wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 7:37 am

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 3:36 pm
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 4:31 am

What does that have to do with me? I do not know who "Lloyd" is, where
s/he is, or what the disagreement between "Lloyd" and "Mark" is. He has
not threatened to "use a 2x4 to bang on the heads of 1x2s."

Awwww..."you don't know...." Poor thing isn't aware or
informed. [David Horowitz would be horrified]

I don't read everything that is posted to rrap, Len. I don't even read
most of it. Too much noise.

[he should have turned on the BFO...pretend its "CW"]

you can't read 10 percent of RRAP and miss the calls for my death Jim

Jim's an Extra. Like the "Patriot Act," he's able to monitor all
posts, pull the key words out, if they aren't the key words he wants,
he closes it up and erases his mind...

"Patriotism" to him is agreeing with him and the ARRL. He is
"above" all that "riff-raff" (no-code-test advocates).

Here's a plain and simple fact:

If you don't agree with him, you are WRONG. sigh



I agree with very little of what Jim says.

Well, Brian, now you can be "officially" WRONG most of the time!
:-)

[getting to be a rather large group we are in]

Okay, let's everyone learn morse code to FIGHT TERRORISM!!!

Wheee... :-)

wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 3:36 pm
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 4:31 am

[et cetera, et cetera... :-)

You're not the King, Len. I predict that Yul try to be funny, but Yul
fail.

I don't read everything that is posted to rrap, Len. I don't even read
most of it. Too much noise.

Turn on your BFO. Pretend its "CW." Remember that "CW"
gets through (noise) when nothing else will... :-)

Doesn't change the fact that I don't read much of rrap. A few posts a
day at most.

Jimmy is "too good" to associate with
"riff-raff." He be royalty. Blue blood, etc. Blue in face.

Well, you can't be talking about me, then. No royalty or blue blood
here. Just a red-blooded American.

Yes. You're shouting and name-calling and carrying on like an overtired
two-year-old.

The FCC has no age limit on amateur radio licensees.

Despite the fact that you want such a limit.

Ah, but now Jimmy DOESN'T LIKE two-year-olds!

Actually, I like them just fine. Real two-year-olds, that is, not
adults behaving like two-year-olds.

Hello, a plain and simple fact of hypocrisy in action...:-)

There's a person in Sun Valley, CA who wants the real estate zoning in
"his" neighborhood to be unchanged. He thinks the fact that he owns
property there - has an investment there, really - gives him rights
which supersede those of others might want to buy property there, or
build there. Doesn't matter what real estate experience the Outsiders
have, he thinks they should have no voice in changing the zoning in
"his" neighborhood. The Government should use The Law to enforce his
wishes against Outsiders.

But at the same time, he wants to change the rules for Amateur Radio,
in which he has no investment and no participation. He thinks the fact
that he has some experience outside Amateur Radio makes him more
qualified to judge the rules for Amateur Radio than those who really
are amateur radio operators. He does not intend to become an amateur
radio operator, he just wants to stay on the outside and change the
rules, so The Government will use The Law to enforce *his* wishes.

You mean that kind of action?

I pushed your buttons, mighty morseman
and you come back in TYPICAL fashion, all prissy-sissy.

I guess you would rather I behaved like you...

Jimmy got his buttons
pushed. Then he got his panties in a knot. Poor baby.

Len, uou're the one behaving like an overtired two-year-old here. Not
me.

Threat of violence.

You mean like "slashed tires," "bricks through windows,"
and implications of arriving at your house with "the boys?"

Who wrote those words? Not me.

You take a simple word-
play phrase and MANUFACTURE something unbelievable out
of it!

Hitting people on the head with a 2x4 isn't what I wrote. It's what you
wrote. Like the stuff about sight targets and the medical examiner....

Both NCVEC and NCI have proposed schemes that would reduce the written
test requirements.

The subject was NOT the
NCVEC or NCI.

It was about the proposed reduction of written testing by no-code-test
advocates. Both NCI and NCVEC - who are no-code-test advocates - have
also proposed license schemes with reductions in written testing.

But you still think it's a good idea.

Jimmy just can't let go of
the chance to point his finger at "enemies" and say they
are "wrong!" :-)

You've not given one single bit of evidence of problems in the Amateur
Radio Service caused by the licensing of young people.

Jimmy just can't let go of
the chance to point his finger at "enemies" and say they
are "wrong!" :-)

I'm just pointing out the fact that your behavior goes far beyond
trying to eliminate the Morse Code test.

Jimmy just can't let go of
the chance to point his finger at "enemies" and say they
are "wrong!" :-)

DROP it, Jimmy. I did, long ago.

Then why do you keep arguing about it?

Jimmy bring it up, gets
into "error" mode, then says OTHER PERSON "brought it up."

Amazing.

I didn't say you brought it up, Len. I said you're arguing about it.

Do get your quotes right.

Riiiight...but you love to attempt controlling what I
write! :-)

You're obvioulsy out of control here, Len.

Jimmy he OBVIOLSY gone off
the deep end without floatation collar...

"OBVIOLSY"?

It was in a statement by an FCC official. You missed it - I didn't.

I check the Federal Register daily...the FCC website weekly.

When and by whom was this "statement" made?

Look it up.

You don't KNOW? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

I know. Why should I tell you? Are you incapable of looking it up?

When Jimmy can't bring up
some piece of data he says vague things like "look it up"
to misdirect readers into thinking the OTHER party is
"wrong."

That's not me, Len. It's what *you* do. You say others have written
certain words here, but then cannot produce quotes to back up your
claims.

I'm not yelling and I'm not on the sidelines. You are.

WRONG.

Typing in all capitals is yelling, Len. You're not part of amateur
radio.

I'm not yelling and I'm not on the sidelines. You are.

Amateur morsemen like Jimmy
presume that AMATEUR radio is the ONLY radio activity. So,
if one is not in THEIR narrow field of activity, they are on
the "outside." :-)

No, that's not true at all. You're on the outside of amateur radio. And
you're yelling.

Actually, the FCC did agree with me on some things.

Yes, they "agreed" to accept a Comment or two in the ECFS. :-)

You should read the footnotes to the NPRM.

Are you ASHAMED of your job?

Oh, no. I'm proud of it.

"Proud" of WHAT?

My job.

Proud of NOTHING?

Oh no - proud of my job. Why shouldn't I be?

AFRAID someone will POKE FUN at it?

Not at all.

But you refuse to talk about what you do.

That's not being afraid. It's common sense.

Jimmy never describes what he
does as an "electronics professional."

Why should anyone tell you about their job, Len?

Why should I respect you, considering the way you behave here?

Jimmy be smug, arrogant
amateur morseman but imagines he is the noblest ham of all
in looking down big nose at others.


Len:

Why should anyone respect you, considering the way you behave here?

wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

Yes, subsidies. The projects could not pay for themselves, so they were
subsidized. Without taxpayer money, the projects - and your jobs -
would not have existed.

When Jimmy is pressed
for a valid reply to a challenge, he MANUFACTURES new
definitions for elementary socio-economic structures as above.

?? I didn't manufacture any definitions.

The government-funded projects you worked on could not pay for
themselves, so they were paid for with taxpayer money. IOW, a
government subsidy.

Without "taxpayer money" the USA would cease to exist as a nation.

That's self-evident, Len. Why do you bother to mention it?

Economics requires ALL areas
of society/government to have to-from exchange of monies.

"All areas"? Probably not. However, that's irrelevant.

The fact is that government-funded projects are actually
taxpayer-funded. If someone works on such a project, they are being
subsidized - paid - by the taxpayers.

Unlike free-market businesses, government projects do not have to meet
the same economic criteria as private industry. For example, NASA
cannot operate like a private industry, because the capital costs are
too high and the short-term Return On Investment is too low. So the
taxpayers fund NASA.

Jimmy NEVER say any detail
of HIS subsidies, thinks he can get away with pointing fingers
at others, saying "shame, shame." :-)

Where have I said subsidies are a bad thing, Len?

You're projecting your own feelings again. *You* don't like subsidies,
even though you've been on the receiving end of them, so you react to
the word negatively.

... If your employer was paid by the govt. for work you did, then
your paycheck came from the taxpayers.

INCORRECT AGAIN!

No, it's correct. "Your paycheck" means "the money you were paid". If
your employer was paid by the govt. for work you did, then your
paycheck - the money - came from the taxpayers.

Are you ashamed of that?

My salary checks came from private businesses/corporations.

So what? The money came from the taxpayers.

Prove that. Show your work. :-)

It's self-evident, Len. By definition, government-funded projects are
paid for by the taxpayers.

That work of mine begins
in 1948 according to the Social Security Administration and IRS,
continues up to the end of 2005. [see also Illinois tax laws
and California Franchise Tax Board after 1955...and
ESPECIALLY the Department of Defense 1952 to 1956 inclusive]

That's nice, Len.

WHY do you think that ONLY "taxpayers" "subsidized" my
income, Jimmy? Haven't you been paying attention? Some of
my income was NOT involved in DoD or NASA contracts, but
rather on "the open market" (Jimmy call it "free market").

So what? Nobody said that *all* your work was taxpayer-funded (i.e.,
subsidized). Just the part that was government work.

In your anger and haste, you've misunderstood what I wrote.

Can you state HOW MUCH was open-market and HOW MUCH was
(in your disturbed terms) "subsidized by taxpayers?"

Don't you know, Len?

The projects could not pay for themselves in the free market, so they
were subsidized. Without taxpayer money, the projects - and your jobs,
and your paychecks - would not have existed.

So...Communications Technology Inc., BYTE Books, Micro-
computing magazine, Scandinavian Airlines System, several
radio and TV broadcast stations, post-production audio
services in the entertainment industry, three companies
making electronic test equipment sold on the "open market"
plus two art studios, a photographic studio, and three
private individuals whom I've been hired to do contract
writing were ALL SUBSIDIZED BY THE [US] TAXPAYER ?!?

Were they doing government projects?

btw, you sure seem to have gone through a lot of employers.

Go for it, Jimmy, show us the intimate connection between
the US Treasury, IRS, at least two states' income taxes
and ALL THOSE COMPANIES, CORPORATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
PAYING ME from their "taxpayer subsidized" monies.

Why?

Don't you know?

It's simple finances, Len.

Jimmy loves to play the
smug, arrogant "know-it-all" yet makes wild leaps into
areas where he doesn't know a damn thing.

??

But, you still don't have the GUTS to tell "the rest of us"
in this newsgroup what, where of your employment, do you?

It's not about "guts", Len.

"Gut" and "guts" are acceptible medical terms, believe it
or not.

"acceptible"?

Check with your MD (or veterinarian, whichever
applies to you).

Check with your dictionary ;-)

No, you want to negatively criticize those of us who are
proud and enthusiastic about what we do, have done.

It seems you cannot tolerate any criticism or dissent, Len. Even though
you criticize the work of others, no one must say boo about your work.

Jimmy looks into a mirror,
sees himself, thinks OTHERS are causing that image.

No, such images are caused by optical reflection. Basic optics, Len.

Jimmy NEVER talks about what he does in any DETAIL for a
living.

Len, why should anyone who disagrees with you tell you anything about
themselves, their work, their families, etc.? Telling you such things
always has a negative ROI.

I've seen how you have criticized the work of health care
professionals, professional radio and communications people (including
both military and government-service radio operators), mechanical
engineers, electrical engineers, etc. - if they dare to disagree with
you about the Morse Code test for an amateur radio license. Given that
behavior, why should I tell you anything about myself?

He has presented some black-and-white digitized
photographs of his 1974 ham radio project

You mean the receiver? That was just one of my 1974 projects. It was a
really good receiver, built for almost no money. I've built a lot more
since then.

and implied it was used today,

Where? You have made another mistake, Len.

ignoring his earlier messaging about
assembling an Elecraft KIT...

Len, you're really on a roll with the mistakes this time....

all the while implying he
"DESIGNED and built his own radios." :-)

Where did I say that, Len? You're just adding to the mistake pile.

Amateur morsemen are constantly negatively criticizing my
"work."

Can't you 'take the heat' of newsgroup give-and-take, Len? It seems you
want to give but never take - criticize but never be criticized -
behave one way but demand that others behave differently. (Then when
they *do* behave differently from you, you criticize that)

Some are JEALOUS about a chance Army assignment
in a big time HF communications station.

Well, that leaves me out. I'm not jealous of you, Len.

Some are ENVIOUS of what I've done.

Well, that leaves me out. I'm not envious of you, Len.

Some are ANGRY because they feel
FRUSTRATED in not being able to advance their own work
and try to relieve that frustration by their asshole
syndrome postings.

Well, that leaves me out. I'm not angry or frustrated about not being
able to advance my own work, Len. I'm not even angry at you. I almost
feel sorry for you, sometimes, because you waste so much energy on
spouting your anger here.

And your postings speak for themselves. What they say isn't very nice.

Sure I have the guts to do so. I also have the common sense not to.
It's not about courage, either.

BULL****.

Well, you're the authority on that subject, Len ;-)

You are AFRAID to reveal anything about your work.

Nope. I'm not afraid at all. The ROI of telling you personal
information is all negative. Why should anyone do that?

How can I make up what you actually wrote?

It's a simple request for you to back up your claims.

Jimmy states "claims
are not backed up" even when his own claims aren't
"backed up" by anything other than old ARRL maxims.

In the cases I cited, you have claimed that I wrote certain things here
on rrap. But you can not or will not show where I wrote what you claim
I did. So why should anyone believe what you claim I said, when it
would be a simple matter for you to post links to the alleged quotes?

You get really mad when someone brings up things you wrote in the past,
and then verifies them with links and actual quotes. Like your classic
"sphincters" posting - that was a real doozy.

IOW, you cannot provide anything to back up your claims.

Jimmy couldn't "back
up" his "claims" that the US taxpayer "subsidized" all
my paychecks. [for good reason since I have all my
tax receipts and he doesn't]

I didn't say *all* your paychecks were taxpayer subsidized, Len. You've
made yet another mistake.

Besides, OLD POSTS are in the past...they've already been
argued over. You are NOT going to "win" any such OLD
argument by repetition of the SAME posts from archives!
But...you keep on trying and trying and trying. You got
very trying a long time ago.

IOW, you know I'm right and are trying to weasel out of backing up what
you claim I said.

You're proving that you are "all talk no action" by doing so.

OLD newsgroup arguments
ran their course and stopped.

Yet you keep making the same mistakes....

Here, Jimmy, read my finger...

Gee, that's really mature, Len - not!

Now be a little more grown-up and go work on your people skills, Len -
and your Morse Code skills....

" wrote in
ps.com:


wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 7:37 am

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 3:36 pm
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 4:31 am

What does that have to do with me? I do not know who "Lloyd"
is, where s/he is, or what the disagreement between "Lloyd"
and "Mark" is. He has not threatened to "use a 2x4 to bang on
the heads of 1x2s."

Awwww..."you don't know...." Poor thing isn't aware or
informed. [David Horowitz would be horrified]

I don't read everything that is posted to rrap, Len. I don't
even read most of it. Too much noise.

[he should have turned on the BFO...pretend its "CW"]

you can't read 10 percent of RRAP and miss the calls for my death
Jim

Jim's an Extra. Like the "Patriot Act," he's able to monitor all
posts, pull the key words out, if they aren't the key words he
wants, he closes it up and erases his mind...

"Patriotism" to him is agreeing with him and the ARRL. He is
"above" all that "riff-raff" (no-code-test advocates).

Here's a plain and simple fact:

If you don't agree with him, you are WRONG. sigh



I agree with very little of what Jim says.

Well, Brian, now you can be "officially" WRONG most of the time!
:-)

[getting to be a rather large group we are in]

Okay, let's everyone learn morse code to FIGHT TERRORISM!!!

Wheee... :-)





If you two would put your brain cell together you'll be twice as smart as
Markie.

SC

From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:01 am


wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 3:36 pm
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 4:31 am


You're not the King, Len. I predict that Yul try to be funny, but Yul
fail.

Brynner is dead. So is your line.


I don't read everything that is posted to rrap, Len. I don't even read
most of it. Too much noise.

Turn on your BFO. Pretend its "CW." Remember that "CW"
gets through (noise) when nothing else will... :-)

Doesn't change the fact that I don't read much of rrap. A few posts a
day at most.

As I said, you are too good for the riff-raff...



There's a person in Sun Valley, CA who wants the real estate zoning in
"his" neighborhood to be unchanged. He thinks the fact that he owns

Tsk, tsk, more beating on a dead horse. What is with you
and all that necrophilia?


Jimmy got his buttons
pushed. Then he got his panties in a knot. Poor baby.

Len, uou're the one behaving like an overtired two-year-old here. Not
me.

Jimmy got his buttons pushed. Then he got his panties
wet and tried to push back. Not enough strength. Boo hoo.


You mean like "slashed tires," "bricks through windows,"
and implications of arriving at your house with "the boys?"

Who wrote those words? Not me.

A US amateur extra with callsign K4YZ. He is too good for
you to scold. Or you are in fear of him and thus don't
scold.


Hitting people on the head with a 2x4 isn't what I wrote. It's what you
wrote.

...and that shocks you, poor frightened little person?


It was about the proposed reduction of written testing by no-code-test
advocates. Both NCI and NCVEC - who are no-code-test advocates - have
also proposed license schemes with reductions in written testing.

NCVEC wants to eliminate the written tests? I don't think so.



I'm just pointing out the fact that your behavior goes far beyond
trying to eliminate the Morse Code test.

Jimmy just can't let go of
the chance to point his finger at "enemies" and say they
are "wrong!" :-)

DROP it, Jimmy. I did, long ago.

Then why do you keep arguing about it?

Jimmy bring it up, gets
into "error" mode, then says OTHER PERSON "brought it up."

Amazing.

I didn't say you brought it up, Len. I said you're arguing about it.

Wow...what a HYPOCRITICAL *little* person you are, Jimmy.

You constantly bring back very dead horses to ARGUE over
them, then say ANY respondent is "arguing" about them!


You're obvioulsy out of control here, Len.

Jimmy he OBVIOLSY gone off
the deep end without floatation collar...

"OBVIOLSY"?

YOU made the typo, now sleep with it... :-)


Typing in all capitals is yelling, Len. You're not part of amateur
radio.

Oh, oh, cross-dressing Jimmy comes with Mother Superior
again, yelling "Don't YELL in CAPITALS!" :-)

Busy ruler try to go spank, spank, spank...making lots of
noise but inflicting nothing... :-)


I'm not yelling and I'm not on the sidelines. You are.

I'm at my computer station, saying nothing...:-)


No, that's not true at all. You're on the outside of amateur radio. And
you're yelling.

Sweetums, I've been on the INSIDE of RADIO-ELECTRONICS, the
professional kind and the hobbyist kind for over half a
century. :-)

Where have you been? In the transportation industry and NOT
in professional radio, only doing the bippity-beeping on your
ham radio. :-)


Are you ASHAMED of your job?

Oh, no. I'm proud of it.

"Proud" of WHAT?

My job.

Proud of NOTHING?

Oh no - proud of my job. Why shouldn't I be?

You are proud of NOTHING. :-)


AFRAID someone will POKE FUN at it?

Not at all.

But you refuse to talk about what you do.

That's not being afraid. It's common sense.

You are afraid of being found out as an imposter?

You are afraid of losing your "job" if your boss
finds out?


Jimmy never describes what he
does as an "electronics professional."

Why should anyone tell you about their job, Len?

It is common among REAL radio-electronics professionals to
talk about what they do to other pros. Some call that
"shop talk." Lots and lots of such "shop talk" goes on at
electronics trade shows, in the various publications of
the IEEE.

Oh, yes, I forgot that you do NOT belong to the IEEE, a
professional organization. I do. 397 thousand OTHERS
belong to the IEEE all around the world. Of course, you
are "too good" to belong to a professional organization,
aren't you. They are beneath you?

You are an amateur extra and SO much better than the pros
in radio.

Ho hum. Jimmy have great delusions of grandeur...

From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:31 pm


wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

The government-funded projects you worked on could not pay for
themselves, so they were paid for with taxpayer money. IOW, a
government subsidy.

Tsk...I'll have to contact the Department of Agriculture
to get "my subsidy money" that is "owed" me. :-)

The fact is that government-funded projects are actually
taxpayer-funded. If someone works on such a project, they are being
subsidized - paid - by the taxpayers.

Whaaa, whaaa, whaaa cries Jimmy, wanting that dead horse
to come alive so he can beat it to death again...! :-)

Unlike free-market businesses, government projects do not have to meet
the same economic criteria as private industry. For example, NASA
cannot operate like a private industry, because the capital costs are
too high and the short-term Return On Investment is too low. So the
taxpayers fund NASA.

Ever been to Kern County Airport #7, Jimmy? That's the
location of a private company called "Scaled Composities."
They've already been to outer space and back...twice.

NASA paid Scaled Composites? Well, did they? No, you
say?

Kern County Airport #7 is actually quite a big airport,
an old USMC aircraft training location during WW2 and now
home to many corporations, including several civilian
flight test companies and at least one large used-aircraft
reseller. The latter looks like a civilian version of
Davis-Monthan AFB.


You're projecting your own feelings again. *You* don't like subsidies,
even though you've been on the receiving end of them, so you react to
the word negatively.

I haven't grown any crops lately, either. :-)


No, it's correct. "Your paycheck" means "the money you were paid". If
your employer was paid by the govt. for work you did, then your
paycheck - the money - came from the taxpayers.

Heh heh heh...some of it came from ME! By your weird-ass
logic I was self-employed!!!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you ashamed of that?

Not at all. Except for laws of the US on espionage and
classified information, whatever private business
restrictions signed-for, I can talk about all sorts of
work I've done. Heck and darn, lil Jimmy, some of that
has been written up in public periodicals! :-)

You are ashamed to state what you work on except for the
most vague way...such as being in the "transport industry."


It's self-evident, Len.

We know you are "self-evident," Jimmy. yawn

Bus drivers are in the "transport industry." Larry
Roll, the soma-cum-loud "graduate" in "Human
Resources" (personnel department work) was a bus
driver!

Are you a bus driver, Jimmy?


By definition, government-funded projects are
paid for by the taxpayers.

"By definition?!?" Whose "definition?"

My Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary,
1989, says simply "...a grant of money, as from the government
to a private organization."

Doesn't mention "taxpayers" at all. I have yet to get a
grant from the government. [I'd like to, sort of like "free
money" in my viewpoint] I have yet to get a grant from
any organization.

I can see that someone who does so much nothing that they
can't describe what they do would be sorely ****ed that
others get/got comfortable salaries for working on government
contracts. Yes, we feel your pain, Jimmy.



So what? Nobody said that *all* your work was taxpayer-funded (i.e.,
subsidized). Just the part that was government work.

"Nobody" else dwells on this "subsidy" bull****, Jimmy.

Only you.

What happened, did the Dept. of Agriculture turn down your
offer to NOT plant certain crops so you could get a real
subsidy?


btw, you sure seem to have gone through a lot of employers.

You betcha. Lots and lots of employers were here in
southern California aerospace, Jimmy.

Too bad you weren't part of it. You sat there on the
sidelines in "EPA" (Eastern Pennsylvania) (bad acronym
since you aren't involved with Environmental Protection
Agency).

I've lived in southern California for 50 years, Jimmy.

There, a NEW thing you can make all sorts of implications
about...have a ball!



Check with your dictionary ;-)

I already did. Your weird-ass "definition" of subsidy
doesn't fit Webster's.


I've seen how you have criticized the work of health care
professionals, professional radio and communications people (including
both military and government-service radio operators), mechanical
engineers, electrical engineers, etc. - if they dare to disagree with
you about the Morse Code test for an amateur radio license.

Interestingly, all those you mention were PRO-code-test
advocates! Did their work MANDATE keeping the code test
in US amateur radio? I don't think so.

Oh, and that "health care professional" you mentioned has
yet to identify his place of work, has yet to provide any
sort of identification of his "military career," nor the
true circumstances why he left (suddenly) the Tennessee
State Guard. Yet that individual have written obscene
personal insults to just about everyone in this newsgroup
(all remain in Google archives). He doesn't seem to know
what a "Sharps" is, doesn't understand what 'helicobacter
pylori' is, doesn't seem to know **** from shinola.

Try for a better 'hero' to worship, Jimmy.

I will, have, and expect to continue criticizing ANYONE for
their self-righteous stance on keeping the morse code test.

It is a political issue. Criticism of opponents on political
matters is very much the American Way.

But, we have to wonder if you are really an American, Jimmy.
You want YOUR way all the time (very imperial, royal,
dictatorial). You've never served your country in the
military or in the government and seem to think having the
personal HOBBY of amateur radio is a "service to the nation."



He has presented some black-and-white digitized
photographs of his 1974 ham radio project

You mean the receiver? That was just one of my 1974 projects. It was a
really good receiver, built for almost no money. I've built a lot more
since then.

According to a note on Kees Talen's (K5BCQ?) HBR page, you
"lent it to your brother" then disassembled it in 1976.
Yes, compared to all the other examples there, your
"really good receiver" (built over three decades ago)
certainly looked cheap. Not "inexpensive," cheap.

and implied it was used today,

Where? You have made another mistake, Len.

No mistake. You implied that in here, about the time you
gave a URL link to those photos. Ho hum.


ignoring his earlier messaging about
assembling an Elecraft KIT...

Len, you're really on a roll with the mistakes this time....

You've NEVER assembled an Elecraft? You buy it ready-
made? Have another ham assemble it for you?


Can't you 'take the heat' of newsgroup give-and-take, Len? It seems you
want to give but never take - criticize but never be criticized -
behave one way but demand that others behave differently.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmy. I am "criticized" (call it others trying
to burn me at the stake and worse) all the time. It's the
nature of the pro-code beasts. :-)

Mother Superior, put away that ruler. You can't spank
anyone with it. Get a better habit, Mother, you are
angry all the time now. Tsk.


Well, that leaves me out. I'm not angry or frustrated about not being
able to advance my own work, Len.

You do nothing. There's no such thing as "more of nothing."
Ergo, "advancement" into doing more nothing is still nothing.

I'm not even angry at you.

HHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I almost
feel sorry for you, sometimes, because you waste so much energy on
spouting your anger here.

Awwww... Hey, if you really have such sympathy, feel free
to send me a monetary grant! I've never gotten one. Free
money would be nice!


And your postings speak for themselves.

They don't "speak," Jimmy. No audio connected with them.

Do you need an Audiobook to help you? Get that grant money
together, those Audiobooks aren't free.

What they say isn't very nice.

Ain't that somethin' though! I don't follow the Church of
St. Hiram's teachings (read brainwashing) and I am against
the code test for an amateur radio license. Neither do I
accept the smug, arrogant, illogical, invalid, dictatorial
denigrations of others which the amateur extra morsemen
babble in here. Now what you do, Jimmy?



Nope. I'm not afraid at all. The ROI of telling you personal
information is all negative. Why should anyone do that?

If they have the courage, they can. You don't.



You get really mad when someone brings up things you wrote in the past,
and then verifies them with links and actual quotes.

I get "mad?" Hell, no. I get IRRITATED is all. You
have some kind of perverse "need" to constantly re-argue
and re-argue and re-argue and re-argue and re-argue old,
old, old threads. Ist du verruct so much that you think
you can "win" some old argument you definitely LOST?


I didn't say *all* your paychecks were taxpayer subsidized, Len.

Neither did you say *part* of mine were... :-)

Wow, Jimmy, you are reaching so far in rationalization of
your "correctness" you've fallen off the edge of reason!

Jimmy, try TRY to be a good sport about these postings.
Sometimes YOU lose them. Be gracious and accept the
losing. Try not to rationalize (beyond reasoning) that
you "won" them when you didn't. Let them be.


...and go get laid. I don't care if its with a boyfriend
of girlfriend...I'm not homophobic.

wrote:

I'm at my computer station, saying nothing...:-)


....and so it has been, for more than a decade.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:01 am

No, that's not true at all. You're on the outside of amateur radio. And
you're yelling.

Sweetums, I've been on the INSIDE of RADIO-ELECTRONICS, the
professional kind and the hobbyist kind for over half a
century. :-)

Feel free to get INSIDE a generic RADIO-ELECTRONICS newsgroup or an
electronics hobbyist newsgroup and tell 'em how sharp you used to be.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:31 pm


wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

You're projecting your own feelings again. *You* don't like subsidies,
even though you've been on the receiving end of them, so you react to
the word negatively.

I haven't grown any crops lately, either. :-)

Heck, Len, you could grow them in your 21,000 square foot home.


No, it's correct. "Your paycheck" means "the money you were paid". If
your employer was paid by the govt. for work you did, then your
paycheck - the money - came from the taxpayers.

Are you ashamed of that?

Not at all. Except for laws of the US on espionage and
classified information, whatever private business
restrictions signed-for, I can talk about all sorts of
work I've done.

But you're the fellow who raised holy hell when I advised you that there
were things I couldn't tell you about my job. Go figure!

Heck and darn, lil Jimmy, some of that
has been written up in public periodicals! :-)

You are ashamed to state what you work on except for the
most vague way...such as being in the "transport industry."

Where is the shame indicated, nibby old timer?


It's self-evident, Len.

We know you are "self-evident," Jimmy. yawn

Bus drivers are in the "transport industry." Larry
Roll, the soma-cum-loud "graduate" in "Human
Resources" (personnel department work) was a bus
driver!

Are you a bus driver, Jimmy?

Is this another denigration base upon a wild supposition, Len?


By definition, government-funded projects are
paid for by the taxpayers.

"By definition?!?" Whose "definition?"

My Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary,
1989, says simply "...a grant of money, as from the government
to a private organization."

Doesn't mention "taxpayers" at all.

Where do you think the government obtains it's money, Leonard?

I've seen how you have criticized the work of health care
professionals, professional radio and communications people (including
both military and government-service radio operators), mechanical
engineers, electrical engineers, etc. - if they dare to disagree with
you about the Morse Code test for an amateur radio license.

Interestingly, all those you mention were PRO-code-test
advocates!

Hans Brakob is a "PRO-code-test advocate"? Really? You lit into him on
a couple of occasions as if he were Hiram Percy Maxim reincarnated. It
looks as if you've committed another factual error, Len.

Did their work MANDATE keeping the code test
in US amateur radio? I don't think so.

Oh, and that "health care professional" you mentioned has
yet to identify his place of work, has yet to provide any
sort of identification of his "military career," nor the
true circumstances why he left (suddenly) the Tennessee
State Guard.

....and what is his obligation to make a report to you?

Yet that individual have written obscene
personal insults to just about everyone in this newsgroup
(all remain in Google archives). He doesn't seem to know
what a "Sharps" is, doesn't understand what 'helicobacter
pylori' is, doesn't seem to know **** from shinola.

I think any hero I'd choose would realize that Shinola hasn't been
produced in decades. It is as defunct as "ham radio" magazine.

I will, have, and expect to continue criticizing ANYONE for
their self-righteous stance on keeping the morse code test.

So you'll understand if you are criticized for your self-righteous
stance on abolishing the morse code test. After all, you have no stake
in amateur radio.

It is a political issue. Criticism of opponents on political
matters is very much the American Way.

But, we have to wonder if you are really an American, Jimmy.
You want YOUR way all the time (very imperial, royal,
dictatorial). You've never served your country in the
military or in the government and seem to think having the
personal HOBBY of amateur radio is a "service to the nation."

Are you questioning his citizenship, patriotism or both, Len? Who is
the "we" you write of? Do you have a Vibroplex in your pocket?



He has presented some black-and-white digitized
photographs of his 1974 ham radio project
You mean the receiver? That was just one of my 1974 projects. It was a
really good receiver, built for almost no money. I've built a lot more
since then.

According to a note on Kees Talen's (K5BCQ?) HBR page, you
"lent it to your brother" then disassembled it in 1976.
Yes, compared to all the other examples there, your
"really good receiver" (built over three decades ago)
certainly looked cheap. Not "inexpensive," cheap.

Tell us about the receivers you've built at home, Len. I'm sure that a
fellow with your credentials had no trouble whipping up something really
exotic in your home workshop.

and implied it was used today,
Where? You have made another mistake, Len.

No mistake. You implied that in here, about the time you
gave a URL link to those photos. Ho hum.

I read those posts. I don't recall him implying any such thing.

Well, that leaves me out. I'm not angry or frustrated about not being
able to advance my own work, Len.

You do nothing. There's no such thing as "more of nothing."
Ergo, "advancement" into doing more nothing is still nothing.

He does something which you know nothing about, Len. It irks you not to
know.

And your postings speak for themselves.
What they say isn't very nice.

Ain't that somethin' though! I don't follow the Church of
St. Hiram's teachings (read brainwashing)...

Isn't that interesting! Neither do I.

...and I am against
the code test for an amateur radio license.

Well dip me in flour, toss me in thirty weight and fry me to a golden brown!

Neither do I
accept the smug, arrogant, illogical, invalid, dictatorial
denigrations of others which the amateur extra morsemen
babble in here. Now what you do, Jimmy?

Is it your opinion that those who you view as delivering "smug,
arrogant, illogical, invalid, dictatorial denigrations" should just sit
around while you behave like a horse's patoot?



Nope. I'm not afraid at all. The ROI of telling you personal
information is all negative. Why should anyone do that?

If they have the courage, they can. You don't.

Courage? It is plain for all to see what you've done with any sliver of
personal information, Len.


You get really mad when someone brings up things you wrote in the past,
and then verifies them with links and actual quotes.

I get "mad?" Hell, no. I get IRRITATED is all. You
have some kind of perverse "need" to constantly re-argue
and re-argue and re-argue and re-argue and re-argue old,
old, old threads.

How very odd. That is *precisely* what you do fairly frequently.

Jimmy, try TRY to be a good sport about these postings.

When do we get to the part where you become a good sport, Len?

Sometimes YOU lose them. Be gracious and accept the
losing.

I suggest you print and save that little blurb. Paste it to your
monitor, kindly old gent. It is sure to come up again very soon.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:35:00 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:01 am

No, that's not true at all. You're on the outside of amateur radio. And
you're yelling.

Sweetums, I've been on the INSIDE of RADIO-ELECTRONICS, the
professional kind and the hobbyist kind for over half a
century. :-)

Feel free to get INSIDE a generic RADIO-ELECTRONICS newsgroup or an
electronics hobbyist newsgroup and tell 'em how sharp you used to be.

stop trying to act like a moderator you lack the standing
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

Don't sweat it, Mark. Davie is just a frustrated feldwebel standing
on some little feldhernhugel snarling orderss, orderss!

He's an amateur "Sgt Shultz" in a comedy of his own making.

Davie ought to get with his buddie, "Major" Dud, learn what
"commissioned officers" do. Even if it is an "auxilliary."

oy, gevalt, such a schlemiel...