In article , Dave Heil Herr Robust uf das
newsgroup polizei writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
"Real ham" = One who abides by 1930s standards and practices

That is incorrect, Leonard.

Not in the context of the particular give-and-take with "Real Ham"
Dan. :-)

A "real ham" is one who holds an amateur radio license.

Actually, a "real ham" is the butchered meat of swine. :-)

Then why are you trying to tell us that " "Real ham' = One who abides by
1930s standards and practices"?

I'm not telling you that.

Excuse me. Yes, you personally told us that.

Anyone who espouses the 1930s standards and practices, such as
requiring manual telegraphy skills in order to be licensed in
amateur radio, says that. It doesn't have to be overtly stated (this
is not a court of law and you are NO judge...).

All those who trumpet the 1930s standards
and practices do. :-)

No, nobody here except you has written that.

Like I said, this is NOT a court of law and you are NO judge.

Now you've backtracked and
have told us that it is something different.

No. Nothing different. I've said that all along. You haven't been
paying attention. :-)

The several of you
inhabiting the body of Leonard Anderson need to come to an agreement.

NO "agreement" needed with a single body, single personality.

I suggest that YOUR multiple personalities can't reach any
agreement on what this one person wrote.

Call a meeting and discuss that among YOUR personalities.

You still want to maintain the ancient rules...because you got your
title, rank, status under that archaic standard.

Y'know Len? I got my four different classes of license under several
different standards.

Wonderful. Keep on doing that until you get it right. :-)

When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing.

I already have several licenses.

Your "rationality" is on short ration.

YOU define "rational" as strict and utter obediance to a SINGLE
set of standards AND take the arrogant, UNofficial role of being a
judge (plus jury and executioner) of who can say what and to whom.

That is NOT "rational," herr robust. That is DICTATORIAL.

Losing that title, rank, status, even if only to yourself, would be a
mighty blow to your self-esteem. [that's rather obvious]

It might appear that way to an outsider like you.

:-) An "outsider" is it? [of course, no official license, absolute
inability to say anydamnthing according to Herr Heil]

From my perspective,
you're a guy who doesn't want to participate in an endeavor where anyone
has more status than you.

Ol' Dozer Davie is busy, busy, busy moving soil to make a mountain
out of metaphoric molehill. [your OSHA backup beeper is not working
old timer, get it fixed...at an appropriate service place that knows how
to work on simple circuitry]

Dozer Davie is also busy, busy, busy trying to cover up the subject of
WHEN the manual telegraphy test will be eliminated in U.S. amateur
radio licensing. He wanna keep shifting to denigrating others that
don't think as arrogantly and self-importantly as Him. :-)

Tough it out, old timer.

I do that constantly. That's how I've survived that long. :-)

By the way, did you return that SS costume to Western Casting?
The rental prices are going up soon.

The FCC regulations don't define "ham" at all. The FDA does.

Ham is the butchered meat of swine. :-)

That conflicts with what you wrote in the very recent past.

No conflict. I've written before (roughly over a year ago) that a W6
already defined "ham" as "the butchered meat of swine" a number
of years ago.

That fits with one dictionary definition.

As far as I know, without bothering to check with the Food and Drug
Administration, the FDA still has rules on ham and can approve it
or disapprove it. Also beef, fish, and poultry. Are you too chicken
to defy the FDA? :-)

You've told us on numerous occasions all you want to do here.

I'm doing that. :-)

Actually, you aren't.

Not in this message, true. I'm replying to nothing more than some
idiot's heckling and cat-calling about "cannot say anydamnthing
about amateur radio without a amateur radio license."

Except for its personal amusement value, your constant mention of
needing an amateur radio license in order to discuss matters of
amateur radio policy, is just a time-wasting exercise. :-)

You don't have a single bit of authority to judge who can say what
and to whom in here.

All you have is a big keyboard and wayyyyy too much time on your
hands to satisfy that warped thought-control police mind one of your
personalities has.

You never seem to get around to doing what you've stated.

Less here where it doesn't count for much in the real world.

LOTS more at the FCC where it DOES count.

Okay, Mr. Mitty. I'm sure folks at the FCC find your sheer volume of
material fascinating.

How would you know? [did you add Thurber to your schiz ids?]

Oh, yes...you are one of those claiming "insider information" on U.S.
government...because you once got a regular salary for working for
working in one part of it. You claim to KNOW things. Uh huh.

Now you'd like to tell me all I want to do.

Nobody can tell Big Dave what to do...he da man! :-)

I respect authority, Len. You aren't authority.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. You only respect Davie Heil.

YOU ARE NOT AUTHORITY.

[can you understand it better if written all-caps?]

Davie, all you've got is a Big Ego and all you have is a Big keyboard
in front of a control-freak personality problem.

I've not stated all I want to do here so your
comments are conjecture on your part.

All you seem to do in here is bitch, moan, get nasty at folks who
don't agree with you.

Are the several of you inhabiting the body of Leonard Anderson having a
group discussion among yourselves?

I'm not the schizoid, herr robust.

Your own multiple personalities badly need to seek consensus there.

:-)

Not a likeable guy you are. :-)

...not by you or "William". I can certainly live with that.

So, you are unable to live with dissent.

Must be hell to be so royal. Or "heil." :-)

Take your pick, Leonard:
classical telegraphy, classical SSB, classical AM phone. You aren't
doing any of them in amateur radio. You aren't a participant.

None of THIS newsgrouping IS amateur radio, Big Dave.

That's right. If this was amateur radio, you wouldn't be a participant.

If this were a "rational discussion," you would have LOST long ago.


The FCC is NOT a "participant" in U.S. amateur radio.

Yes, the Commission participates. You don't participate.

The FCC makes regulations and - sometimes - enforces those
regulations.

The FCC does NOT promote amateur radio, nor does it put amateur
radio over and above all other radio services it is required to regulate.

NO staff or commissioner is required to have any "participatory"
amateur radio license in order to exercise regulatory power over
amateur radio.

Ain't that a bitch, though? :-)

Imagine that...THE regulatory power over amateur radio and not a
single FCC person is required to have any amateur radio license!

You precipitate in here, little snowflake, not participate.

You are a crystalized form of ego condensed out of a fog of old-
time ideas, standards, and practices, trying to clump in drifts to
disable independent thought of others.

The weather is too hot for your rigid, arrogant assertion of mandatory
old-time ideas, standards, and practices. Your precipitation only
leaves a wet smudge on the surface of rational discussion.

A paper towel can quickly wipe up your mess.

The FCC MAKES the rules and regulations for U.S. amateur radio.

You seem to have a terrible incognizance problem with those two
sentences! [mental Pampers would help you]

Your perception is incorrect. I understand that the Commission
participates in that it regulates amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. There you go with the "participation" thing again.

Hello? Did your ancient dictionary dry up and blow away?

The FCC is somehow a "participator" like the ARRL? :-)

NOT ONE SINGLE FCC STAFFER NEED HAVE ANY AMATEUR
RADIO LICENSE TO *REGULATE* U.S. AMATEUR RADIO.

You are a precipitate. Dried sludge at the bottom of a Petrie dish.

1. I wrote "amateur radio". You're drifting off into a description of
your past professional radio experience once again.

Boils you down to very pale meat, doesn't it? :-)

Actually, no.

Actually, YES. :-)

2. I don't really care where on which frequencies you communicated as a
professional.

You just don't "care" about anything but attempting to triumph over
others in a newsgroup! :-)

I wrote what I meant to convey, that I don't care on which frequencies
you communicated as a professional.

Poor precipitate.

You "care" only to denigrate all those who disagree with you and
stand up to you, tossing back the same sort of thing (and in greater
quantity) as you try to heap on others.

Doesn't feel good to your noble, royal ego, does it?

3. You have no idea which frequencies are used or may be used by the
U.S. Department of State.

Does State have its own MARS-like organization? :-)

Do a web search.

All I find is Heilian spiders squeaking "you can't talk about amateur
radio without an amateur radio license!" :-)

Since when did State enter into this discussion...

Since you brought it up.

You never mentioned the U.S. Department of State before?!?!?

other than you want
to impress your neighbors about your mighty governmental career?

My neighbors don't read this newsgroup.

Then they can't be "rational," can they?

They aren't "participatory?" :-)

Didn't need a bit of manual telegraphy skills or licensing (as an
amateur) to do any of that.

You wouldn't need any to obtain the most basic amateur radio license in
the U.S. either.

I have no need for any amateur radio license. I'm "not a participant,"
remember? :-)

Having a need or desire and actually doing something about obtaining a
license are two very different things.

Oh? Now it is a finer Heilian definition of "NEED OR DESIRE?"

Of course, according to the arrogant Heilian definition, one MUST have
an amateur radio license in order to discuss amateur radio!

Where is it "written" that I have to demonstrate some "interest in
radio" to the Great Heil?

I didn't write anything about "some interest in radio".

Now, now, don't get petulant. This isn't a quibble over semantics
or syntax or spelling.

That's right. It isn't a quibble over semantics. I wrote "amateur
radio" no matter how badly you want it to be "radio".

You've written MUCH about the equate of "having an interest in
radio" with amateur radio. You can't deny that.

I certainly can deny it. I've written nothing about "interest in
radio". I've written of "interest in amateur radio".

Quibble, quibble, just so much dribble. :-)

Up near the beginning of your message you said:
"When you've obtained a license under any standard,
perhaps you'll be able to engage in a rational discussion of amateur
radio licensing."

Hello? I've got SEVERAL licenses by SEVERAL STANDARDS.

Had them (plural) before you got a single one. :-)

Want to "quibble" more about what YOU wrote...and all readers have
read?


You DEMAND that ALL who "have an interest in radio" become
radio amateurs, all nicely licensed and mentally very important.

I've DEMANDed nothing.

Sure you have. Many times. It's getting to be a standard bit of
off-key singing done in falsetto.

You can't deny that. [but you will vainly, and self-importantly try]

Denying it is quite easy. I've made no demands of you.

Yes you have. Demands on TIME.

Except for its amusement value, replies to you WASTE TIME.

You rise or fall on your own efforts.

Yes. I've risen to this occasion more than once, Dozer Davie.

Must really gripe your big, sorry butt that I keep telling things
like they are. :-)

I've pointed out that you have not obtained even
the most basic amateur radio license.

There you go again. :-)

Oberst Heil adjusts his monocle and addresses the troops:

"You cannot have a rational discussion about amateur radio
without FIRST getting an amateur radio license!!!"

As you pointed out earlier, this isn't amateur radio.

No kidding? Ah, but, the Grate Heil said that an amateur radio
license is REQUIRED in order to have a "rational" discussion
about getting an amateur radio license!

That's a "chicken-egg paradox" thing painted different colors and
repackaged. :-)

I need no more
license to target you than you need for taking potshots at radio
amateurs and their traditions, Mr. Professional.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. One of your personalities getting paranoid pot-shots?

Bandage that personality's wounds and continue on...

You need some (unlicensed) ability to take adversity, Mr. Amateur.

You've shown repeatedly that YOU CAN'T TAKE IT. You become
petulant, irritated, sometimes outraged at the slightest negativism
of your arrogant, follow-my-directive authority. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


It can't be irrelevant. You brought it up. You accused me of making
DEMANDS but you haven't come up with a single example. What demand has
been made of you?

Something about "one has to have an amateur radio license in
order to 'rationally' discuss anything about amateur radio." :-)

Let's see....This is an amateur radio newsgroup dealing with amateur
radio policy. I am a radio amateur. It seems to make sense for me to
be here.

In general, it would, but you go FAR beyond that in your arrogant
petulance of constantly trying to heckle, jeer, denigrate all those
who disagree with you.

Social-wise, you are rated a "LID" as a human being on newsgroups.

You aren't a radio amateur. You, on the other hand, aren't involved in
amateur radio. Which one of us is wasting time?

According to Heilian Law, obviously the one without OFFICIAL
AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE to do the "rational" ritual. :-)

You've certainly kept mum about your childlike antics exemplified by
some of your comments to the FCC.

What "childlike" antics, little toddler? :-)

Those on the Commission's web site; the ones deriding the comments of
others.

Poor baby. Can't take the heat of the discussions?

Precipitates are like that. Snowflake condensates melt quickly and
turn into hot vapor when exposed to heat. They steam and try to
burn others but quickly cool down and do no more. It's a return to
room temperature. :-)

Poor baby. Can't take grown-up debate against opposite-to-yours
opinions, can you?

You haven't exhibited any "grown-up debate" here, ever. I'll find out
if I can take it when and if you ever do so.

Poor baby. Still angry, still trying to get the last word, still trying
to bluff and bluster like you are some kind of "leader." :-)

You have to call them "childlike" as if you were a "grown-up" trying
to spank children? [you must have been talking to Dee?]

I call them childlike because I read them.

Slowly, with a finger tracing out each letter? :-)

You seem to have dysfunctional attributes in your "parenting." :-)

I'm not your parent.

Darwinian Law comes to humanity's rescue! :-)


The FCC makes and enforces the civil radio regulations in the United
States. If you have an old bone that you think needs gnawing on,
then go make your Comments to the FCC about regulations.

Quit making DEMANDS, Len.

A CONDITIONAL phrase begins with "if," senior. That wasn't a demand,
just a conditional statement.

But, if you CAN'T take any controversy, much less negative opinion,
by all means stay away from making any comments in public to the
FCC. Stay in here where you have the fictional equivalent of King of
the Loud Hill, where you can safely send nastygrams to those who
won't agree with you.

Most radio amateurs are civilians. We can and do comment to and
petition our government.

Ah, but amateur radio is DIFFERENT according to Heilian Law.

In order to comment to government on amateur radio, Heilian Law
states that commenter MUST have an amateur radio license!

Well, so much for the First Amendment...

Your thought is certainly independent. Independent doesn't mean that it
is rational thought.

Neither is your arrogant petulant whining over your perceived "hurts"
in this newsgroup...done for years...

Poor baby.

LHA / WMD