| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
July 23rd 05, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm
wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 K4YZ wrote: Jayson Davis wrote: And a strange line of thought Jayson uses. Kind of like we're supposed to say: "Ham Radio - we don't suck now!" That would be a REALISTIC beginning... :-) Oh, Michael, we've all seen the "crowd" represented by K4YZ. :-) Steve represents mostly himself. I've seen a lot of people who represent a lot of things. Ahhhh...but to merely disagree with K4YZ is to HATE HAM RADIO! Ergo, he IS ham radio! :-) To Jayson: Then why the heck do you want us to advertise that the Morse test is gone. Not the YOU "us," Michael. The ARRL badly needs new membership. They've never had as many as a quarter of all U.S. amateur radio licensees as members and are currently down around just 20% of licensees. ARR? I wrote "ARRL" sweetums...and it comes back as "ARRL." ARRL is more business than organization and the business side of the house has to show a profit. I wonder why so many people who hate Ham radio seem to know exactly how Ham radio is supposed to be? Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for same. Others merely INTERPRET what THEY THINK it is about. You are sounding EXACTLY like the "superior OTs" you decry in another message...like everyone MUST accept what YOU accept as a definition. Tsk. Tsk indeed. My question is a simple one. Its a rough equivalent of the US basing our economic policy on what a group of olde tyme Russian communists think it should be. They didn't like us much at all. I bet they had some "good ideas" on how we should run things though... "Russian communists" have NOTHING to do with this NPRM. Try to stay focussed. "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. Actually, that "argument" is total bull**** OUT of the academic arena. ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications. It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes longer, and no longer "gets through" better. All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC isn't a fraternity house either. BTW, isn't there a slight contradiction between wanting to attract large number of people, and wanting to attract the bright and intelligent? How does a requirement of knowing 161-year-old morsemanship skill attract the "bright and intelligent?" :-) non sequitur. I wasn't writing of Morse code. Hello? See that Subject Line up on the Header? This whole thread is about the NPRM in WT Docket 05-235...which is about DROPPING the MORSE CODE TEST. I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time. Yet all they whine about is the code test and that 3% of the allocations that do require a code test. Why? Those type hate Hams. Maybe that isn't gospel truth, but its close enough. Poor babies...feeling "hated" are you both? Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About? If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Yes, it's all a big conspiracy. All those who disagree with you two HATE YOU! Not only that, THEY HATE HAM RADIO...because you two define yourself as "ham radio!" [you two have the conspiracy thing all in a row, lined up...in your minds] Easy there, don't get the B.P. up! Are you now a "nurse?" My "beep" is as close to 120 over 80 as an adult male can get. Tsk, Michael, your "visual hearing" is suffering from "visual tinnitus" also. Or its your ego getting in the way of logical objectivity. Try to understand that YOU do NOT define U.S. amateur radio...the FCC does. Just because others don't accept your interpretation does NOT mean they "hate ham radio." Tsk. How little you two know of REAL engineering and "experimentation." :-) So what you are saying is that those who do know about REAL engineering and "experimentation" won't do it unless only everything is to their exact liking? Otherwise they will simply wait until everything is to their exact liking? No, I'm just saying you two don't know dink about REAL engineering...or experimentation. :-) You both like to posture as if you do, but neither does. :-) Have fun in the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). [why are you here instead of playing with your HF radios?] I am here *while* I'm playing with my HF radio. BS. At a little after 1:30 on a Friday afternoon you should be WORKING at your place of employment. You only work 4 days a week? Tsk, NOT the Capitalist Way! At the close of FCC business in DC on 22 Jul 05, the Comments on WT Docket 05-235 are running about 2:1 in favor of dropping the code test. [just a little reminder] Stay "tuned." On your "HF radio" or your computer. [don't get them mixed up] bit bit |
|
#2
July 23rd 05, 02:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
July 23rd 05, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote: hack EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION. The newsgroup moderator has spoken. look like Stvie is indeed claiming the title and.. Carry on, Lennie... giving lenn the floor Steve, K4YZ |
|
#4
July 23rd 05, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 23 Jul 2005 06:25:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 snip Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Poor attempt at a redirect. Try to stay focussed. "Focused", Lennie. Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?! The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary does indeed refer - both spellings are correct: Main Entry: focus Function: verb Inflected Form(s): fo·cused also fo·cussed http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ry&va=focussed snip Steve, K4YZ 73, Leo |
|
#5
July 24th 05, 06:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. They grant the licenses for same. Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just *how* to reply. Poor attempt at a redirect. Try to stay focussed. "Focused", Lennie. Webster's refers. Or are you just "mad" again...?!?! "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. No, it's not. It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school, and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie. I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to know..." There are plenty enough of that type running around. It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark must be answered with: Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll get started on what you need to know. The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. (Oh jeeze...same Lennie crap, fermented and dropped on the door step again...) But Part 97 DOES mandate that the Amateur Radio Service serve as a training enviroment for self-education and training. Unless they set the goals, what are they to train for? Actually, that "argument" is total bull#### OUT of the academic arena. You and Markie must have shareware'd that dictionary of profanities, Lennie. Yuck - potty mouth ;^) ALL the OTHER radio services (except maritime radio on the Great Lakes) have GIVEN UP on morse code for communications. A-hem..... (reading back across header on top... 'rec.radio.AMATEUR.policy'....) I'll bet it's hotter down south than it is in the summer, too! It simply hasn't proven to be "better" than other modes, takes longer, and no longer "gets through" better. "Takes longer" than what? You taking that Extra right out of the box? All you are doing with that "argument" is really enforcing a sort of tribal myth, aka a "hazing" ritual. Note: The FCC isn't a fraternity house either. And you're lying again. Sheeesh...couldn't keep it to even marginally valid arguments, could you...?!?! I really do NOT know what YOU are writing about...some of the time. Funny... We've thought the same of you a LOT of the times... Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? No hate, Lennie. I just don't tolerate liars. And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of the water. You're a documented liar. You're more verbose and grammatically correct than other liars in this forum (specifically N0IMD and KB9RQZ) but you're a liar none-the-less. Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About? If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Okay, I'll slow down and explain. See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?". Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally. So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50 million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't like make it right, you know? Whew.... EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION. The newsgroup moderator has spoken. Carry on, Lennie... Steve, K4YZ Can I go to the bathroom now???? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#6
July 25th 05, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
K4YZ wrote: wrote: From: Mike Coslo on Jul 22, 4:01 pm wrote: From: Michael Coslo on Fri 22 Jul 2005 13:37 Why are you sounding insecure? The FCC defines U.S. amateur radio. You don't define U.S. amateur radio. Insecure? So are the others who *know* how it is to be defined also insecure? Tsk. Don't try that ploy. THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. You folks all missed an important point. We are told in no uncertain terms that "THE FCC DEFINES AMATEUR RADIO IN THE UNITED STATES. Period." But the same nonamateur also tells us that amateur radio "is a HOBBY". Yet the word "HOBBY" or "hobby" does not appear anywhere in Part 97. The FCC doesn't use that word at all in connection with the definition of the Amateur Radio Service. So the FCC, who define amateur radio in the United States, don't use the word "hobby" in their definition. Yet we are told that amateur radio *is* a hobby. Do you see the contradiction? Looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about..... They grant the licenses for same. Your "answer" doesn't answer the question, Lennie. Seldom does. I didn't reply before, because I couldn't figure out just *how* to reply. Len rarely, if ever, answers direct questions. He says they're "loaded". "Bright people wanting to experiment" aren't going to fall in love with a radio service demanding all below-30-MHz-privileged individuals demonstrate telegraphy skills...especially when that skill goes back 161 years! :-) Lots of bright students don't want to learn anything that they don't think is relevant. Har! That's one of the WEAKEST arguments mumbled by so many. No, it's not. It's still as "real" today as it was when I was in grade school, and probably when your grandfather was in grade school, Lennie. I don't think I've ever met any student in any learning enviroment that didn't want to "cut through the BS" and jsut "learn what I need to know..." There are plenty enough of that type running around. It is one of the defining elements of the truly ignorant. The remark must be answered with: Tell me everything you are ever going to do in your career, and we'll get started on what you need to know. I'll have to remember that one! The FCC is NOT an academic institution and licensees are NOT "students"...NOT even prospective licensees going for a test. Everyone is hated by someone. If a person allows themselves to be bothered by it, they are a poor baby indeed. No, sweetums, YOU got the non-sequitur. Note what I said about K4YZ: Anyone simply disagreeing with him is ACCUSED to be HATING HAM RADIO! Search all you want through Google and you will find him using that "phrase of hate." Do YOU want to be like him? No hate, Lennie. I just don't tolerate liars. And I don't always agree with you. Which kinda blows his theory out of the water. I don't agree with any of you on some things too. Another theory destroyed. If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. "50 million people in WHAT?" Where are you dreaming today? Hello? Concentrate on the thread subject. Okay, I'll slow down and explain. See, like someone goes like: "Feeling "hated" because so few agree with your self-proclaimed "definitions" of What It Is All About?". Bummer! Then like I go like: "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing is true, it remains a foolish thing. To the max, man... It's like if so few agree with my definitions, its like tons and tons of people don't agree with my definitions, you know - totally. It's where their heads are at. Different scene. So I was going like: those tons and tons of people, like maybe 50 million of them, don't agree you know?, and like maybe I think they are like wrong, and like maybe if I am not wrong, like maybe they are still wrong, and like just cuz theres like tons and tons of them, that won't like make it right, you know? Groovy! That totally rocks, Mike. Tubular, dude. Whew.... To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#8
July 25th 05, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
July 25th 05, 09:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: cut Hey, Jim. some people in here offer a lot of qoutes not supported by facts. I think they are interpreted qoutes. You know, when they say we say something and it really isn't what we said, but what they wanted us to say so they could qoute us on it so we could be wrong...... hehe there is a lot of that Do you see the contradiction? Always have cut To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" Like in one sentence even! 8^) and govt regs and objective reality are rarely compatable just look at where the FCC put the Local only CB service - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#10
July 26th 05, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an_old_friend wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: K4YZ wrote: wrote: cut Hey, Jim. some people in here offer a lot of qoutes not supported by facts. I think they are interpreted qoutes. You know, when they say we say something and it really isn't what we said, but what they wanted us to say so they could qoute us on it so we could be wrong...... hehe there is a lot of that Which sometimes makes it hard to have a good discussion.. Do you see the contradiction? Always have cut To put it another way: "Objective reality doesn't care what you believe" Like in one sentence even! 8^) and govt regs and objective reality are rarely compatable just look at where the FCC put the Local only CB service You mean the frequency they use? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Hybrid Mode
