In article , Leo
writes:

Well, things aren't always quite that black-and-white, Clint. I am
certainly not a sympathizer nor apologist for either side of the
arguement. Not beacuse I am firmly in one camp or the other - it's
much simpler than that.

Much simpler. YOU hide behind anonymity to relieve yourself on
the group by pretending to exist. You HIDE.


So, here it is - my position: I don't really care that much one way
or the other.

You MUST "care" a great deal...but don't have the COURAGE to
speak out as yourself, not an ANONYMOUS troll.


In short, to restate, I don't care too much one way or the other.
perhaps because I didn't go through the rigourous testing that the
Extras did years ago. I didn't have to draw schematics on my test, or
answer essay-type questions, and pass 20 WPM Morse - many of these
fellows did, though, and it must burn them up to see us get in there
today with multiple choice answers and 5 WPM code.

How does anyone KNOW "what you did years ago?"

You are ANONYMOUS, have no verifiable identity.


Now stop debating, Clint - for God's sake, you'll go blind

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

You've got to define sound first. For example if you simply define it as
waveforms in the air, then yes it does make a sound. However if you define
it as the result when waveforms in the air are converted to a form that can
be interpreted by the brain, then it doesn't make a sound.

Either way though you are right that the tree is still there.

There is NO such person in any QRZ listing of Canadian or USA radio
amateurs. Ergo, that person doesn't exist.

Why do you believe that spectres or the imagination are "rational,
civil" persons?

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

Yep, Dick. It's starting to look like that's what I'll have to do.

Maybe you can get an RM going for a new "Ostrich class" license?

Got your blinders on?

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right opinion?

;^) Brian

Not a troll at all, Sir.

I merely came to this group to post the results of the RAC Morse
survey - which I did in an impartial manner. This is the policy group
- thought it would be a good place to post it.

Very shortly after that, I was attacked by several of the menbers of
the group, for entirely nonsensical reasons. I then tried to clarify
my points for all concerned, and received another barrage of crap from
a copule of simians (that means monkeys, Clint - don't look it up) who
assumed that I was pro code, or not pro code, not a ham, and some
moronic 'terrorists come from Canada' inferences, which were way out
of line (say, didn't the US Air Force discover that they had a
Syrian-born airman in their ranks spying in the secure prisoner area
in Quantico recently - did he come from Canada too? Jeez.....)

I have made my position known very clearly - but there are still a few
folks in this group who incorrectly assume that someone has to be
Pro-this, or Anti-that. Perhaps my language was too erudite for those
folks - I'll try again, in plain English:

I learned Code to get on HF. It was the law, so I did it.

I use it more than I thought I would (I like it!)

Many people operate on HF and never use CW - so it isn't really a
functional requirement any more. It is a strong tradition, however,
dating back to the beginning of the hobby. As Len will tell you,
Marine officers don't really need swords anymore - but they all get
one, its tradition.

I don't believe that everyone should be forced to learn it. If
someone is interested enough to do so, however, they should be
encouraged.

If the Amateur community wants to keep it as a requirement, that's OK
with me. If tradition is that important to the community, I'll respect
that. I have it, I'm in. If the vote says that it goes, then I'm
cool with that too. Doesn't mean that I can't continue to use it.

Clear?

73, Leo

Or is a troll just someone who won't agree with you, Sir?

On 25 Sep 2003 03:34:56 -0700, (Brian) wrote:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right opinion?

;^) Brian

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY)
writes:

By refusing to identify yourself, EVERYONE is blind to you.

Then why are you replying? ;-)

To whom?

Notice how quickly some anonymous troll is defended IF he has the right opinion?

Yep, you and Len sure defended "vshah101" in here...

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

Wrong. He was just laughing at you.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Heh, you guys really don't help your cause much
do you.

Clint, the PCTA have exhausted their valid reasons for code test retention
long ago, well before Restructuring. All the PCTA are able to do in here
is go into character assassination. And they do...
:-)

Well, then you have nothing to worry about, OM - no character to
assassinate.

Sleep well,

73, Leo

On 25 Sep 2003 20:56:31 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

Wrong. He was just laughing at you.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Heh, you guys really don't help your cause much
do you.

Clint, the PCTA have exhausted their valid reasons for code test retention
long ago, well before Restructuring. All the PCTA are able to do in here
is go into character assassination. And they do...
:-)

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

Don't ignore him, that's what the PCTA crowd devolves to doing
in it's (non)tactics.... but, likewise, take Leo with a grain of salt
and realize you are dealing with somebody who is disingenuous and
basically a plant.

Clint, I see a slight resemblance to one newsgroupie in here that
used several false identities...had an address in Landing, NJ. :-)

One time this poseur was an "Army officer about to be called to
active duty" in some conflict, thus setting the stage for the Fake's
disappearance. The same individual used another Fake identity and
was going to "visit my neighborhood" to "explain things to me" but
never got any farther than Anaheim, CA, some distance to the south.
The LAPD got a recording of the "message" he left at my telephone
number (authorized tap while my wife and I were up north visiting).
The LAPD has a section that works on Stalkers, organized after one
stalker knifed a young actress to death some years ago. They take
stalking seriously, even with two-bit puerile fakes who don't have the
guts to be themselves.