In article ,
(Steaming Steve der STASI Unteroffizier who has to ride the coattails of those
specifically attacking personalities) scribbles:

Subject: Able Baker Charlie
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/13/2004 8:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor been
involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly proclaims
what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet
proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point of
not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry on
a
civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the
other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class,
education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot a few, Jim:

Like someone who has never been a licensed aviator who tries to advise
current aviators on navigation aid functions and techniques.

Oooooo...der CAP Ace SPEAKS! :-)

[single-engine rated private pilot tries to sound like multi-engine air
transport rated commercial captain or some figher jock...]

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Poor nursie, the wonderham doesn't understand that
air navigation, radio navigation aids, and techniques are NOT a part
of the NATO phonetic alphabet use. :-)

No problem. I know how TACAN, VOR, Localizer, Glideslope,
Marker Beacons, ATCRBS Transponders, Airborne radars all work
because I've been intimately involved with such hardware in design
engineering...in the labs as well as the fixed bases (airports to
civilians). Nursie doesn't know ARINC from an earache, has never
met Bill Cairns of ARINC, doesn't know what an "ATR box" is but
probably (after years of military study) got to know what a "station"
on an aircraft is...:-)

None of that really involves the NATO phonetic alphabet because
nursie is too deep in his hatred of individual personalities to be able
to distinguish right from wrong.

ICAO did adopt the NATO phonetic alphabet and made it a part of
the Air Traffic Control language...which was adopted as English
internationally back in the mid-1950s. I've used that on civil aviation
radio in voice communications about 1960 for the first time. No
biggie, but nursie can't let his hatred die and must tell a bunch of
LIES about my past experience. :-)

Like somone who has no training, certification or licensure in ANY
healthcare profession trying to one-upmanship those who are.

Nursie, trying to masquerade as Dr. Killgore, Knows All, thinks he
wrote "Gray's Anatomy" or the "Physicians' Desk Companion." :-)

Nursie can't stand being "one-upped" on ANYTHING. :-)

Let us not forget those who have attempted to embellish thier military
service record with the sacrifices of Soldiers who were KIA three years before
the commenter was ever IN the military.

Two years. My assignment was to the 71st Signal Service Battalion,
8235th Army Unit. The "71st" lost 20 members on 1 Jul 50 in an air
crash in Korea, en route to bolster U.S. Army communications there.
I honor their memory and of that military unit. Hardy Barracks, the
last surviving U.S. military location in Tokyo, was named for one of
those 20, Corporal Elmer Hardy. I was billeted at Hardy Barracks.
The new transmitter site at Kashiwa was, in 1956, renamed Camp
Tomlinson in honor of one of the "71st" officers on that fatal crash.
I was in the first of C Company to move into the Kashiwa site and
help enabling the start of HF radio operations for station ADA.

I don't "embellish" anything. I was there, as assigned, did my work,
and honored those who went before. I would dishonor the names of
all 23 of my unit if I did not mention them or keep them in my heart.

And there are those who make scathing comments on the nature and
character
of various volunteer organizations although they themselves have never been in
any of these organizations, and in one case where they hadn't even reached
puberty when they made thier "observations" on those organizations.

Poor baby. Still in need of mental counsel. His obsessional hatred
abounds. "Meaningful discussion" isn't possible.

LHA

In article , PAMNO
(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor been
involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly proclaims
what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Poor baby. Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev. Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children, yet
proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point of
not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Yup, Rev. Jim, the "renowned pediatrician" has to voice an old, bitter
"cause" of his left over from 6 years ago. :-)

[see last item in my Comments on docket 98-143...which the teen
avenger was Hot and Heavy in denunciation of...(still in the ECFS
under 13 Jan 99 filing date)]

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then manufactures a falsehood that I "denied its
historical importance." In any other venue that would be a LIE. :-)

In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past. Today, the only real use of manual
telegraphy codes is in amateur radio where its advocates go on
angry benders of denunciation of anyone who even frowns on its
"usefulness." All the other radio services just dropped "morse" as
being too slow, too error-prone, and requiring comm specialists
at each end that weren't useful anymore.

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry on a
civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to the
other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license class,
education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

I should "show respect" for those self-empowered paragons of pride
who insist (to the point of angry jumping up and down) that all must
respect those olde-tyme manual radio telegraphers? Because
telegraphy is Their Favorite and all should honor Their favorite?

Wow, ol' Rev. Jim really got cooking on his Hellfire-And-Brimstone
denunciation of all who don't Believe in the True God of Radio, Morse!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hell Hath No Fury Like A Telegrapher Scorned! :-)

Uh, Rev. Jim, send me your TS Card. I'll punch it. Save everyone
all the time and trouble of reading your raving of madness.

You DO know what a "TS Card" is, don't you? No? Tsk, tsk, an
old military service term-phrase. You weren't IN the military, were
you? Tsk, tsk. You did NOT work any military comms or even any
civilian comms, did you? No? Tsk, tsk.

Gosh, golly, and heckanddarn, all this fuss and Fury over some
NATO phonetic alphabet that went in force in the NATO militaries
of 1955 and was the forerunner of such adoption worldwide. Even
in the ICAO...whose working air carriers were, in the majority, in
NATO-member countries back in the mid-1950s. :-)

Beep, beep

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(Kellie after his divine words got tromped on) writes:

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

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Kellie should note that the U.S. MILITARY adopted the NATO
phonetic alphabet in 1955, not 1956.

The ICAO and the ITU globally and the FAA, ANSI and the ARRL inside
the U.S. all agreed upon the same phonetic alphabet and it lives on
today. That's a documented 100% correct statement. What's your point
Putz?

Not quite the "100%" you state, but you will cuss and swear and
act real tuff about it. As you did here. :-)

NATO started it in 1955.

I was a member of the U.S. Army when NATO started it and the
U.S. military made the directives that had the military change over
and use it. Kellie wasn't. Kellie was never a part of the United
States military.

Answer: "I'm just the local neighborhood putz, I don't have a point, I
never did and I never will".

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Following your "NCOIC" in "meaningful discussions,"
are you? :-)

[as one who was IN the
U.S. Army at the time, and in radio communications work, I am
quite familiar with that adoption, about as first-hand as one can
get (without shooting off his catapult)]

Golly dayum and holy cow, I wish I was there when you used them there
NATO phonetics on the Army RTTY repeaters you babysat. NATO-issued
RTTY microphones?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...the troll tries insult mode again when he MIGHT (in the
best of all possible worlds) have had "meaningful discussions." :-)

"Army RTTY repeaters?" You call a 10 KW water-cooled HF
transmitter a "repeater?" :-) [BC-310 driven by a BC-339]

The U.S. military never had "NATO-issued RTTY microphones."
Still don't.

Kellie all "knowledgeable" about an AN/FRC-22 40 KW SSB
transmitter? He ever tune one up? He ever keep it going 24/7?

1955 was 49 years ago.
Is Kellie POSITIVE the ARRL adopted the NATO phonetic
alphabet 49 years ago? Or even 48 years ago?

Kellie in Nap Mode, can't be bothered to check it out... :-)

The ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) may also
have selected the NATO phonetic alphabet in 1955, rather than
1956, but I expect a lot of outraged protests on that... :-)

Kellie still in Nap Mode (old folks seem to do a lot of that).

But, Kellie can't tell the difference between a challenging statement
or a question through his tri-focals, so I let that pass. :-)

I do know it is NOT the "ICAO phonetic alphabet"

except for a
bunch of anti-military peacenik hardliners will never admit to the
existance of NATO, therefore they want to rename it for "ICAO."

SNORES

Poor baby. All tuckered out from all that reading of someone you
perceive walked all over your words? Tsk, tsk, tsk. :-)

Kellie will now start mumbling "putz" and other Yiddish
endearments... :-)

Can't even start to be bothered, "The Putz" obviously works just fine
for everybody around here.

Kellie woke up to stumble his way around a trolling reply. :-)

SK dit dit.

You passed on? How sad. Or did you just pass CW gas?

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/11/2004 3:27 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

I do know it is NOT the "ICAO phonetic alphabet" except for a
bunch of anti-military peacenik hardliners will never admit to the
existance of NATO, therefore they want to rename it for "ICAO."

Hmmmmmm.....

That's funny...

APCO calls it the ICAO phonetic alphabet.

APCO isn't a military organization.

Police agencies had the "10 codes" before CBers did. :-)

The FAA calls it the ICAO phonetic alphabet.

FAA is (through the USA) part of the ICAO. :-)

Where did the ICAO get their phonetic alphabet? :-)

NATO had it first in 1955. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

It's refered to as the ICAO phonetic alphabet in about a dozen different
military aeronatutical publications that I recall including the FLIP charts.

You've "FLIPed" out, nursie.

Ain't no "aeronatutical publications." Lots of aeronautical ones... :-)

I've seen it refered to as the ICAO phonetic is several European radio
hobby magazines.

You've also said "MARS is amateur radio" despite DoD Directive
4650.2 (effective 21 Nov 03). :-)

You NOW refer to amateur radio as a "hobby?" Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Where is that enormous pride and esprit de corps in that very
special "service" you honor by keeping it like a quasi-paramilitary
something or other?

Remember, "ham radio" doesn't work like all other radios. It is
very different in your reality, extra special and never, never, ever
"just a hobby" in that fantasyland.

Ya figger all them folks know something YOU don't, Lennie...?!?!

NATO knows. The made the NATO phonetic alphabet a reality
in 1955. Hasn't changed any since that year.

Kellie will now start mumbling "putz" and other Yiddish
endearments... :-)

If it fits, Lennie...

Ya PUTZ!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More of that "meaningful discussion?" :-)

LHA / WMD

But there are strong recommendations from the various Amateur Radio Socities
that you do.

And I have heard many times in pile-ups --- ITU Phonetics only and some DX
operators won't answer you with any other phonetics.

--
Lamont Cranston

The Shadow Knows
----------------------------
"JJ" wrote in message
news
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:


As a
ham I am required to use the ITU phonetics.......

There is no rule that a ham must use a certain set if phonetics.

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
(jumping in on the Sermon On The Antenna
Mount trolling) writes:

Awww...poor Mike got his ego perceived as stepped on?

Absolutely not! I was complementing you on something. You are pretty
good at this.


Got a tad off the subject into Personal Hatred, dintcha? :-)

I hate almost no one. Whether you like it or not, I like you.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:

If not required by laws or rules, then it is required out of some level of
operational courtesy though.

Ryan
KC8PMX

I prefer that people simply say their callsign to me. Phonetics annoy
me mostly. When they use their phonetics, are they practicing courtesy
to me?

- Mike KB3EIA -


"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote


As a ham I am required to use the ITU phonetics.......

No you're not.

Regardless of the article in QST, there is no requirement for hams to
use the ICAO phonetics. You are free to use whatever phonetics you
wish, or none at all if that strikes your fancy.

73, de Hans, K0HB
--
SOC #291 http://www.qsl.net/soc

Da Shadow wrote:

But there are strong recommendations from the various Amateur Radio Socities
that you do.

And I have heard many times in pile-ups --- ITU Phonetics only and some DX
operators won't answer you with any other phonetics.

--
Lamont Cranston


Wow, it must be something for these "operators" to be so anal! If a
person only answers me because I speak a certain way, then I'll forgo
their blessed contact.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:


After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)


Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been
involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims
what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet
proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point
of
not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical
importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a
civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the
other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class,
education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.

Well, if the shoe fits...

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

Whereas most antagonists eventually find no one to write to in a news
group, Len has managed to generate enough interest to make himself and
those who would spar with him into some of the leading posters.

Nothing new there, Mike.

This is no small accomplishment. I for one have to respect that.

I don't.

There's nothing to respect or admire able about being able to tear down,
insult, and destroy - or attempt to.

Here's a classic for ya - I call it "the sphincter post":

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001001%40nso-f
p.aol.com&output=gplain

73 de Jim, N2EY

Perhaps Mike -- But they sometimes are the only game in town

--
Lamont Cranston

The Shadow Knows
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Da Shadow wrote:

But there are strong recommendations from the various Amateur Radio
Socities
that you do.

And I have heard many times in pile-ups --- ITU Phonetics only and some
DX
operators won't answer you with any other phonetics.

--
Lamont Cranston


Wow, it must be something for these "operators" to be so anal! If a
person only answers me because I speak a certain way, then I'll forgo
their blessed contact.

- Mike KB3EIA -