RadioBanter - If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

From: 951 on Sun, Sep 10 2006 3:28 pm

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 7 2006 6:42 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 4 2006 5:30 pm
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am
It's not a manufactured dispute, Len. You brought it up, now you don't
want to hear about it.

Let's review that one:

You and some of your neighbors tried to keep the zoning ordinances in
your neighborhood stuck in the past.

Okay, so this is retro on not on amateur radio, but let's
review how Jimmy MANUFACTURES something out of nothing.
When the original part of my "neighborhood" was zoned,
it was all Residential, Single Family homes. Normally
such residential zones remain as-is for many decades.
They aren't whim-changed to the "latest model" in zoning
codes...especially residential zones.

Radio regulations aren't usually changed on a whim, either.

Tsk. "Radio regulations" are changed in a democratic
process where someone petitions the FCC, the FCC then
publishes a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on it and
gives ALL CITIZNS the chance to Comment on it. The FCC
then does some review and analysis of all Comments and
decides. That is HARDLY a "whim," sweetums. Everyone
interested can Petition their government but that doesn't
set well with you ham homies, does it?
You are on some self-imposed Character Assassin on a
Mission and MUST have your way! [you can't kill but
you hope to talk everyone to death? :-) ]

"A house is a house is a HOME"?

A house is just a building.

People make it a home.

Lovely homily. Did you have homily grits for breakfast?

Get it from a "Little Morse on the Prarie" episode?

Despite all the changes that have
occured since the early 1960s, you did not want the zoning changed.

What were "all the changes that have[sic] occured since
the early 1960s" in my neighborhood,

Well, for one, there was a developer who was willing to take on
developing a piece of vacant land.

In the 1980s, sweetums, NOT in the 1960s or 1970s. You are
OFF by 20 years and more.

But the point is that a lot of changes have occurred in the real-estate
and construction industries in 40+ years. New technologies - new
methods - new financial and tax environments.

Tsk. I'm acquainted with most of those...IN THIS AREA.
You are NOT. You MIGHT pull out a "Ramsey and Sleeper"
('Architectural Graphic Standards', Wiley) and crib from
that (you can find them in used book stores now fairly
cheap) but you would be, as usual, behind times. I have
up-to-date Codes on Los Angeles buildings, electrical,
plumbing and can get Expert information on "tax
environments" and "financial environments" from two
different neighbors...plus a couple of realtors I know
and three long-time building equipment suppliers as well.
Can you say the same? NO. NOT in this area.

People also live differently. There are more blended families, more
divorced people, more two-career-with children families, etc.

WTF? Have you been raiding the pop culture magazines at
your corner newsstand?

More diversity, IOW.

Los Angeles has been DIVERSE for a long, long time. I
could go into a long list of various ethnic groupings
here but that would only anger you some more. :-)

But you wanted to keep your neighborhood stuck in the past, with the
"little boxes on the hillside'...

We weren't "stuck in the past," Jimmie. We LIVE here.
The hillsides go up and down roughly 900 feet in
elevation and the "boxes" average about 21,000 square
feet floorspace. My back yard is 820 feet MSL (that's
a term from aviation referring to above Mean Sea
Level), and quite unlikely to be flooded. :-) The area
ground is mostly decomposed granite and quite stable.

Sure - 40 years ago, Does that mean the zoning should never ever
change?

Zoning should NOT change on a whim. LIVING, in a
home isn't subject to radio regulations. Humans have
had homes for thousands of years. Radio is only 110
years old, early radio hardly comparable to modern
radio; it has changed many times in that short span.

Try reading up on Real Property, the concept and the
laws governing it over the known thousands of years
of humans having homes.

Or did they mean homes with apartments attached, as for relatives
(sometimes called "mother-in-law suites"?

Last I looked, mothers in law ARE FAMILY. Do YOU have a
mother in law, Jimmy? Mine have passed on.

Here's a clue, Len: An apartment can be a home, same as a 'house' can
be a home.

Here's a BIGGER "clue," Jimmy: This thread is about "using
'CW' in an emergency" not your constant bringing-up of old
Character Assassination charges. Besides, I mentioned
ZONING ordinances, not your small-caliber assassination
ammunition.

That owner
managed to get the zoning code changed over the protests
of several of us and the neighborhood association at
a city zoning board meeting in the middle of the 1990s.

"Several of you". Interesting. Hundreds of homes in your neighborhood
but only "several of you" protested.

Tsk, your argument is over minutae. I didn't do an Exact
Head Count sweetums. Neither am I going to trot out old
paperwork just to refute some kind of weird "charges" you
bring up. The meetings had OVER a hundred people based
on filling the two meeting places, both having a maximum-
occupancy fire marshall's sign. :-)

Pay attention to what you quoted from me later on...there's
a number there...but you didn't comment on that.

The point is you opposed the change.

And you thought those who were already *in* the neighborhood should
overrule those who were trying to "get into" the neighhborhood.

Ah, your "point" is clear. :-) You are trying to make
an analogy to amateur radio regulations and the arguments
over retention/elimination of the morse code test.

Okay, so you must LIVE in "the bands" with your little
Elecraft. My neighbors and I live in HOMES HERE, not
really concerning themselves with radiotelegraphy.

Not only have you mixed metaphors but you have mixed
your fruit cocktail of "analogies" very, very badly.

IOW, he went through the hazing ritual of meeting *your* concept of the
neighborhood. More little boxes on the hillside....

"Hazing ritual?" :-) It is common practice for a
developer in an established neighborhood to meet with
those already in the neighborhood and associations of
that neighborhood. Here's how it works:

(1) The developer does planning and submits that to
the city agencies for approval.

(2) It is NOT necessary by law to have the developer
meet with an established neighborhood, but is a
good PR move and avoids problems later on.

(3) Established neighborhoods really have NO say in
the type/kind of dwellings approved by the city.
We could take that to our city councilmembers if
there was a reason to "change" things.

That
developer needed 9 months of earth moving about a quarter
million cubic yards of soil to make those lots; it was
a VERY rough terrain to begin with.

And you complained about the noise, too...

Ah, we should be SHEEP accepting everything? :-) You
don't understand the scope of operations on 15 acres
adjacent to one's back yard, do you? Want to listen to
at least a dozen OHSA back-up beepers from 7 AM to late
afternoon? Of course you do, must be like morse code
on "the bands." :-)

The 44 houses were
built (sold before completion, despite the rising cost
of homes) in a gated community called "Montelena."
Very upscale. The neighborhood association did not
fight that. We were back to the original zoning code,
all single family residences.

Right - you kept the status quo. They had to do it the way you did it -
single family detached homes on a particular size of lot (1/3 to 1/4
acre).

"Status quo?" From undeveloped property being a part of
nature to developed houses with streets, hillside irrigation
and landscaping. Damndest definition of "status quo" I've
seen in years! :-)

Most of the new 44 lots were on quarter-acre plots, had to
be two-story all of them. Pricing was "above $400K" and
ALL were sold before construction, landscaping was
finished.

No twins, no duplexes, no triplexes, no townhomes, and most of
all no (shudder) APARTMENTS!

"Townhomes?" Hardly any of those outside of Center City in
Los Angeles, Jimmy. Townhomes are for the old, old structures
back east, like in Philly. :-)

but as the neighborhood association as a group
wanted it (over 400 residence members). Those of us who
OWN residences and LIVE in them understand that a residence
area should change zoning laws as little as possible.

How is that any different from those of us *in* amateur radio and who
participate in it. who understand that a some regulations should change
as little as possible?

Oh, dear, you are REALLY stuck in comparing lettuce with
lava, aren't you? :-)

Earth to Jimmy: Come in, Jimmy, you are drifting too far
into deep space with your analogy vessel. You are starting
to resemble "Brewster Rockit, space guy" in the comic strips.

Yawn, there is MORE of Jimmy's exercise in assassination
futility.

The
neighborhood association wanted the original single-family
residence zoning kept. Not just me, several hundred others
all were of the same opinion about our homes and adjacent
areas.

How many others did not oppose the zoning changes?

Those weren't polled, Jimmy. L.A. has a few million
in population. I suppose somewhere, someone would be
"opposed" to just about anything, but they all seemed
to be OUT of our city council district and never present
at the neighborhood meetings.

What about the people who wanted to live in the residences the first
developer wanted to build? What did they want? Did anyone ask *them*?

The city of Los Angeles has a practice of mailing and/or
handing out notices of new construction adjacent to
residence areas, utility repairs and changes, and just
about everything involving residential areas. As far
as that goes, it would be safe to say that ALL were
"asked." If some don't want to reply, well, that is
their business. It sure as hell isn't YOUR business
to act all huffy and whacko about a residential are in
another state at least 2000 miles away from you. :-)

Oh, and there are dozens of basic house plans
in several hundred acres of "my" neighborhood and only 2
others are of the same plan as mine.

But they're all basically the same - single-family-detached residences
of a certain age, size and construction.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! In your twister logic an H3 is "the same"
as a Mini Cooper...both have four wheels on the ground, have
steel construction, have seats inside, are painted on the
outside. "Basically the same?" You are nuts. Have a nice
dance on your twister pattern.

Why should radio amateurs not oppose the changes an outsider like you
wants to force on us, when you opposed the changes an outsider tried to
force on your neighborhood?

The amateur bands are a sort of home to us, not you.

Jimmy boy, get a grip on reality. The FCC makes the regulations
that all ham homies have to obey. ALL. "The bands" can change
at any time on lawful order of the FCC. The FCC is NOT INVOLVED
in residential zoning, dwelling construction, or even utility
services to communities (except for incidental RFI from power
lines, and certain things about wireline telephone and TV
service).

The FCC is bound by law to listen to ALL interested citizens
on ALL radio and wireline and interstate communications
services. That includes the mobile radio "trailer park" you
describe "the bands" to be. If there is a nearby (not IN my
neighborhood) radio amateur causing RFI to me or my neighbors
we have EVERY right to complain to the FCC about that amateur.
If you don't like the EM spectrum where "you live" you have
every right to move to another allocated band. You have that
OPTION. But you are restricted BY LAW to the little homie
ham bands. I can go live anywhere I want (very few
restrictions), house, apartment, mobile home, a different
city, a different state. Freely.

Can't do the same with a residence building. It stays
fixed and so do the utilities and the real estate taxes
while we really LIVE in our homes. We can't "turn off"
anything adjacent to a residence if we don't like it, not
like you can with your little radio. Most of us neighbors
don't LIVE in our radios or TVs, Jimmy. Just about ALL of
us. There's some here who HAVE radios and computers and
cell phones (1 in 3 Americans have cell phones) but most of
us don't "LIVE" in them. "Max Headroom" "lived" in a
computer-TV but he wasn't real. Are you REAL, Jimmy, or
just a wigment of your own imagination?

I bought my home-house-dwelling-livingplace in 1963, $30,500
for building and land, 6 1/4% mortgage. In today's market-
place I could get $600K (give or take) on it and move
elsewhere, still save money. [I like it HERE] Can you do
that with your "radio home," Jimmy? Remember, amateur radio
is "without pecuniary interest!" :-)

Will I see you at the next Los Angeles City meeting
concerned with dwellings, residences, etc.? Why not?
Could it be that you are not only a NON-PARTICIPANT in
being a Los Angeles resident? Or maybe its because all
you really wanted to do is attempt Character Assassination
in a newsgroup? You failed at that, too, Jimmy. Bye-eee.