whoever whoever@wherever wrote in
:



Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:


"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
0...

Michael Coslo wrote in
:



[snip]


It's not particurly difficult, but I can see no need to continue the
closed classes. All those who would get a 'free upgrade' have held
their licences for some time, so I foresee no impact whatsoever from
eliminating those licences and upgrading them.

Alun N3KIP

Why not simply cancel their licenses unless they take the upgrade exam
by a certain date? It gets rid of the closed classes yet gives no one
a freebie. Those who are active or care about their license but are
inactive due to circumstances in their lives currently will upgrade.
Those who don't care won't be any great loss. Let's shake the dead
wood out of the tree and find out how many hams we really do have.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE





Cancelling is a bit harsh. Maybe they could be downgraded at the next
renewal after say three years notice up front. Of course, for Novices
that would mean cancellation, but I seriously doubt whether there are
any active Novices?

73 de Alun, N3KIP

I know of three local novices that are on ten meters every night.
That's all they want. They have no need for VHF and are just happy with
what privileges they have now.



So that's where they are! Let them have Tech privileges and they'll stay
right where they are anyway, right?

Actually, I think there should be as few different licences as possible,
and that inevitably involves merging licences. I don't think that
'automatic upgrades' are a problem, as those affected all have 'time in
grade'. On reflection, I don't favour downgrades.

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Actually, I think there should be as few different licences as possible,
and that inevitably involves merging licences. I don't think that
'automatic upgrades' are a problem, as those affected all have 'time in
grade'. On reflection, I don't favour downgrades.

There is nothing inevitable about it. Time will take care of the matter.
There is no reason for either automatic upgrades or downgrades. It is no
particular additional burden to anyone to leave it as it is. There are only
three possible classes for new or upgrading hams. That seems about right to
me. Even when I originally licensed and passed through all five levels, I
thought three would be more appropriate.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"K4YZ" wrote in
oups.com:


Dave Heil wrote:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm
not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a
no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want
to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over
the top, seem to be right on the money.

"Satirical comments"...?!?!

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! !

Lennie left "over the top" years ago and went straight to "over
the edge".

Lennie Anderson has been REPEATEDLY proven to be a L I A R, Alun.
Not "wrong"..."Wrong" is when you make a mistake, and when it's pointed
out to you why it's wrong, you acknowldege it and move on.

Leonard H. Anderson of Sun Valley Californis is a liar. Period.

He's NOT a satirist, and there's nothing comical about his insults
and deceptions.


Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a
minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in
the Len Anderson Fan Club.

Geeze...I hope not. Alun's previously impressed me as being pretty
balanced.

73

Steve, K4YZ




Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here seem
to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of truth
to it. Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but
that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong.

Of course he places me in that group also. Solely on my support for the
Element 1 test. The picture he paints of me is nowhere near the truth.
But broad brushes paint broad swaths, and apparently if a person is in
favor of a Morse code test, it is then mandatory that they are a
Morsodist, an "Olde Tyme Hamme" and in favor of the "Archaic
Radiotelegraphy Society, right? No other possibility exists?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in news:4229580A.BDD9A351
@earthlink.net:

K4YZ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

It's been
nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions
arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists
mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting
dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed,
noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is "right!"
:-)

You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer. Too
much caffeine?

More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does it
matter? He's a putz either way.

These demented rants of his grow more strange by the week. His
factual errors are numerous. The legion of lurkers which he claimed
would rise to the defense of his ideas never materialized and he's
irrelevant to amateur radio in this country.

Leonard really needs a new cause.

Dave K8MN


I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm not
sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a no-code
licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want to get on
HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over the top, seem
to be right on the money.

Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a
minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in the
Len Anderson Fan Club.

Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't.

It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I
take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio either
then.

Dave K8MN

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here seem
to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of truth
to it. Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but
that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong.

Are you planning to change your mind on that minimum age thing?

Dave K8MN

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat, Mar 5 2005 5:32 pm:

"K4YZ" wrote in
roups.com:

Dave Heil wrote:
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted
I'm
not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a
no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to
want
to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over
the top, seem to be right on the money.

"Satirical comments"...?!?!


BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! !

Lennie left "over the top" years ago and went straight to "over
the edge".

Lennie Anderson has been REPEATEDLY proven to be a L I A R,
Alun.
Not "wrong"..."Wrong" is when you make a mistake, and when it's
pointed
out to you why it's wrong, you acknowldege it and move on.

Leonard H. Anderson of Sun Valley Californis is a liar.
Period.

He's NOT a satirist, and there's nothing comical about his
insults
and deceptions.

Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a
minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in
the Len Anderson Fan Club.

Geeze...I hope not. Alun's previously impressed me as being
pretty
balanced.

Thankyou. I think the point of Len's little tirade was that some here
seem
to be opposed to change at any cost, and that certainly has a ring of
truth
to it.

Alun, you must understand that Robeson's name-calling is a long-
established habit of his, his own defense against not having a valid
opinion/comeback on the subject in a thread. He goes for the
Personal Attack and then loses his objectivity in his own insults
while manufacturing "issues" that aren't there.

I could post my own reasons for advocating the elimination of the
morse code test every week and the opponents (PCTA extras
all) would simply say I am "lying" and have "ulterior motives."
The PCTA extras do that ANYWAY! :-)

This "charge" that "I advocate a minimum age for amateur radio"
comes out of my Comment on docket 98-143 that was filed at
the FCC on 13 January 1998. [still on file there in the ECFS]
I submitted it via surface mail (appropriate copies per
instructions)
and then didn't follow it up. My Comment was 14 pages long and
that item was on the last page. Over a year after that filing, one
in here tried to make that a "cause celebre" as if it were
tantamount to Treason against the State! :-) Tsk, tsk. Once
that is done, some want to use that capital-crimes charge when
they can't think up enough false charges of damnation. :-)

By the way, that "charge" came out of a news item on the
ARRL web page which featured "the youngest hams," two
SIX YEAR OLDS who "passed their written exams" for
Novice and Technician classes, respectively. Uh huh. :-)
Uproar from the PCTAs followed, a whole fantasy scenario
of child prodigies (if they took ham exams) and a lot of sub-
threads of how the PCTA's children were also superior. :-)

FANTASY is a very big thing among the PCTA. All seem to
think they are somehow "pioneering" the airwaves by using
morse code...well after the actual pioneering was done before
their time. Morse code is demanded of all newcomers on some
imaginary need of "showing dedication and committment to
the amateur community!" :-) That continues with labels of
"Real" hams know morse! Those hams who haven't been
federally tested for morse code are "inferior" and apparently do
not deserve their licenses. :-)

Of course, he may have expressed that in a very sarcastic way, but
that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong.

My "expression" in here without the false facade of gratuitous
complements to the "superiority" of the olde-tymers. :-)
They cannot stand anyone who's been deep into radio for a
long time, done a lot, yet doesn't subscribe to their fantasies.

Robeson has seemingly real fantasies (to him its not an
oxymoron) and imagines conditions which didn't exist with
others, then he expands on those as if it were reality. It isn't.
A case example is his claim that he can simply lift a telephone,
call authorities, and have anyone picked up on the strength of
his professional qualifications in medicine! That's absurd. Few
physicians have such power. Nurses do not. Yet Robeson
insisted in here that he could have Brian Burke put away with
such a call. Tsk. Such exaggeration carried braggadoccio
over the brink into some sort of mental imbalance due to its
irrationality. [just one example out of many]

Another syndrome is his "mirror" postings. If he is called
on some of his charges (such as constant name-calling as
a message ending salutation), he turns around and accuses
those who called him on his charges for doing the same
thing! That is on-going in here, the "mirror" postings
delayed by perhaps a week or slightly more, but they DO
appear. In one way, interesting to watch the psychosis
develop. Sort of a field example in psychology classes.

Heil is guilty of some of the same, although he may just
be trolling for word-fighting. 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. It's always about personalities and
the subjects are "right" if they mirror the ARRL words,
"wrong" if they are contrary to the holy ARRL words. :-)

The pro-code-test-advocates are simply Believers in their
self-righteous attitudes, long ago brainwashed into their
little world of radio fantasy. They are fanatics, almost as
fedayin ready to suicide-bomb anyone who speaks against
their idolatrous ideals. Perhaps their fanaticsm makes them
so angry and hateful?

Their anger and hate does not bode well for a hobby, an
avocation, something done for personal enjoyment. They
don't realize that since their self-righteousness blinds them.

There's a morbid fascination about their actions. :-)

wrote:

Alun, you must understand that Robeson's name-calling is a long-
established habit of his, his own defense against not having a valid
opinion/comeback on the subject in a thread. He goes for the
Personal Attack and then loses his objectivity in his own insults
while manufacturing "issues" that aren't there.

"Big badass Dave"

"not wearing the SS uniform with twin lightning bolts but otherwise
acting like a downsized Gestapo veteran"

"The Avenging Angle"

"concerning the Avenging Angle's further adventures in 'waste of time'"

"Jimmy Who and cronies"

"Dee Flint had a hissy fit on Thurs, Mar 3 2005 11:59 pm and hastily
scribbled the following diatribe"

"'Dee Flint' (calmed down from a previous hissy fit) jumped into a
so-called conversation and shouted out"

"Go join Mama Dee who wants to 'punish' her 'children' that don't do
what they're told!"

"Mr. Glock likes it...it's nice and shiny"

"My representative Mr. Glock will address them in that case. [he is
very accurate]"

"If the Coslonaut thinks Smith Charts are obsolete"

"Idiot. I 'looked it up' a long time ago."

"when some insufferable, self-righteous 'mama' wants to 'discipline
children as parents do'"

"Tsk. I'll bet Kellie told that to the Captain at dinner. Too bad
Tenille wasn't there"

"Poor Dan never got his crypto clearance"

"Widdle Stebie gonna have me BANNED from here"

This sampling from the past couple of weeks of r.r.a.p. were all written
by Leonard Anderson, the guy who "goes for the Personal Attack and then
loses his objectivity in his own insults while manufacturing 'issues'
that aren't there".



This "charge" that "I advocate a minimum age for amateur radio"
comes out of my Comment on docket 98-143 that was filed at
the FCC on 13 January 1998. [still on file there in the ECFS]
I submitted it via surface mail (appropriate copies per
instructions)
and then didn't follow it up. My Comment was 14 pages long and
that item was on the last page. Over a year after that filing, one
in here tried to make that a "cause celebre" as if it were
tantamount to Treason against the State! :-) Tsk, tsk. Once
that is done, some want to use that capital-crimes charge when
they can't think up enough false charges of damnation. :-)

It matters not when it was written nor does it matter that you didn't
follow it up. It matters that you wrote it. You've never disavowed it
or asked that the FCC disregard it. The charge was made because it is
absolutely true.

By the way, that "charge" came out of a news item on the
ARRL web page which featured "the youngest hams," two
SIX YEAR OLDS who "passed their written exams" for
Novice and Technician classes, respectively. Uh huh. :-)

Uh huh. Those two kids did something you've never done. It chafed you
then. It obviously chafes you now.


Uproar from the PCTAs followed, a whole fantasy scenario
of child prodigies (if they took ham exams)...

You tap danced then as you are tap dancing now.

...and a lot of sub-
threads of how the PCTA's children were also superior. :-)

Now you wouldn't want to be presented with any facts that would give lie
to the statement above, would you?

FANTASY is a very big thing among the PCTA. All seem to
think they are somehow "pioneering" the airwaves by using
morse code...

I don't know of a single soul here who has ever made that claim or
anything near it.

...well after the actual pioneering was done before
their time. Morse code is demanded of all newcomers on some
imaginary need of "showing dedication and committment to
the amateur community!" :-) That continues with labels of
"Real" hams know morse! Those hams who haven't been
federally tested for morse code are "inferior" and apparently do
not deserve their licenses. :-)

Don't worry about it too much, Leonard. You don't have an amateur radio
license to deserve.

My "expression" in here without the false facade of gratuitous
complements to the "superiority" of the olde-tymers. :-)

Is there supposed to be a sentence buried in there somewhere?

They cannot stand anyone who's been deep into radio for a
long time, done a lot, yet doesn't subscribe to their fantasies.

I'll grant you that anytime you show up, it is deep.

Heil is guilty of some of the same, although he may just
be trolling for word-fighting. 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.

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?

It's always about personalities and
the subjects are "right" if they mirror the ARRL words,
"wrong" if they are contrary to the holy ARRL words. :-)

I don't need the ARRL's input to tangle with the likes of you. You
simply aren't involved in amateur radio.

The pro-code-test-advocates are simply Believers in their
self-righteous attitudes, long ago brainwashed into their
little world of radio fantasy.

Do you believe in your self-righteous attitudes, Len? How about the
little world of radio fantasy you've built in which you see yourself as
being involved in amateur radio? Have you been brainwashed?

They are fanatics, almost as
fedayin ready to suicide-bomb anyone who speaks against
their idolatrous ideals.

Are you demented? How much of a fanatic would one have to be to spend
years in jousting with participants in an avocation in which you have no
part?

Perhaps their fanaticsm makes them
so angry and hateful?

Izzat how you turned out the way you did?

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in news:4229580A.BDD9A351
@earthlink.net:

K4YZ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

It's been
nearly two years since the first of those 18 petitions
arrived at the FCC and the conservative-traditionalists
mounted much cross-fire to those nasty radicals wanting
dirty, rotten change (hack, ptui) from divine, blessed,
noble olde-tyme regulations. Code MUST stay! It is
"right!"
:-)

You've really worked yourself into a froth today, old timer.
Too much caffeine?

More probably a lack of Geritol, Dave...Ot too much? Does
it matter? He's a putz either way.

These demented rants of his grow more strange by the week. His
factual errors are numerous. The legion of lurkers which he
claimed would rise to the defense of his ideas never materialized
and he's irrelevant to amateur radio in this country.

Leonard really needs a new cause.

Dave K8MN


I'm not a lurker, but I will say that Lennie is right. Granted I'm
not sure why he's still here, since he could obviously pick up a
no-code licence any time he feels like it and doesn't seem to want
to get on HF anyway? However, his satirical comments, whilst over
the top, seem to be right on the money.

Noted. You're not a lurker. You support Len's idea for having a
minimum age for entrance into U.S. amateur radio. You join "bb" in
the Len Anderson Fan Club.

Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't.

It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I
take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio either
then.

Dave K8MN

What kind of question is that? I don't think issuing licences to children
makes much difference from that angle. When someone is on the air they are
in a public place.

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in

Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't.

It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC).
I
take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio
either
then.

What kind of question is that? I don't think issuing licences to
children
makes much difference from that angle. When someone is on the air
they are
in a public place.

It's mathematics, Alun.... A = B = C.

You made statements approving of Lennie's "satirical" comments.

Lennie approves of a minimum age for Amateurs and has made (very
poorly worded) statements that appear to suggest he approves of
pedophiles in Amateur Radio. (I doubt he supports pedophilia, however
he WOULD support ANYthing that could blacken Amateur Radio's public
perception...)

Therefore you approve of a minimum age and pedophiles in Amateur
Radio.

I have every reason to doubt that you do support a minimum age for
Amateurs and I'd be shocked if you support pedophilia, however this is
a very clear example of why it is NOT possible to "have your cake and
eat it too" with regards to "free speech".

Lennie made some really idiotic comments vis-a-vis the presence of
pedophiles in Amateur Radio. I would HOPE that he didn't mean for
things to come out the way he said, although it's NOT in his nature to
back away from even the stupidest things he's done.

Lennie has also out-and-out lied over and over again vis-a-vis
Amatuer Radio and his personal "achivements".

And again, YOU stated that his comments were "over the top", but
were right on spot.

So....Would YOU care to retract or modify any part of your
declaration of "support" for Leonard, or was it indeed your intent to
"support" his mistruths, outright deceit, poor grammar and verbal
mayhem upon Amateur Radio...???

73

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in news:1110115499.953580.314740
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in

Where did you get that I support a minimum age? I don't.

It is one of Len's "over the top" satirical comments (to the FCC). I
take it that you aren't in favor of pedophiles in amateur radio
either then.

What kind of question is that? I don't think issuing licences to
children makes much difference from that angle. When someone is on the
air they are in a public place.

It's mathematics, Alun.... A = B = C.

You made statements approving of Lennie's "satirical" comments.

Lennie approves of a minimum age for Amateurs and has made (very
poorly worded) statements that appear to suggest he approves of
pedophiles in Amateur Radio. (I doubt he supports pedophilia, however
he WOULD support ANYthing that could blacken Amateur Radio's public
perception...)

Therefore you approve of a minimum age and pedophiles in Amateur
Radio.

I have every reason to doubt that you do support a minimum age for
Amateurs and I'd be shocked if you support pedophilia, however this is
a very clear example of why it is NOT possible to "have your cake and
eat it too" with regards to "free speech".

Lennie made some really idiotic comments vis-a-vis the presence of
pedophiles in Amateur Radio. I would HOPE that he didn't mean for
things to come out the way he said, although it's NOT in his nature to
back away from even the stupidest things he's done.

Lennie has also out-and-out lied over and over again vis-a-vis
Amatuer Radio and his personal "achivements".

And again, YOU stated that his comments were "over the top", but
were right on spot.

So....Would YOU care to retract or modify any part of your
declaration of "support" for Leonard, or was it indeed your intent to
"support" his mistruths, outright deceit, poor grammar and verbal
mayhem upon Amateur Radio...???

73

Steve, K4YZ



It should be apparent even to an idiot that I was referring to a particular
comment of Len's, not to everything he has ever said!