From: on Dec 20, 1:56 am

wrote:
From: on Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:01 am
wrote:
From: on Dec 10, 3:48 pm,
wrote:
From: on Dec 7, 5:28 pm

etc


What "obvious political spin"? Give us some examples of
where the ARRL history is "spun" or inaccurate. For example -
were there others besides amateurs who achieved low-power
2-way transatlantic shortwave radio communication before
November 1923?

Yes, there were. :-)

But, trying to present all those, finding the references,
noting them in here is all wasted effort on my part. You
will simply not accept any of it. What you will do is
write something like:

That's just *your* spin, Len.

And all my effort will be for naught. :-)

That's the way it has been in here and that's just how you
will handle it. That's just the way it is... :-)

If anyone else cares to look at the history of ALL radio
they are welcome to peruse two texts by Hugh G. J. Aitken,
"Syntony and Spark," "The Continuous Wave, Technology and
American Radio 1900-1932, Princeton University Press.

For those who wish to review Thomas H. White's history
of USA radio, go to http://earlyradiohistory.us/ or
find a much-more abbreviated history at the FCC website.

There are many others of the non-amateur histories, but
you just don't want to hear of those, do you? :-(


So go ahead.

For what purpose? I'm not a "radio evangelist" out trying
to hold "tent revival meetings" that we should all believe
in the Church of St. Hiram. :-)

Jimmie, U.S. radio amateurs were BANISHED from the "long
waves" after WW1 and had to be on the "short waves" from
200 meter wavelengths and down. BANISHMENT is banishment.
U.S. radio amateurs have NEVER been granted any band
allocations below MF since the FCC was created in 1934.

BTW, you are free to use the CORRECT term of decades in
the EM spectrum that others use; i.e., HF, VHF, UHF, etc.

TODAY's use of "shortwave" refers to the high microwave
region, usually above 10 GHz. Very short wavelengths
indeed.

1923 was 82 years ago, Jimmie.

This is the year 2005. Do try to keep up.



Nonsense, Len. The ARRL doesn't elect government officials.

It postures as if it does...stating bluntly that it is
the "representative of amateur radio!" :-)

Not the same thing at all.

ARRL is a MINORITY special interest group, Jimmie.

Only one out of five licensed U.S. radio amateurs are
members of the ARRL.

And who else represents amateur radio in the
USA on anyhting like as many issues?

Okay, so this MINORITY "representative group" practices
oligarchy. So what? :-)


FCC makes the regulations.

Ah, but, on 10 December, you wrote "FCC doesn't license
radio amateurs!" :-)


You didn't exist in the 1940s, Jimmie.

So what? The fact is there were other groups back then trying to
change the regulations.

PROVE that fact. Show your work...tell us why we should care.



Everyone in the military puts their LIFE on the line, 24/7, as
long as they are in.

Jimmie, you did not comment on that, yet you quoted it.

Are you going to "argue" that now? Don't try...it will only
make you look more foolish than you are in regards to
national service.


You've built complete amateur radio stations yourself? I fon't think
so.

Whether or not you "fon't think so" is irrelevant. I have.


INCORRECT. I've built equipment "from scratch." INCLUDING
the "sheet metal work." :-)

Not amateur radio equipment for your own use in your own station.

That's the point.

It was radio equipment. No one paid me for it, ergo it was
"amateur." :-)


From the initial notes and sketches on paper to more detailed
plans on vellum to getting the parts, doing the breadboards,
finalizing the physical layouts, laying out the circuit boards,
masking and etching the PCBs, "bending the tin" (an expression
in aerospace for sheet-metal work), using the metal brake, using
drill presses, mills, lathes, tapping the screw holes, wiring up
the components, assembling everything, then testing and recording
the operation of the finished product. That was just for HOBBY
equipment, Jimmie. :-)

But not for amateur radio equipment. And not using just your own
resources.

Using ENTIRELY MY RESOURCES, Jimmie. Paid for out of my own
pocket. That classifies it as "amateur" as opposed to
"professional."

I've used others' brake, mill, and lathes, exhanging services
of mine for their loan of tools. All the rest were mine,
owned outright. Fair exchange of services agreeable to all.

Most "chassis" are easier to use purchased off the shelf. I have
the Greenlee chassis punches on hand to do those jobs, had them a
long time, even visited the very workshop in the department of
Greenlee's factory that made them back in 1950. [it was, and
remained, a tiny, tiny part of the overall Greenlee factory]

At WORK I've done all that plus a lot more...and been responsible
for the completion of the final design to established milestones,
setting up and doing the environmental testing, going out in the
field for the corporation to assist the customer, being responsible
for million-dollar project completion plus all the interdisciplinary
design review meetings and reports before managers as well as giving
pitches for contracts up for bid.

All by yourself? Or with the "help" of an engineering team?

The travel departments at various companies arranged for my tickets
and lodging reservations, accounts payable argued with me on my
expense reports. I didn't have solo meetings with myself in design
reviews, if that is what you mean. :-) [do you hold meetings
with yourself at your work?]



In other words, since there was no money in it for you...

No NEED, Jimmie. Can't you get anything straight?

No need in your job. Job is for money. I got it right.

No NEED for ME, Jimmie.

My, my, you DO come across as an UNDERPAID engineer who is all
the time talking about "money." :-)

Are you really a surreptuous socialist? A closet communist?

Maybe you believe that you should get "free radios" because
you are a radio amateur?



Not AUTHORIZED, Jimmie. Do try to keep up...

Neither qualified nor authorized, Len. Do try to be accurate.

I am accurate. I'm am quite QUALIFIED to not only operate
a radio transmitter (or any RF emitter), but to design it,
build a prototype, test it, align it, make it work.

I am not AUTHORIZED to USE it on frequencies which are
regulated by an AUTHORIZING AGENCY. In this case, the agency
is the FCC.



When were you on the Condor Network? Give us the year you
operated on it. Describe it.

Wasn't talking about the Condor Network. Was talking about the amateur
bands above 220 MHz. I've operated there - you've only listened.

The amateur Condor Net operates ON the "220" band, Jimmie,
not above it.

I have LEGALLY OPERATED on non-amateur bands both above and
below the amateur "220" band since 1952.



I've been a radio amateur for 38 years, Len. Some other hams here
have been radio amateurs even longer.

Why should *we* change?

It's not a question of "should," Jimmie.

You've made it quite clear that you "fon't" want to change!

:-)


I'm not saying you *should* change, Len. I'm simply pointing out
that you're a nonamateur tells others that *they* have to change
but doesn't accept change himself.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr.-I'm-an-amateur-for-38-years, the FCC,
which is NOT requiring any commissioners or staff to be
licensed in amateur radio, has been TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO
IN RADIO OPERATION for 38 years. :-)


btw - you accused at least one developer of "payola" to the zoning
commission, and also that the zoning commission accepted the
"payola". Pretty serious charges. Care to back them up with facts?

You are welcome to go search the Los Angeles Superior Court
records, the Los Angeles City government records, if it is
so "important" to you. :-)

City government activity involving zoning ordinances have
NOTHING to do with radio, Jimmie.



Were you top of the form in Morse Code? I think not.

I've never claimed to be "top of the form in morse code."

:-)


TRY to understand the 53 years ago morse code was NOT
the ultimate skill in radio operation on communications
circuits.

Depends on which "communications circuits" you mean.

The Defense Communications System, and all its predecessors
since WW2 days, Jimmie. "Communications" is not restricted
to manual radiotelegraphy.

On the average, Washington Army Radio (WAR) relayed a MILLION
teletypewriter messages per MONTH out of Fort Detrick, MD, in
1955. Some of those were the 220 thousand TTY messages
relayed by station ADA in Tokyo of that same year. ADA did
not communicate directly, RUAP to RUEP, but communicated to
Anchorage, Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, Manila, Okinawa,
Seoul, Pusan, and Saigon in 1955. Some USAF, USN messages
were relayed through ADA, along with State Department messages
to Manila. A few, but very few facsimiles were relayed,
mostly for the USAF. Manila had a circuit through Asmara,
Eritrea, to the USAEUR (U.S. Army in Europe).

You
always seem to spin away from "communications circuits"
like those used by the US Navy...

I'm not "spinning" anything, Jimmie. TTY messaging carried
the overwhelming mass of ALL messages involving the United
States military a half century ago. Insofar as encrypted
messages are concerned, TTY carried very nearly ALL of
those. "DATA" modes now carry the overwhelming mass of
messaging that goes on now...even in the United States Navy.


NOT necessary in relaying tens or hundreds of thousands of
messages a month worldwide.

As if!

No argument about it...teletypewriter mode was the overwhelming
medium/mode of messaging a half century ago in the United States
military.

Today the "need" for radiotelegraphy skill has atrophied down
to some amateur radio hobbyists who cling to the myth that it
is "necessary" for obtaining an amateur radio license.

Spin, spin, spin....

No "spin." That's just the way it is.

You will not accept reality since you are a devout desciple of
the Church of St. Hiram, a "True Believer" in the mythologic
efficacy of morsemanship in radio.


Even
then that myth is not universal nor does it represent any
"consensus" among those that have obtained the "highest" CLASS
amateur radio license. That's just the way it is...

But you have no such license, yet you keep trying to force others to
change.

What "force," Jimmie?

I am simply showing the TRUTH of the reality of communications
modes in the REALITY of the radio world.

The FCC gives you the OPTION of using any allocated mode, any
amateur band. One of those OPTIONAL modes is morse code on-off
keying. NO ONE is "taking that away from you" when the morse
code test is removed from amateur licensing regulations.

You will continue to be FREE to use any OPTIONAL communications
mode INSIDE your amateur frequency allocations. The "force"
that you imagine others try to put on you will remain, well,
just imaginary.


You also haven't been a radio amateur at all.

Neither has any staffer or commissioner at the FCC...and they
can, not only tell YOU what to do in amateur radio, but they
can also FORCE you to do things (or not do them) via the U.S.
federal marshalls and federal court system.