RadioBanter - Ignore ARRL

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Ignore ARRL (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/81620-ignore-arrl.html)

Browsing the FCC internet site the sheer number of reply comments by one Californian caught my eye.

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..."

Perhaps, based on his tens of thousands of posts on the usernet, we should urge the Commission to ignore Leonard H. Anderson desires.

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:21:51 +0000, Iitoi
wrote:

Browsing the FCC internet site the sheer number of reply comments by one
Californian caught my eye.

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..."

Perhaps, based on his tens of thousands of posts on the usernet, we
should urge the Commission to ignore Leonard H. Anderson desires.

why?

becuase you don't like Him?

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

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).

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

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!

"ARRL is thy savior, thou shall not want in ham land..."

ARRL and FCC = Partners in the Culture of Corruption.

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. For someone who has been
around as long as you claim, you'd think you'd get this one right.
This isn't even the first time you've been corrected.

From http://dict.die.net/usenet/

"messaging /yoos'net/ or /yooz'net/ (Or "Usenet news", from
'Users' Network') A distributed bulletin board system and
the people who post and read articles thereon."

From
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&h...=define:USENET

"Short for User's Network. The collection of the thousands of bulletin
boards residing on the Internet. Each bulletin board contains discussion
groups, or newsgroups, dedicated to a myriad of topics. Messages are
posted and responded to by readers either as public or private emails.
www.vikont.com/clients/glossary.htm"

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

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

Everyone should listen to you? You know how amateur radio should be
because...?

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!

"ARRL is thy savior, thou shall not want in ham land..."

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

Dave K8MN

Perhaps, based on his tens of thousands of posts on the usernet, we
should urge the Commission to ignore Leonard H. Anderson desires.

According to Google, the "all-time top posters" in THIS newsgroup
are (as of 7 PM EDT on 8 November 2005):

Cecil A. Moore 17,326 (5,434 as W6RCecilA) *
Steve Robeson 10,326
James P. Miccolis 8,430 (at least one other pseudoynm)
Dick Carroll (SK) 7,091
Leonard Anderson 6,191 (+ 434 as )
Ed Hare 5,233 (left newsgroup)
Jim Rosenthal 4,286 (left newsgroup)
Dave Heil 4,250
Larry Roll 3,977 (left newsgroup)

* Cecil rated two positions on the top-ten due to other handle.

Tsk, I haven't reached the ten-thousandth mark yet... :-)

[this post will be my 435th under the following screen name]

A CLASSIC, John! :-)

May you "dwell in the house of the Board" forever...

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. :-)

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

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

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? :-)

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

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.

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.

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.

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. You tried to say that I "lied" in describing that
station and the Army network. I didn't lie.

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.

Now you are busy, busy, busy with your little gardening
Bobcat trying to build a mountain of "error" out of the
origin of USENET molehill? 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.

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.

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

Why should they? ARRL is a MINORITY group. Their membership
is only 1 in 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs. ARRL does NOT
represent 4 out of 5 licensed U.S. radio amateurs.

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

Of course you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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

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. Can't call it anything else...you want
to PROHIBIT discussion and dictate that all should follow ARRL
in anything...not just in licensed amateur radio, but in all
things.

Enjoy your elitist exclusivity while it exists. It won't be so
forever. If you can't get any Oriongasms now, go play with your
big classic johnson. Turn it on and see if it turns you on.

Sieg heil,