"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...

At least I have one that works!

Only in a rudimentary fashion.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Radio Amateur
KC2HMZ
writes:

QR10-4, QGB! I'm QPM, so QBD me!

(Translation: "Ten-Fawhar, Good Buddie! I'll be putting the pedal
to
the
metal now, so watch my back door!)

73 de Larry, K3LT

You seem to toss that CB jargon around pretty well, Larry. Don't tell
me...no, it couldn't be...could it?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

John:

Yep, it is true! I was once a CB'er, for a whole six months! I was
the
Asst. Mgr. of the Radio Shack store in Depew, NY at the time,

We should have known ... "Radio Shack, you've got questions, we're
clueless,"
I'm sure Larry fit in quite well.

So where is Kim? Shouldn't she be jumping on Carl over irrelevant
comments directed at Larry?

Dave ... it's not irrelevant ... Larry has always spoken quite freely of his
disdain for CBers and other "lower forms of life" (knuckle-draggers, etc.)

Sure it is irrelevant. My own experience is that most CBers I've met
don't have much technical knowledge, know little about propagation and
have poor operating skills and habits. If you see someone driving a
primer gray and blue pickup truck sporting a CB whip, hauling a second
hand mattress and the truck is driven by an unshaven guy with a ball cap
and a T-shirt featuring the Confederate battle flag, do you say to
yourself, "Now there's a fellow I'd like to hang out with"?

The fact that Larry was a CBer, yet talks down to folks with such a
superior attitude, shows what a hypocrite he is ...

The operative phrase here is "Larry was a CBer..." That's probably how
he came to realize the limitations of CB radio with its low range and
population of those doing bad "Smokey and the Bandit" imitations.
Larry chose ham radio. I don't choose to spend my time with NASCAR fans
or those who think an evening of fun is going to a karaoke bar. That's
freedom of association.

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

It serves to point out Len's total lack of experience in the amateur
service.

Yet he knows more about radio then you.

It hasn't been demonstrated that he knows more about radio "then" me.
There is every possibility that Len knows more about electronics theory
than me. There is a similar possibility that I have much more
operational experience in "radio" or that I have much more knowledge of
wave propagation than Len. There is a certainty that I have forty years
more experience in amateur radio than Len.

How can that be if he has no experience?

What I wrote addressed Len's experience in amateur radio. He has none.


The vast majority of the policy makers
at the FCC aren't licensed in the amateur radio service and have no
experience in amateur radio.

The vast majority of policy makers at the FCC have nothing whatever to
do with amateur radio. Those that are involved in the regulation of the
ARS, are quite knowledgeable about the service.

They fooled me with the last restructuring NOI/NPRM.

They are paid to know.

Wasted money.

Well, after all, you're the expert.

Additionally, there are radio amateurs on the FCC staff.

So every amateur on "staff" makes policy and rules?

Is that what you read?

That has
nothing to do with the issue of Len Anderson. He isn't a participant in
amateur nor is he a regulator of amateur radio. Len is totally
irrelevant to amateur radio.

You are in the minority in thinking that.

And your statement is based on what strong indications?

But I don't hear you complaining about that, yet they have the ability
to change what you do and how you do it.

No, you won't hear me complaining often though there are times when the
Commission makes a decision which I don't like or which is just plain
wrong. Len makes no such decisions and is not involved in amateur
radio.

So why so do you give him so much attention?

A smart fellow would have figured out that laughing at Len isn't exactly
an endorsement of his views.

But when
confronted with mere Technician participation in the ARS that rivals
his Extraness, he digs in and destroys.

That claim is a non-starter as it is in conflict with what I've written
here very recently.

Bully for you.

...and shame on you for making yet another false accusation. That's two
so far in this exchange.

Nothing false there.

Just the ones beginning "But when confronted with mere Technician..."
and "One David Heil demands..." Are you going for three?

Sure. Why not?

Why not? Didn't you tell us that there was nothing false in your
comments?

Then there is Extra DICK. Probably Extra in every way except the dick
department. Then there's Jim "DeSoda" who keeps rewriting "200 Meters
and Up." No need to mention INSANE Clown Posse in a Nurse's dress or
the civilian with "real" military experience.

What's your claim to credibility?

I yam what I yam.

Maybe you'll find a way to do something about it.

I'm satisfied with my accomplishments in the ARS.

That has been evident for some time.

And you are unsatisfied with yours?

Yes indeed, much as I am with my guitar playing. I've been in amateur
radio and have played the guitar for forty years. I learn something new
about both and sharpen my skills in both with every passing year. I am
never satisfied with what I know and what I can do. I do not advocate
striving for mediocrity.

Must you try to tear down Len at every opportunity to boost your stature?

Poking fun at Leonard Anderson has never been done for purposes of
boosting my own stature, nor is it a "must" on my list of things to do.
If I had to list reasons for doing so, I'd likely come up with a list
like:

1) Because Len Anderson does it to others on a continuing basis

2) Because my views are in opposition to those held by Anderson, a
non-radio amateur.

3) Because Len comes across as a pontificating windbag who sees
himself as an expert in all things relating to radio communication.

4) Because it is soooooo easy.

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo wrote:

Just practicing one of the the new Q signals....



There's also "QFU", which I don't think I need to define....

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

It serves to point out Len's total lack of experience in the amateur
service.

Yet he knows more about radio then you.

It hasn't been demonstrated that he knows more about radio "then" me.

YOU won't accept any evidence that any court would accept as
valid. You wish to posture as judge, jury, and executioner. You
are none of those.

That matters not. You don't have any such "evidence". What I wrote is
quite correct. Neither Brian nor you knows whether you know more about
radio than me.

I've presented just a tiny bit of the "evidence" I have on what I've
done, complete with all references for independent investigation
in this newsgroup. You have disregarded all of that, preferring to
act the judge, jury, and executioner in order to "win" some kind of
"debate" that only exists in your mind. You have presented nothing
but generalities without any corroborating evidence.

You've presented nothing as "evidence". You've just made claims.

You insist on making this some kind of personal "battle" over some
imagined "superiority" in amateurism and the "elitism" as well as
"superiority" of your status, rank, title, etc. in nothing but amateur
radio. That keeps happening regardless of the subject title or thread.

That wouldn't be correct, Len. Superiority in amateurism doesn't enter
into it. You aren't a radio amateur. You have nothing to do with
amateur radio. You are to amateur radio what a bowling pin is to
archery.


You keep forgetting you aren't any official and aren't any judge (you
keep falling off the bench). You may think you speak for some
"majority" of ham radio but all you do is speak for yourself.

You aren't any official but you are officious.
You aren't a judge but you are judgmental toward radio amateurs.
You believe you know best how amateur radio should be regulated but you
are not a radio amateur. You are a self-anointed committee of one and
you are a non-participant.


All you can
do is attempt to put down others not agreeing with you.

Naw, Len. That's not all I do. I do pay special attention to your
posts though.

There is every possibility that Len knows more about electronics theory
than me.

Not only theory, but design, practical hardware prototyping to finished
product, field application and liason, and writing about it in national
magazines. I've done all that as a professional AND as a hobbyist in
radio-electronics.

Okay. There's every possibility that Len knows more about electronics
theory (to include design, practical hardware prototyping in finished
product, field application and liason, and writing about it in national
magazines).

There is a similar possibility that I have much more
operational experience in "radio" or that I have much more knowledge of
wave propagation than Len.

"Wave propagation?" Would you know Biot from Savart?

Old Jean Bapiste and Felix? Certainly.

E and H fields?

But of course.

Knife-edge diffraction?

Most assuredly.

Were you intimately
involved with HF
communications across the Pacific in the early 1950s for "24/7"
primary communications service?

I knew there'd be a trick question. Why no, Len. I was busy being ages
two through five in the early 1950's. No responsible entity would be
likely to put a preschooler in such a position.

I was "intimately" involved with HF communications across the Pacific in
the 1960's at hours of my own choosing. My station also worked across
the Atlantic and across the Indian Ocean. It did so with less power
than yours and I was still a teenager.

I was "intimately" involved with HF military communications, working
transatlantic and transpacific paths using a variety of log periodic,
inverted discone and rhombic antennas and either 10 kw or 45 kw
transmitters from 1968-1970. The station was in operation 24/7 but I
generally pulled eight hour shifts.

I was "intimately" involved with in-country HF military operations for a
year in Vietnam.

I spent fifteen "intimate" years overseas with the U.S. Department of
State where I was responsible for all HF and VHF communications whether
by voice, asynchronous data or morse.

I've spent forty years as an active radio amateur, operating various
modes on bands from 1.8 through 432 MHz.

I can go on and on without ever
touching the recorded and evidencible facts of having spent three
years being actively involved with the latter. That grates on you.

Three years? Three measly years? It grates on me that you'd dare
compare your three years to my experience and pretend to have a lock on
knowledge.

Put that in your Icepack and stroke it.

Is this the part where you eat me for breakfast?

There is a certainty that I have forty years
more experience in amateur radio than Len.

I've been a radio-electronics hobbyist for 56 years and never bothered
to get any amateur radio license with its official certificate plus the
rank/title/status accorded it by some other amateurs.


I'm certain that no one here wants to "bother" you.


You ARE
granted that one item but it would seem you've never ventured out of
"the bands" (HF) for all your tenure as an amateur.

1.8 through 432 MHz *just* as an amateur. Don't you feel foolish?


How can that be if he has no experience?

What I wrote addressed Len's experience in amateur radio. He has none.

Since when is that SUCH an important factor in "radio?"

This group deals with amateur radio and my comments were addressed to
you lack of amateur radio experience.

The FCC doesn't require any commissioners or staff to hold amateur
licenses. The Congress of the United States has never chartered the
FCC to "only" regulate US amateur radio by licensed radio amateurs.

You aren't paid to regulate radio. You're just some guy with no amateur
radio license.

You keep acting like some kind of land squatter, claiming territorial
imperative and divine right for holding a grant a long time.

No, I'm not a squatter. I have a license which says I am permitted to
operate anywhere in the amateur bands. What's your story?


That alone
is NO evidence of ANY expertise, only the ability to not be caught for
violations and being able to renew your vaunted license every decade
or so.


If you had obtained such a license, you'd be in the same boat.

So why so do you give him so much attention?

A smart fellow would have figured out that laughing at Len isn't exactly
an endorsement of his views.

You wish to squelch all opponents to your royal viewpoints by trying
to make fun of them, trying to put them down.

I don't have any royal viewpoints but I do enjoy a laugh at your
expense. If I can share it with others, so much the better.

You can't bear the thought that your viewpoints aren't of the nobility,
divine statements of some higher radio god. Since you can't talk on
the subjects, you try to hit the person of the communicator.

Shall I repost some more of your old archived material to refresh your
memory of reality, Len? I wouldn't have to go back very far in the
archives.

That's been evident for years in here.

It is sure to be "evident" to a guy who sees only what others do but who
is blind to his own past and present actions.

Must you try to tear down Len at every opportunity to boost your stature?

Poking fun at Leonard Anderson has never been done for purposes of
boosting my own stature, nor is it a "must" on my list of things to do.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...false claim.

How would you know that, Leonard?

It is fairly clear what you do to anyone not embracing your godlike views
of amateurism...try to put them down any way you can.

That doesn't matter. You are in no way involved.

After all these years you keep failing. The technique doesn't work.

Really? The indications are otherwise.

If I had to list reasons for doing so, I'd likely come up with a list
like:

1) Because Len Anderson does it to others on a continuing basis

Poor baby. It's "okay" to attempt humiliation of others because
you are a radio god and you've been an amateur for four decades.

I note you didn't address your own shortcomings.

Sigh...another over-inflated EGO...

There, there, Leonard. Your ego isn't THAT big.

2) Because my views are in opposition to those held by Anderson, a
non-radio amateur.

Hardly. :-)

Hardly in opposition or hardly a radio amateur?

Google is full of Heil's put-downs and humiliations of NON-licensed
radio amateurs...because Heil feels they are "inferior" to his godlike
status. :-)

Individuals? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

3) Because Len comes across as a pontificating windbag who sees
himself as an expert in all things relating to radio communication.

Poor baby. More damage evident to the super ego of Heil's.

Really? I checked my ego and it seems intact. Better check yours for
leaks.

I've never claimed "expertise" in any field of endeavor, just a few where
I've had lots of experience, hands-on experience for a long time. That's
anathema to Heil and his "superior" four decades as an AMATEUR.

The experience you listed above doesn't seem like very much at all.

To quote another quoting a late ballplayer, "It ain't braggin if ya done
it."

I've done a lot. :-)

....but you never quite got around to nailing that elusive amateur radio
license.

4) Because it is soooooo easy.

No...because you are unable to argue on the subjects. All you can do
is attempt put-downs, attempt humiliating others who won't worship you
as the "foremost authority."

Would you really like to see those Anderson quotes from Google?

Living a fantasy is VERY easy. No work required, very little thought.
Fantasylands allow anyone to destroy their "opponents" with impunity.

Is this anything like your fantasy that you're a real radio amateur?
Do you ever wake up and realize that this is only a newsgroup and that
you aren't a part of the real thing?

Feel free to indulge your super ego and demand all do as you say.

I've never demanded you do anything, Len. I don't give a rat's patoot
if you ever obtain a ham ticket.

Few will.

A few might if any demands had ever been made...but they've never been
made.


You aren't the "authority" and are no "official."

Back at ya, Len and you're no radio amateur.

Your credence
went to hell along with your robust oberst uniform a long time ago.

No, my Creedence went to Helsinki. I don't know what to make of your
peculiar comment about a uniform.

Dave K8MN

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Subject: QR10-4
From: Robert Casey
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:11:13 GMT

Mike Coslo wrote:

Just practicing one of the the new Q signals....



There's also "QFU", which I don't think I need to define....

Here's the definition anyway:

QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used?

QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ...

I've never heard that on the ham bands, though.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Subject: QR10-4
From: Robert Casey
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 00:11:13 GMT

Mike Coslo wrote:

Just practicing one of the the new Q signals....



There's also "QFU", which I don't think I need to define....

Here's the definition anyway:

QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be
used?

QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ...

I've never heard that on the ham bands, though.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hmmmmmm, wonder what Mike's definition is....

Kim W5TIT

On 12 Aug 2003 23:40:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Here's the definition anyway:

QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used?

QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ...

I've never heard that on the ham bands, though.

I've never heard it on the aeronautical bands, either, even though
that's obviously the intended application of that particular Q-signal.
That's a relic from days long forgotten. Today they get that info from
ATIS before they even contact approach control.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
"Advise on initial contact you have information Lima."

Three to look at URL:
http://www.wemsi.org/qsigs.html

Another:
http://www.kloth.net/radio/qcodes.php

Today's Q-signals (More or Less)
http://home.earthlink.net/~k7bfl/intqsig.html

From The Keyboard In The Wilderness.

And QFU is legitimate as below.
-------------------------------------------


"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On 12 Aug 2003 23:40:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Here's the definition anyway:

QFU? - What is the magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be
used?

QFU - The magnetic direction (or number) of the runway to be used is ...

I've never heard that on the ham bands, though.

I've never heard it on the aeronautical bands, either, even though
that's obviously the intended application of that particular Q-signal.
That's a relic from days long forgotten. Today they get that info from
ATIS before they even contact approach control.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
"Advise on initial contact you have information Lima."

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:52:51 -0700, "Keyboard In The Wilderness"
wrote:

And QFU is legitimate as below.
-------------------------------------------

If I gave the impression that I meant to imply otherwise, I apologize
to N2EY. There are numerous Q-signals that were originally for
aeronautical use, back when CW was used for communications with
airplanes. I was just pointing out that they aren't used anymore.
Comms between aircraft and from air-to-ground are in AM mode. No need
for q-signals there, and as I say, the ATIS tells the flight crew
which runway is in use anyway.

7e DE John, KC2HMZ