RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 20th 04, 12:56 PM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

By whom?

What "whom?"

You-m ;-)

Living in the past again, I see....

No.

Yes.

For tomorrow. Been in the past.

The past is all you talk about, Len.

Then he shouldn't be making the rules for it...right?

RIGHT! :-)

Then neither should *you* be making the rules for amateur radio - right? ;-)
;-)

What did you do back then, Len?

Already told you.

No, you told us where you were, not what you did.

How is it wrong?

Anything said against your opinions is automatically WRONG.

No, it isn't. You're wrong about that! ;-) ;-) ;-)

MOS 281.6 - Microwave Radio Relay Operations and Service
Supervisor plus brevet MOSs of Fixed Station Transmitter
Operations and Service, Carrier Systems Operations and
Service. [the "point-6" in that old MOS numbering is the
indicator of supervisory duties which I had as an E-5 S/Sgt]
1953 to 1956. "Three up and one down" after just 2 1/2
years. Earned.

So? That was your *job*, wasn't it, Len?

Assignment. [get with military nomenclature...]

Job.

What's interesting is that you don;t mention that there were more than 700
*other* people at ADA when you were there...

Yes, at Transmitters (Camp Tomlinson), Receivers (Camp Owada),
Control, Tape Relay at Chuo Kogyo (later inside North Camp Drake).

700 people is a lot of people.

Eugene Rosenbaum was one of the Transmitters assignees. I've
mentioned him before, also SFC Don Ross (Maintenance NCO,
had all commercial and top ham licenses of that time), Capt William
P. Boss, OIC (Officer In Charge) of Transmitters (ham license).
Gene has a ham license, lives in Long Island, NY, he and wife just
got back from a European tour.

I don't know any of those people. You mention them once or twice, and your
exploits at ADA about once a day on average.

I don't mention the photographic
detachment either (for about two decades later the photo people
were also categorized as part of Signal Corps). Photo wasn't
involved in radio communications.

700 people is a lot of people.

So...did you work at all those places or just talk about them?

Yes, I worked IN and AT all those things.

And how does that make you more qualified than others to determine amateur
radio policy?

Are you the new
security chief of the personnel department? Feel free to write all
those companies and check up. Here's a bird...I flip it to you...

Nice *professional* behavior.....

Were you in sole charge, or part of a much larger team?

I never worked in a shoe company, "in charge of soles."

Pbthbthbth...

Very grown-up of you, Len.

What company does Rev. Jim work for?

Who is "Rev. Jim"?

With over 700 people, when you were there. Yet you don't mention the team,
just yourself. Interesting, very interesting.

About 700 in the Batalion at four different sites and with three different
billets. I've RE-mentioned the people I mentioned before; see above.
I've also mentioned Jim Brendage, a civilian engineer (DAC) whom I've
been in contact with much later (retired, lives in CA) plus some USAF
people. USAF took over responsibility of the ADA facilities in 1963 as
part of Army downsizing in Central Honshu. I could mention lots of
others but they don't have the beloved ham license yet continued to
operate and maintain facilities without it or any need for morsemanship.

How is that in any way significant to amateur radio policy in 2004?

I find it supremely interesting that you don't know a damn thing about
HF communications other than ham radio and what you are spoon-
fed by QST and the league.

You're simply wrong about that, Len. I know quite a bit about HF radio
communications - and the ARRL is just one information source.

I recall many exchanges between you and K8MN (a career State Department
employee) in which you did not accept his explanation of Morse Code use in
State Department radio communications. He was there, you weren't, yet you don't
accept his statements simply because they proved you wrong on some minor point
or other. As if you knew more than he about State Department HF communications.
Riiight!

Then there's the infamous "sphincter post" of yours, where you ranted over a
true story by a USCG (that's a branch of the US military) radio operator who
was *assigned* to operate Morse Code from a shore station. Not in the 1930s but
many decades later. It really, reallly bothered you that somebody in
"professional" "big-time" radio actually had true stories to tell about Morse
Code on the air.

Now you'll probably dismiss all this as "living in the past" and such, but you
don't get a clean slate today after such behavior. You've never disowned any of
those rants and insults.

How is that relevant to amateur radio?

Nothing amateurish about it.

Then it's not relevant, and you're just spouting off because you don't have any
relevant qualifications.

You're not the FCC, Len.

You are not the FCC either. So?

So don't act like you know better than others what amateur radio policy and
regulations should be.

Actually, there are a few hams at FCC, making the rules and recommendations
about those rules.

Not required in their Statement of Work. Didn't you read yours?

My what? ;-)

More importantly, those folks are professional regulatory people. You're
not.

You sure as hell aren't a "professional regulator!" You're just a
wanna-be regulator.

That's not me, Len. I'm just a radio amateur. You're not.

Riiiiiight...keep the beepers in charge of hum raddio...those mighty
macho morsemen keeping the airwaves pristine with the musick of
morse as they did in the old, old days. Archaic Radio Service, the
ARS of yeasteryear! [all rise...]

Sounds like you are jealous, Len.

Sounds like you've got NO sense of humor when you be tweaked.

I was right - you're jealous. Obviously very jealous.

Poor baby. A wanna-be regulator and can't control your steam.

I'm not the one calling people names or telling them to shut up. You are.

Just a spectator.

No. One of a team, several teams. Doing work. Making things
happen. Making a bit of money, too.

Is that your only criteria - money? If I have more money than you, or am paid
more money, does that mean I'm right and you're wrong?

Just another groundpounder. Heck, even I can use the lingo. But you keep
reliving the past, leaving out the important details.

"Groundpounder?" That's a military term. You never served.

So? You're not a radio amateur.

Try not to be a wanna-be sojer too. Not nice.

I'm not a wanna-be. You are ;-)

Let's see...a fella who doesn't know squat about military comms
comes in here all filthy-languaged with sexual inuendo and tells
all "I never did what I said I did."

That's not me.

I then describe (again) what I did
and where, both in military work and civilian work and he still calls
it wrong.

That's not me either.

Now you come in here thinking "you speak the lingo" and
say it was all no good, "living in the past."

You tell others they are living in the past, and then you do the same thing to
a much greater degree.

Are there words and phrases which I must not use because I was never in the
military, Len? Words like "groundpounder"? SNAFU? FUBAR? "Augered-in"? "Six
turning and four burning"?

Will you now tell me to

"Shut the hell up, you little USMC feldwebel"

(direct quote of you!)

?

And you don't explain how some experiences of 50 odd years ago somehow make you
qualified to determine policy in a radio service that you have never been part
of.

Odd, very odd. Also illogical.

You don't know squat
about aerospace,

Yes, I do. I really do, Len. Not at a professional level, but I do have a bit
of knowledge. More than you have about amateur radio. Thosde facts seem to
bother you no end.

It is. But you're just a spectator there, too.

Yes. So?

So?

You seem to have lost touch with the issue in here...

No, I haven't.

the creation
reason issue being the retention or elimination of the code test for
an amateur radio license.

Really? ;-)

You keep trying to misdirect these non-discussions into some
weird "desire" for a ham ticket I'm supposed to have.

You said you were going for an Extra right out of the box 54 months ago
yesterday. Hasn't happened yet. You haven't even tried. That kinda messes up
your credibility.

Such as:

What really burns your bacon is that even with all your alleged professional
experience, the FCC won't act on your recommendations and those of us who
actually *are* radio amateurs won't bow down to you.

INCORRECT. WRONG.

No, it's quite correct, quite right, as evidenced by your diatribes here and in
ECFS.

I know the process of legislation and rule-making and accept that.

oooooooooo ;-)

Everyone gets a chance to comment at the FCC and the FCC has
the near-final regulatory say on U.S. civil radio (courts can rule on
that later but that does not happen often).

Civics 101. 9th grade stuff ;-)

All must live with the
decisions on civil radio matters, even if they are not individually
acceptible.

Then live with the code test, Len.

That's how it is in a democratic-principle government.

I know.

Here's another democratic-principle thing: Majority opinion counts for
something. And when the issue is discussed, the majority of those bothering to
express an opinion support a Morse code test for at least some classes of ham
license in the USA. Even without a treaty requirement.

Back when the issue was discussed in FCC comments, (1998), the majority of
those who commented not only wanted code tests but wanted at least two code
test speeds. Not the majority of comments - the majority of *people*. That fact
was revealed by someone in "No-Code International", so you cannot claim the
data gathering was biased for the result.

You can spam the ECFS but you're still just one person, and a nonparticipant at
that. You can call your opponents names but that doesn't change anyone's mind
on the issue.

Your allegation of some kind of weird "personal vendetta" is just
that, a weird thing.

It *is* a weird thing that you are so fixated on a single issue in a radio
service where you play no part and have no place.

It *is* a weird thing that you spend so much time calling people names, making
fun of their jobs, education, ethnicity, military service, background, gender,
and many other attributes when all they have done is to disagree with you, or
show that your statements are incorrect.

It *is* a weird thing that you support an age requirement of up to 14 years for
an amateur radio license even though you cannot name a *single instance* where
the youth of an amateur radio licensee has caused on-air problems. (The USA has
never had an age requirementfor any class of amateur radio license).

You can't abide the thought of losing the
morse code test

Sure I can. It was lost for the Technician license back in 1991. That wasn't a
good idea, but I learned to live with it.

Heck, way back in 1998 or so, and many times since then, I discussed license
structures that would allow individual amateurs to choose which tests they
would take. No Morse code if they didn't want it.

So you're wrong - again!

so, therefore, you think that all those trying to
eliminate it are abnormal in some regard. Not so.

All anyone has to do is observe your behavior, Len.

What IS abnormal is the stridency of the PCTA in the maintenance
of a code test for a ham license without any regard to the changing
times or the fact that morse code manual telegraphy is going down
the tubes in all of radio communications except amateurism.

Why is that "abnormal"?

What *is* abnormal is lumping together all people who happen to share a common
opinion on one issue of regulation and treating them as if they have all
insulted you in the same way. That's what you do here.

An amateur license is for amateur radio, not other radio services. Amateur
radio is a unique service, as are all the other radio services, with its own
rules, goals, basis and purpose. (If it wasn't unique, it would have no reason
to exist as a separate service).

Amateurs use Morse code extensively. So it makes sense to require some basic
skill in its use.

And that's what the 5 wpm test is - basic skill.

You cannot justify modern-day rules based on antiquated reasons
which no longer apply.

That's true. However, there are modern reasons which do apply.

But, you met those antiquated rules and now
insist that all newcomers meet those rules.

Which antiquated rules?

Why?

A Morse code test for an amateur radio license is a good idea. It's not
antiquated. That's why.

I don't know why
you are still so adamant about it, can only speculate.

I simply think it's a good idea. Hams use Morse, it's a big part of amateur
radio *today*, therefore it should be tested.

Why you are so obsessed over a simple test in a radio service where you are
just a spectator is the mystery.

And despite all your
verbiage, you can't get some of us to respond in kind to your name calling
and other word games.

TS. Someone wants to play nasty with me, I play nastier. No problem.

No, you play nasty even with those who are civil with you. Like me.

Been there, done that, lots of times.

By requiring a simple one-time 5 wpm code test?

By requiring ANY rate code test.

Learn to live with it.

You can NO longer justify its existance by "treaty."

Don't have to.

You can NO longer justify its usefulness by anything but tired,
trite, old phrases that ceased being applicable decades ago.

Ad hominem attack rather than facts.

All you or your PCTA ilk can "justify" is all the denigration and
name-calling and general negative inuendo you put on those that
want to eliminate the code test.

Where have I called anyone a name, Len? Where's the "negative innuendo"? That's
what *you* do.

Not nice.

No, you're not. ;-)

But, you "justify" it
by all kinds of tricks and message subject misdirections, by
calling yourself "superior" to others because you met old
standards.

Where have I called myself superior? C'mon, show the post. Or are you afraid of
Google, because of what else is archived there?

No sweat to me. If the code test stays, then I hang in there
trying to get rid of it. If the code test is eliminated, then I be
satisfied.

Why? You're not a radio amateur, have never been one, and obviously have no
intention of being one. You play no part in amatuer radio, yet you seem to
think that some ancient non-amateur experience somehow qualifies you to tell
others how amateur radio should be regulated. And to endlessly insult them for
daring to disagree with you.

And you are obsessed with this code test thing as if it were some sort of moral
crusade in which you are the standard-bearer against some imagined injustice.
Why?