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.

From: on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 8:17 pm

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?

Jimmy avoided the obvious by misdirection into another's
alleged "misbehavior." Let's review that stuff about bus
driving by a pro-coder-uber-alles in this newsgroup:

Roll bragged himself to the skies in here about his academic
achievements while in some alleged college classes. He said
outright that he could get any job he wanted in 'human
resources' (personnel) after graduation. What did he do
instead? Became a bus driver.

Not just any bus driver, but one who "performed a service to
senior citizens" by slapping on a terrific (bafflegab) TITLE
to that job. Muy importante! :-)

So, we got treated to brags-before-they-happened by a morse-
man, then brags-after-he-couldn't-fulfill-his-original-brags
as performing some kind of 'service' to his community?

Now I've nothing against bus drivers, per se, provided they
observe all the vehicle laws and don't injure anyone. The
transportation services in any community do serve a purpose.
However, Jimmy took it all OUT OF CONTEXT, conveniently
omitting the blatant brags of Roll before-the-fact about his
'excellence' of scholarship and 'getting any job (in human
resources) he wanted.' Roll did NOT get a job in human
resources (personnel work). Roll got a job as a bus driver.
Jimmy tried to defend that by some kind of weird 'patriot'
ploy saying morseman Roll did his service-to-the-community
thing.

In the east San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles, there
are at least five small bus services NOT part of the Metro
Transit District big bus lines, all kept going by (what
Jimmy calls "subsidies from taxpayers") monies NOT derived
from "free market" captitalism. I have nothing against
those, either. They serve the communities.

But, Larry Roll was a MORSEMAN, an AMATEUR morseman. It is
the usual Standard Operating Procedure for ALL amateur
morsemen to support one another in here; none can do wrong.
Even if what they talk about hasn't the remotest chance of
being about amateur radio, the amateur morsemen are "right"
and others are "wrong" to criticize them.

Supporters. The "jock straps" of old radio operating
skills.



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

Both are missed.

Jimmy is incorrect. Both were HIT many times when they were
here. HIT right on their self-described importance of
morsemanship.

Richard Carroll, W0EX, is also gone. He was such an amateur
morseman that he claimed to carry around a code key in his car
to use in case of an earthquake in the Missouri area.

That makes THREE morsemen who are "missed" by other morsemen.

Who will be the fourth morseketeer? The Katapult King?


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.

Brian, that's one of the grossest bits of bull**** that Jimmy
has come up with in here. Here's a plain and simple fact:
Larry Roll, K3LT, got a job as a bus driver because he could
NOT get his choice of 'human resources' jobs. Roll FAILED
to live up to his own brags in here, so he rationalized it
into this 'serving the community' BS...and Jimmy just repeated
a version of it above.


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

Military servicemen are NOT subsidized. They are PAID for
their service by the government.

Some military personnel PAY the dearest price of all: Their
LIFE. Over three thousand United States military persons
paid that price in Iraq alone since our invasion of that
country in 2003.

I wonder what Jimmy thinks is a "subsidy" for volunteering
to give their LIFE for their country?


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.

Brian, that is irrelevant to Jimmy. Jimmy knows nothing of
military service, isn't involved, isn't a participant, never
was, never volunteered, wan't even a ("subsidized")
government worker.

Here's a plain and simple fact: By all apearances in this
newsgroup, James Miccolis has only ONE standard of others:
Morsemen are "good," non-morsemen are "bad, wrong, in error"
(and usually of lesser status as human beings).

It's the amateur morsemen's way...

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 8:17 pm

wrote:

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.

Military servicemen are NOT subsidized. They are PAID for
their service by the government.

Public transportation is NEVER sulf-sustaining, ALWAY subsidized.

Some military personnel PAY the dearest price of all: Their
LIFE. Over three thousand United States military persons
paid that price in Iraq alone since our invasion of that
country in 2003.

Many just pay with failed marriages and alcohol abuse from the long
separations and stresses of military life. Others do pay with their
lives.

I wonder what Jimmy thinks is a "subsidy" for volunteering
to give their LIFE for their country?

Consider the survivoring families of the WTC VS the surviving military
families of the Pentagon...

Some hit the jackpot, other got enough to bury their loved ones.

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.

Brian, that is irrelevant to Jimmy. Jimmy knows nothing of
military service, isn't involved, isn't a participant, never
was, never volunteered, wan't even a ("subsidized")
government worker.

Here's a plain and simple fact: By all apearances in this
newsgroup, James Miccolis has only ONE standard of others:
Morsemen are "good," non-morsemen are "bad, wrong, in error"
(and usually of lesser status as human beings).

It's the amateur morsemen's way...




If so, he has very sad outlook on life.

wrote:

Public transportation is NEVER sulf-sustaining, ALWAY subsidized.

Interesting. I've NEVER heard of a subsidized taxi company. Is
Greyhound subsidized too? Did you figure this out all by your "sulf"?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Public transportation is NEVER sulf-sustaining, ALWAY subsidized.

Interesting. I've NEVER heard of a subsidized taxi company. Is
Greyhound subsidized too? Did you figure this out all by your "sulf"?

Dave K8MN

Not vewy Innewesting at all.

Yellow Cab and Greyhound are for profit corporations.

Amtrak, Metropolitan Transit Authority (NYC), and Chicago Transit
Authority are public and are subsidized.

I'd have to get up pretty late in the morning to be corrected by the
World's Greatest DXer.

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Public transportation is NEVER sulf-sustaining, ALWAY subsidized.
Interesting. I've NEVER heard of a subsidized taxi company. Is
Greyhound subsidized too? Did you figure this out all by your "sulf"?

Dave K8MN

Not vewy Innewesting at all.

What are you now--Elmer Fudd?

Yellow Cab and Greyhound are for profit corporations.

Of course they are. They're still public transportation. Your error is
noted.

Amtrak, Metropolitan Transit Authority (NYC), and Chicago Transit
Authority are public and are subsidized.

I've just given you a couple of examples which are public and not
subsidized.

I'd have to get up pretty late in the morning to be corrected by the
World's Greatest DXer.

When you see him, give him my regards.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Public transportation is NEVER sulf-sustaining, ALWAY subsidized.

Interesting. I've NEVER heard of a subsidized taxi company. Is
Greyhound subsidized too? Did you figure this out all by your "sulf"?

It depends on what is considered "public" transportation.

Taxi companies and Greyhound are private enterprises, AFAIK. While they
do not receive direct money from the government, their business is
supported/facilitated by the government's use of tax money to build and
maintain roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.

Most forms of transportation receive or have received some form of
government support. Airlines don't build airports, trucking companies
don't build roads, shipping companies don't dredge harbors, etc. Yes,
their taxes and user fees help pay for those things, but those user
fees and taxes are on a pay-as-you-go basis, and rarely pay for the
entire cost.

This isn't a new thing - the Erie Canal wasn't built by private
enterprise, and the construction of the transcontinental railroad was
government funded - though the railroads paid back the construction
cost many times over in the form of real estate and other taxes.

To quote Webster (New Collegiate Dictionary):

"a grant by a government to a private person or comapny to assist an
enterprise *deemed advantageous to the public*" (emphasis added)

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Public transportation is NEVER sulf-sustaining, ALWAY subsidized.

Interesting. I've NEVER heard of a subsidized taxi company. Is
Greyhound subsidized too? Did you figure this out all by your "sulf"?

It depends on what is considered "public" transportation.

Taxi companies and Greyhound are private enterprises, AFAIK. While they
do not receive direct money from the government, their business is
supported/facilitated by the government's use of tax money to build and
maintain roads, bridges, tunnels, etc.

So your car and my car are public transportation?

You'll say and do anything to back up Dave.

From: on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 8:17 pm

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?

Jimmy avoided the obvious by misdirection into another's
alleged "misbehavior." Let's review that stuff about bus
driving by a pro-coder-uber-alles in this newsgroup:

Roll bragged himself to the skies in here about his academic
achievements while in some alleged college classes. He said
outright that he could get any job he wanted in 'human
resources' (personnel) after graduation. What did he do
instead? Became a bus driver.

Not just any bus driver, but one who "performed a service to
senior citizens" by slapping on a terrific (bafflegab) TITLE
to that job. Muy importante! :-)

So, we got treated to brags-before-they-happened by a morse-
man, then brags-after-he-couldn't-fulfill-his-original-brags
as performing some kind of 'service' to his community?

Now I've nothing against bus drivers, per se, provided they
observe all the vehicle laws and don't injure anyone. The
transportation services in any community do serve a purpose.
However, Jimmy took it all OUT OF CONTEXT, conveniently
omitting the blatant brags of Roll before-the-fact about his
'excellence' of scholarship and 'getting any job (in human
resources) he wanted.' Roll did NOT get a job in human
resources (personnel work). Roll got a job as a bus driver.
Jimmy tried to defend that by some kind of weird 'patriot'
ploy saying morseman Roll did his service-to-the-community
thing.

In the east San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles, there
are at least five small bus services NOT part of the Metro
Transit District big bus lines, all kept going by (what
Jimmy calls "subsidies from taxpayers") monies NOT derived
from "free market" captitalism. I have nothing against
those, either. They serve the communities.

But, Larry Roll was a MORSEMAN, an AMATEUR morseman. It is
the usual Standard Operating Procedure for ALL amateur
morsemen to support one another in here; none can do wrong.
Even if what they talk about hasn't the remotest chance of
being about amateur radio, the amateur morsemen are "right"
and others are "wrong" to criticize them.

Supporters. The "jock straps" of old radio operating
skills.



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

Both are missed.

Jimmy is incorrect. Both were HIT many times when they were
here. HIT right on their self-described importance of
morsemanship.

Richard Carroll, W0EX, is also gone. He was such an amateur
morseman that he claimed to carry around a code key in his car
to use in case of an earthquake in the Missouri area.

That makes THREE morsemen who are "missed" by other morsemen.

Who will be the fourth morseketeer? The Katapult King?


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.

Brian, that's one of the grossest bits of bull**** that Jimmy
has come up with in here. Here's a plain and simple fact:
Larry Roll, K3LT, got a job as a bus driver because he could
NOT get his choice of 'human resources' jobs. Roll FAILED
to live up to his own brags in here, so he rationalized it
into this 'serving the community' BS...and Jimmy just repeated
a version of it above.


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

Military servicemen are NOT subsidized. They are PAID for
their service by the government.

Some military personnel PAY the dearest price of all: Their
LIFE. Over three thousand United States military persons
paid that price in Iraq alone since our invasion of that
country in 2003.

I wonder what Jimmy thinks is a "subsidy" for volunteering
to give their LIFE for their country?


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.

Brian, that is irrelevant to Jimmy. Jimmy knows nothing of
military service, isn't involved, isn't a participant, never
was, never volunteered, wan't even a ("subsidized")
government worker.

Here's a plain and simple fact: By all apearances in this
newsgroup, James Miccolis has only ONE standard of others:
Morsemen are "good," non-morsemen are "bad, wrong, in error"
(and usually of lesser status as human beings).

It's the amateur morsemen's way...