RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 10th 05, 02:52 AM

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 8, 4:41 pm

His Royal Pompousness forgot Iitoi's attribute here
wrote:

Browsing the FCC internet site the sheer number of reply
comments by one Californian caught my eye.
8 in all on WT Docket 05-235. :-)
But, only ONE is a Comment. All the subsequent ones are REPLIES
to Comments.
One quote was particularly petulant --- "Based on the twenty items
discussed and comment on them, this commenter would urge the Commission
to ignore ARRL desires..."
Not quite verbatim, but close enough for government work. :-)
Perhaps, based on his tens of thousands of posts on the usernet, we
should urge the Commission to ignore Leonard H. Anderson desires.
It's ALREADY been done long ago. See WT Docket 98-143
for 25 January 1999...search ECFS for surname "Robeson."
BTW, it's "USENET," an acronym for 'university network' that
grew out of the old ARPANET long ago...so long it was before
the Internet went public access (in 1991).
It isn't from "university network", Len.

Sorry, your Royal Pompousness, ARPANET connected a number of
universities and defense industry locations back in the 70s
and 80s. Not a great many, nowhere the size of the Internet
of today, but enough to justify the ARPANET experience. The
nominal user throughput in those days was 100 Baud or equal to
100 WPM (earlier times by TTY machinery, later by "dumb"
electronic terminals). "High speed" then was 300 Baud or
300 WPM. :-)

Why are you wandering all over the place? The term "usenet" does not
come from "university network". It really is as simple as that.

For someone who has been
around as long as you claim, you'd think you'd get this one right.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

A tsking, a tasket
Len has blown a gasket.

No doubt you will pull up some "modern-day" claim that ARPANET
(standing for Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork) isn't
what I say it is? :-)

ARPANET wasn't the issue. Your incorrect defintion of the term "usenet"
is the issue.

I'm using the OLD naming conventions, your Royal Pompousness.

Oh. The "OLD" naming conventions which others don't use. I see.

ARRL did NOT invent "USENET" nor was it involved in that network
before 1991 and Internet going public. ARRL has NOT been a
member of ARPANET.

I wrote nothing of the ARRL inventing anything. I wrote that your
definition of the term "usenet" is incorrect. It turns out that the
fellow you were correcting had it right after all.

This isn't even the first time you've been corrected.

Tsk. You've TRIED to correct me but all you've done is to
attempt forcing the pro-code-test-advocate opinion as the
ONLY "correct" one. Total PCTA Effluence, your Royal
Pompousness.

I've TRIED and succeeded in correcting your factual errors on a number
of issues. My opinion on morse testing is not relevant to your error.

It looks as if you've made another of your frequent factual errors, Leonard.

No, your Royal Pompousness. I was on it back then. You
were NOT.

Whoopty-do. If you went around telling others that "usenet" came from
"university network", you were wrong then too. Tsk.

I began in HF radio communications in early 1953...using no
less than three dozen HF transmitters having minimum RF
power outputs of 1 KW...the station operating 24/7 as a
primary node of the worldwide U.S. Army communications
network.

What has all that to do with your error in defining "usenet"? Your tale
of your military communications experience of better than fifty years
ago is as irrelevant to the definition of "usenet" as it is to amateur
radio.

You tried to say that I "lied" in describing that
station and the Army network.

That is simply incorrect.

I didn't lie.

Good for you. You've made up for it in other postings.

I was briefly on ARPANET in the 70s, doing defense
contractor work and using the just-born USENET for that
defense work purpose. In the quarter century since then
a number of NAMES have changed to reflect the changing
nature of human activity. ARPA became DARPA and grew in
size and scope. USENET changed much more and became a
mainstay of the Internet once Internet went public in 1991.

That's nice. You still made an error in stating that "usenet" came from
"university network".

Now you are busy, busy, busy with your little gardening
Bobcat...

My little gardening Bobcat? What are you smoking?

...trying to build a mountain of "error" out of the
origin of USENET molehill?

Quit trying to pass yourself off as an expert in areas where you are
obviously not an expert. You got it wrong. You made an error. Why do
you need multiple lengthy paragraphs to attempt misdirection. Accept
that you goofed.

Why? Neither the Internet nor
USENET *is* amateur radio nor is anyone required to be
"licensed via taking a morse code test" to be on them.

Then why are you prattling on about it? You attempted to correct
another's use of a term only to incorrectly define the term yourself?

ARRL can do NO wrong? To speak against them is heresy?

Everyone should listen to you?

Tsk, tsk, your Royal Pompousness. My rhetorical question had
NOTHING to do with *me*, ONLY the ARRL.

My non-rhetorical statement had to do with you. Why should anyone
listen to your views about where amateur radio should be headed?
After all, you have no amateur radio experience and you have no stake in
amateur radio.

Just a plain, simple fact: ARRL supports the PCTA opinion of
WHAT SHOULD BE IN AMATEUR RADIO.

What's up with all the caps? Are you losing control of yourself?

Why should they?

Why shouldn't the ARRL reflect the views of its membership?

ARRL is a MINORITY group.

The NAACP has done pretty well for itself. The ARRL is by far, the
largest amateur radio organization in the United States. No other
amateur radio organization in America has anywhere near the ARRL's
membership. I know it chafes you, but them's the facts.

Their membership
is only 1 in 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs.

Show me another amateur radio organization in the United States with a
..5 in 5 ratio. Show me one with .25 in 5. The League, as much as it
bugs you, is the strongest amateur radio voice in this country.

ARRL does NOT
represent 4 out of 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs.

You don't represent any U.S. radio amateur.

YOU are telling US that some elite, self-defined "leader" of
a hobby activity MUST Tell All How Ham Radio SHOULD BE?!?

I like the League's ideas much, much more than I like yours. You aren't
a radio amateur. You don't represent a single radio amateur. You're
simply some goofy geezer with a lot of time to devote to flooding the
FCC with multiple comments and replies. You're fixated on something in
which you do not participate.

Of course you are.

No, I've changed my mind and have decided to pick up your banner and
follow you, Len....not.

You are a BELIEVER in the "leadership" of the ARRL. ARRL is
sacred, is untouchable. PBthpbthththththt.

....and you are an elderly goofball.

You know how amateur radio should be because...?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Your Royal Pompous Effluent Orifice is sore?

You grow more peculiar by the day. Tsk, tsk tsk. Poor baby.

WT Docket 05-235 is about the elimination of the code test for
GETTING INTO amateur radio through FCC licensing. GETTING INTO.

You aren't getting into. You've told us that you aren't getting in.
Then again, that has changed with the breezes.

That's a simple concept. But, to those all wrapped up in their
patriotic (invisible) bunting of ARRL "official" colors and
morsemanship as the extra-super-special-skill for amateurs (as
the ARRL has preached and lobbied)...you cannot see that simple
concept.

You aren't in. You aren't getting in. You've taken not a single step
during your self-declared decades of "interest" in amateur radio, toward
obtaining an amateur radio license. You're simply an elderly geezer
with time on his hands and an amateur radio fixation.

Your abject HATRED of certain personalities in here
blinds you to what others can plainly see.

I don't hate you, Len. You amuse me. You are certainly a personality,
and not a pleasant one.

Sunnuvagun, if the English Department of a west coast university
wants to "vote" for code testing...and twenty Tennessee law
students can use WT Docket 05-235 for Moot Court practice, fine,
PROHIBIT all they want!

I see. Don't listen to the ARRL; listen to an uninvolved party with an
ax to grind. Brilliant!

It must be "brilliant" if Joe Speroni wants to include an English
teacher at a university (west coast, of all things) who states
openly that she is NOT getting any amateur radio license, as "for"
morse code testing as an entry exam for something she is NOT
INVOLVED IN! Speroni is absolutely PCTA, an old morseman with an
"axe" to grind for that singular mode. The AH0A website shows
that. The Speroni "analysis" page shows that "English department"
ID at the top of his icon-filled "chart."

So? You've made eight or so submissions to the FCC on 05-235. How does
Speroni count your submission? After all, you've stated openly that you
aren't getting an into amateur radio. It is something you aren't
involved in.

Speroni has a number of FACTUAL ERRORS in his INTERPRETATION of
WT Docket 05-235 filings.

Has he? You two will find that you have something in common.

I've pointed out some of them, have
not exhausted that list. You WANT Speroni's pro-CW viewpoint
to persist and rule, plus you want any anti-code-test viewpoint
to be shut up, eliminated, thrown away by any force you can use.
You SHOW that in NOT remearking about anyone else negatively
but my comments.

What do you SHOW, Len?

So far, your Royal Pompousness, all you've done is engage in
pure, simple, factual Character Assassination of me and several
other NCTAs in public.

Why is character assassination capitalized, Len? Your character hasn't
been assassinated by me. I'd think that you'd want to be careful of
what you accuse others. After all, Google has a splendid archive of the
things you've written of others. You aren't a victim; you're a perpetrator.

Can't call it anything else...you want
to PROHIBIT discussion...

Why, Leonard H. Anderson! You've just made a deliberately false
statement. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Poor baby.

...and dictate that all should follow ARRL
in anything...not just in licensed amateur radio, but in all
things.

You may be on to something. I think the League should diversify--maybe
get into the oil business. Why, with that and the ARRL stake in
gambling (as handled by the "Field Organization"), we could control a
huge chunk of the action. :-) :-)

Enjoy your elitist exclusivity while it exists.

Oh, I shall, Leonard. I shall. I assume that you mean the exclusivity
of being a licensed radio amateur, something which has eluded you.

It won't be so forever.

I'm going to lose my license? I'm going to forget morse code?

If you can't get any Oriongasms now, go play with your
big classic johnson.

What is an Oriongasm? Oh, and you've made yet another factual error.
The term is "big, classic Johnson".

Turn it on and see if it turns you on.

I have and it does. Does your tiny Johnson turn anyone on?

Sieg heil,

Sieg anderson.