In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes:

Since anybody in this country can discuss amateur
radio policy (license policy or whatever), I do think
a person's communications knowledge and experience
elsewhere is at least somewhat relevant to that person's
part in that discussion. Why would you think otherwise,
Jim? Len is obviously interested in Amateur Radio,
which is good. The only thing I don't understand is why
he hasn't acted on that interest and gotten some kind of
Amateur Radio license over the years.

Why do you insist that getting-a-license is culmination
of "interest?"

Explain how obtaining an AMATEUR license suddenly
embues one with spirit and verve and "permission" to
experiment with RF? Especially when a person is already
a professional in electronic design engineering who has
ALREADY been working on "experiments" in RF?

Well, it must be the week to put words into other people's mouths. First
Jim and now you, Len. Anyway, I didn't "insist" any such thing. Instead, I
simply said I don't understand why you haven't gotten some kind of Amateur
Radio license over the years.

You GOT the answer, Dwight. Apparently you are not satisfied with
the answer. Not my problem.

If you look carefully at what I wrote, the words used, you will find I did
not address it directly to you. It was a general statement. Had you
wanted an answer solely for yourself, I might have replied in private
e-mail.

Since VHF and above is one focus of commercial
communications today, one would think the Technician
license would have at least some appeal to him.

Dwight, VHF and above was ALREADY a focus of
commercial communications a half century ago. (snip)

I didn't say it wasn't, Len. Instead, I simply said that this (commercial
communications today) might be one reason the Technician license would have
at least some appeal to you.

Tsk, tsk...you now appear to be wanting to control who gets to ask
what in addition to wanting specific-category answers.

I reminded you that commercial communications was ALREADY into
VHF and higher a half century ago. That's fact. You can find it in
the electronic industry's own archives, particularly in old electronics
trade publications. I saw it first-hand a half century ago, beginning IN
radio communications then.

A bit later I wrote that amateur licenses did not have that much
personal appeal for me. Neither does the "social aspect" or ego
need stroking by group belonging. You should have surmised that I
have a fairly extensive exposure to communications arts and technology
by now, little of it based solely on news and "theory articles" in amateur
radio publications.

This glaring, long term, lack of committment to Amateur
Radio is what brings his ongoing participation in this
discussion under suspicion.

"Glaring?!?" :-)

I'm just against a morse code test for any radio operator
license, Dwight.

Your opposition to code is no barrier whatsoever to getting a Technician
license, Len.

While that is true, you are starting to misdirect and getting a bit hostile
with an obviously unfriendly "challenge." :-)

Feel free to tell everyone WHY one MUST have "at least" an amateur
radio no-code-test class license in order to discuss the retention or
elimination of a code test for any radio operator license.

Recall that this is a public forum, unmoderated, accessible to anyone.

There is no dispensation for licensed amateurs to exclude
professionals from discussion of radio matters.

This newsgroup is NOT a private forum...although it has become a
chat room gathering place for regulars...most of whom insist that all
must think, believe, and absolutely honor their superior thoughts,
opinions, viewpoints, and beliefs.

(snip) Hey, you don't like some of my comments on the
code test. So, what else is new? Do you need instant
adulation for the accomplishments of passing a morse test?
Special honors? Awards? Sorry, all out.

Well, in this case, the "what else is new" is that you obviously haven't
noticed which license I hold. Since I haven't passed a Morse code test, no
adulation, honors, or awards, relating to that would be applicable. Further,
I don't particularily like or dislike anything you've said about the code
test. I've taken no position whatsoever on your comments. I'm opposed to the
code test, but that doesn't mean I specifically endorse anything you've said
on the subject.

To reiterate, this newsgroup is a PUBLIC forum. Anyone posting anything
in public is open for any kind of reply. That's just the way it is.

My comments are more general rather than to specific individuals.

Many others are vehemently opposed to "different" comments (different
from their own cherished beliefs). Their vehemence takes many forms
as you've seen. Some of the forms are "gentle vehemence" such as
the artificial "necessity" to be licensed in a radio service in order to
discuss, debate, or argue federal regulations on specific radio services.

Why must licensing (of any class) come first?

My, you are reading a lot into what I've said, and getting it all wrong in
the process. Absolutely nothing I said had anything whatsoever to do with
whether I liked or disliked anything you've said. Take the chip off your
shoulder, and re-read what I said, and I think you'll agree with that.

I will advise you again...try READING what I wrote and recall the
reminder that public postings are open to public comment.

I bring up certain points, facts, history as part of the debate-discussion-
argument on subjects. If those proven and provable items are against
an individual's belief systems, then TS on them. I'm not going to cave
in to anyone's personal insults any time, anywhere...and there have
been an enormous number of such directed at those who are not of
the conservative, old-time beliefs of amateur radio.

By the way, if you reply, do try to keep it short - I don't have time to
respond to a long-winded rant (my only real comment about what you've said).

Another reminder: This is a public forum with public access.
EVERYONE takes their chances on posting anything here.

In case you are wondering, I don't have time for long-winded rants of
others.
Others DO a number of long-winded rants in here. Some go into great
lengths to make such rants extremely offensive to another's person.

If you desire to control anything in here, I will suggest you go after the
OTHER "ranters," the obvious insult-mongers and trollers. Let them
learn to take it. I don't have time for verbal fire-fights with those who
are outraged with righteous anger or of those irritated that others do not
accept their own noble thoughts.

LHA

PS: This evolved, convoluted thread started out with non-hostile
mention of using a one-tube modulated oscillator in the AM BC band
some 55 years ago. Those were known as "wireless phonograph
adapters" or equivalent back then, intended to couple a stand-alone
phonograph to any AM BC receiver not having a phonograph jack for
auxilliary audio input.. Lots of unlicensed in any radio service people
had them then for listening to phonograph recordings without buying
bigger, more expensive radios. Point of fact. I got my information on
that particular little project from an issue of Popular Science, way back
when they had construction articles on many hobby subjects.
In mentioning that to folks who had never been born yet then, it
seems to be a source of irritation to them and they tended to get
hostile in replies. Was no "Part 15" in the loose-leaf FCC regulations
then and there was no hue and cry of damnation on such evil "boot-
legging" of the airwaves from wireless phonograph adapters 55 years
ago. TS for the license-demanders of today. Their problem not mine.

"Len Over 21" wrote:

You GOT the answer, Dwight. Apparently you are
not satisfied with the answer. Not my problem. (snip)


There was no question for you to answer.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

If you look carefully at what I wrote, the words used, you will find I did
not address it directly to you. It was a general statement. Had you
wanted an answer solely for yourself, I might have replied in private
e-mail.

Whoa...wouldn't HE be honored...?!?!

I didn't say it wasn't, Len. Instead, I simply said that this (commercial
communications today) might be one reason the Technician license would have
at least some appeal to you.

Tsk, tsk...you now appear to be wanting to control who gets to ask
what in addition to wanting specific-category answers.

He wasn't controlling anything.

He was misguided in his assumption that you might be sincere
about your interest in radio, Sir Putzalot...even Amateur Radio. His
mistake, but hardly "controlling" anything...

A bit later I wrote that amateur licenses did not have that much
personal appeal for me. Neither does the "social aspect" or ego
need stroking by group belonging. You should have surmised that I
have a fairly extensive exposure to communications arts and technology
by now, little of it based solely on news and "theory articles" in amateur
radio publications.

In other words, you are pontificating about what OUGHT to be in a
radio service in which you have zero-point-zero experience, and for
which you have zero-point-zero understanding...

In other words, you're here for fighting's sake...Not serious or
sincere "debate" on ANY aspect of AMATEUR Radio.

Your opposition to code is no barrier whatsoever to getting a Technician
license, Len.

While that is true, you are starting to misdirect and getting a bit hostile
with an obviously unfriendly "challenge."

No...he doesn't understand that you are here not for the
interests of Amateur Radio, but for the sake of starting arguments.

Period.

Feel free to tell everyone WHY one MUST have "at least" an amateur
radio no-code-test class license in order to discuss the retention or
elimination of a code test for any radio operator license.

Ahhhhh...Dwight's talking about getting active in Amateur Radio,
gleaning what one can from it and maybe making a contribution to it...

Lennie, on the other hand, has once again re-directed the
conversation into why he should be allowed to insult, antagonize and
defame others.

Recall that this is a public forum, unmoderated, accessible to anyone.

Not according to YOU, Sir Anderscum. You have, on occassions too
numerous to count, "suggested", even outrigh demanded that others
"leave now".

There is no dispensation for licensed amateurs to exclude
professionals from discussion of radio matters.

When one arrives we'll allow him to say his piece, just like you
do, Lennie.

This newsgroup is NOT a private forum...although it has become a
chat room gathering place for regulars...most of whom insist that all
must think, believe, and absolutely honor their superior thoughts,
opinions, viewpoints, and beliefs.

One again you have uttered an outright lie, Leonard.

Sure hope your Padawan Learner is taking notes.

To reiterate, this newsgroup is a PUBLIC forum. Anyone posting anything
in public is open for any kind of reply. That's just the way it is.

But...but...but...LENNIE!

YOU have, in RECENT posts, read the proverbial "Riot Act" to
OTHER posters on what is "right" posting and "wrong" posting!

So...WHICH way is it, Lennie? Is it OK for anyone to post what
they want, or is it ONLY OK if it meet's YOUR criteria???

My comments are more general rather than to specific individuals.

No, they are not.

Many others are vehemently opposed to "different" comments (different
from their own cherished beliefs). Their vehemence takes many forms
as you've seen. Some of the forms are "gentle vehemence" such as
the artificial "necessity" to be licensed in a radio service in order to
discuss, debate, or argue federal regulations on specific radio services.

Why must licensing (of any class) come first?

Uhhhhhhhhhhh....PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE from which to make an
INFORMED opionion, Lennie...?!?! Or was that engineering trait lost
upon you in 14 years of night school?

I bring up certain points, facts, history as part of the debate-discussion-
argument on subjects. If those proven and provable items are against
an individual's belief systems, then TS on them. I'm not going to cave
in to anyone's personal insults any time, anywhere...and there have
been an enormous number of such directed at those who are not of
the conservative, old-time beliefs of amateur radio.

As opposed to the liberal, NO-time beliefs of NON-Amateurs,
lennie?

By the way, if you reply, do try to keep it short - I don't have time to
respond to a long-winded rant (my only real comment about what you've said).

Another reminder: This is a public forum with public access.
EVERYONE takes their chances on posting anything here.

Dwight...This is Lennie's self-permitting caveat to bury any
valid exchange of information under tons of irrelevent fodder for his
own entertainment.

Witness the following:

In case you are wondering, I don't have time for long-winded rants of
others.
Others DO a number of long-winded rants in here. Some go into great
lengths to make such rants extremely offensive to another's person.

If you desire to control anything in here, I will suggest you go after the
OTHER "ranters," the obvious insult-mongers and trollers. Let them
learn to take it. I don't have time for verbal fire-fights with those who
are outraged with righteous anger or of those irritated that others do not
accept their own noble thoughts.

PS: This evolved, convoluted thread started out with non-hostile
mention of using a one-tube modulated oscillator in the AM BC band
some 55 years ago. Those were known as "wireless phonograph
adapters" or equivalent back then, intended to couple a stand-alone
phonograph to any AM BC receiver not having a phonograph jack for
auxilliary audio input.. Lots of unlicensed in any radio service people
had them then for listening to phonograph recordings without buying
bigger, more expensive radios. Point of fact. I got my information on
that particular little project from an issue of Popular Science, way back
when they had construction articles on many hobby subjects.
In mentioning that to folks who had never been born yet then, it
seems to be a source of irritation to them and they tended to get
hostile in replies. Was no "Part 15" in the loose-leaf FCC regulations
then and there was no hue and cry of damnation on such evil "boot-
legging" of the airwaves from wireless phonograph adapters 55 years
ago. TS for the license-demanders of today. Their problem not mine.

Was there ANYTHING in this about Amateur Radio Policy, other than
Lennie wants his non-Amateur technician career to qualify him as
King-Of-The-USENET-Hill...?!?!

I think not.

Another LennieRant, brought to you by Southern California's
non-indigenous pathological liar, Leonard H. Anderson.

Thanks, Lennie.

Steve, K4YZ