wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 8, 4:41 pm

His Royal Pompousness forgot Iitoi's attribute here
wrote:

Browsing the FCC internet site the sheer number of reply
comments by one Californian caught my eye.
8 in all on WT Docket 05-235. :-)
But, only ONE is a Comment. All the subsequent ones are REPLIES
to Comments.
One quote was particularly petulant --- "Based on the twenty items
discussed and comment on them, this commenter would urge the Commission
to ignore ARRL desires..."
Not quite verbatim, but close enough for government work. :-)
Perhaps, based on his tens of thousands of posts on the usernet, we
should urge the Commission to ignore Leonard H. Anderson desires.
It's ALREADY been done long ago. See WT Docket 98-143
for 25 January 1999...search ECFS for surname "Robeson."
BTW, it's "USENET," an acronym for 'university network' that
grew out of the old ARPANET long ago...so long it was before
the Internet went public access (in 1991).
It isn't from "university network", Len.

Sorry, your Royal Pompousness, ARPANET connected a number of
universities and defense industry locations back in the 70s
and 80s. Not a great many, nowhere the size of the Internet
of today, but enough to justify the ARPANET experience. The
nominal user throughput in those days was 100 Baud or equal to
100 WPM (earlier times by TTY machinery, later by "dumb"
electronic terminals). "High speed" then was 300 Baud or
300 WPM. :-)

Why are you wandering all over the place? The term "usenet" does not
come from "university network". It really is as simple as that.

For someone who has been
around as long as you claim, you'd think you'd get this one right.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

A tsking, a tasket
Len has blown a gasket.

No doubt you will pull up some "modern-day" claim that ARPANET
(standing for Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork) isn't
what I say it is? :-)

ARPANET wasn't the issue. Your incorrect defintion of the term "usenet"
is the issue.

I'm using the OLD naming conventions, your Royal Pompousness.

Oh. The "OLD" naming conventions which others don't use. I see.

ARRL did NOT invent "USENET" nor was it involved in that network
before 1991 and Internet going public. ARRL has NOT been a
member of ARPANET.

I wrote nothing of the ARRL inventing anything. I wrote that your
definition of the term "usenet" is incorrect. It turns out that the
fellow you were correcting had it right after all.

This isn't even the first time you've been corrected.

Tsk. You've TRIED to correct me but all you've done is to
attempt forcing the pro-code-test-advocate opinion as the
ONLY "correct" one. Total PCTA Effluence, your Royal
Pompousness.

I've TRIED and succeeded in correcting your factual errors on a number
of issues. My opinion on morse testing is not relevant to your error.


It looks as if you've made another of your frequent factual errors, Leonard.

No, your Royal Pompousness. I was on it back then. You
were NOT.

Whoopty-do. If you went around telling others that "usenet" came from
"university network", you were wrong then too. Tsk.

I began in HF radio communications in early 1953...using no
less than three dozen HF transmitters having minimum RF
power outputs of 1 KW...the station operating 24/7 as a
primary node of the worldwide U.S. Army communications
network.

What has all that to do with your error in defining "usenet"? Your tale
of your military communications experience of better than fifty years
ago is as irrelevant to the definition of "usenet" as it is to amateur
radio.

You tried to say that I "lied" in describing that
station and the Army network.

That is simply incorrect.

I didn't lie.

Good for you. You've made up for it in other postings.

I was briefly on ARPANET in the 70s, doing defense
contractor work and using the just-born USENET for that
defense work purpose. In the quarter century since then
a number of NAMES have changed to reflect the changing
nature of human activity. ARPA became DARPA and grew in
size and scope. USENET changed much more and became a
mainstay of the Internet once Internet went public in 1991.

That's nice. You still made an error in stating that "usenet" came from
"university network".

Now you are busy, busy, busy with your little gardening
Bobcat...


My little gardening Bobcat? What are you smoking?


...trying to build a mountain of "error" out of the
origin of USENET molehill?

Quit trying to pass yourself off as an expert in areas where you are
obviously not an expert. You got it wrong. You made an error. Why do
you need multiple lengthy paragraphs to attempt misdirection. Accept
that you goofed.

Why? Neither the Internet nor
USENET *is* amateur radio nor is anyone required to be
"licensed via taking a morse code test" to be on them.

Then why are you prattling on about it? You attempted to correct
another's use of a term only to incorrectly define the term yourself?

ARRL can do NO wrong? To speak against them is heresy?

Everyone should listen to you?

Tsk, tsk, your Royal Pompousness. My rhetorical question had
NOTHING to do with *me*, ONLY the ARRL.

My non-rhetorical statement had to do with you. Why should anyone
listen to your views about where amateur radio should be headed?
After all, you have no amateur radio experience and you have no stake in
amateur radio.

Just a plain, simple fact: ARRL supports the PCTA opinion of
WHAT SHOULD BE IN AMATEUR RADIO.

What's up with all the caps? Are you losing control of yourself?

Why should they?

Why shouldn't the ARRL reflect the views of its membership?

ARRL is a MINORITY group.

The NAACP has done pretty well for itself. The ARRL is by far, the
largest amateur radio organization in the United States. No other
amateur radio organization in America has anywhere near the ARRL's
membership. I know it chafes you, but them's the facts.

Their membership
is only 1 in 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs.

Show me another amateur radio organization in the United States with a
..5 in 5 ratio. Show me one with .25 in 5. The League, as much as it
bugs you, is the strongest amateur radio voice in this country.

ARRL does NOT
represent 4 out of 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs.

You don't represent any U.S. radio amateur.

YOU are telling US that some elite, self-defined "leader" of
a hobby activity MUST Tell All How Ham Radio SHOULD BE?!?

I like the League's ideas much, much more than I like yours. You aren't
a radio amateur. You don't represent a single radio amateur. You're
simply some goofy geezer with a lot of time to devote to flooding the
FCC with multiple comments and replies. You're fixated on something in
which you do not participate.

Of course you are.

No, I've changed my mind and have decided to pick up your banner and
follow you, Len....not.

You are a BELIEVER in the "leadership" of the ARRL. ARRL is
sacred, is untouchable. PBthpbthththththt.

....and you are an elderly goofball.

You know how amateur radio should be because...?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Your Royal Pompous Effluent Orifice is sore?

You grow more peculiar by the day. Tsk, tsk tsk. Poor baby.

WT Docket 05-235 is about the elimination of the code test for
GETTING INTO amateur radio through FCC licensing. GETTING INTO.

You aren't getting into. You've told us that you aren't getting in.
Then again, that has changed with the breezes.

That's a simple concept. But, to those all wrapped up in their
patriotic (invisible) bunting of ARRL "official" colors and
morsemanship as the extra-super-special-skill for amateurs (as
the ARRL has preached and lobbied)...you cannot see that simple
concept.

You aren't in. You aren't getting in. You've taken not a single step
during your self-declared decades of "interest" in amateur radio, toward
obtaining an amateur radio license. You're simply an elderly geezer
with time on his hands and an amateur radio fixation.

Your abject HATRED of certain personalities in here
blinds you to what others can plainly see.

I don't hate you, Len. You amuse me. You are certainly a personality,
and not a pleasant one.

Sunnuvagun, if the English Department of a west coast university
wants to "vote" for code testing...and twenty Tennessee law
students can use WT Docket 05-235 for Moot Court practice, fine,
PROHIBIT all they want!

I see. Don't listen to the ARRL; listen to an uninvolved party with an
ax to grind. Brilliant!

It must be "brilliant" if Joe Speroni wants to include an English
teacher at a university (west coast, of all things) who states
openly that she is NOT getting any amateur radio license, as "for"
morse code testing as an entry exam for something she is NOT
INVOLVED IN! Speroni is absolutely PCTA, an old morseman with an
"axe" to grind for that singular mode. The AH0A website shows
that. The Speroni "analysis" page shows that "English department"
ID at the top of his icon-filled "chart."

So? You've made eight or so submissions to the FCC on 05-235. How does
Speroni count your submission? After all, you've stated openly that you
aren't getting an into amateur radio. It is something you aren't
involved in.

Speroni has a number of FACTUAL ERRORS in his INTERPRETATION of
WT Docket 05-235 filings.

Has he? You two will find that you have something in common.

I've pointed out some of them, have
not exhausted that list. You WANT Speroni's pro-CW viewpoint
to persist and rule, plus you want any anti-code-test viewpoint
to be shut up, eliminated, thrown away by any force you can use.
You SHOW that in NOT remearking about anyone else negatively
but my comments.

What do you SHOW, Len?

So far, your Royal Pompousness, all you've done is engage in
pure, simple, factual Character Assassination of me and several
other NCTAs in public.

Why is character assassination capitalized, Len? Your character hasn't
been assassinated by me. I'd think that you'd want to be careful of
what you accuse others. After all, Google has a splendid archive of the
things you've written of others. You aren't a victim; you're a perpetrator.

Can't call it anything else...you want
to PROHIBIT discussion...

Why, Leonard H. Anderson! You've just made a deliberately false
statement. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Poor baby.

...and dictate that all should follow ARRL
in anything...not just in licensed amateur radio, but in all
things.

You may be on to something. I think the League should diversify--maybe
get into the oil business. Why, with that and the ARRL stake in
gambling (as handled by the "Field Organization"), we could control a
huge chunk of the action. :-) :-)

Enjoy your elitist exclusivity while it exists.

Oh, I shall, Leonard. I shall. I assume that you mean the exclusivity
of being a licensed radio amateur, something which has eluded you.

It won't be so forever.

I'm going to lose my license? I'm going to forget morse code?



If you can't get any Oriongasms now, go play with your
big classic johnson.

What is an Oriongasm? Oh, and you've made yet another factual error.
The term is "big, classic Johnson".

Turn it on and see if it turns you on.

I have and it does. Does your tiny Johnson turn anyone on?

Sieg heil,

Sieg anderson.

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 8, 4:41 pm

cut
electronic terminals). "High speed" then was 300 Baud or
300 WPM. :-)

Why are you wandering all over the place? The term "usenet" does not
come from "university network". It really is as simple as that.

your evidence?

and why does Len need YOUR license to wander as he chooses?

it is as unsupprted as Al Gores claim to have invented the iterent

For someone who has been
around as long as you claim, you'd think you'd get this one right.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

A tsking, a tasket
Len has blown a gasket.

just another of the Dave and Stevie ppersonal attack responses

almost as much fun as Stevies' "lair lair pants on fire" ****
cut

ARRL did NOT invent "USENET" nor was it involved in that network
before 1991 and Internet going public. ARRL has NOT been a
member of ARPANET.

I wrote nothing of the ARRL inventing anything.

nor did Len state you had ,but in any case you are being deceitfull in
making a stament that implies he said you made such a statement

(no doubt the poor fellow will claim he can't follow a complex
sentence)
I wrote that your
definition of the term "usenet" is incorrect. It turns out that the
fellow you were correcting had it right after all.

preahps that is ture but it has not been shown by you

This isn't even the first time you've been corrected.

Tsk. You've TRIED to correct me but all you've done is to
attempt forcing the pro-code-test-advocate opinion as the
ONLY "correct" one. Total PCTA Effluence, your Royal
Pompousness.

I've TRIED and succeeded in correcting your factual errors on a number
of issues. My opinion on morse testing is not relevant to your error.

well that only shows you have not been following the arguement in here
Dave, the contention that along withe the ProCode test babagage comes
other issues is something you choose to overlook, but instaed you
continue to pile on the evidence that something more than just being
proCode is wrong with the proCoder's suggesting that the position on
Code testing is just an outcrop of a deeper problem
cut


Tsk, tsk, your Royal Pompousness. My rhetorical question had
NOTHING to do with *me*, ONLY the ARRL.

My non-rhetorical statement had to do with you. Why should anyone
listen to your views about where amateur radio should be headed?
After all, you have no amateur radio experience and you have no stake in
amateur radio.

and you just told another Lie dave. Len has a stake in Ham radio.
everyone does. everyone on the planet ( and it is not limited to the
earth assuming that life exists out there) has a stake in how the
airwaves are used

I comend Len on his public spirt in showing scuh interest and attetnion
to this public matter

The Airwaves don't belong to us as Hams Dave, they belong to the people
of them and it is the duty of regulators to try and serve the PUBLIC
interest not the narrow interest of Some hams like yourself

You are selfish and decietful which are very human properties I have
them myself as does everyone, but at Least I see them for what they
are. You and Stevie trun your selfis and deeictfull positions to your
own wand refuse to even adknowledge ythem as human failing that you are
subject to.

that is why I am in my own eyes, and other a better persons than you, I
know my flaws you try to pretend your flaws are your virtues lying in
very deep and dangerous way you lie to yourself

Just a plain, simple fact: ARRL supports the PCTA opinion of
WHAT SHOULD BE IN AMATEUR RADIO.

What's up with all the caps? Are you losing control of yourself?

he choose AS IS HIS RIGHT, to use them


Why should they?

Why shouldn't the ARRL reflect the views of its membership?

becuase the ARRL claims to LEAD one cannot lead and follow at the same
time, this a comon failing these days affect the ARRL, Bill Clinton and
others
cut
represent 4 out of 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs.

You don't represent any U.S. radio amateur.

YOU are telling US that some elite, self-defined "leader" of
a hobby activity MUST Tell All How Ham Radio SHOULD BE?!?

I like the League's ideas much, much more than I like yours.

your prevledge
You aren't
a radio amateur.

ture but so what

You don't represent a single radio amateur.

A lie Dave

You're
simply some goofy geezer with a lot of time to devote to flooding the
FCC with multiple comments and replies.

or a public minded fellow who takes his civic duty seriously something
you should encourage

You're fixated on something in
which you do not participate.

you fixate on thing you do not particpate (at least so you claim) and
that don't affect you at all, and are of zero relavance to Ham radio
and therfore this newsgroup, the subejct reffered to? My sex life
cut


WT Docket 05-235 is about the elimination of the code test for
GETTING INTO amateur radio through FCC licensing. GETTING INTO.

You aren't getting into.
another lie the public takes the ride along with us

len stake in this matter is merely defferent than yours or mine but not
zero

You've told us that you aren't getting in.
Then again, that has changed with the breezes.

Unlike you Dave Len has an open mind he thinks even changes his mind

only a non thinking "person" like yourself would call open minded
though a bad thing
cut

I have and it does. Does your tiny Johnson turn anyone on?

focousing on His sex life too
cut

But Len discards/discounts comments from non-US citizens and here you are suggesting that ET living on Alpha Centauri has a stake in this NRPM???? Len will tell the FCC to ignore comments from ET.

But ET probably can't talk to us on HF anyhow because of the heliopause, so he doesn't care about the code test. If you want to talk to him I recommend you QSY to a frequency up near the waterhole, perhaps just tune around between the hydrozal and hydrogen lines. That's nocode territory, so you're good to go.

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 8, 4:41 pm

cut
electronic terminals). "High speed" then was 300 Baud or
300 WPM. :-)
Why are you wandering all over the place? The term "usenet" does not
come from "university network". It really is as simple as that.

your evidence?

Gee, Mark, it was already posted. Try to keep up.

Dave K8MN

Iitoi wrote:
an old friend Wrote:


Len has a stake in Ham radio. everyone does. everyone on the planet (
and it is not limited to the earth assuming that life exists out there)
has a stake in how the airwaves are used



But Len discards/discounts comments from non-US citizens and here you
are suggesting that ET living on Alpha Centauri has a stake in this
NRPM???? Len will tell the FCC to ignore comments from ET.

that Len and I don't agree on everything is plain fact

I think for his Poloing count it was proper to discount aliens legal
illegals forgieners and et's, but I feel they have every right to tell
the FCC what they think and the FCC should considertheir coments but on
a lessor level to myself a US citizen

I don't know that Len in fact disagress with the later but it does not
matter

after all I think the FCC should consider Stevies comonet and I think
he should be behind bars withe felon told he is a pedo child killer and
let the fellows have at him, but he has the the right to heard till
then

cut

--
Iitoi