In article ,
(Superham, able to leap tall
pilups at a single boundary equation) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

You are the epitome of newsgroup antagonist and troll. You laid
waste to
your own name and "character" a long time ago. You are a documented liar
and
deceiver.

"Liar?" In one way, to one pair of eyes, that is true

I disrupt the fantasies and wish-fulfillment of someone with reality.

Lennie, you really DO believe the lies and rhetoric you spew
about Amateur Radio, don't you..?!?! Despite having been corrected
and redirected to countless sources of data that contradicts almost
everything you say, you still insist that your putrid lies are valid.

1. Nursie hasn't "directed" anyone...except AWAY from here.

2. Nursie hasn't given any "countless sources of data."

3. That (supposed) data does NOT "contradict" anything I've
written in here.

4. Nursie's "meaningful dialogue" consists of nothing more
that personal insults.

5. I "spew" NO "lies" about amateur radio. I give some
personal opinions on subjects...which nursie can't abide.

6. Too bad for nursie.


That can be a distinct ego blow.

There's been no blow to MY ego over anything you've "presented" in
this forum. I get aggitated that someone can so overtly lie and
attempt to mislead people without some sort of resounding recourse,
but hey, every creep eventually ahs his day...you will too.

"aggitated?" "ahs?" :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...when aggravated into another rage, nursie begins
confusing spellings again...:-)

"Deceiver?" In what way? Not following your imaginations and fantasies
as "truth?"

"I am going to get my "extra lite" out of the box".

Why should I do that? :-)

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"

That's what I originally thought way back when...but then all
those OFs of the morse persuasion got so evil, wicked, mean
and nasty towards anyone who didn't love, honor, and cherish
telegraphy. :-)

"I'll send a scanned image of my FCC License to anyone who asks
for it"

I did that already. :-)

Reality can be harsh. Try to accept reality as it exists.

That's not my problem, Lennie...Accepting that mere mortal,
non-engineer lay persons with an FCC license can do more with a radio
than you ever THOUGHT about doing is YOURS.

Nursie is a "mere mortal?" Good grief...I thought nursie was a
Warrior of the Newsgroup, able to benchpress a KWM2,
faster than a speeding ballot, leap tall pileups at a single bound...

I'm still trying to invent antigravity...but something is holding me
down... :-)

YOU "soiled the communications enviroment" when you started in with
the
"jackbooted thugs", "elitists" and other demeaning adjectives and then
followed
it up with ream after ream of cowardly, spiteful anti-Amateur rhetoric.

Your jackboots wear out?

I'll specifically buy a pair next time I visit California, then
see just how much it takes to wear them down...How's that, Lennie?

I'll get the group down at the Burbank HRO store to notify the
newspapers that you will give them a photo opportunity. :-)

You DO know what's right next door to that HRO store, don't
you? :-)


If being a "ham" means living in a fantasy world of great derring-do in
radio, then I'm certainly not one of those deceivers.

You've never been in ANY world of radio operating, Lennie...You
have been around them, used them as a tool, maybe even played with one
on a bench, but you're incompetent when it comes to OPERATING one.

Love all nursie's "meaningful dialogue." :-)

I could recite again my experience, but nursie gets SO upset
about that! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Actually, I began in radio by doing some operations of military
transmitters...and receivers...and FSK exciters...and teleprinters
...and handheld transceivers...and Jeep-mounted transceivers...
and manpack transceivers.

Then I got out of active duty, got the commercial First Phone
and operated broadcast transmitters and all the other electronic
stuff around a TV studio. Came out west and did some radar
and missle transmitting-receiving. Got a personal radio on CB
(for fun communications), even designed and built a couple of
CB transceiver prototypes for a company that went Chapter 11
a rather long time ago. As time went on, I did real civil airways
radio operating from a real cockpit, handled UHF two-ways,
got into a partnership which installed and used a VHF two-way,
communicated with a station ON the moon, did a bunch of
DoD and military radio field work, and eventually communicated
on HF from a moored sailboat in a marina.

That's just a quick summary of things I did since 1952. There's
other little things that will make you angry because your mighty
morphing hamradiolicense forbids you to do those. :-)

Never once since 1952 have I needed or been required to use
manual telegraphy to "work" anyone on any radio frequency
from VLF on up to 25 GHz.

Never once did I have to "QSL" anyone that "contact work" had
been done. Never once did I have to join any ARRL in order to
verify anything I did in radio-electronics. But...I've written a lot
of reports on radio performance which were all accurate and true.

Putz.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still into cussing and personal attacks as "meaningful
discussions?" [not at all a good image of an amateur extra...]

It's not my image, Lennie. It's yours. You're the putz.

You don't have an image? Tsk, tsk, you should swear and cuss
some more then... :-)

Other readers of this newsgroup have an "image" of nursie. :-)




They ought to sue you for defamation by association.

IEEE is a professional association. I joined them late, like in
1973. By now I've become a Life Member in the IEEE with all
the benefits of regular working members after 31 years in
the electronics engineering profession.

Life Membership in the IEEE is automatic, no extra dues,
no one-time charge, nothing extra once you have so much
membership time plus age. There's about 220 thousand IEEE
members all around the world. It is truly international.

You want to suggest legal action by the IEEE against me?
The quickest way for you to contact them is to go to
www.ieee.org and get an address or send them some of
your filthymouth e-mail. IEEE has automatic virus detection
software to detect badness in e-mail...they just don't always
detect badasses in e-mail. :-)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
[snip]

I also don't want some idiot running 200 watts into a 5/8 wave
groundplane
on 2 meters next door to me. He may be ignorant, but I am not.


And what is to stop a tech from doing so? (as long as he/she does the
RF
exposure analysis ... which will probably show that it's just fine from
the
RF exposure standpoint ...)

Jim, your class elitism/prejudice is showing - why don't you stop acting
like all techs are dimwits? Many are more technically accomplished than
many extras.


I think you are pulling this out of context, Carl. The original poster
said that (paraphrasing here) the people opposed to the upgrade are
wrong in part because the Technician and General tests are nearly
identical.

Oddly enough, in a later post that same poster went on to note how many
Tower questions there are on the Tech test, yet not on the General test
- a seeming contradiction for nearly identical tests.

I am a "new" Ham, having taken all my tests in modern times. There are
significan differences between the Technician test and the General test
and the Extra test.

Jim was merely supporting adequate testing. As do I. Of course there is
a wide gap in what people consider adequate.

I know I do not consider the Technician test adequate to be classed as
a General. And I doubt I'll ever apologize for thinking that knowledge
is good.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Hello, Mike

You stated that very well. The question of "what is adaquate testing?" will
likely be a big bone of contention between a lot of folks. Certainly there
are many *very* well qualified techs. A friend of mine was a tech for
something like 25 years until they lowered the code for general to 5 words
per minute. He then got an automatic upgrade to general. His theory test,
however, was identical to a general back when he took his test. He does
have a degree in electronics and is *highly* qualified; that does not assure
me that all techs are *highly* qualified for an automatic promotion to
general. That was my only point.

Amateur radio should not be elitist; however, certain basic fundamentals
should be known before issuing a license (at least in my mind).

Most likely, since the tech license is to be phased out, the ARRL doesn't
want to upset more people than necessary (whatever decision is made, some
folks are not going to be happy).

Of course, if the FCC started cracking down hard on some of the "problem
children" of 75 and 20 meters, things might fall in line a lot better.
There exists no sanity test for an amateur license, unfortunately

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.700 / Virus Database: 457 - Release Date: 6/6/04

Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/7/2004 9:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
writes:

"I am going to get my "extra lite" out of the box".

Why should I do that?

Why, indeed, Lennie?

We ahve learned, of course, that anything you say youa re going to do
trutly is a "flight of fantasy"...

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"

That's what I originally thought way back when...but then all
those OFs of the morse persuasion got so evil, wicked, mean
and nasty towards anyone who didn't love, honor, and cherish
telegraphy.

Actually a review of the "evil, wicked, mean and nasty" would reveal that
one ", then "owned" by you, was the one slinging rather
inciteful and uncivil epithets towrds others.

Of course the truth is not one of your stronger suits.

And you never did explain to us how the FCC tested for CW. Oscilliscope?
Spectrum Analyzer?

"I'll send a scanned image of my FCC License to anyone who asks
for it"

I did that already.

Then you have again expressed yet ANOTHER lie.

We'll just heap it up on the others.

You want to suggest legal action by the IEEE against me?
The quickest way for you to contact them is to go to
www.ieee.org and get an address or send them some of
your filthymouth e-mail. IEEE has automatic virus detection
software to detect badness in e-mail...they just don't always
detect badasses in e-mail.

Obviously.

They also "don't always detect" who is bruising thier propfessional
reputation by association.

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,


'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside.

Nonsense? There is no doubt that an engineer can fry themselves. But
that really isn't the point. There is no level of education that can
insure complete safety.

Agreed.

What the idea - and the point is - is to provide the exposure to some
relevent material, and hope it sinks in. It is an excercise for the
student to use or not to use.

Where in the charter of the FCC does it state that one of it's
missions is to provide any form of education as part of it's radio
operators licensing processes?? The FCC is a federal regulatory
agency, not an academic institution at any level. In the context of
ham radio it's *sole* missison is to take a reasonable poke at
maintaining law and order within the portions of the RF spectrum
allocated for ham radio operations. It does this via testing the
technical and operating competence levels of ham radio license
applicants. Period.

I've long held the view that peripheral issues like HV and tower
climbing safety questions creeping into the tests are for the most
part out of place because they have no implications with respect to
the public interest in the RF spectrum. I disagree with the concept of
the FCC trying to "teach" personal safety as part of the licensing
process. RF safety questions on the other hand are germain to the
testing process because the public does have a stake in radiation
exposure issues.

My bottom line in all this is that the FCC is testing for subjects
which have nothing to do with it's role as a regulator and is failing
to include topics which should be included in the tests like emergency
communications procedures and others I could dredge up.


I
never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.

Times change, Brian. Safety is considered important these days.

You're lecturing the choir . . . I've spent over a half century in the
manufacturing sector much of it out on the production floors in
various roles in the bowels of smokestack America. I've seen the blood
and gore up close and personal, nobody around here supports safety
education any more strongly than I do. The question is where that
education should come from.

Twisting your comment a bit "Personal safety education in ham radio
should be
left as an exercise for the individual".


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
Brian Kelly wrote:

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,

'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside.

Nonsense? There is no doubt that an engineer can fry themselves. But
that really isn't the point. There is no level of education that can
insure complete safety.

Agreed.

What the idea - and the point is - is to provide the exposure to some
relevent material, and hope it sinks in. It is an excercise for the
student to use or not to use.

Where in the charter of the FCC does it state that one of it's
missions is to provide any form of education as part of it's radio
operators licensing processes?? The FCC is a federal regulatory
agency, not an academic institution at any level.

Heh heh...I've been saying that all along.

[maybe persistence pays off... :-) ]

In the context of
ham radio it's *sole* missison is to take a reasonable poke at
maintaining law and order within the portions of the RF spectrum
allocated for ham radio operations. It does this via testing the
technical and operating competence levels of ham radio license
applicants. Period.

According to the political aspects of regulation, the safety of
OTHERS reared its anxious head.

RF exposure safety is involved at reducing the amount of RF
energy radiated towards others not directly involved in radio.

I've long held the view that peripheral issues like HV and tower
climbing safety questions creeping into the tests are for the most
part out of place because they have no implications with respect to
the public interest in the RF spectrum. I disagree with the concept of
the FCC trying to "teach" personal safety as part of the licensing
process. RF safety questions on the other hand are germain to the
testing process because the public does have a stake in radiation
exposure issues.

Quite true...from the political context of regulations.

In the history of radio communications, there are no real physical
threats of RF damage to humans from communications RF
radiation. The RF safety levels regulated by the Commission
are well below any danger observed by scientists and researchers
for years and years of radio communications.

My bottom line in all this is that the FCC is testing for subjects
which have nothing to do with it's role as a regulator and is failing
to include topics which should be included in the tests like emergency
communications procedures and others I could dredge up.

Excellent point!

never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.

Times change, Brian. Safety is considered important these days.

You're lecturing the choir . . . I've spent over a half century in the
manufacturing sector much of it out on the production floors in
various roles in the bowels of smokestack America. I've seen the blood
and gore up close and personal, nobody around here supports safety
education any more strongly than I do. The question is where that
education should come from.

Twisting your comment a bit "Personal safety education in ham radio
should be left as an exercise for the individual".

It should be common sense. :-)

But, given this place is full of "barracks lawyers" all involved in
"legalities," the public RF exposure safety issues got all
changed around to "personal safety of the amateur" with all the
blabbering about RF burns and assorted physical accidents
not really involving radio per se.

Thousands and thousands of military personnel have cycled
through tours of radio communications facilities where far more
than 2 KW of RF was being radiated and they haven't been
harmed in any measureable way.

[I'm not talking about mental harm from just listening to too
much telegraphy...BTASE :-) ]

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/7/2004 9:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
writes:

"I am going to get my "extra lite" out of the box".

Why should I do that?

Why, indeed, Lennie?

We ahve learned, of course, that anything you say youa re going to do
trutly is a "flight of fantasy"...

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mavis Bacon certainly never taught nursie how to
type during an outrage session... :-)

[this must be one of those "hostile actions" nursie is in... :-) ]

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"

That's what I originally thought way back when...but then all
those OFs of the morse persuasion got so evil, wicked, mean
and nasty towards anyone who didn't love, honor, and cherish
telegraphy.

Actually a review of the "evil, wicked, mean and nasty" would reveal that
one ", then "owned" by you, was the one slinging rather
inciteful and uncivil epithets towrds others.

Poor baby. Still hurt and angry from 5 years ago? Awwww...

Not loving telegraphy = Inciteful and uncivil epithets?

I don't think so. See the Google archives for "communications"
from Jim Kehler back then. [a CWholic if there ever was one]

Anyone can search and find KH2D's new site now (in the states)
and see how he feels about "brain-dead old farts." :-)

Of course the truth is not one of your stronger suits.

Did nursie put on his Colonel Jessup uniform again?

Jack Nicholson's wonderful portrayal of a USMC officer in
"A Few Good Men." [character was an ultraconservative
nutso] Famous line, "You can't handle the TRUTH!!!" :-)

I have no reason to lie about anything. Been there, done
lots of things, got the T-shirts...and a comfortable income
as a result.

And you never did explain to us how the FCC tested for CW.
Oscilliscope? Spectrum Analyzer?

What prompted THAT question? Are you flipping out even
more?

[the instrument is spelled "oscilloscope" or, in familiar terms,
just "scope"]

"I'll send a scanned image of my FCC License to anyone who asks
for it"

I did that already.

Then you have again expressed yet ANOTHER lie.

No lie. I scanned it and sent it as an e-mail attachment.

More than once.

Nursie can't handle the truth so she lied and said I never sent it.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not "meaningful discussion" at all.

We'll just heap it up on the others.

Heap big nutso nursie need mental therapy.


You want to suggest legal action by the IEEE against me?
The quickest way for you to contact them is to go to
www.ieee.org and get an address or send them some of
your filthymouth e-mail. IEEE has automatic virus detection
software to detect badness in e-mail...they just don't always
detect badasses in e-mail.

Obviously.

They also "don't always detect" who is bruising thier propfessional
reputation by association.

Speaking of associations, I was a member of the Association
for Computing Machinery (ACM) for three years as a courtesy of
the IEEE membership. ACM is the first and the biggest of the
professional associations on computing and information
technology.

Ever written any computer code, nursie? I have. Taught myself
how to write FORTRAN through Jim McCracken's book on
FORTRAN IV. Used it to write six engineering-analysis programs
that became a part of the RCA Corporate Software Library. Used
it to write five more programs that became shareware on the 'net
and are now freeware. [McCracken later became president of
the ACM]

Ever get down to Assembler level? I learned Morotola 6800
Assembler first, then 6502 Assembler (thanks to the nice macro
assembler program from Call-A.P.P.L.E., the Apple Puget
Sound Program Library Exchange that was based in Seattle),
got published in the Call-A.P.P.L.E. monthly magazine (but I
don't count that as part of my professional resume). See also
Microcomputing and BYTE magazines for more of the same.
I've done some 8051 and Intel Assembler programming but not
a great deal of it despite having MASM in the PC.

Writing computer code is lots of intellectual fun, sort of like a
super crossword but the end product is very useful for lots of
things. Sending and receiving telegraphy code is old stuff,
outdated, no real usefulness except for some OFs to brag
about in their boasts of "superiority."

I've been an IEEE member for 31 years. It is a professional
association involved in reality, of pushing the technical envelope
constantly outwards, advancing the electrical and electronic
arts. I'm proud to have been a member of that distinguished
group and continue to be involved and still learning with each
technological plateau jump after reaching Life Member status.

IEEE doesn't require any morse code knowledge for any
membership level. :-)