Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 8, 4:41 pm
cut
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.
your evidence?
and why does Len need YOUR license to wander as he chooses?
it is as unsupprted as Al Gores claim to have invented the iterent
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.
just another of the Dave and Stevie ppersonal attack responses
almost as much fun as Stevies' "lair lair pants on fire" ****
cut
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.
nor did Len state you had ,but in any case you are being deceitfull in
making a stament that implies he said you made such a statement
(no doubt the poor fellow will claim he can't follow a complex
sentence)
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.
preahps that is ture but it has not been shown by you
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.
well that only shows you have not been following the arguement in here
Dave, the contention that along withe the ProCode test babagage comes
other issues is something you choose to overlook, but instaed you
continue to pile on the evidence that something more than just being
proCode is wrong with the proCoder's suggesting that the position on
Code testing is just an outcrop of a deeper problem
cut
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.
and you just told another Lie dave. Len has a stake in Ham radio.
everyone does. everyone on the planet ( and it is not limited to the
earth assuming that life exists out there) has a stake in how the
airwaves are used
I comend Len on his public spirt in showing scuh interest and attetnion
to this public matter
The Airwaves don't belong to us as Hams Dave, they belong to the people
of them and it is the duty of regulators to try and serve the PUBLIC
interest not the narrow interest of Some hams like yourself
You are selfish and decietful which are very human properties I have
them myself as does everyone, but at Least I see them for what they
are. You and Stevie trun your selfis and deeictfull positions to your
own wand refuse to even adknowledge ythem as human failing that you are
subject to.
that is why I am in my own eyes, and other a better persons than you, I
know my flaws you try to pretend your flaws are your virtues lying in
very deep and dangerous way you lie to yourself
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?
he choose AS IS HIS RIGHT, to use them
Why should they?
Why shouldn't the ARRL reflect the views of its membership?
becuase the ARRL claims to LEAD one cannot lead and follow at the same
time, this a comon failing these days affect the ARRL, Bill Clinton and
others
cut
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.
your prevledge
You aren't
a radio amateur.
ture but so what
You don't represent a single radio amateur.
A lie Dave
You're
simply some goofy geezer with a lot of time to devote to flooding the
FCC with multiple comments and replies.
or a public minded fellow who takes his civic duty seriously something
you should encourage
You're fixated on something in
which you do not participate.
you fixate on thing you do not particpate (at least so you claim) and
that don't affect you at all, and are of zero relavance to Ham radio
and therfore this newsgroup, the subejct reffered to? My sex life
cut
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.
another lie the public takes the ride along with us
len stake in this matter is merely defferent than yours or mine but not
zero
You've told us that you aren't getting in.
Then again, that has changed with the breezes.
Unlike you Dave Len has an open mind he thinks even changes his mind
only a non thinking "person" like yourself would call open minded
though a bad thing
cut
I have and it does. Does your tiny Johnson turn anyone on?
focousing on His sex life too
cut