In article , Leo
writes:

On 26 Oct 2004 04:54:56 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,

(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

snip

Tsk, tsk, TSK! I have an R-70. Leo has an R-70. Both still work to
specifications (which are quite good).

It does indeed. And my BC-221 is still intact. (my BC-221-AA
actually, made by Philco in 1942, with a big WWII-vintage Royal
Canadian Signal Corps decal on its side - pretty neat!).

As it should be.

Right on! :-)

But...I've got you beat on who made what...the Lewyt Vacuum
Cleaner Company made a bunch of 7-foot tall BC-339 trans-
mitters for the USA Signal Corps during WW2. Said so on the
little nameplate. I suppose some (who weren't born yet until a
decade after that war) will say "those suck!" :-)

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,




(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:


One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.


Then I advise that your seeing an opthalmologist for an
eye examination is a good idea. That way you could observe
the several fracases that nursie starts with ANYONE who
disagrees with him...besides Brian, try Hans and Dieter.

Takes at least two people to make a fight.

Not in computer-modem communications venues. :-)

Steve and mayself don't get into verbal battles.

Not yet. :-)

And I'm certainly not afraid of him.

Oooooo! :-) Is someone afraid of the big bad wolf? :-)

If I disagree, I'll tell him so.

That's all it takes to start a fight with nursie. :-)

And despite what "William" wants me to do, I'm not
going to step into one of you three's battles and slap his hand.

The avenging angel of rrap is unshutupable. :-)

He putz me to sleep sometimes. :-)

You are
all big boys now, and responsible for your own behavior!

Thank you Mike Tyson. [excellent taste? :-) ]


Okay, if you and Brian aren't, then show it.

Show what?

Stop objecting to personal insults? Stop objecting to insulting remarks
about spouses? Stop objecting to manufactured lies he makes about
my past?

I've stopped that. You haven't noticed.

But you enjoy it, IMO, so why defend it.

I don't enjoy it. It's tiring because his emotional tirades are repetitive,
sometimes mirroring what I've said about him in the past.

In general, the PCTA comments on retention of the code test are
(and were long ago) repetitive, puerile, and invalid. All any of them
can do is resort to is pejorating any outspoken NCTA.

If you like having verbal sparring matches with Steve
(the boys down at the shop used to call 'em whizzing contests) then have
at it.

We are all big boys now. You can call them ****ing contests
rather than use the cutesy euphemisms.

Want to have a nasty toned battle of wits? Enjoy! 8^)

****ing contests with nursie are NOT any "battle of wits." :-)

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.

So...do the "boys down at the shop" call you "penis head?"

In any language or dialect? :-)

Do you LIKE that sort of thing?


Just a habit of mine to not speak ill of the dead.

Feel free to say nice things about Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ted
Bundy. They are all dead. :-)


I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed.

Been a lonnng time since I heard that one!

It's still true.

Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts.

Never had a Morse code fantasy in my life.

Others DO. "Try it, you'll like it!" :-)


You seem to give the Morse test the same amount of weight as
Pseudo-Conservatives give to the mythical "Liberal". This critter is
responsible for all the ills in the country, despite there being almost
no liberals left. Somehow, some way, the one or two liberals left manage
to gum everything up.

Tsk. You mistake persistence for obsession. :-)

Morse code was a boon to landline communications two centuries
back (in the 1800s), enabling the wired telegraphy service providers
to give good service to all needing quick communications.

When radio as a communications medium was demonstrated, morse
code was used...not because it was unique, the best, or any other
positive attribute. On-off keying of early radio transmitters was the
ONLY practical means to use technologically-primitive early radio
apparatus for communications.

For some radio amateurs in the United States, morse code skill is
about the ONLY thing they have to show their "superiority" in a
radio service that is still just a hobby. Tsk. Those amateurs are
the ones seeing a mythical "sky is falling" scenario if the code test
is ever eliminated. Not my paranoia. :-)

I've been transmitting RF energy legally since 1953, over more
parts of the EM spectrum than is allowed to radio amateurs. Never
had any requirement to demonstrate any morse code skill to anyone
in order to transmit below 30 MHz...or above it. Doesn't make any
personal difference to me whether or not the code test stays or is
tossed in the dumpster. It's time the code test went to the landfill.
It's long overdue.

All those PCTA extras just hate the thought of removing the code
test. For so many of them it's all they've got to show their eliteness
in a hobby. shrug Some of them get rather angry and want to
"fight" about it, calling any persistent NCTA personal insults.


Each person must answer their own "Why". I figured that since I only
have so many years on this earth, I would take the time and learn Morse
code. Spent 6 months of an hour or so a day. The rewards have been that
I have had my (Morse code tested) license for 3 years now. That's three
years out of my life that I wouldn't have had it if I refused to learn it.

I've operated in many radio services. Never once had to use any old
morse or be required to know it...even though I did "know it" once,
way back in time. Doesn't matter. I don't look on the code test as
some kind of my-personal sort of thing. The code test isn't necessary
for the FCC nor anyone else except all those Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society "extras."

As to personal time spent "learning" something, I've spent many
more hours per day over many, many more months to complete
my formal schooling. One PCTA extra considers that on-par with
remedial "night school" classes held for immigrants and such. :-)
Of course, the same individual considers the University of Illinois
or the University of Wisconsin as "correspondence schools!" Hi hi.

Your "Why" would indicate that you simply aren't interested in the ARS
to the level that you would take the effort to get the license.

Tsk. I don't "owe" anyone a reason for my doing anything. :-)

Do you "owe" someone anything for talking about politics? Does one
HAVE to be IN politics to talk about it? :-)

I'm not interested in joining any Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.
You forget I HAVE a federal radio operator license and obtained it
long ago. :-) Not a big deal. Had to use it only two years after
getting that in 1956. Such federal licenses make some folks think
they are real big shots (stretch that O vertically). Not me. Just a
piece of paper.


You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and
correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three
decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY
requirement to "study morsemanship material."

I could never forget! 8^)

Of course if you are happy, then that is great. I've only been on HF
for a few years now. Enjoying every minute of it.

Enjoy, enjoy.

I must confess I don't personally compartmentalize it into HF or Not
HF. It's all good, MF, HF, VHF, UHF!

You MUST compartmentalize in THIS newsgroup. Tested
morsemanship is "necessary" to operate on HF ham bands!
Absolutely! :-)

I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time.

Good job, that! 8^)

The trick to that is staying away from downtown Transylvania...


My Newsreader wants to call you Len Over 21

If your newsreader is licensed, have it call my Internet software
on 9015 KHz USB. They can do electronic lunch.


I don't call people nasty names. Just what they prefer to be called.
that's why I asked

"Putz" (penis head in Yiddish) is not "nasty" to another PCTA extra
in here. It is very nasty along Maxwell Street in Chicago. Another
in here just calls me "wrong" and "incorrect." :-)

You can call me anything...but that would be incorrect. :-)

You can't figure out from my "signature" what a preferred short form
given name of mine should be? Tsk.

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

Naw, the three of them do enough.

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

Tsk, tsk. The "whizzing" is almost entirely one way, nursie
"whizzing" on anyone who disagrees (in the slightest) with
him. [that's all archived in Google, go live in the past and see
it...:-) ]


It's a plain, simple fact.

Tsk, wrong again. Error. Mistake.

Worse yet, you use "fact" interchangeably with Your Personal
Opinion. Not correct.


Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

Very very little.

Actually, quite a bit.

Wrong again. Quite wrong.

1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency.

No, that's not true. Radio was regulated by the US and by international treaty
before 1912. The regulations were very vague and loose, but they did exist.

Tsk. What agency had the official power of law in the United States
prior to 1912?

"Loose and vague" apply to your specious "arguments" there.

That's
about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very
tenuous one...if at all. :-)

Wrong again, Len!

No. Not "wrong" in the real world.

You need to sever your imaginary ties of emotion to a pet subject
of yours in order to examine the bigger picture.

There was NO REAL RELATION of the Titanic disaster event to U.S.
amateur radio policy, regulations, or laws. If you notice the
chronology, all that can be said is that the creation of the first U.S.
radio regulating agency and the Titanic sinking took place in the same
year, 1912.

Because of the Titanic disaster, the existing loose regulations were tightened
up and much more closely defined. Licenses were required of all transmitting
stations, new procedures set up, new treaties and agreements put in place.

That's an absurd mental elastomeric stress breaking point. :-)

I would suggest that anyone who really cares about the very early
history of radio to study Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave,
Technology and American Radio, 1900-1932." Princeton University
Press, 1985, softcover 561 pp. At the time of writing, Aitken was
a professor at Amherst College and the work was supported by the
National Science Foundation.

There was considerably more involved in the decision of the United
States to create its first radio regulating agency PRIOR to the
Titanic sinking. [agencies aren't created overnight by some
disaster even and the start of the first radio agency in the U.S.
began considerably before the infamous sinking]

And it was because of the Titanic disaster that amateurs were limited to "200
meters and down" and 1 kW input to their transmitters. Those limitations
caused
amateurs to organize themselves into groups like ARRL (1914), to push for
legislative protection, and to explore what could be done with those
supposedly
"useless" wavelengths.

Tsk. You aren't in line with the ARRL's own bio of its creation. :-)

The way the league wrote themselves up, they began as a local
club using their ham sets to what was essentially hacking on the
services of commercial telegraph providers. [see the details on the
league's web site and in other published works by them]

ARRL did not spring into national prominence until AFTER World
War 1, at least 8 years AFTER the Titanic sinking. Even so, the
league was very busy with competition from OTHER wannabe
national amateur organizations. Note: The Radio Club of America
began 5 years before the creation of the little New England club,
and "RCA" (as they call themselves) is still in existance.

Had there been no Titanic or similar disaster, it's very probable that the
loose state of radio regulatory affairs would have continued until the
outbreak of WW1.

Tsk. World War One (in Europe) began in 1914. The ARRL was
created in 1914. :-)

I could "connect the dots" like you so cavalierly like to do with dates
and say there is a "relationship" in the above...but I won't. Its just
a chronological coincidence.

And it's also very possible that without the Titanic disaster, amateur radio
would not exist today, or even after WW1.

Yes, yes, "The Old Man" Went To Washington To Save Ham Radio!
AFTER the end of World War 1. Six years AFTER the Titanic
sinking.

Rev. Jim is sermonizing from the league's version of the good book.

If Aitken's book is too scholarly (it actually reads well), then there
is the more readily available Thomas H. White's website:

http://earlyradiohistory.us/index.html

"White pages" cover the period 1897 to 1927 and are not biased to
amateur radio subjects. [that may be objectionable to PCTAs]

Perhaps that's why Len gets so worked up over mention of the Titanic.

Tsk. Here begins Rev. Jim's "fire and brimstone" demonizing. :-)

Noooooo. The Titanic sank in 1912. That is NINETY-TWO YEARS
AGO.

Or perhaps it's the fact that the rescue was effected by Morse Code used on
radio that gets Len so upset.

Tsk. Way back then (92 years ago) ANYONE using radio for
communications HAD TO use on-off keying of some kind.

92 years later, hardly anyone (except for a few amateurs, a minority)
use on-off keying communications modes.


Len laughed at the disaster when I wrote that hitting the iceberg head-on
would
have probably saved all aboard. And he refuses to show any respect for those
who perished.

Tsk. Sneaky implied pejorative. :-)

I don't claim to be a mariner at all despite having crossed the Atlantic
and Pacific twice by ship and gone sailing on a friend's 35-foot
something or other (forget the class of sailboat), all as a passenger.
I WILL laugh and laugh at the thought of "expert seamanship" involving
"hitting an iceberg (or anything else) head-on in order to save it"!

Ain't nobody going to get "respect" for stating such alleged "safety
measures" to stay afloat at sea as "going head-on into a berg."
Defies common sense. :-)

I don't show any "respect" for ANYONE stating that "hitting anything
head-on will save a ship."

Enormous good luck on ever passing any ship's masters exam,
sailor...


Yes, Len. You have that problem.

Heh heh heh. My only "problem" is taking your trolling bait, grabbing
the line, and then tying you all up with that line. You had best swim
head-on into the dock in order to stay above water. :-)


It sure seems to. You're obsessed by it.

Tsk. Persistence is not obsession.

I'm not in here every day. :-)

I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-)

That's a good thing!

Why is that "good?"

Are you in fear that your Eliteness in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society will be diminished? :-)


Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right out
of the box".

Did I do that in church? Laying down in the nave, forming a code key
with my body and taking absolute Vows? :-)

Tsk. I've seen what Being An Extra makes of some amateurs and
such is not for me.

I'm of the opinion that radio and electronics is terribly fascinating,
interesting, and makes an enjoyable field of both avocation and
occupation. To me. So much so that I made a major shift in my
formal education long ago, changing from illustration art to
electronics engineering. That despite a natural talent in
illustration and some prior work experience as an illustrator.
That was personally successful, not the "lackluster career" you
stated.

I do electronics hobby work in my home workshop to please me,
not some raddio kopps demanding a certain formal Way To Do
Things, nor worshipping the old traditional ways as they were
done long ago, trying to re-enact a past that was before I was
born. The future happens right after now and I keep looking forward
to new things, to enjoy them.

What person are you referring to, Len?

Whomever. :-)


Note how Len avoids the question about why the code test bothers him so much.

It doesn't "bother me." :-)

You've long since run out of valid arguments to retain the U.S. amateur
radio regulation requiring passing a code cognition test for operating
privileges in amateur bands below 30 MHz. You've resorted to the
usual PCTA demonizing of any NCTA who dares to talk back to a
member of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS).

As predicted, you've gotten all emotional and upset about being
(in the slightest) corrected on certain (actual) facts (not your
opinions although you use fact-opinion interchangeably).

You want to keep the ARS in your version of pure, pristine, and
prissy-literally and don't (now) hesitate to pejorate others and
make some mild perjerous remarks to "reinforce" your opinions
(which you call "facts").


Besides, it wouldn't matter what sort of homebrew rig I produced - Len would
have lots of disparaging things to say about it.

Tsk. You took your rig's photo. You put it on an AOL home page.

One photo. Doesn't go into much detail. Six and a half cabinet-less
chassis with lots of vacuum tubes. No schematics. No descriptions
in detail that you claim visitors are astounded about. :-)

What homebrew HF radio transceivers have *you* produced since the mid 1990s,
Len, using only your own time and resources?

No transceivers on HF. :-)

Tsk. Getting puerile with the "challenges" there, Jimmie.

As usual, you've wasted my time. But...I was sitting around waiting
for the big brown truck to show up as promised on the tracking info.
:-)

Tsk. Is it a new "world serious" game you want to play, complete
with recycled "body parts" (radio bodies, that is) and "scoring" of
how many HF transceivers everyone has "homebrewed?" :-)

Sorry, Jimmie, not a game I want to play. I'll just watch Boston
and St. Louis on live color television and cheer the Red Sox when
they win. They are all PROFESSIONAL players! :-)








Didn't have computerized package tracking in 1912. Didn't have UPS
FedEx, or DHL then, either and the USPS was just the "post office"
and they never guaranteed overnight delivery across the country in
1912.




Despite their virtual obsolescence, hollow state technology is quite
interesting, at least to me.

I find it very interesting, too. Very useful, too.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Random thought mode off.......

Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like
Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-)

AM never really appealed to me. Takes a lot of energy for all you get
out of it. But I do like historical processes and equipment as a
diversion after working all day with much more modern techniques. Kinda fun.

I've done AM on 75 meters, and it's a lot of fun when the band isn't crowded.
Been in some really nice roundtables where the other folks know how to
develop
an idea and express their views.

Wow! "State of the Art!"

I suppose at one time it was!

Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires
for at least 10 miles! :-)

Hehe, AM is probably just about at the bottom of the heap (with
apologies to all the AM'ers out there)

It's another tool in the toolbox.

Have a Happy, your Grinchness...

You also, Lenover21.



I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"?

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you
answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?

In article ,
(William) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
William wrote:
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:



In article , Robert Casey
writes:



One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.



Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)



So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing.

Agreed! Len does more OT posting than anybody,


and is told more often than anybody that he is OT.

Not by me! AFAIC Lenover21 can post on anything he wishes to.

Glad to hear it. The same cannot be said for Kelly, Jim, Dave, or
dare I say Steve?

Really, there isn't a need for any of us to be sensitive about this
stuff. It is after all, USENET.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's not being sensitive about being told. It's just that those doing
the telling are some of the worst offenders, i.e., PCTA double
standard.

Heh heh. One of those offenders claims to be a working
professional (i.e., performs electronics work for monetary
compensation) electronics engineer...who implies that
"professionals" don't do good work, make mistakes, etc.
That one hasn't identified his employer on the basis of
"other reasons." :-)

All because of not loving his favorite radio mode, morse
code. :-)

The gist of what the PCTAs in here rant about is the attempts
to demonize all the NCTAs for not believing as they do. They
can't make a good case to keep the code test so they resort
to personal insults, pejoratives againt the NCTAs. NOT a good
case to present for retaining any code test...or even to show
the amateur radio hobby in a good light.

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/27/2004 9:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I have made other apologies in this forum before, Brain. (Care to ask
Cecil, among others?)

There's a blast from the past. Cecil departed here years ago, but you
have made mountains of false accusations since Cecil's departure.

"Blast from the past"...?!?!

Yup. Cecil hasn't posted here in eons. That means your apology to
Cecil is ancient history.

Cecil's been the topic of discussion here for several weeks...Including
YOUR suggestion that you might "...pull a Cecil..."

Indeed. But I don't recall Cecil commenting.

And I've already shown where I got my attributions wrong with Hans' story
vs the one I read in QST.

An error. I admitted it and apologized fror it.

It wasn't the attributions that you should apologize for. It was the
accusation of plagiarism.

Unlike you, Brian P. Burke, who is an unashamed liar.

Period.

That's another of your false accusations.

So far you've not been able to delineate ANY facts, Brain.

Nor have you kept pace with your own rhetoric.

Steve, K4YZ

No one can keep pace with your unfounded accusations.

Such as...???

Sheesh! I said "No one." If I had known someone who could keep pace
with your false accusations, I would have said who.

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/27/2004 6:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: (William)
Date: 10/27/2004 9:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

I have made other apologies in this forum before, Brain. (Care to
ask
Cecil, among others?)

There's a blast from the past. Cecil departed here years ago, but you
have made mountains of false accusations since Cecil's departure.

"Blast from the past"...?!?!

Yup. Cecil hasn't posted here in eons. That means your apology to
Cecil is ancient history.

Perhaps...but it's one more than you've ever posted (taht I recall), and
certainly wasn't the last.

Cecil's been the topic of discussion here for several
weeks...Including
YOUR suggestion that you might "...pull a Cecil..."

Indeed. But I don't recall Cecil commenting.

And I've already shown where I got my attributions wrong with Hans'
story
vs the one I read in QST.

An error. I admitted it and apologized fror it.

It wasn't the attributions that you should apologize for. It was the
accusation of plagiarism.

Unlike you, Brian P. Burke, who is an unashamed liar.

Period.

That's another of your false accusations.

No, it's not.

Within the last 7 days you've made numerous assertions of fact that were
patently false when you made them, and that error pointed out by more than one
person.

You have failed to acknowledge your errors or apologize for YOUR false
accusations.

Sooooooooo....Brian P. Burke is and remains an unashamed liar.

So far you've not been able to delineate ANY facts, Brain.

Nor have you kept pace with your own rhetoric.

Steve, K4YZ

No one can keep pace with your unfounded accusations.

Such as...???

Sheesh! I said "No one." If I had known someone who could keep pace
with your false accusations, I would have said who.

The "such as" comment was not directed at "who" but at "what".

Brain P. Burke is and remains an unashamed liar.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you
answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?

I take it you saw his answer to me. It appears there is a great deal of
sensitivity on the subject.

But not a clear answer to a simple question.

Ask Len the time, he'll tell you how to get to Boulder and give a long boring
lecture on the development of time standards.

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.

You mean "ieee.org". Like arrl.org...

still has that problem of not being able to call other
people by their names, though. What's up with that?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Ask Len the time, he'll tell you how to get to Boulder and give a long boring
lecture on the development of time standards.

Nope. Mapquest or the AAA free maps will do that.

But, I DO know the Way to San Jose.

Should I hum a few bars so you can join in? :-)

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,




(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , Robert Casey
writes:


One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

YOU are the one making that charge.

Charge is such a nasty legalese sounding term. It's more like
"observation". And yes, I do make that observation.


Then I advise that your seeing an opthalmologist for an
eye examination is a good idea. That way you could observe
the several fracases that nursie starts with ANYONE who
disagrees with him...besides Brian, try Hans and Dieter.

Takes at least two people to make a fight.


Not in computer-modem communications venues. :-)

Have to say I can't understand that one.


Steve and mayself don't get into verbal battles.

Not yet. :-)

And I'm certainly not afraid of him.


Oooooo! :-) Is someone afraid of the big bad wolf? :-)


If I disagree, I'll tell him so.


That's all it takes to start a fight with nursie. :-)


And despite what "William" wants me to do, I'm not
going to step into one of you three's battles and slap his hand.


The avenging angel of rrap is unshutupable. :-)

He putz me to sleep sometimes. :-)


You are
all big boys now, and responsible for your own behavior!


Thank you Mike Tyson. [excellent taste? :-) ]

Tyson foods?


Okay, if you and Brian aren't, then show it.


Show what?



Stop objecting to personal insults? Stop objecting to insulting remarks
about spouses? Stop objecting to manufactured lies he makes about
my past?

Now your getting it!

I've stopped that. You haven't noticed.

But you enjoy it, IMO, so why defend it.

I don't enjoy it. It's tiring because his emotional tirades are repetitive,
sometimes mirroring what I've said about him in the past.

In general, the PCTA comments on retention of the code test are
(and were long ago) repetitive, puerile, and invalid. All any of them
can do is resort to is pejorating any outspoken NCTA.

Exactly as are the arguments against it. THere are no new arguments, no
new material. It's so old.


If you like having verbal sparring matches with Steve
(the boys down at the shop used to call 'em whizzing contests) then have
at it.

We are all big boys now. You can call them ****ing contests
rather than use the cutesy euphemisms.

Michael Powell's gonna get us! ;^)


Want to have a nasty toned battle of wits? Enjoy! 8^)

****ing contests with nursie are NOT any "battle of wits." :-)

Its the complaints and defenses I don't get.


So...do the "boys down at the shop" call you "penis head?"

In any language or dialect? :-)

I've been called much worse than that. One fine fellow even threatened
to kill me. Before I could do anything about it, he was arrested and
jailed on some other charges, so an offhand threat - and a real one to
boot - wasn't going to add a whole lot more time to his sentence.

Do you LIKE that sort of thing?

Life in the jungle, sir! 8^)

Just a habit of mine to not speak ill of the dead.


Feel free to say nice things about Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ted
Bundy. They are all dead. :-)



I'm "high" on life itself. No drugs or substances needed.

Been a lonnng time since I heard that one!


It's still true.


Nor any morse code fantasies as the epitome of hobby radio arts.

Never had a Morse code fantasy in my life.


Others DO. "Try it, you'll like it!" :-)



You seem to give the Morse test the same amount of weight as
Pseudo-Conservatives give to the mythical "Liberal". This critter is
responsible for all the ills in the country, despite there being almost
no liberals left. Somehow, some way, the one or two liberals left manage
to gum everything up.


Tsk. You mistake persistence for obsession. :-)

And many obsessed people just think they are persistent. Null.

Morse code was a boon to landline communications two centuries
back (in the 1800s), enabling the wired telegraphy service providers
to give good service to all needing quick communications.

When radio as a communications medium was demonstrated, morse
code was used...not because it was unique, the best, or any other
positive attribute. On-off keying of early radio transmitters was the
ONLY practical means to use technologically-primitive early radio
apparatus for communications.

For some radio amateurs in the United States, morse code skill is
about the ONLY thing they have to show their "superiority" in a
radio service that is still just a hobby. Tsk. Those amateurs are
the ones seeing a mythical "sky is falling" scenario if the code test
is ever eliminated. Not my paranoia. :-)

I've been transmitting RF energy legally since 1953, over more
parts of the EM spectrum than is allowed to radio amateurs. Never
had any requirement to demonstrate any morse code skill to anyone
in order to transmit below 30 MHz...or above it. Doesn't make any
personal difference to me whether or not the code test stays or is
tossed in the dumpster. It's time the code test went to the landfill.
It's long overdue.

All those PCTA extras just hate the thought of removing the code
test. For so many of them it's all they've got to show their eliteness
in a hobby. shrug Some of them get rather angry and want to
"fight" about it, calling any persistent NCTA personal insults.

Thanks for another story. I really do enjoy them (and I'm not being
sarcastic.


Each person must answer their own "Why". I figured that since I only
have so many years on this earth, I would take the time and learn Morse
code. Spent 6 months of an hour or so a day. The rewards have been that
I have had my (Morse code tested) license for 3 years now. That's three
years out of my life that I wouldn't have had it if I refused to learn it.


I've operated in many radio services. Never once had to use any old
morse or be required to know it...even though I did "know it" once,
way back in time. Doesn't matter. I don't look on the code test as
some kind of my-personal sort of thing. The code test isn't necessary
for the FCC nor anyone else except all those Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society "extras."

As to personal time spent "learning" something, I've spent many
more hours per day over many, many more months to complete
my formal schooling. One PCTA extra considers that on-par with
remedial "night school" classes held for immigrants and such. :-)
Of course, the same individual considers the University of Illinois
or the University of Wisconsin as "correspondence schools!" Hi hi.


Your "Why" would indicate that you simply aren't interested in the ARS
to the level that you would take the effort to get the license.


Tsk. I don't "owe" anyone a reason for my doing anything. :-)

Of course not. But I must admit that I find that a rather odd response
to my statement.

Do you "owe" someone anything for talking about politics? Does one
HAVE to be IN politics to talk about it? :-)

I'm not interested in joining any Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Right. Your why comes up that way. Just as I note above.

You forget I HAVE a federal radio operator license and obtained it
long ago. :-) Not a big deal. Had to use it only two years after
getting that in 1956.

Hehe, I was just about in diapers then! 8^)

Such federal licenses make some folks think
they are real big shots (stretch that O vertically). Not me. Just a
piece of paper.



You seem to forget that I was ON HF very legally and
correctly over a half century ago, over four decades ago, over three
decades ago, and even earlier this year...all without having ANY
requirement to "study morsemanship material."

I could never forget! 8^)

Of course if you are happy, then that is great. I've only been on HF
for a few years now. Enjoying every minute of it.


Enjoy, enjoy.

Why yes, I do! I have spent most of my career in computers, from the
old IBM mainframes of the 70's to today's so called cutting edge PC's.
Ended up making videos and doing photography in addition. So now I am
interested in learning more about RF, yet don't want to go back to
school. Here I is! Having a whale of a good time, learning all kinds of
new stuff!


I must confess I don't personally compartmentalize it into HF or Not
HF. It's all good, MF, HF, VHF, UHF!


You MUST compartmentalize in THIS newsgroup. Tested
morsemanship is "necessary" to operate on HF ham bands!
Absolutely! :-)


I always study for my blood tests. So far I've passed every time.

Good job, that! 8^)


The trick to that is staying away from downtown Transylvania...



My Newsreader wants to call you Len Over 21


If your newsreader is licensed, have it call my Internet software
on 9015 KHz USB. They can do electronic lunch.



I don't call people nasty names. Just what they prefer to be called.
that's why I asked


"Putz" (penis head in Yiddish) is not "nasty" to another PCTA extra
in here. It is very nasty along Maxwell Street in Chicago. Another
in here just calls me "wrong" and "incorrect." :-)


Had a friend in Junior High school. Short fellow, pretty funny guy. The
guys in our group started calling him "Stub", referring to a particular
body part. That irritated the heck out of him. He'd yell at them, tell
'em to knock it off. This was getting pretty stressful for the guy. Once
he even got into a fight with another kid over being called "Stub". As
one of the few people in the group that didn't call him that, he often
talked with me about how frustrated he was. I gave what advice I could,
but he found it lacking. Finally one day a new kid shows up, and we're
doing introductions. When I introduced him to the new guy in front of
everyone by his proper name, (Tim) he just went up to the new guy, shook
his hand, and said "Aww F**K it, just call me Stub!" Name went away
immediately.

You can call me anything...but that would be incorrect. :-)

HAH! Good segue. 8^)

You can't figure out from my "signature" what a preferred short form
given name of mine should be? Tsk.

ORG? Just kidding! Okay, talk to you later, Len.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:


N2EY wrote:


Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you

answer

with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?


I take it you saw his answer to me. It appears there is a great deal of
sensitivity on the subject.


But not a clear answer to a simple question.

Ask Len the time, he'll tell you how to get to Boulder and give a long boring
lecture on the development of time standards.

Nist, Nist, Nist!

Best guess at the moment is to call him , I guess.


You mean "ieee.org". Like arrl.org...

Why would I call him ieee.org! Hehe, just kidding. Although thatwould
sound odd to say!

I guess I'll call him Len.



still has that problem of not being able to call other
people by their names, though. What's up with that?

Some people have a public name and a sacred name. Maye it's a sign of
respect?

- Mike KB3EIA -