Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

Every American should have an interest in increasing the number of
potential emergency radio operators. You just never know when you
might need one, and Morse Code just isn't needed to be an effective
emergency radio operator.

Brian, there's no use trying to argue with "Quitefine," an unconvincing
screen surrogate of James P. Miccolis. :-)

He is stuck in the morsemanship rut and not even a Land Rover can
yank him out.

Let him admire the code keys on display at the AWA and let him
live in the past pioneers' time, which he did not.

I find that intriguing coming from a man who feels compelled to make
numerous posts, spanning the better part of a decade, to a newsgroup
dealing with an endeavor in which he has no part.

Dave K8MN

You say he has no part, yet he has contributed to the amateur
literature, and he has commented on amateur matters to the FCC. There
are probably amateurs (the kind with a license) who have made fewer
contributions than has Len. How strange that you say he has no part.

William wrote:

(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Every American should have an interest in increasing the number of
potential emergency radio operators.

A valid point.

However, Len does not
agree that amateur radio plays
any significant role in emergency
communications.

Must Len agree with everything?

Awwww, cut it out, "William"! My sides hurt from laughing.

Dave K8MN

William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

Every American should have an interest in increasing the number of
potential emergency radio operators. You just never know when you
might need one, and Morse Code just isn't needed to be an effective
emergency radio operator.

Brian, there's no use trying to argue with "Quitefine," an unconvincing
screen surrogate of James P. Miccolis. :-)

He is stuck in the morsemanship rut and not even a Land Rover can
yank him out.

Let him admire the code keys on display at the AWA and let him
live in the past pioneers' time, which he did not.

I find that intriguing coming from a man who feels compelled to make
numerous posts, spanning the better part of a decade, to a newsgroup
dealing with an endeavor in which he has no part.

Dave K8MN

You say he has no part, yet he has contributed to the amateur
literature,

Literature? I'll concede that Leonard authored some articles for a
commericial venture in the form of an amateur radio magazine. That
didn't make him a radio amateur.

and he has commented on amateur matters to the FCC.

By your logic, comments to the Commission on broadcast station ownership
make one involved in broadcasting. Len's comments didn't make him a
radio amateur.

There
are probably amateurs (the kind with a license) who have made fewer
contributions than has Len.

Is something one does for money a contribution? Is something which
results in a negative action a contribution? Is something which results
in no action a contribution?

How strange that you say he has no part.

Len has no amateur radio license. Len may not operate radio equipment
under Part 97 of the FCC regs. Len is not a regulator of amateur radio.
I don't find that strange at all. I find it fitting.

Dave K8MN

Subject: Canadian No Code Proposal Open For Comment
From: Dave Heil
Date: 9/9/2004 11:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

William wrote:

You say he has no part, yet he has contributed to the amateur
literature,

Literature? I'll concede that Leonard authored some articles for a
commericial venture in the form of an amateur radio magazine. That
didn't make him a radio amateur.

Let's be a bit more precise, Dave.

We can concede that Lennie's name appeared as having authored those
articles.

We have no evidence that it WAS his work.

His conduct in this forum as evidence leads me to believe that the
originality of the articles is dubious, at best. Conversations with people who
knew him tend to cement that opinion.

and he has commented on amateur matters to the FCC.

By your logic, comments to the Commission on broadcast station ownership
make one involved in broadcasting. Len's comments didn't make him a
radio amateur.

Lennie's "comments" are the same stuff over and over.

The military and maritime services don't use Morse anymore, so Amateurs
shouldn't either.

Not one bit of understanding about what he's commenting on. Still can't
separate the "AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE" from anything else. He left the Army
during the Eisenhower administration and with it his last "exposure" to ANY HF
radio operating...save for maybe CB...

And what "points" he can't make repeating that over and over he "makes" by
attacking the other writers...Of course when someone suggest HE'S less than
adequately informed on matters, he can't stop wailing about it for years...

There
are probably amateurs (the kind with a license) who have made fewer
contributions than has Len.

Is something one does for money a contribution? Is something which
results in a negative action a contribution? Is something which results
in no action a contribution?

Better yet...

Find me ONE article in any OTHER Amateur periodical that cites Lennie's
"work" as theoretical basework for some project.

How strange that you say he has no part.

Len has no amateur radio license. Len may not operate radio equipment
under Part 97 of the FCC regs. Len is not a regulator of amateur radio.
I don't find that strange at all. I find it fitting.

He could have been a contender.

Since he won't enter the race, he won't even be a runner up.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Canadian No Code Proposal Open For Comment
From: (William)
Date: 9/8/2004 6:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Nope. Those are your exact words, and you have had months to retract it.

Instead, you defend it.

That's because I believe it. AND I am willing to sign my name to it.

If you had been any part of it you'd understand.

You are a person of no convictions, Brain.

It really is THAT simple.

YOU, on the otherhand, have also had "months" to provide some evidence that
backs up your "unlicensed services play a major role in emergency comms" faux
pas, and YEARS to provide some documentation that your alleged Somalia
"operation" was legitimate.

Still a big fat ZERO on either account.

But then you've conditioned us to expect just that...

Still sucks to be you. Still not getting it right.

Oh well......

Some civil discourse...

You're simply incapable of it.

Of course I am being civil.

You act stupidly, I point it out. That is not "uncivil".

You don't like it, but you keep doing it.

If I were being uncivil, I'd use profanity and speak in baby babble.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len has no amateur radio license. Len may not operate radio equipment
under Part 97 of the FCC regs. Len is not a regulator of amateur radio.
I don't find that strange at all. I find it fitting.

Davie boy is NOT a regulator of amateur radio.

Davie boy is NOT keeping within bounds of the subject thread.

Davie boy still puts on the ASS rental uniform and makes like
a bad imitation of Otto Preminger's character in "Stalag 17."

Davie boy...I am fully qualified, by long experience and training
to "operate" radio equipment. I'm just not AUTHORIZED to emit
RF within U.S. amateur radio bands as a civilian.

You have self-established "definitions" which are incorrect outside
of amateurism. To use your definitions in your own quaint way of
defining things, I couldn't even check out radios on a bench in a
clean room. :-) You imply (incorrectly) that I could not, ever,
"operate" any radio in any HF place...which is not truth according
to U.S. radio regulations.

Amateur radio operators are NOT authorized to emit RF outside of
amateur radio bands...unless they have a valid commercial radio
operator's license.

Some amateurs, like Davie boy, seem to think they are authorized
to emit all sorts of feces-surrogate remarks on the Internet. :-)

Tsk.

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Canadian No Code Proposal Open For Comment
From: (William)
Date: 9/8/2004 6:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Nope. Those are your exact words, and you have had months to retract it.

Instead, you defend it.

That's because I believe it. AND I am willing to sign my name to it.

Well there you go. And quit whining whenever I bring it up.

If you had been any part of it you'd understand.

You are a person of no convictions, Brain.

It really is THAT simple.

You cannot be that simple.

YOU, on the otherhand, have also had "months" to provide some evidence that
backs up your "unlicensed services play a major role in emergency comms" faux
pas,

I saw cell phones used by emergency pers on the television all last
week. I suspect that I'll see them in use again this week.

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

Every American should have an interest in increasing the number of
potential emergency radio operators. You just never know when you
might need one, and Morse Code just isn't needed to be an effective
emergency radio operator.

Brian, there's no use trying to argue with "Quitefine," an unconvincing
screen surrogate of James P. Miccolis. :-)

He is stuck in the morsemanship rut and not even a Land Rover can
yank him out.

Let him admire the code keys on display at the AWA and let him
live in the past pioneers' time, which he did not.

I find that intriguing coming from a man who feels compelled to make
numerous posts, spanning the better part of a decade, to a newsgroup
dealing with an endeavor in which he has no part.

Dave K8MN

You say he has no part, yet he has contributed to the amateur
literature,

Literature? I'll concede that Leonard authored some articles for a
commericial venture in the form of an amateur radio magazine. That
didn't make him a radio amateur.

Yet he has played a part. Didn't you say he plays no part?

and he has commented on amateur matters to the FCC.

By your logic, comments to the Commission on broadcast station ownership
make one involved in broadcasting. Len's comments didn't make him a
radio amateur.

Broadcast stations have a responsibility to the community.

People with radio receivers play a part.

People who make comments WRT a broadcasts stations activities play a part.

Regulators of broadcast stations play a part.

There
are probably amateurs (the kind with a license) who have made fewer
contributions than has Len.

Is something one does for money a contribution? Is something which
results in a negative action a contribution? Is something which results
in no action a contribution?

You're so full of ???'s today. You'll have to ask the FCC.

How strange that you say he has no part.

Len has no amateur radio license.

Neither does that Powell kid.

Len may not operate radio equipment
under Part 97 of the FCC regs.

Len may operate -amateur- radio equipment while you are the control operator.

Len is not a regulator of amateur radio.

Are you a regulator of amateur radio?

Am I to understand that only regulators of amateur radio "play a part?"

I don't find that strange at all. I find it fitting.

Dave K8MN

I find you strange.

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote:

(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Every American should have an interest in increasing the number of
potential emergency radio operators.

A valid point.

However, Len does not
agree that amateur radio plays
any significant role in emergency
communications.

Must Len agree with everything?

Awwww, cut it out, "William"! My sides hurt from laughing.

Dave K8MN

Might be all that bad branch water working on your kidneys.

Subject: Canadian No Code Proposal Open For Comment
From: (William)
Date: 9/10/2004 5:33 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Canadian No Code Proposal Open For Comment
From: (William)
Date: 9/8/2004 6:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Nope. Those are your exact words, and you have had months to retract it.

Instead, you defend it.

That's because I believe it. AND I am willing to sign my name to it.

Well there you go. And quit whining whenever I bring it up.

I am not whining, Brain.

I am defending my convictions.

You wouldn't know about that.

If you had been any part of it you'd understand.

You are a person of no convictions, Brain.

It really is THAT simple.

You cannot be that simple.

YOU, on the otherhand, have also had "months" to provide some evidence
that
backs up your "unlicensed services play a major role in emergency comms"
faux
pas,

I saw cell phones used by emergency pers on the television all last
week. I suspect that I'll see them in use again this week.

A cellphone is not an "unlicensed" device. The end user does not have a
license, however the provider of the service sure does and could not operate
the system without one.

Ask the FCC.

The thread in which you made your pronouncement on "unlicensed devices"
specificallly asked you about Part 15 and Part 95 issues. You said, yes,
those.

I really don't want to spend a lot of time wading through all those posts
to find it, Brain, but if it means one more opportunity to plant a flag in your
ear after having again disproven even more of your silly assertions, then I
will.

Steve, K4YZ