for the rebirth of cryptographic services in the 1930s. The Army Signal Corps established a small agency headed by William Friedman, a civilian, to organize an Army cryptographic service for military intelligence purposes. In cooperation with an equally-small unit of the U.S. Navy (under Captain Stafford) they formed the cryptologic nucleus for the entire U.S. government prior to our entry into WW2. Machinists at the Washington Navy Yard constructed a working prototype of the Japanese "Red" and "Purple" crypto machine work-alikes that were designed by the Army. Success of this led to the USN victory at the Battle of Midway. The combined service efforts resulted in a superior "rotor" cryptographic machine that was never known to be compromised until the physical capture of the USS Pueblo intelligence ship. Cryptanalysts of both USA and USN WW2 efforts later worked at the NSA (formed officially after WW2). [for more references, see the Fort Huachuca Military Intelligence Museum web page...that includes some interesting bios of the Friedmans and some pioneers in Army aircraft not normally included in popular flying lore] The Signal Office of the U.S. Army was the head of the second-highest priority industry during WW2; Production of quartz crystal units for all branches and some allies (England, chiefly). Galvin Mfg in Chicago was the civilian center of some 60 companies producing a million units a month by the last three years of WW2. The only other production program having a higher priority then was the Manhattan Project. Signal Corps was one of the contractor backers to provide the first crystal growth processes to replace small, irregular natural quartz. That permitted much lower-cost crystal units to be used in all electronics disciplines. I'd like to say that the Signal Corps is responsible for precision time-frequency sources useable over military field environments, but that isn't strictly true. Such is a multi-agency cooperative effort. The USN began the GPSS with a project called NAVSTAR using miniaturized atomic-resonance oscillators for a precision time-frequency reference, beginning in 1970. Theory and practical units were first done by NIST. Improvements were done by the electronics industry. Signal Corps concentrated on all-environment precision quartz crystal oscillators that resulted in the excellent frequency stability units required for the successful SINCGARS family of jam-proof, secure radios (quarter million R/Ts produced since 1987). The head of IEEE Time-Frequency is (or was) John R. Vig, one of the theory-and-practice heads at the Central Electronics Command that was at Monmouth. SINCGARS can check or update its precision internal time base by connecting an AN/PSN-11 GPS receiver to a front panel connector. True also for its Key Fill equipment. Both got their baptism of fire in the First Gulf War 1990-1991. I'd like to say that the Signal Corps is responsible for direct-select-frequency-synthesizer subsystems on HF transceivers, especially for SSB AM transceivers, but that would raise all sorts of hoo-haw between Collins amateur radio fanatics and several electronics industry companies, not to mention interservice rivalry by real veterans of the military. The military wasn't the first to pioneer SSB techniques in radio, the civilian communications providers were. USAF Strategic Air Command was the contracting agency that led to single-channel SSB communications mini- revolution on the amateur HF bands, resulting in SSB AM Voice being the MOST popular mode on HF by amateurs. USAF demands in frequency-hopping technology (and USN in radar) led to secure communications and jam-proof radar use. Refinements in that led to USA frequency- hopping for field radios, extremely stable time bases that could network frequency hoppers, the net holding despite a hop rate of 10 carrier frequency changes per second. Who made vacuum tubes producible at a reasonable cost in the USA? Look up Western Electric, the old manufacturing arm of the Bell System (you know, the telephone infrastructure giant that "fails during every emergency"). Who invented the transistor? Two scientists at Bell Labs (with help of Bill Shockley). Signal Corps wasn't first there. I could probably expand on all the preceding if I had the time to do real research, provide a whole list of end-notes and bibliography. The above I can write from memory without looking up a thing. I was a REAL signalman, a soldier serving in the Army of the United States. I did REAL HF (and VHF and UHF and microwave) communications in facilities that were real and large, covering the entire globe long before comm sats were aloft. Modern methods were used as well as those that existed before WW2. I am proud of what I did and am thankful that I can share in the heritage of the Signal Corps both during and after my real service. I don't have to pretend my remaining uniform sets are some kind of "costume." When I wore it we were NOT pretending anydamnthing. You are welcome to take your wigwaging morse code and shove it up your I/O port, sissy civilian. |
Not Qualified
From: on Sun, Dec 4 2005 4:35 pm
wrote: From: on Sat, Dec 3 2005 8:28 am wrote: 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 snip to the sissy civilian being hostile I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on 3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-) Did you flunk out? Or perhaps you just GAVE UP? I changed my studies from illustration to engineering. Career choice change. In other words, you GAVE UP on illustration as a career after a year of school. Tsk, tsk. Incorrect. I was a working illustrator, full time, before voluntarily enlisting in the Army. I was already an art major in high school, instructor being Richard Martikonis, (USNR Lieutenant) for three years. Since changing major college study to engineering, I've done three contract illustration jobs as part-time employment for fixed amount of contract work and compensation. I'm not counting the art work done for Ham Radio magazine. You do seem to flit about, Len, with all those different jobs and activities... "Flit?" In 54 years of working full-time since high school graduation?!? Is everyone supposed to enter some castle-like seminary and sit out their whole lives producing some single product? Or do you favor some socialist-extreme existance where you work for a single employer (or the state) until you die? You are welcome to that sort of rut, comrade. You don't like CONTRACT work? Too unstable for you? Is that somehow beneath your lofty and superior standards? I can't "give up" something I have a natural talent for. "Talent"? Talent, aptitude, gifted-ability, whatever. I have it and accept it as a normal thing. ..that's built-in, has been used in previous employment. I was accepted by Art Center on the basis of submitted work that I sent them. Yet after a year you GAVE UP. I thought I changed majors. :-) I hadn't learned anything new about illustration in that first year at Art Center. :-) Tsk. You are being HOSTILE again, trying to say I "flunked out" or "gave up." How is it being hostile? I'm pointing out that you GAVE UP on illustration as a career. Tsk, tsk, I changed career goals. I've told you twice that I did NOT "give up" and that I've done illustration on a contract basis since that change. You are trying to load negativistic words into what I explained. Ergo, you are expressing hostility by refusing to accept what I've already done. Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience." Well, you're wrong about that. That MUST have been where you got all your "military expertise." Nope. Guess again. This isn't a "guessing game," little boy. Show me some proof of YOUR military experience or shove it up your military-impersonating I/O port. Sorry, I was VERY INVOLVED in illustration. But not in Morse Code. Absolutely! Hadn't used any morse code in REAL HF radio communications, didn't need to. Hadn't used any morse code in the electronics industry, didn't need to. And you GAVE UP on both illustration as a career and learning Morse Code at the very modest speed of 13 wpm. Tsk, tsk, tsk, those are NOT related items. :-) Can you draw pictures in morse code? Send video information? BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!! I was VERY INVOLVED in radio and electronics. Both for over a half century. Past tense, I see. I'm not tense. Are you tense? See your doctor for some Xanax. I here that is good for folks like yourself who are tense about tenses. Maybe you should take up camping, sleep outdoors in tenses? ?? I'm a lot healthier than you, Len. How do you KNOW? Are you medically qualified? :-) You were trying to threaten me physically. You've done that before, Len. Oh, my, you ARE mentally disturbed! See your physician immediately. He also got current flow in the wrong direction...:-) Nope, he was just ahead of his time. He described the flow of holes rather than electrons. BWWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! Jimmie, you are friggin' weird on that. It's good stuff. Our country was born right here in Philadelphia. Been there. NADC to be exact, right? You weren't exactly begged to stay there, were you, Len? The Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, PA, is located outside of the city of Philadelphia. EXACTLY I've been IN Philadelphia and IN Camden, NJ, just across the Delaware River from Philly. Considering that I was an employee of RCA Corporation before, during, and after I visited NADC as a field engineer, I was never approached to join them for any employment and neither did I seek to get employment there. I got along fine with NADC civilian and military personnel there, did my assigned, pre-established work, departed for my home in California. I've explained all that before. You again choose to attempt to CHANGE it to suit your hostile intent. I've worn the UNIFORM of the United States Army. I've been under the UNIFORM Code of Military Justice for four years. Yet you messed up on what "UCMJ" meant. Never ever while UNDER the UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. That ended 49 years ago for me. I acknowledged accidentally writing "universal" instead of uniform a few days ago. I did go to UNIVERSAL CITY after writing that to meet with some friends. Since the DD-214 form is applicable to ALL branches of the military I just made a mistake in associating the word "universal" with the subject. In case you've noticed, Lord High Whatever, this newsgroup is NOT a court of law and no perjury has been committed over a writing mistake in trying to explain a military thing to some sissy civilian non-military-veteran. As far as I'm concerned, there was NO "vote for 'CW'" as Speroni put his "analysis" of NPRM 05-143 commentary in WT Docket 05-235. There are none so blind as those who will not see. You can deny all you want, but 55% of those individuals who expressed a preference in comments on 05-235 supported at least some Morse Code testing. Only 45% supported complete removal of all Morse Code testing. That's a "vote for CW" to anyone who thinks rationally. There are none so blind as the PCTA who insist that manual morse code testing is "necessary" for a hobby radio license examination. There are none so blind as the PCTA who cannot see that morse code is a dying mode in radio communications. There are none so blind as the PCTA who cannot see that all other radio services have GIVEN UP on using morse code for communications. "Rationality" is NOT defined as "being 'for' morse code." Of course the FCC doesn't have to follow that "vote" and probably won't. But to deny its existence is to deny reality. There is NO "vote" concerning NPRM 05-143. That's reality. The FCC has proposed eliminating ALL code testing for amateur radio license examinations. That's reality. The FCC has, in the past two years, allowed the public to comment on no less than 18 Petitions regarding code testing. That's reality. The FCC has NOT seen any "consensus" nor a real "majority" of opinion for or against morse code testing for an amateur radio license in the comments concerning amateur radio regulation petitions. That's reality. The FCC isn't a clubhouse manager for U.S. amateur radio to allow ONLY already-licensed radio amateurs to comment to them. That's reality. The Commission was notified on what I thought/analyzed in my Exhibit filing of 25 Movember 2005 along with a final tally sheet of the four categories of general comment opinions. Yes, you spammed them with dozens and dozens of pages of your verbiage. My 25 November 2005 filing only had 13 pages, 5 of which were of tally sheet tallies. NOT "dozens and dozens." I feel sorry for the poor souls at FCC who have to read all the worthless junk you send them, Len. I feel sorry for you, sissy civilian, for having such a hostile attitude towards freedom and equality in a radio hobby pursuit. Yes, Len, we know you can't deal with facts and opinions different from your own. :-) You are really going the way of Dudly the Imposter. I DEAL with them as they occur. You deal by denial. I DEAL with things based on my own experience and observations. I DEAL with things based on what happened in the real world of communications. I DEAL with dump hucks as I see they deserve. If you don't like that DEAL, go to another game and ask for a marked deck. That's your style. If someone had written Reply Comments to every procodetest comment, your system would have counted them as separate opinions even though they had the same author. That's not a valid way of analyzing opinion. In short, it stinks. Go stuff it in your I/O port, morseman. More important, you didn't follow the rules on Reply Comments back in 1999. "Rules?" The "rules" are given by the Commission, That's right. And you didn't follow them back in 1999. Well then, you are over 6 years LATE on bringing me up on "charges" before the Commission, aren't you? Make a "citizen's arrest" if you want. Hire Phil Kane if you can. :-) You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays. It's not about those things at all, Len. No? Then why are you so worried and agitated by it? Code testing doesn't involve you at all. Yes, it does. If the Amateur Radio Service is changed for the worse, I am affected. "For the worse?!?" BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tsk, you've lost your grip on reality. PCTA can accept only THEIR concept of reality. Unreal. Besides, you seem to think that one brave act means all must defer to your opinions and whims. Doesn't work that way. WHAT "brave act" have I done before the Commission? Go against the mighty macho motivated morsemen on code testing? Hardly a "brave act" to slap around some beep-happy old morsemen who are mired in their thinking and unable to accept change. Suppose you had been born in 1954, Len. That would have been an interesting alternate universe considering I was already IN the U.S. Army billeted in Japan then and had advanced to E-5 rank...and my parents (both naturalized U.S. citizens) were nowhere near Japan at the time. :-) Would you have volunteered to fight in Vietnam in 1972? The Southeast Asia Live Fire Exercise (Vietnam War) has already been OFFICIALLY designated as being August 4, 1964 to January 27, 1973 (date of ceasefire) by the U.S. Department of Defense. Oh, now I understand, would I have volunteered to fight FOR North Vietnam IN Vietnam in 1972? Most assuredly NOT. Most unequivocally NOT for the North! In 1972 I had already been discharged from all military obligations of the United States (my discharge was in 1960) and I had been, and was, working on Department of Defense contracts for electronics. In 1972 some of my work was on the Seismic Intrusion Devices (SIDs) that were intended to be used in Vietnam. [those used radio to report detected intrusions] In case it has escaped your movie-conditioned little mind, the United States has had a WORLDWIDE military presence since the end of WW2. One does NOT 'volunteer to fight' anywhere, in any service. One either gets drafted (the compulsory military service "draft" ended 27 January 1973) or volunteers to "defend the Constitution of the United States" and must accept whatever assignment anywhere as deemed necessary by the DoD. Nobody got a "choice of where to fight" unless one was the son of a prominent politician (Shrub) or some entertainment personality (Elvis). In other words, you and your neighbors wanted to stop other people from building certain types of buildings on *their own land* - because it would mess up your *view*. The only "other people" were contractor firms. Nobody owned "their own" land yet until the development was finished and inspected and approved by the city. The neighborhood organization was against the ZONING change from "R" (pure residential) to "R1" (residences plus aparments). The original plan was for "senior citizen apartments" which we neighbors did not like. Yes, a two- story house or apartment would block my VIEW that I enjoyed for over 30 years here. Perhaps you want me to sit back and take whatever "authorities" toss at me without complaint? HELL NO! None of us neighbors did. We showed up at the Zoning Commission meeting and made our voices heard. It was for naught according to a later investigation of graft on the part of the Zoning Commission. That parcel of land got rezoned to R1 over a decade ago and that was that. No action on development until several years later. Perhaps you weren't really learning the REAL Ben Franklin or even REAL history prior to 1776. Franklin was a royalist to begin with. Took him a VERY long time to actually side with the "revolutionaries." [recorded history, by the way] WE neighbors weren't sheep nor anything like that and protested. after spending 9 months of re-arranging the vacant land. How does anyone "rearrange" land? With a bulldozer? All manner of earth-moving equipment were used to move 220,000 cubic yards of soil (value from contractor final report, initial estimate was 250,000 cubic yards). Actual earth moving took eight months until the final moving was done for drainage, roadway, and forming the final lay of each plot. Nine months of the OHSA back-up beepers getting us up at 7 AM each working day of the week and some Saturdays. 44 homes on 15 acres is about a third of an acre each. WAYYYY INCORRECT. You are assuming flat land. Nowhere near that. Final building plots were on a quarter acre each average. Half a million each is a starter home, right? Subjective. So - you thought your "view" was more important than the newcomers' property rights. No, our neighborhood organization was against changing the ZONING from pure residential to residences-with- allowed-apartments. You thought that those 15 acres should not be developed, even though you didn't own them. Our neighborhood organization would accept the original "R" zoning rating of single-family residences. The Zoning Commission heard that. We objected to the "R1" zoning that allowed apartments. You resisted changes that brought in new people and more progress. What "progress?" :-) You have no huckin idea of what the development was/is, its original shape, the shape it is in now, landscaping or anything else. You are trying to toss out nasty sarcastic bad words to us that were here before them. :-) The SECOND developer managed to develop a walled community that houses about 150 total, nearly all with little bitty yards separated by concrete block walls. Right now there's a possibility of civil action by two neighbors where the original slope to the edge of the new walled community gave way and inundated their property. We'll just have to wait for that to sort itself out. Meanwhile, you will no doubt make nasty remarks to my old neighbors for DARING to PROTEST part of THEIR land from being covered? :-) You clung to the past and tried to hold back the future. I'm sorry, but you just don't grasp this NON-RADIO situation. ZONING laws, particularly in residential areas, ARE where the past is protected...for those who ALREADY live there. And you failed. Yes, we did. I reported that. :-) That's the breaks in political situations. And you FAILED. Yes. But ONLY for the ZONING change. We were able to enrich the pockets of some Zoning Commission members from payola from the first contractor...which led to him going out of business. :-) The second contractor is not in a good situation either since that company is forced to settle one way or the other. NO apartments were built, only single-family residences were finally built. That is a partial victory although the Zoning rating still allows for apartments on that land. What I find most interesting is that you fought change, progress, and newcomers. And you thought your views should count for more than the wants and needs of those who owned the land. What I find "interesting" is your continued hostility and ignorance of the situation, even when explained to you. I have well over a hundred images showing the earth-moving and the house building, have a small box of documents that go back 15 or so years on that parcel of land, copies of plans, etc. Our neighborhood organization didn't take anything lightly. What spin? What fabrication? What lies? All that you've tried to "charge." :-) I simply point out that you and your neighbors feared and opposed change in the neighborhood. That's the truth. OK, I simply point out that you are ignorant of the situation and you are a dump huck. beep beep |
Not Qualified
From: on Sun, Dec 4 2005 7:01 pm
wrote: From: on Dec 3, 3:01 pm K0HB wrote: 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). Been there, Hans. There we have it! Presence of his Body makes Him "official." :-) "Old Ironsides" is a museum piece. A fully operational museum piece that actually sails every few years, but a museum piece nonetheless. Her main functions are educational and historic, not military. Morse code testing for an amateur radio license is then also a "museum piece" How? Hans says the USS Constitution is not a "museum piece". So neither is a Morse Code test. So, Hans rightly explains a ship of the United States Navy and you somehow equate that with morse code testing?!? Incredible NON- connection! The USS Constitution is supported by Federal tax dollars and Federal law. So is the entire United States Navy! And the United States Coast Guard! :-) Why? You are NOT in the USN or USCG, have never served in uniform. You have never been in the USN or USCG either, Len. You're no more involved than I am. BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA...... So...you don't think the Army or the Air Force is part of the United States military? Hello? Jimmie, try to get your head on straight when you get up... You are NOT INVOLVED. Yes, I am. I pay Federal taxes. HAAAR! So do I...and for longer than you have, Jimmie. So they're not museum pieces. Which means Morse Code isn't either. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie must have voted for Al E. Gory and LOST! Guess you never heard whistle signals... Yes I have while engaged in team sports. :-) Yes, I have heard steam locomotive whistles. And the main point remains: Sailboats make up far less than 1% of the US military fleet. Was that the "main point?" :-) Yes. Earth to Jimmie, Earth to Jimmie, hello? This thread is about NPRM 05-143 and "qualifications" for an amateur radio license. It isn't about "sailboats" or the "U.S. military fleet." Jimmie be lost in another dimension of sight and sound. |
Not Qualified
wrote The Army found that out during the Battle of the Bulge...where every soldier, regardless of MOS, were suddenly IN "battle." Ever since the U.S. Army has made it a point to continue basic battle training long after soldiers have finished basic training. And your point is? All sorts of people in all sorts of jobs face danger every day, Len. The electric wires don't put themselves up, and when a storm knocks out the power, the crews don't get to wait for a sunny day to fix them. Jim, Lens point is that every serviceman and servicewoman in uniform serves with the understanding that their very life is pledged, at the very real risk of armed conflict, to serve their fellow man, commonly for material rewards less than that enjoyed by an Assistant Shift Manager at your local Burger King. In the past (and probably in the future) Len and I have found all sorts of reasons to disagree, but on this issue I come down four-square on his side. Comparing that pledge which Len, Brian, and several other here took, to the risks "suffered" by an electric company linemen or a construction worker is mean spirited and unbecoming. I don't much care whether you served in uniform or not (the majority of todays adults chose not to), but I will not quietly tolerate your insulting characterization of military service as somehow on the same order of risk and "nobleness" as a worker who sets up replacement power poles. And please don't add to the insult with your chant about "served in other ways". Just apologize to all of us, including Len, who served at risk of our very lives so you could enjoy the freedom to imply that our service was on the same order as a bridge painter. de Hans, K0HB |
Not Qualified...For WHAT...?!?!?
KØHB wrote: wrote The Army found that out during the Battle of the Bulge...where every soldier, regardless of MOS, were suddenly IN "battle." Ever since the U.S. Army has made it a point to continue basic battle training long after soldiers have finished basic training. And your point is? All sorts of people in all sorts of jobs face danger every day, Len. The electric wires don't put themselves up, and when a storm knocks out the power, the crews don't get to wait for a sunny day to fix them. Jim, Lens point is that every serviceman and servicewoman in uniform serves with the understanding that their very life is pledged, at the very real risk of armed conflict, to serve their fellow man, commonly for material rewards less than that enjoyed by an Assistant Shift Manager at your local Burger King. Yet Burger King managers, newspaper sellers, grocery clerks, etc, get killed every day doing their jobs, often defending those places against an armed foe. In the past (and probably in the future) Len and I have found all sorts of reasons to disagree, but on this issue I come down four-square on his side. Comparing that pledge which Len, Brian, and several other here took, to the risks "suffered" by an electric company linemen or a construction worker is mean spirited and unbecoming. I don't much care whether you served in uniformor not (the majority of todays adults chose not to), but I will not quietly tolerate your insulting characterization of military service as somehow on the same order of risk and "nobleness" as a worker who sets up replacement power poles. And please don't add to the insult with your chant about "served in other ways". Sorry, Hans...we have to disagree here. Follow OSHA safety stats there are jobs far more dangerous and less "rewarding", both in pecuniary renumeratioon and job satisfaction, than serving in the Armed Forces. Just apologize to all of us, including Len, who served at risk of our very lives so you could enjoy the freedom to imply that our service was on the same order as a bridge painter. Jim owes no one an apology here, Hans...Not when you consider one of those who DID serve USED the deaths of men who DID die in battle well before he was even out of High School to "polish his brass" in this very same forum. The fact of the matter is that many men DO face danger far more routinely than the average service man, short of toe-to-toe armed conflict, will face. I note that Lennie takes great pains to try and "expose" the "myths and mythos" of Amateur Radio and places himslef above "mere mortals" for his enlightenment of it. Funny coming from a guy who wanted us to know how courageously he "fought"...errrrr..."served" under the threat of the Soviet Bear Tu-95 (not in service when he was), or how others dare not tell HIM what it was like being under incomming artillery fire. (not unless the "Cannon Cockers" on the practice range accidentilly aimed the wrong way...) The fact of the matter is that cops, firemen, powerline workers, slaughterhouse workers, and a laundry list of others face more imminent danger than we did in the Armed Forces on an average day. Yes, that oath to "uphold and defend" the Constitution takes on a more direct implication of imminent mortal danger, but the truth of the matter is a serviceman is more likely to get killed in a training acident or get hit by a drunk driver than to be a KIA. The bottom line is that while we depend on the Armed Forces to keep our borders safe and the "bad guys" at bay, all those other "served in other ways" people are no less integral to creating and maintaining our way of life. 73 Steve, K4YZ PS: At this point "I Served Under the Bear" Anderson and "ANOTHER Court Martial?" Gilliland can come out swinging, but who cares? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com