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.

Those who live IN
those residences aren't "stuck in the past." A house is
a house is a HOME.

??

"A house is a house is a HOME"?

A house is just a building.

People make it a home.

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.

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.

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

More diversity, IOW.

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

You really
don't know, do you? Several hundred houses were
completed in my 'neighborhood,' all to R zoning code
(single family, residential).

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

About 15 acres were
never developed in the middle of that due to too much
earthmoving necessary. That remained undeveloped for
about 38 years, ownership of that land passing through
several companies. The next-to-the-last land owner
wanted to change the zoning laws to "R1" which meant
multi-family residences...read APARTMENTS.

Oh no! APARTMENTS! What a horror!

Did they mean high-rises? Low rises?

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

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

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.

Those of us who LIVED adjacent to that undeveloped
property had to accept it. Several years went by and
nothing came of the plans presented to the neighborhood
at the local church meeting hall. Land values were
rising.

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.

The next-to-the-last land owner went bankrupt and the
15 acre parcel was sold to a developer who requested
a neighborhood association public review of what they
wanted. We met, three meetings in all. This developer
planned for 44 homes, all single-family residences,
all meeting the ORIGINAL zoning code requirements.

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

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...

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

You
wanted a piece of undeveloped land near your house developed only in
ways you approved of.

Absolutely,

IOW, "YES"

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?

Anyone who wanted to live or build in your
neighborhood should have to do it the way you did it, and no other way.

Bad repetition in addition to being highly inaccurate.

No, very accurate. "Your Way" was single-family-detached residences. No
twins, no duplexes, no triplexes, no townhomes, and most of all, no
APARTMENTS.

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?

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*?

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.

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.

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.

wrote:
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

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.

I think Jim and I are acquainted with what goes on IN AMATEUR RADIO.
You are NOT.


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.

You LIVE in the past out there? I have to hand it to you, Len. That's
a frank admission.

The hillsides go up and down roughly 900 feet in
elevation and the "boxes" average about 21,000 square
feet floorspace.

Wow, and I thought a 4,000 square foot house was BIG. Imagine, 21,000
square feet of floor space!

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.

My back yard is at 1520 feet ASL (that's a term from topography
referring to "above sea level". If it floods, those at 820 feet are
going to be UW (an insurance company term for "under water"). We like
our rocks in their undecomposed state. They're even more stable that way.

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


Zoning should NOT change on a whim.

That's a good thing. Neither should amateur radio regulations 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.

I tried, but was unable to come up with any several thousand-year-old
books on real property law.


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.

Here's an even BIGGER clue, Len. Some fool changed this thread to
"Jimmy's Follies In Bad Analogies". You're lost.

Besides, I mentioned
ZONING ordinances, not your small-caliber assassination
ammunition.

All of this seems to run at odds to your views on changes to amateur
radio regulation.


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.

Trying, hell! He not only made one, he made a good one.

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.

If this was a rodeo, you've been tossed and roped, little dogie.



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." :-)

There's another amateur radio regulation analogy, Len. Why not see if
you can fill in the parallel?


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.

How is it "assassination", Len? When it came time for development in
your area, you fought against progress and change. You defended your
perceived turf. But, when it comes to amateur radio...

You're pretty two faced, Len.

Dave K8MN

From: Dave Heil on Mon, Sep 11 2006 3:13 pm


wrote:
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

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.

I think Jim and I are acquainted with what goes on IN AMATEUR RADIO.

You have many years as a licensed radio amateur. But, you
are NOT, nor have you ever been, a PARTICIPANT in Los Angeles
Zoning Board activities, meetings, nor a PARTICIPANT in owning
real property in Los Angeles County.

Real property and Zoning ordinances are NOT, nor have they
ever been a "radio subject." End this sub-thread because
it does not apply.

N2EY tried to magnify one of my old statements, taking it well
out of context, attempting to MANUFACTURE some personal
"defect" of mine. His product QC was terrible and the product
FAILED. N2EY was a NON-PARTICIPANT in real estate and Zoning
in Los Angeles. In other words, he didn't know his ass from
a hole in the ground on that.

However, to charge that "I know nothing of amateur radio"
is INCORRECT, IN ERROR. One does NOT need to be a licensed
radio amateur to "know about it." United States radio
amateur activity is NOT "secret." Several radio amateur
interest group organizations freely offer detailed information
on what they think US amateur radio involves.

Amateur 'radio' technology is the SAME as every other radio
technology, although lagging behind the rest of the radio
world in a few technical areas. NONE of that technology is
"secret" nor is it "revealed" to someone just receiving a
federal license permitting the RF energy emission according
to government regulations. Those government regulations are
open to all, not secret, and are freely available over the
US Government Printing Office website.

Anyone with a receiver can hear for themselves what radio
amateurs DO "on the air." US government (FCC) regulations
forbid the use of encryption (for deliberate obfuscation
of information transmitted) in amateur radio transmissions.
There is NO RESTRICTION on personal communications off-air
by any citizen with another citizen who is a licensed
radio amateur. I have several friends of long-standing
who are licensed radio amateurs, one of them going back
to US Army service days.

The FCC does not restrict ANYONE from communicating with
the FCC on ANY RADIO SERVICE or any other interstate
communications service they regulate. They are required
BY LAW to be open to communications from ALL CITIZENS.

By personal experience, I have been involved in HF radio
transmission beginning 53 years ago and have been granted
a Commercial radio operator license in 1956. I AM
experienced in radio communications from VLF on up to
25 GHz. US radio amateurs are NOT allocated any bands
below 160m and the allocated emission types are limited
(again BY LAW), such limitations lesser than my hands-on
experiences. I have written for, been published, even
employed as an editor for an amateur radio magazine, an
independent that existed for 22 years.

You are NOT.

You are hopelessly stuck in a personal attack mode and
will not leave it.

To reiterate: YOU are NOT INVOLVED in Los Angeles real
estate nor the Zoning laws of this city. Further, YOU
know bupkis about that as it applies here. It is NOT
a subject for this newsgroup, not even close to that.

Your only effort in this thread is to attempt some
personal denigration of myself. That wastes time for
others, does little except making you look the asshole,
and is a FAILURE.

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon, Sep 11 2006 3:13 pm



wrote:

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


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.


I think Jim and I are acquainted with what goes on IN AMATEUR RADIO.


You have many years as a licensed radio amateur. But, you
are NOT, nor have you ever been, a PARTICIPANT in Los Angeles
Zoning Board activities, meetings, nor a PARTICIPANT in owning
real property in Los Angeles County.

By golly, I believe you're beginning to understand! You tend to what
you know. I'll tend to what I know.

Real property and Zoning ordinances are NOT, nor have they
ever been a "radio subject." End this sub-thread because
it does not apply.

It most assuredly does. The parallels are clear.

N2EY tried to magnify one of my old statements, taking it well
out of context, attempting to MANUFACTURE some personal
"defect" of mine. His product QC was terrible and the product
FAILED.

That's funny. I don't see it that way at all. You stepped on a bear
trap and it clanked shut on you. Now you're busy attempting to explain
how much you know about bear traps.

N2EY was a NON-PARTICIPANT in real estate and Zoning
in Los Angeles. In other words, he didn't know his ass from
a hole in the ground on that.

So it really is an analogy to your efforts in amateur radio regulation!

However, to charge that "I know nothing of amateur radio"
is INCORRECT, IN ERROR.

I think the ERROR has been yours. I don't think you know--how did you
put it--your ass from a hole in the ground.

One does NOT need to be a licensed
radio amateur to "know about it."

One does NOT need to be a licensed realtor to understand Los Angeles
ares real estate matters.

United States radio
amateur activity is NOT "secret."

Los Angeles real property issues are NOT "secret".

Several radio amateur
interest group organizations freely offer detailed information
on what they think US amateur radio involves.

There is all kinds of information on Los Angeles area real estate
available on the web. There are additional sources of infomation
including libraries and even Los Angeles real estate agents.

Amateur 'radio' technology is the SAME as every other radio
technology, although lagging behind the rest of the radio
world in a few technical areas.

Los Angeles real estate isn't very different from real estate in other
parts of California or even from real estate in other large metropolitan
areas. Of course the regulations governing it could certainly lag areas
in the East.

NONE of that technology is
"secret" nor is it "revealed" to someone just receiving a
federal license permitting the RF energy emission according
to government regulations. Those government regulations are
open to all, not secret, and are freely available over the
US Government Printing Office website.

Funny that you'd mention that. I understand that information on Los
Angeles area real estate material isn't secret either. It is available
not only on the internet, but in printed form from a wide variety of
sources.

Anyone with a receiver can hear for themselves what radio
amateurs DO "on the air."

Anyone who buys an L.A. newspaper can get an idea of what is happening
in Los Angeles real estate.


US government (FCC) regulations
forbid the use of encryption (for deliberate obfuscation
of information transmitted) in amateur radio transmissions.

There's one of your masterful restatements of the obvious, Len.

There is NO RESTRICTION on personal communications off-air
by any citizen with another citizen who is a licensed
radio amateur.

....and yet another masterful restatement!

I have several friends of long-standing
who are licensed radio amateurs, one of them going back
to US Army service days.

That's so nice that they've included you in their social plans, Len.

The FCC does not restrict ANYONE from communicating with
the FCC on ANY RADIO SERVICE or any other interstate
communications service they regulate. They are required
BY LAW to be open to communications from ALL CITIZENS.

You've commented a number of times. Happy now?

By personal experience, I have been involved in HF radio
transmission beginning 53 years ago and have been granted
a Commercial radio operator license in 1956.

Careful, Len. You can get your butt in a sling if you try using that on
the ham bands. It isn't any good there.

I AM
experienced in radio communications from VLF on up to
25 GHz.

That's nice, Len.

US radio amateurs are NOT allocated any bands
below 160m...

....not at the moment, but there's work being done on that. Some
Europeans have access right now.


...and the allocated emission types are limited
(again BY LAW), such limitations lesser than my hands-on
experiences.

Well... Aren't you SPECIAL!

I have written for, been published, even
employed as an editor for an amateur radio magazine, an
independent that existed for 22 years.

I know it well. I have almost the entire run, yellowed with age.
It's too bad you couldn't parlay all that experience into a ham ticket.


You are NOT.


You are hopelessly stuck in a personal attack mode and
will not leave it.

Again, Len, you get what you dish out. Live with it.

To reiterate: YOU are NOT INVOLVED in Los Angeles real
estate nor the Zoning laws of this city.

To restate: You are NOT INVOLVED in amateur radio in the United States
or elsewhere.

Further, YOU
know bupkis about that as it applies here.

Ditto, you about amateur radio.

It is NOT
a subject for this newsgroup, not even close to that.

On the contrary, the parallels are striking!

Your only effort in this thread is to attempt some
personal denigration of myself.

....and to watch was you stand in the jaws of the bear trap, explaining
all you know about bear traps.

That wastes time for
others, does little except making you look the asshole,
and is a FAILURE.

Others aren't required to read or respond. It has worked well and it
reveals a horse's patoot with one leg clamped in a bear trap.


Dave

From: Dave Heil on Mon, Sep 11 2006 10:07 pm

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon, Sep 11 2006 3:13 pm
wrote:
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


N2EY tried to magnify one of my old statements, taking it well
out of context, attempting to MANUFACTURE some personal
"defect" of mine. His product QC was terrible and the product
FAILED.

That's funny. I don't see it that way at all. You stepped on a bear
trap and it clanked shut on you. Now you're busy attempting to explain
how much you know about bear traps.

"Bear traps?!?" Are you now trying to manufacture something
else?

Tsk, that "product" failed in fabrication!


One does NOT need to be a licensed realtor to understand Los Angeles
ares real estate matters.

"Ares?" :-)

So, you and the person formerly known as "N2EY" consider
yourself "expert" on Los Angeles ordinances concerning
residential areas and homes?

No doubt you both do, deep into the fantasy of extra super-
special morsemen KNOWING EVERYTHING because they once
passed a telegraphy test. :-)


There is all kinds of information on Los Angeles area real estate
available on the web. There are additional sources of infomation
including libraries and even Los Angeles real estate agents.

Okay, go there and whatever newsgroup covers real estate.
I'm sure you will be welcomed with open arms, being the
"expert" on matters 3000 miles from where you live. :-)


Others aren't required to read or respond. It has worked well and it
reveals a horse's patoot with one leg clamped in a bear trap.

It's not nice to describe the person formerly known as "N2EY"
in that way. You should apologize to him.

beep, beep,

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Dave Heil on Mon, Sep 11 2006 10:07 pm

wrote:

More Gas Baggery from The King of Flatulence.

Yawn.



What time does Len's pet Myna bird chime in?

wrote:
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.

"CITIZNS"??

If you meant "citizens", Len, please note that the FCC also accepts
comments from non-citizens and organizations. IOW, all interested
parties.

The FCC
then does some review and analysis of all Comments and
decides.

Which is *not* "a democratic process". The majority or plurality of
comments do not necessarily get their way. The decision-makers at FCC
are not elected, either.

The closest FCC actions come to being "a democratic process" is that
the folks who appoint the top bureaucrats at FCC are elected.

That is HARDLY a "whim," sweetums.

It can be. If FCC decides something is important, they make it happen
pretty fast and comments may not have much effect. When Papa Bush
wanted to do a favor for a now-dead King, we got medical waivers for
some license exams. The commentary didn't have any effect.

Or when the VE system replaced the use of FCC examiners, thereby saving
money, there wasn't even an NPRM IIRC. No comments, just "here's your
new system". There were protests but they had no effect.

Everyone
interested

Not just "CITIZNS"!

can Petition their government but that doesn't
set well with you ham homies, does it?

What's a "ham homie", Len?

It's fine with me that any interested party can petition or comment -
citizen or not. That also means that anyone who does petition or
comment must accept discussion of what they propose.

"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.

The changes occurred *since* the 1960s.

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.

How do you know I'm not, Len?

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.

How do you know I don't have friends in the LAX area, Len?

Guess what - I've been there.

And the fact of the matter is that real estate isn't all that different
here. Sure, there are regional and local differences - the real estate
here doesn't often shake the way it does in CA, and the snowfall here
is somewhat more than in SoCal, but the basics are all the same.

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?

Nope. Just observing what goes on.

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.

Sure you are. You don't want the neighborhood to change. It was built
as single-family-detached houses and you didn't want any other kind of
house built there. You wanted the *law* to keep things as they were in
the early 1960s.

We LIVE here.

So?

The hillsides go up and down roughly 900 feet in
elevation and the "boxes" average about 21,000 square
feet floorspace.

Zillow says your house has 1980 square feet of floor space. Heck, your
*lot* isn't 21,000 sf - it's less than 12,000 sf. The houses and lots
around you are similar.

Look it up on zillow.com - nice satellite pictures. Zillow information
is often a bit off, but I doubt by more than a factor of 10.

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.

What has that got to do with your aversion to changes in the
neighborhood?

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

Zoning should NOT change on a whim.

Nor should radio regulations.

LIVING, in a
home isn't subject to radio regulations. Humans have
had homes for thousands of years.

But the homes in your neighborhood are only about 45 years old.

Radio is only 110
years old, early radio hardly comparable to modern
radio; it has changed many times in that short span.

Modern homes are hardly comparable to early homes. In fact the homes
being built today are quite different than those of a few decades ago.
Many, many changes in home construction in that time period.

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

Try accepting change and progress.

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.

You're evading the question about what the developer wanted to build.

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"

Ah, no, it isn't, Len.

The subject line was changed to "Real Estate Follies". You changed it
again, I changed it back.

This discussion is right on the subject. I think that bothers you.

not your constant bringing-up of old
Character Assassination charges.

What have I written on this real estate subject that is not accurate?

Besides, I mentioned
ZONING ordinances, not your small-caliber assassination
ammunition.

It's simple, Len. You did not want the zoning changed, because that
could mean "APARTMENTS" in your neighborhood!

You wanted your neighborhood to stay as it was built 40+ years ago -
preferably with no new houses at all.

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. :-)

The point is that you don't want to say whether the "no changes"
position was agreed to by the majority.

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.

It's a good and valid analogy. That's why you're upset.

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.

So you don't know about radiotelegraphy - you're not involved. Not a
participant. No investment, no stake, an outsider. But you claim to
know what is best for those who are involved and are participants.

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

Not at all.

In fact, the analogy fits really well. Neighborhoods are communities -
and so is amateur radio a community. You're not part of the amateur
radio community, Len - you're on the outside, looking in. You're like
someone who wants to change the zoning ordinances in someone else's
community, but doesn't live there nor want to live there.

You'd be outraged if I were to support changes to the zoning ordinances
for your neighborhood, because those changes would affect you much more
than they would affect me. But you support changes to radio regulations
that would affect me much more than they would affect you.

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

"Hazing ritual?" :-)

Yes.

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's essentially a hazing ritual to try to win acceptance from those
already in the neighborhood.

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 do resist progress and change, Len.

You
don't understand the scope of operations on 15 acres
adjacent to one's back yard, do you?

Actually, I do. 15 acres and a quarter million yards of earth moving
isn't such a big job.

Want to listen to
at least a dozen OHSA back-up beepers from 7 AM to late
afternoon?

Better than listening to the sirens of emergency vehicles coming to
deal with accidents caused by the lack of those beepers.

Do you not believe in safety regulations, Len?

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?"

Yup. The new houses were single-family-detached.

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.

That's common during a housing boom. When the bubble breaks the
situation will be different.

$400k buys a lot of house in some places and not much in others.

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. :-)

They're being built new in lots of places, Len. "This Old House"
renovated one in Washington, DC, this season.

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? :-)

Try answering my question, Len.

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?

The basic fact is that you don't want *your* neighborhood to change in
ways you don't like, but you want the amateur radio neighborhood to
change in ways the participants there don't like (such as age
requirements).

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.

So you don't know. Hardly a "democratic process"

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.

If someone who was not a resident or prospective resident wanted to
make changes you didn't like, I don't think you'd be very receptive...

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."

Not at all. Only those in "adjacent areas". Not people who are not
adjacent but who might want to "get into" your neighborhood.

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. :-)

Why is LA real estate "not my business"? I might want to move to Sun
Valley someday. I've been involved in real estate for decades, too.

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?"

Yes - they're not radically different from the existing homes. They're
not twins, duplexes, triplexes, condos, townhomes or apartments. The
lot sizes aren't much different either. About the only big difference
is they are in a walled community and are 2 story.

Are the walls to keep the old neighborhood out?

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).

Doesn't answer the question, Len.

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 FCC is bound by law to listen to ALL interested citizens
on ALL radio and wireline and interstate communications
services.

Commentary only. And that's not the question.

That includes the mobile radio "trailer park" you
describe "the bands" to be.

I don't describe the amateur bands as a trailer park. That's *your*
definition.

I see them as a lovely, welcoming, diverse place to enjoy.

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 he is the cause of the RFI. Usually the RFI is caused by consumer
electronics with insufficient rejection of incidental RF. Read Part 15
and see whose responsibility it is to cure such interference.

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.

And if you don't like your neighborhood, you can move.

But if the mateur radio neighborhood is destroyed by bad regulation
changes, there's nowhere else to go.

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.

So it's even more important not to change the radio regulations in ways
that will "ruin the neighborhood".

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.

So move if you don't like it.

We can't "turn off"
anything adjacent to a residence if we don't like it, not
like you can with your little radio.

Turning it off is like leaving the house.

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]

Zillow prices your house lower than almost all of your neighbors'
houses, Len. Look it up.

Can you do
that with your "radio home," Jimmy? Remember, amateur radio
is "without pecuniary interest!" :-)

It's all about the money to you, isn't it, Len?

The fact is that there are some things money can't buy. Skill is one of
them. Perhaps that's why you are so negative about skills that others
have and you lack.

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?

Just like you are a non-participant in amateur radio, Len.

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.

Gee. Len, you sure do get upset when someone points out a simple, basic
fact of your logic.

btw - in another posting you told folks to "end this thread" - which is
simply another way of telling them to shut up. I guess you think
freedom of speech is for you but not for those who disagree with you.

From: on Wed, Sep 13 2006 3:37 am


wrote:
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


Okay, so this is retro on not on amateur radio, but let's
review how Jimmy MANUFACTURES something out of nothing.

Jimmie say (residential zoning) = (amateur radio policy)!

Amazing.

Tell ya what, next time the Los Angeles government is
going to act on any decision, YOU as a 20 WPM code-
tested amateur extra will be notified as an EXPERT
CONSULTANT on city and county political decisions.

That should satisfy your "I'm-a-knowitall-extra"
imagination. [I doubt it will, though]


It can be. If FCC decides something is important, they make it happen
pretty fast and comments may not have much effect. When Papa Bush
wanted to do a favor for a now-dead King, we got medical waivers for
some license exams. The commentary didn't have any effect.

What does that have to do with Los Angeles Zoning
Ordinances?

The FCC does NOT rule/decide/mitigate Los Angeles
Zoning Ordinances.

Are you zoned out?

Get a hit from yer gud buddie Nursie Stevie?


Or when the VE system replaced the use of FCC examiners, thereby saving
money, there wasn't even an NPRM IIRC. No comments, just "here's your
new system". There were protests but they had no effect.

Do the VEC rule/decide/mitigate Los Angeles Zoning
Ordinances?


What's a "ham homie", Len?

A nutcase who thinks the FCC and/or VEC rule/decide/mitigate
Los Angeles city/county affairs.


"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?

The changes occurred *since* the 1960s.

...and You were there, watching it all happen, participating
in Los Angeles government, getting involved... :-)



How do you know I don't have friends in the LAX area, Len?

Guess what - I've been there.

So have MILLIONS of others. LAX is one of the busiest
airports in the USA.

Call some up and arrange a reunion, have a big party...
you can get the party ball going by having a big lecture
on Los Angeles Zoning Ordinances...



... You don't want the neighborhood to change. It was built
as single-family-detached houses and you didn't want any other kind of
house built there. You wanted the *law* to keep things as they were in
the early 1960s.

Congratulations...you finally figured it out.



Zoning should NOT change on a whim.

Nor should radio regulations.

WTF? Tsk, you equate lettuce and lava again...


Modern homes are hardly comparable to early homes. In fact the homes
being built today are quite different than those of a few decades ago.
Many, many changes in home construction in that time period.

...and the 20 WPM code-tested amateur extra KNOWS THEM
ALL!


Try accepting change and progress.

Elimination of the US amateur radio licensing code test
is change and progress...


You're evading the question about what the developer wanted to build.

Which "developer" are you talking about?

I used to have some Kodak D-76 and some Microdol, but the
empty containers got thrown out a long time ago...same
with Stop Bath and Fixer.


Here's a BIGGER "clue," Jimmy: This thread is about "using
'CW' in an emergency"

Ah, no, it isn't, Len.

The subject line was changed to "Real Estate Follies". You changed it
again, I changed it back.

"Heah come de judge...heah come de judge!" :-)


This discussion is right on the subject. I think that bothers you.

Yes, it does bother me. I thought this was an AMATEUR RADIO
POLICY newsgroup. You think it is a LOS ANGELES GOVERNMENT
newsgroup.

Google states that this is the AMATEUR RADIO POLICY newsgroup.

You say it is "different."

You persist in that delusion.

Either Google is wrong or Jimmie-knowitall is wrong.

But Jimmie is NEVER WRONG.

It is a "die-lemma." [Jimmy would rather die than give up
his viewpoints on morsemanship]



It's simple, Len. You did not want the zoning changed, because that
could mean "APARTMENTS" in your neighborhood!

Yes.

You wanted your neighborhood to stay as it was built 40+ years ago -
preferably with no new houses at all.

Hello? "We" (the neighborhood association) wanted the
Zoning code to remain. I wrote that. Did you see it?

Now, whatinhell is all this fuss over Los Angeles Zoning
Ordinances doing in an AMATEUR RADIO POLICY newsgroup?


The point is that you don't want to say whether the "no changes"
position was agreed to by the majority.

The "point" is that you are CONFUSED as to what this
newsgroup is supposed to contain.

Talk to Google. Maybe they will change it for you.


So you don't know about radiotelegraphy - you're not involved. Not a
participant. No investment, no stake, an outsider. But you claim to
know what is best for those who are involved and are participants.

So you don't know about Los Angeles codes and ordinances -
you're not involved. Not a participant. No investment,
no stake, an outsider. But you claim to know what is best
for those involved and are participants.

Pssst, Jimmie...this is the AMATEUR RADIO POLICY newsgroup.
It is NOT about Los Angeles residence laws. Really.


You'd be outraged if I were to support changes to the zoning ordinances
for your neighborhood, because those changes would affect you much more
than they would affect me.

Tsk, not "outraged." Annoyed. While I do NOT have the
"authority" stated by Nursie Stevie to make a simple
telephone call to "pick you up," a short call to one of
several Los Angeles newspapers would start the process
of making you look the interfering fool. The Los Angeles
Times has over a million daily readers...thousands would
see your foolish interfering acts and utterances (quoted
with real ink on real paper) and be amused by such antics.
It's a good bet that the City Editor would be laughing so
hard about it that he wouldn't send out a reporter to cover
it...the comic strips are in another part of the Times.


But you support changes to radio regulations
that would affect me much more than they would affect you.

So, we are supposed to understand that you constantly take
the US amateur radio licensing exam manual morse code test?

Is that your point?

Tell you what...go to Google and see if they have a Los
Angeles government affairs newsgroup. If there isn't any,
then START one. In there you can talk all you want to on
AMATEUR RADIO POLICY matters.

Sound okay with you?


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

Try answering my question, Len.

I could but it doesn't compute on my decryption machine.

This is the AMATEUR RADIO POLICY newsgroup.

It isn't a newsgroup for discussing zoning laws regarding
residences.



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

Then GO HOME, Jimmie.

Or, at least, go to a newsgroup about the correct subject.


Doesn't answer the question, Len.

? It didn't come up in the latest neighborhood association
meeting, nor with our government councilmember. ?

Did you really have a "question"? I thought you were just
stamping your feet in a tantrum...



So move if you don't like it.

Why are you telling me what to do? :-)

Or are you telling me to "shut up?" :-)

Jimmie, you are getting more and more irrational in here.

[quit stamping your feet crying "I'm right! I'm right!"]

You are starting to resemble the fictional TV character
"Max Headroom." Good luck on finding a sponsor for
your show...

---

Sigh, another "reality adventure" episode, character
studies of the middle-aged morse mavens kvetching
about possible loss of their rank, title, status,
and privileges from being retrograde morsemen and
forcing all newcomers to accept their old ideals.

boop, beep,

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:


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?

if len were the only one youu would have a point but still Len is a
member of the public as such he has everight and civic duty to demand
it be used properly

The amateur bands are a sort of home to us, not you.
except you want to enage in redlining, an ilgeal practice in most cases
of those hams like myself that simply disagree with as to what is proper

No sweat to me, Mark. Jimmie wasn't here, wasn't a PARTICIPANT
in the zoning board meetings, doesn't own land or property out here
but is desperately searching for some kind of "incident" to GET
EVEN! :-)

Sigh...Jimmie just can't help hisself, I guess. Morsemen think
they are top dogs when they are only little dachshunds in the
kennel. Arf, arf. :-)