|
Dave Heil wrote: Oh heck, Mike. That's nothing. None of that stuff phases me. I'd begin to be weirded out if Len were to suddenly take a liking to me, to begin being cordial, to act as if there were other people on the planet who knew as much or more about a subject than he does. If he dropped his wild rants about the Church of St. Hiram, Sermons on the Antenna Mount, his claims of being a PROFESSIONAL, his not-so-subtle references to Mr. Glock or his belittling of the careers of others, I'd be nervous that something quite unpleasant was about to take place. Then it dawns on me: How much worse could it get? You forget his comments to FCC about things like an age requirement.... -- The problem is, you don't understand the game Len's playing. Here's one explanation of it (WARNING! Some explicit language!): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1358838/posts 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: Dave Heil who, blabbering away on an obvious Troll topic,
scribbled on Thurs, Mar 10 2005 12:14 am: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You forget his comments to FCC about things like an age requirement.... He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the minimum age requirement for radio amateurs. Tsk. So hard up for Personal Attack subjects that you pick something from my Comment to the FCC made SIX YEARS AGO? Wasn't done in here first... Okay, I'll wait until you stop cheering for all the "mature, responsible" six-year-olds featured on the ARRL news as "world's youngest hams?" Riiiiight... mature and responsible ALL BY THEMSELVES! :-) How about the 9-year-old "extra?" A "mature, responsible, law-abiding" pre-teener? :-) Riiiiight...ALL of them wouldn't think of operating without parental supervision, would they? Uh-huh. Tsk. I've never pursued the matter with the FCC since 1999 but it seems some in here just can't let it go. They MUST bring it up again, time and time again as if this is the most hideous of gaffes, practically a felonious act against the noble, law- fearing amateurs who never, ever do anything wrong. The problem is, you don't understand the game Len's playing. Here's one explanation of it (WARNING! Some explicit language!): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1358838/posts The "Never Defend Your Own Points" portion is classic Len Anderson. He won't answer a question in a straightforward manner. Tsk. To answer a repeated question by big badass dave, no, I don't beat (physically) my wife. :-) You want "straightforward manner answers?" Okay, he Yes, No, Yes, maybe, No, No, Yes, perhaps. Now all you have to do is connect those answers with your LOADED questions you post in here. :-) Okay, big badass dave, here's a question for YOU: Where SPECIFICALLY and when SPECIFICALLY did you see "combat" in Vietnam sufficient to make you this big badass "combat veteran" you claim for yourself? Or does that violate the copyrights on your story in "Soldier of Fortune" magazine? The world has a right to know... |
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: Then it dawns on me: How much worse could it get? You forget his comments to FCC about things like an age requirement.... He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the minimum age requirement for radio amateurs. I think he wishes everyone would forget them.... The problem is, you don't understand the game Len's playing. Here's one explanation of it (WARNING! Some explicit language!): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1358838/posts The "Never Defend Your Own Points" portion is classic Len Anderson. Aw heck, Dave, give credit where it's due! All of those behaviors are classic Len Anderson. He manages to do at least 3 of them in almost every post, and it's not uncommon to see all 4 in a single post of his. Sometimes he manages to do all 4 in a single paragraph. He won't answer a question in a straightforward manner. Most of the time he won't answer questions at all. Yet he'll demand answers to *his* questions. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote: From: Dave Heil who, blabbering away on an obvious Troll topic, scribbled on Thurs, Mar 10 2005 12:14 am: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You forget his comments to FCC about things like an age requirement.... He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the minimum age requirement for radio amateurs. Tsk. So hard up for Personal Attack subjects that you pick something from my Comment to the FCC made SIX YEARS AGO? Wasn't done in here first... Why is it a "Personal Attack" to disagree with your comments, Len? You wanted FCC to deny amateur licenses to anyone under the age of 14, regardless of their ability to pass the required tests. Yet you have not produced one single bit of evidence that the licensing of people under the age of 14 has produced *any* problems for the amateur radio service. Not one example of an under-14 ham violating any rules, getting an NAL or enforcement letter, or even complaints from other hams. Okay, I'll wait until you stop cheering for all the "mature, responsible" six-year-olds featured on the ARRL news as "world's youngest hams?" Riiiiight... mature and responsible ALL BY THEMSELVES! :-) You would forbid people more than twice as old from getting an amateur license, Len. Without any evidence. How about the 9-year-old "extra?" A "mature, responsible, law-abiding" pre-teener? :-) Yes. Riiiiight...ALL of them wouldn't think of operating without parental supervision, would they? Uh-huh. Why should they need parental supervision to operate? FCC, the expert agency on US civil radio regulation, thinks they're qualified. Back in 1948, a 9-year-old local girl passed the Class B exam. In front of the FCC examiner. This was back when the license test required diagram drawing and had essay questions. 13 wpm code, sending and receiving, too. No Novice class back then, either, it was Class B from a standing start. Now of course her dad was a ham and she had lots of help. But if the FCC then and now thought young people were qualified to be hams, and you have no evidence of problems caused by their youth, why should there be an age limit? Tsk. I've never pursued the matter with the FCC since 1999 but it seems some in here just can't let it go. Why should they? You have not admitted that age requirements for a ham license are a bad idea. They MUST bring it up again, time and time again as if this is the most hideous of gaffes, practically a felonious act against the noble, law- fearing amateurs who never, ever do anything wrong. You would deny licenses to people based solely on age, without *any* evidence of age-related problems. That's just plain wrong. |
Dave Heil wrote: He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the minimum age requirement for radio amateurs. He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the out of band french radio amateurs on six meters. |
|
bb wrote: So at what age did you get your first license? Seventeen. And you? Steve, K4YZ |
wrote:
From: Dave Heil who, blabbering away on an obvious Troll topic, scribbled on Thurs, Mar 10 2005 12:14 am: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: You forget his comments to FCC about things like an age requirement.... He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the minimum age requirement for radio amateurs. Tsk. So hard up for Personal Attack subjects that you pick something from my Comment to the FCC made SIX YEARS AGO? Wasn't done in here first... Okay, I'll wait until you stop cheering for all the "mature, responsible" six-year-olds featured on the ARRL news as "world's youngest hams?" Riiiiight... mature and responsible ALL BY THEMSELVES! :-) How about the 9-year-old "extra?" A "mature, responsible, law-abiding" pre-teener? :-) Riiiiight...ALL of them wouldn't think of operating without parental supervision, would they? Uh-huh. Tsk. I've never pursued the matter with the FCC since 1999 but it seems some in here just can't let it go. They MUST bring it up again, time and time again as if this is the most hideous of gaffes, practically a felonious act against the noble, law- fearing amateurs who never, ever do anything wrong. The problem is, you don't understand the game Len's playing. Here's one explanation of it (WARNING! Some explicit language!): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1358838/posts The "Never Defend Your Own Points" portion is classic Len Anderson. He won't answer a question in a straightforward manner. Tsk. To answer a repeated question by big badass dave, no, I don't beat (physically) my wife. :-) I've never asked you any such question, little wizened Leonard. You want "straightforward manner answers?" Okay, he Yes, No, Yes, maybe, No, No, Yes, perhaps. Now all you have to do is connect those answers with your LOADED questions you post in here. :-) Loaded questions? The two questions I posed to you some days ago weren't loaded at all. They were in direct response to an accusation you made. Okay, big badass dave, here's a question for YOU: Where SPECIFICALLY and when SPECIFICALLY did you see "combat" in Vietnam sufficient to make you this big badass "combat veteran" you claim for yourself? What does that have to do with anything here on r.r.a.p? You brought up my Vietnam service some posts ago as a part of personal attack. It wasn't relative then and isn't now. At no time did I claim to be a "big badass" anything. Your latest tactic is a very good illustration of what I wrote about you--that the "Never Defend Your Own Points" portion of the material on the link supplied by Jim is classic Len Anderson. What brought up the issue of answering a question with a straight answer was your recent comment below: "Both Heil and Robeson MUST triumph in the word-fights, will never ever admit to any wrong-doing and always try to turn around things so the other party is at fault." I responded to your statement with relevant questions: "Let me ask you a couple of plain question to see if I can get some straight answer from you, Len. When is the last time that you ever admitted to any wrongdoing in here? When is the last time you were involved in a scrap here in which you didn't try to turn things around so that the other party appeared to be at fault?" You've still not provided straight answers to the questions. Perhaps when and if you do, we can discuss my Vietnam service. Dave K8MN |
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Then it dawns on me: How much worse could it get? You forget his comments to FCC about things like an age requirement.... He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the minimum age requirement for radio amateurs. I think he wishes everyone would forget them.... When he's reminded of what he has written to the FCC and here, Len takes it as a personal attack. The problem is, you don't understand the game Len's playing. Here's one explanation of it (WARNING! Some explicit language!): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1358838/posts The "Never Defend Your Own Points" portion is classic Len Anderson. Aw heck, Dave, give credit where it's due! All of those behaviors are classic Len Anderson. He manages to do at least 3 of them in almost every post, and it's not uncommon to see all 4 in a single post of his. Sometimes he manages to do all 4 in a single paragraph. Today brought at least two examples. He won't answer a question in a straightforward manner. Most of the time he won't answer questions at all. Yet he'll demand answers to *his* questions. Right. The relevant questions I recently posed to him were ignored. Now he'd like specifics on my Vietnam service, the service which *he brought up*. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com