KØHB wrote:
wrote:


Yes - they were all subsidized by the taxpayers.


Insulting bull****! Members of the Armed Forces do not receive a
"subsidy" --- they receive pay for their service.

de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy

Lots of libs don't think very highly of military service. I've run
into this before.

wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:31 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

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

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 there something wrong with being a bus driver, Len? Is it something
to be ashamed of?

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.

Couldn't stay with any of them for too long, huh?

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!

That's the point - if someone is a procodetest person, anything they do
is insulted by you.

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

Then why did you criticize their work? Why is it even an issue?

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.

So what?

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.

There's a lot of things you don't know eithr, Len.

Besides, what does his behavior have to do with yours?

You seem to be saying that since one person allegedly did what you
describe, it somehow justifies *your* behavior. That's faulty logic on
your part.

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.

IOW, rather than discuss the issue itself in a civil manner, you'll
attack their work, gender, ethnicity, education, and anything else you
can find out about them. Even if they don't do the same to you.

What about your self-righteous stance on eliminating the Morse Code
test?

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

Yet you go all Godwin when someone criticizes you, Len.

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."

I see. Having a different opinion is un-American...to you.

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.

Nope.

Read the "note" again. It was not disassembled 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.

In what way, Len? Are you more concerned with looks than performance?
Seems that way.

by the way, the main tuning capacitor in that receiver came from an
ARC-5 transmitter. I machined the tuning knob adapter and the dial drum
extension.

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 did not imply it. You mistakenly inferred it.

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?

I assembled my K2 in 2001. Still have it, still works.

Try reading what I actually wrote, Len.

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.

Perhaps you have earned the criticism. Burning at the stake is a gross
exaggeration.

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

You do nothing.

That's simply not the case. I just won't tell you about my work.

That really seems to infuriate you.

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!

Don't you collect Social Security, Len?

If someone lives long enough and collects Social Security long enough,
their Social Security benefits will exceed the money they contributed
in Social Security taxes - including interest. Isn't that "free money"?

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?

I don't submit to your "brainwashing" and I don't accept your smug,
arrogant, illogical, invalid, dictatorial denigrations. Nor do I reply
in kind to you.

I also don't use the actions of others as an excuse for my own towards
a third party. I don't assign "group guilt" to all nocodetest
advocates.

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.

It's not about "courage".

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.

Yes, you do. Mad, angry, ticked off.

I get IRRITATED is all.

Same thing.

Len, be a good sport about these posts. You usually lose the arguments
because your logic and facts are faulty. Be gracious and accept your
losses. Try not to rationalize that you won them.

...and go get laid.

Boy, you sure do get off-topic, Len.

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

The word should be "it's", Len.

"Its" is the possessive form of "it",

"It's" is the contraction of "it is".

That's basic English. Grade schoolers know that one. A self-proclaimed
professional writer should know it, too.

KØHB wrote:
wrote:


Yes - they were all subsidized by the taxpayers.


Insulting bull****! Members of the Armed Forces do not receive a
"subsidy" --- they receive pay for their service.

de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy

You have to forgive him, Hans, he "served in other ways..." :-(

wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote:

Yes - they were all subsidized by the taxpayers.

Insulting bull****! Members of the Armed Forces do not receive a
"subsidy" --- they receive pay for their service.

I'm sorry if you were insulted, Hans - that was not my intent.

Tsk, you were trying to insult me, not Hans.

No real problem to me since I know your kind of "my body is
too precious to waste serving my country" #######.

shrug Takes all kinds. :-(


My point was simply that certain people and industries are paid by the
government rather than the free market. The government decides that
something needs to be done for the public good, and that user fees
can't pay for it, so taxpayer money pays for it.

Rationalization and trying to weasel out of what you insultingly
wrote.

That covers a lot more than members of the Armed Forces - there are
firemen, law enforcement officers, public education teachers and
administrators, all manner of public works people, etc. There are also
many private companies that would not exist, or would be much smaller,
if the government did not buy their products and services.

More rationalization. You were not in law enforcement or other
public safety service.

You DO play the angry Mother Superior in here, though...you must
think that counts?


For example, when Hoover Dam was built in the 1930s, the government
used taxpayer money to pay the contractors that built the dam. Private
industry could not do the job alone - the cost was too high and the
short-term return on investment too low.

The USA was not at war with Lake Mead. Neither were the waters
threatening anyone in eastern Pennsylvania.


Is it "insulting bull****" to say that that part of the country had its
development subsidized by the government when Hoover Dam was built? If
so, how should it be described?

What IS insulting bull**** is your elitist NON-SERVING crap
about members of the armed forces of the United States being
"subsidized" by taxpayers.

Now check out your "people skills" by going into the nearest
military base or VFW hall or a military recruiting station and
repeat your "insulting bull****" to the veterans there.



ex-RA16408336, Sgt., SigC, United States Army 1952-1960

From: on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 3:47 am


wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:31 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

You are ashamed to state what you work on except for the
most vague way...such as being in the "transport industry."
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 there something wrong with being a bus driver, Len?

You didn't answer the question.

Two bus drivers have been in here; one left and one died.


Couldn't stay with any of them for too long, huh?

Is there something wrong with job-hopping, Jimmy?

Since you haven't been in the aerospace business, you
don't understand that layoffs happen.


That's the point - if someone is a procodetest person, anything they do
is insulted by you.

Incorrect.


Then why did you criticize their work? Why is it even an issue?

I can't criticize your work. You never say what it is.


There's a lot of things you don't know eithr, Len.

You've inhaled too much "eithr," Jimmy. :-)


Besides, what does his behavior have to do with yours?

What does your behavior have to do with Nursie?

Your behavior is similar to his and you condone his postings.


You seem to be saying that since one person allegedly did what you
describe, it somehow justifies *your* behavior.

Unlike yourself, I don't "justify" my behavior by rationalizing
it three ways from Sunday to fit the olde-tyme morsemen's
devotion to the Church of St. Hiram..

You ASSUME the role of "critic" yet are with many faults.


That's faulty logic on your part.

No. You dislike my comments and opinions, label them
FALSELY as "faulty" when you are NOT the supreme critic.


IOW, rather than discuss the issue itself in a civil manner, you'll
attack their work, gender, ethnicity, education, and anything else you
can find out about them. Even if they don't do the same to you.

That's faulty logic on your part.


What about your self-righteous stance on eliminating the Morse Code
test?

Nothing "self-righteous" about it. Elimination of the code
test is a LOGICAL thing for the FCC to do.

1. The FCC is under NO mandate by international radio
regulations to keep the amateur radio license code
test. It is the FCC's option to keep or eliminate.

2. The FCC has not required all US radio amateurs to
operate manual radiotelegraphy for years over and
above any other allocated mode. Yet, there are NO
manual skill tests for operating any other allocated
modes. All allocated modes are optional to use.

3. NO other US radio service uses manual radiotelegraphy
for regular communications, therefore there is NO
"pool of trained (telegraphy) operators" necessary
for any national need.

Those are all supremely LOGICAL statements, all true.
Nothing "self-righteous" about them.

On the other hand, the truly self-righteous are the olde-
tyme radio amateurs who slavishly follow the dictates of
the ARRL (a minority group NOT "representing" all amateurs)
and their own emotions ("I had to take a code test so
everyone else must"...forever).


Yet you go all Godwin when someone criticizes you, Len.

I go with God, not some "godwin."


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."

I see. Having a different opinion is un-American...to you.

You've never served the United States of America as any
military service member, are NOT in the government, yet
you defend your HOBBY of amateur radio as "being a service
to the nation?"

Your logic there is so faulty that John Cleese couldn't
even satirize it.

Apparently you think that advocacy of eliminating the code
test is "un-American?!?"



According to a note on Kees Talen's (K5BCQ?) HBR page, you
"lent it to your brother" then disassembled it in 1976.

Nope.

Read the "note" again. It was not disassembled in 1976.

Tsk on me, bad sentence structure. :-)

Your "note's" last sentence indicates you "lent it to your
brother" in 1976. He "used it for 'several years' but
"sometime in the 1980s it was stored in an attic." After
that it was disassembled.

So, you did not have it for your use after 1976. 1976 is
thirty years ago.

Your brother is Thomas Miccolis, WA3UZI, lives in the state
of Maryland.


Yes, compared to all the other examples there, your
"really good receiver" (built over three decades ago)
certainly looked cheap. Not "inexpensive," cheap.

In what way, Len? Are you more concerned with looks than performance?

You have posted NO "performance" figures for that 32-year-old
version of an HBR. That it "works good" is highly subjective
and not quantifiable.



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

I assembled my K2 in 2001. Still have it, still works.

Try reading what I actually wrote, Len.

Try WRITING things which are more definite. Try making
replies as actual, firm stances on things instead of just
"answering" with other questions.


You do nothing.

That's simply not the case. I just won't tell you about my work.

You are "proud" of doing nothing.



I don't submit to your "brainwashing" and I don't accept your smug,
arrogant, illogical, invalid, dictatorial denigrations. Nor do I reply
in kind to you.

You just did what you said you don't do! :-)


I also don't use the actions of others as an excuse for my own towards
a third party. I don't assign "group guilt" to all nocodetest
advocates.

What "guilt" do you think no-code-test advocates have?


It's not about "courage".

Did you have the courage to serve your country?


Len, be a good sport about these posts.

I try to be. :-)

But...Mother Superior shows up with her spanking ruler and says:

You usually lose the arguments
because your logic and facts are faulty.

Tsk, Mother Superior deserves to be ruler-spanked herself for
making THAT statement! :-)

Be gracious and accept your losses.

What "losses," Jimmy? :-)

Try not to rationalize that you won them.

I "rationalize?!?" :-)

I point out your own rationalization, excuses, and general
behavior consistent with morsemanship brainwashing by the
League. It is obvious, but you act as if you have NO
faults! :-)



"A self-proclaimed professional writer should know it, too."

"Professional" means getting paid for work.

There is NO pay or monetary compensation for writing
in here...or showing where you are false and
misleading (more of a recreational activity for me).
Replies to your postings just "write themselves."

NO writer can "self-proclaim" a by-line printed
by a publication in thousands of copies of an
edition.

Mother Superior should change her habit. Quit trying to
be the cross-dresser, Jimmy.

Go get laid. It will take your mind off cross-dressing.
As I said, I'm not homophobic and don't care whether it
is with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

wrote:
On 21 Sep 2006 03:20:02 -0700, wrote:


KØHB wrote:
wrote:


Yes - they were all subsidized by the taxpayers.


Insulting bull****! Members of the Armed Forces do not receive a
"subsidy" --- they receive pay for their service.

de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy

Lots of libs don't think very highly of military service. I've run
into this before.

indeed
subidy my ass

What Jim doesn't realized is that the blood of service men and women
subsidize his freedom.

Because Jim didn't serve.

wrote:
KØHB wrote:
wrote:


Yes - they were all subsidized by the taxpayers.


Insulting bull****! Members of the Armed Forces do not receive a
"subsidy" --- they receive pay for their service.

de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy

You have to forgive him, Hans, he "served in other ways..." :-(



Actually, you don't have to forgive him. I've run into other libs that
think that servicemen and women serve because they have nothing better
to do, nothing else on the ball. Seriously.

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 3:47 am
wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:31 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

You are ashamed to state what you work on except for the
most vague way...such as being in the "transport industry."
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 there something wrong with being a bus driver, Len?

You didn't answer the question.

You don't answer all of my questions, Len. Why should I answer all of
yours?

Two bus drivers have been in here; one left and one died.

Both are missed.

IIRC, one of Larry Roll's duties was transporting senior citizens and
disabled people who couldn't drive. His work made it possible for them
to have much more mobility and independence.

That's the point - if someone is a procodetest person, anything they do
is insulted by you.

Incorrect.

Well, *almost* anything they do or say is insulted by you.

Then why did you criticize their work? Why is it even an issue?

I can't criticize your work. You never say what it is.

You're beginning to catch on, Len!

Besides, what does his behavior have to do with yours?

What does your behavior have to do with Nursie?

Who is "Nursie", Len?

No. You dislike my comments and opinions, label them
FALSELY as "faulty" when you are NOT the supreme critic.

I call 'em as I see 'em, Len. You write things that are simply not
true, then get mad when someone points out your errors.

IOW, rather than discuss the issue itself in a civil manner, you'll
attack their work, gender, ethnicity, education, and anything else you
can find out about them. Even if they don't do the same to you.

That's faulty logic on your part.

No, it's an accurate observation of how you behave when confronted by
someone who disagrees with you.

What about your self-righteous stance on eliminating the Morse Code
test?

Nothing "self-righteous" about it.

Sure there is.

Elimination of the code
test is a LOGICAL thing for the FCC to do.

Not really.

1. The FCC is under NO mandate by international radio
regulations to keep the amateur radio license code
test. It is the FCC's option to keep or eliminate.

IOW, the FCC can eliminate - or increase - Morse Code testing in almost
any way they choose.

That's not a reason to change it.

2. The FCC has not required all US radio amateurs to
operate manual radiotelegraphy for years over and
above any other allocated mode.

For more than 50 years, the FCC has not required amateurs to operate
using any particular mode, band, or technology. In fact, the FCC has
not required amateurs to operate at all in order to retain their
licenses.

That's not a reason to change the license tests.

Yet, there are NO
manual skill tests for operating any other allocated
modes.

That's because the other modes use skills almost all operators have.

Again, that's not a reason to change the license tests.

All allocated modes are optional to use.

So are all allocated bands, and technologies. There is no requirement
that amateurs any particular band, mode, or technology. Yet the testing
for a license includes many questions on things which are totally
optional.

For example, a prospective radio amateur who wishes to operate low
power Morse Code on 7010 kHz must pass written tests that include
questions on solid state electronics, band limits other than 40 meters,
RF exposure, VHF/UHF, FM, SSB, data modes, and a long list of other
subjects which have nothing to do with the intended operation.

3. NO other US radio service uses manual radiotelegraphy
for regular communications, therefore there is NO
"pool of trained (telegraphy) operators" necessary
for any national need.

However, manual radiotelegraphy in the form of Morse Code is used
extensively in the Amateur Radio service. Having at least a basic skill
level in Morse Code is part of being a qualified Amateur Radio
operator.

An Amateur Radio license is for operating an Amateur Radio station in
accordance with the rules and regulations for Amateur Radio - not other
radio services. It therefore makes sense that the requirements for an
Amateur Radio license should reflect what radio amateurs actually do.

Those are all supremely LOGICAL statements, all true.
Nothing "self-righteous" about them.

They are not adequate reasons to change the license test requirements,
though.

On the other hand, the truly self-righteous are the olde-
tyme radio amateurs who slavishly follow the dictates of
the ARRL (a minority group NOT "representing" all amateurs)
and their own emotions ("I had to take a code test so
everyone else must"...forever).

The ARRL has proposed the elimination of the Morse Code test for the
General class license, so that it would only be retained for the
Amateur Extra class license.

Yet you go all Godwin when someone criticizes you, Len.

I go with God, not some "godwin."

Now *that's* self-righteous of you, Len!

But, we have to wonder if you are really an American, Jimmy.

I am. Always have been.

You want YOUR way all the time (very imperial, royal,
dictatorial).

Gee, Len, you want *your* way all the time - even in things that do not
affect you at all (like the license tests for an Amateur Radio
license).

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."

How many times are you going to beat that dead horse, Len?

Do you think that only those who have served our country in way you
approve of should have the right to express their opinions?

K8MN served our country in both the military and in government service
IIRC. Yet you behave towards him the same as you behave towards me.

I see. Having a different opinion is un-American...to you.

You've never served the United States of America as any
military service member, are NOT in the government, yet
you defend your HOBBY of amateur radio as "being a service
to the nation?"

Apparently you think that advocacy of eliminating the code
test is "un-American?!?"

I think it's not in the best interests of Amateur Radio - or the USA.

YMMV.

According to a note on Kees Talen's (K5BCQ?) HBR page, you
"lent it to your brother" then disassembled it in 1976.

Nope.

Read the "note" again. It was not disassembled in 1976.

Tsk on me, bad sentence structure. :-)

No, Len, you made a mistake. Either you didn't understand what was
written, or you intentionally mistated. You do that a lot.

Yes, compared to all the other examples there, your
"really good receiver" (built over three decades ago)
certainly looked cheap. Not "inexpensive," cheap.

In what way, Len? Are you more concerned with looks than performance?

You have posted NO "performance" figures for that 32-year-old
version of an HBR.

You didn't answer the questions.

The receiver in question is not a version of W6TC's HBR designs. It was
a design of my own, the second in a series of three receivers using the
same basic concepts.

That it "works good" is highly subjective and not quantifiable.

Of course it's quantifiable. It was a better receiver than anything
else available to me at the time. Much better than what it replaced.

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

I assembled my K2 in 2001. Still have it, still works.

Try reading what I actually wrote, Len.

Try WRITING things which are more definite. Try making
replies as actual, firm stances on things instead of just
"answering" with other questions.

Try reading what was actually written, Len.

You do nothing.

That's simply not the case. I just won't tell you about my work.

You are "proud" of doing nothing.

I'm proud of what I do - and it isn't 'nothing'.

Why do you keep beating the dead horse of wanting to know my work?

Go get laid. It will take your mind off cross-dressing.
As I said, I'm not homophobic and don't care whether it
is with a boyfriend or girlfriend.

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 3:47 am
wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:31 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

You are ashamed to state what you work on except for the
most vague way...such as being in the "transport industry."
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 there something wrong with being a bus driver, Len?

You didn't answer the question.

You don't answer all of my questions, Len. Why should I answer all of
yours?

Two bus drivers have been in here; one left and one died.

Both are missed.

IIRC, one of Larry Roll's duties was transporting senior citizens and
disabled people who couldn't drive. His work made it possible for them
to have much more mobility and independence.

That's nice. And before that, his (subsidized) work enabled the
freedoms that you take for granted.

Larry Roll was a MSgt in the USAF. If I understand his period of
service, his "inactive" service commitment of 10 years just expired.
That's twenty years of putting your freedoms ahead of himself and his
family, followed by another 10 years of being on call to do it again.

"KØHB" wrote in message

de Hans, K0HB

Master Permanent Mess Cook, US Navy