bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..", yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

So either way you look at it, you're wrong. You are either so
blissfully ignorant of the enviroment you're in that it manifests as
"stupid", or you're intentionally being deceitful, in which case you're
the liar I have claimed you to be.

In either case, you're the loser.

Oh well.

Steve, K4YZ

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"bb" wrote in news:1118583982.000249.281260
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:



John Smith wrote:
Frankly, I wonder of the sanity of the manufacturers of ham equip...

If they are interesting in selling radios, making a profit in the
American tradition, etc... seems they would be taking their dollars and
lobbying congress...

John

Actually, that was the theme of a thread in here. Evil manufacturers
are selling ham radio down the sewer.



And yet, I've never seen any evidence of them lobbying

Read the Report and Order for 98-143.

The comments most quoted by FCC in its restructuring decisions
weren't those of ARRL, NCVEC, or even NCI. Not those of any
individual, either.

The comments most quoted by FCC in its restructuring decisions
were those of Kenwood of America.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
:

wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

"K=D8HB" wrote in news:7UEqe.2534$hK3.1424
:


"bb" wrote


Your strangle hold on the amateur service may not end until the
actuarial tables kick in, but they will end.

Jim has a "strangle hold" on ham radio? Gee, I didn't know!

Hey, Jim --- loosen up and let me breathe!

did dit ----- Reverse Fransworth
de Hans, K0HB


It occurs to me that the references to "actuarial tables" is
a backhanded way of telling me to drop dead....


Not Jim specifically, but all the Pro Code Test Advocates
(PCTA).

I am a little surprised that Alun would be so prejudiced as to
declare
that all PCTAs think exactly the same.

Makes it a lot easier to demonize than, eh? It isn't just you. I
think
exactly the same way as you, and say Larry Roll, and ALL the other
PCTAs, in his estimation.

Bad show!


It was aimed straight at me.


I think
it was Goethe who said something about new ideas not being
accepted until
those who cling to the old ones have died.


That claim is incorrect.


He did however, say

"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action."




It has to be said that there is some truth in that.


Not much, if any.

Not all new ideas are good ideas, either.




I think that the FCC will abolish the code test before we get
that far, though.
They are taking their sweet time, though.


Yep - and that may or may not be significant.


My XYL is waiting on this
event to go for her General, so that's my main interest.


With all due respect - it's been five years plus since the 2000
restructuring made 5 wpm the only code test. Most people can learn
code well enough to pass that test in 4-6 weeks of practicing about a
half-hour a day.

5 years lost. So is waiting all this time a matter of high
principles,
or is it a lack of real interest?

- Mike KB3EIA -


It's not a matter of how they think, but just which
side of the fence they are on.

On one particular issue.

Their numbers will decline with attrition, and then it will
show up as an apparent shift of opinion.

The presumption is that the newcomers will have a higher percentage of
NCTA folks than currently exists. Maybe
that will happen and maybe it won't.

Back in 1996, the ARRL-sponsored READEX poll on various
codetest issues showed that the most procodetest age group
was the *youngest* hams.=20

73 de Jim, N2EY

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

Let me put it another way:

When a statement reads as a fact, with no qualifiers like "I think" or
"IMHO" or such most people read it that the writer
is stating a fact.

A person can hold whatever opinions they like. That does not
mean all opinions are equally valid. A person's opinions can
be based on true facts and valid logic, or not. Doesn't make
the person a liar, just a poor thinker.

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..",
yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items
on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

So either way you look at it, you're wrong. You are either so
blissfully ignorant of the enviroment you're in that it
manifests as
"stupid", or you're intentionally being deceitful,
in which case you're
the liar I have claimed you to be.

There's a third possibility, Steve:

That statement could simply be an opinion. The person starting
it has chosen not to back up that opinion with facts. Doesn't
make them a liar. It does show that they can't back up their
opinion with facts, that's all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"bb" wrote in news:1118583982.000249.281260
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:



John Smith wrote:
Frankly, I wonder of the sanity of the manufacturers of ham equip...

If they are interesting in selling radios, making a profit in the
American tradition, etc... seems they would be taking their dollars and
lobbying congress...

John

Actually, that was the theme of a thread in here. Evil manufacturers
are selling ham radio down the sewer.



And yet, I've never seen any evidence of them lobbying

Read the Report and Order for 98-143.

The comments most quoted by FCC in its restructuring decisions
weren't those of ARRL, NCVEC, or even NCI. Not those of any
individual, either.

The comments most quoted by FCC in its restructuring decisions
were those of Kenwood of America.

73 de Jim, N2EY

See what I mean?

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

You obviously didn't either. During your three week lying spree, not
once did you say "In my opinion..." Hi!

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..", yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

So?

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

Is that what I said? You're welcome to quote it at any time.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

You're the original Dodgeful Arter.

What seven hostile actions? Where is your documentation for your
claims of "A" NCOIC of Okinawa MARS?

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

Let me put it another way:

When a statement reads as a fact, with no qualifiers like "I think" or
"IMHO" or such most people read it that the writer
is stating a fact.

So when you stated that the Morse Code Exam would be a barrier to CW
use, was that an opinion or was that a statement of fact?

A person can hold whatever opinions they like. That does not
mean all opinions are equally valid. A person's opinions can
be based on true facts and valid logic, or not. Doesn't make
the person a liar, just a poor thinker.

You might want to explain it to Robeson. Be gentle.

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..",
yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items
on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

So either way you look at it, you're wrong. You are either so
blissfully ignorant of the enviroment you're in that it
manifests as
"stupid", or you're intentionally being deceitful,
in which case you're
the liar I have claimed you to be.

There's a third possibility, Steve:

That statement could simply be an opinion. The person starting
it has chosen not to back up that opinion with facts. Doesn't
make them a liar. It does show that they can't back up their
opinion with facts, that's all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

It only took you a year to explain that one to Steve. Good going Jim.

OK, here's my current thinking....

July 1, 2006

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
ups.com...
Here's an update on the "when will FCC drop Element 1?" pool.

Note how almost everyone's date, including mine, has already
passed:

WA2SI: September 13, 2003
KF6TPT: September 29, 2003
KC8EPO: December 31, 2003
K2UNK: January 1, 2004
K2ASP: March 15, 2004
AA2QA: April 1, 2004
N2EY: April 15, 2004
N3KIP: May 1, 2004
KC8PMX: July 1, 2004
WA2ISE: August 1, 2004
K3LT: September 15, 2004
WK3C: December 30, 2004
N4PGW:May 22, 2005
N8UZE: July 1, 2005
AB2RC: July 1, 2007
KB3EIA: July 5, 2007
W5TIT: June 1, 2008

Anybody want to add a prediction? If so, the "rolling rule" (thanks
Dee, N8UZE) applies:

If your prediction on this list is a year or more in the past, you can
add a new one.

At this point N3KIP and everyone before him can add a new prediction.
All predictions stay on the list.

73 de Jim, N2EY

bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
wrote:

It seems very odd that I'd be accused of having a stranglehold
in a thread where all I did was post people's opinions about
when FCC would drop Element 1.

I've learned that people's opinions are now assertions of fact. As
assertions of fact, they are either right or wrong, truthful or
intentionally decitful (lies). At the end of the day, you either had a
right opinion, or you lied. You have Robeson to thank for that.

The problem, Brain, is that you don't learn when to express your
opinon AS an opinion, and when to express something as an assertion.

You obviously didn't either. During your three week lying spree, not
once did you say "In my opinion..."

What lying spree?

No lies were stated.

YOU are welcome to post my comments, along with YOUR
substantiation of your claim of mistruth

You STATED that "...the role of the ARES is overblown..", yet the
very day you did it there were no less than three new items on various
sites about third-party agencies lauding ARES volunteers.

So?

"So" indeed.

It was one of your many unsubstantiated assertions.

Evidence that your statement was obviously flawed was provided.

You then also STATED that ARES will not be able to respond
because, allegedly, too many of the members are over extended on
commitments.

Is that what I said? You're welcome to quote it at any time.

Already did that.

You refuse to be the man you claim to be and fix it.

The refusal keeps you in the group "chronic unrepentant liar"

I've asked you over and over to provide some substantiation of
those comments, but you simply dodge the questions.

You're the original Dodgeful Arter.

And you're a chronic liar.

What seven hostile actions?

I didn't tell you?

Where is your documentation for your claims of "A" NCOIC of Okinawa MARS?

You keep asking for "documentation of "A" NCOIC.

What's an "A" NCOIC...?!?!

You mean ANCOIC...?!?!

It's on Okinawa waiting for you to write a letter to the source I
ceted and verify it.

Failure to do so manifests you as a coward.

Denying that I provided you adequate information to verify my
claims continues to render you a chronic liar.

Do you lie like this to your wife? Your kids? Your extended
family?

Do you not know how to tell the truth, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote


It was one of your many unsubstantiated assertions.


Rrap is like the bible .... it's all unsubstantiated .... just take it "on
faith".