From: an old friend on Nov 28, 2:03 pm

wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am


DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.

I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a
little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under
"all that stuff"?

Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value.

a fair enough assesment of len views

I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be
any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio
operator's license.

my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim as a
Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that
says Cw test was the same as operating skill (just tryin some
hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as
traped as Stevie and Dave

I understand your posting, Mark. I was, once again, trying to
make my position clear in this din of inequity.

Jimmie Noserve and Kernal Klunk love to argue for argument's
sake. They seem to be addicted to WIN arguments at all costs!
They frequently take quotes out of context and make disparaging
remarks on those as if they were stand-alone statements.

They MUST win. They are very sore losers, can't take pain.

They both use "operating skills" as if the ONLY kind of operation
of radio involves morse code. In every other radio service, there
is NO "operating skill" of the amateur variety involved. Klunk
should know that but he is no longer in the furrin servuss, busy
using his "operating skills" out of exotic countries such as
Guinea-Bisseau. He probably misses BEING "rare DX."


The FCC has had that viewpoint. They said so in public documents.

As early as 1990, as in FCC 90-53. Anyone can see a copy of that
at the NCI website. They said the same thing, although in slightly
different works, in NPRM 05-143 released on 15 July 2005.


Stupor-patriot morsemen think morse code telegraphy skills are
all that is "operating skill."

That's how it is with them extra morsemen.

Failure to agree with them results in immediate dismissal under
BUPERINST something or other.

wrote:
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm

wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

I get along with all sorts of people, Len. Including many who disagree with
me.

Not absolutely true... :-)

My statement (taken as a whole) is absolutely true, Len. ;-)

You're the one that has the problem getting along with others if they
don't agree with everything you say.

Tsk, with Jimmy it's always the other guy's fault... :-)

No, Len. Just a simple statement of fact that you have a problem
getting along with people who don't agree with everything you say.

Your behaviour here proves it.

The standards are a lot newer than "70 years old", Len.

Name some.

Iambic A and B - do you know what those are? The Morse Code
symbol for "@". Changes to standard ARRL message format,
redefinition of some prosigns and Q signals....the list goes on
and on.

The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations
for 71 years. :-)

That's true ;-)

It's also been in the regulations for 72 years, and 73 years, and 74
years,

....

and it's been in the regulations for 93 years.

As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the
reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with:

- cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics

No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto.

Ancient history. ;-)

Didn't have to know morse code to drive...

But isn't manual transmission a "dying" technology? Why would anyone
bother to learn it in 2005?

- sailboats instead of power boats

Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats...

Morse Code takes less power than voice transmission.

and it is nice to do.

Your opinion only.

Aren't the majority of boats in the USA power
boats? Even most sailboats above a certain size carry small
motors. Most power boats don't carry sails.

didn't have to know morse code to sail.

Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using
sail power about 100 years ago. There are almost no commercial uses
for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating,
and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well.

- Drawing and painting instead of photography

No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do.

Still have your crayons, huh?

Didn't
have to know morse code to do any of those three.

- Performing music instead of playing recordings

Tsk, how do you think recordings got to BE recordings? :-)

No morse code knowledge required in music.

- Bicycles, running and walking for transport instead of motor vehicles

No problem to me. Last California DMV retest (and every one
before that) didn't require any morse code skill.

- Stairs instead of elevators

How do you categorize escalators? :-)

No morse code knowledge required for stairs, escalators, or
elevators.

- Homemade food instead of packaged

How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-)

Is that where your cooking winds up, Len?

Cooking doesn't require morse code knowledge.

Because I know something of those times and the creation of the
Extra class license.

Ah, but you weren't THERE in all those times... :-)

So? I still know more about the creation of the Extra class license
than you do.

YOU have talked much about Reggie Fessenden and his carbon-mike-in-
the-antenna "AM voice transmission" of 1906 and (allegedly) 1900.

That's right. Was any of my information incorrect?

Weren't you reading from your own lab notes when you described
all that happening 99 to 105 years ago? :-)

Was any of my information incorrect?

Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has
used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series
with the antenna lead... :-)

Why?

I was there then, did it, came back. Never used
any morse code then on three dozen transmitters, never had to.


It sure does seem that you talk about things that happened long
before you were born, but get mad when others talk about things
that happened long before *they* were born. As if it's OK for
you to do but not others.

Tsk, I was 20 years old in 1953, Jimmy. Already been born
two decades prior. :-)

Where were you in 1906?

"Radio" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Incorrect. It is a part of electronics, a technology discipline.

Nope. It's a separate subset. Electronics does not include things
like antennas. Radio does.

Are "antennas" a whole separate field of physics? :-)

Nope. They're a part of electrical engineering.

"Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

INCORRECT.

What parts of electronics are not covered by electrical engineering,
Len?

Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in
"engineering?" :-)

What gaffe, Len? "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Electronics is one TECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINE of physics.

No, it isn't.

Physics is a science. Electrical engineering is a form of engineering,
and electronics is a subset of that.

Sigh...you still haven't gotten the correct definitions... :-(

Well, Len, since you make up your definitions as you go along, you're
bound to have disagreements.


Your mistakes (like the ones Hans pointed out
about DD-214s) are embarrassing.

You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s.

Yes, you did. Also UCMJ, usenet, and many others. Buck
up and learn to live with your own imperfections, Len.

Radio and electronics have some things in common, but they are not
identical, and one is not a subset of the other.

Amateur radio definitions seldom jibe with the rest of the
world of electronics...and radio. :-)

Yours don't jive with anything - like your spelling.

The word "jibe" (with a B, not a V) is perfectly correct in my
context. Look it up. :-)

For someone who uses so many smileys, you're certainly
humor-impaired, Len.


NPRM 05-143 is singularly about the telegraphy test. [that's
what this "english teacher" of the thread title was commenting
on] That NPRM has NOTHING to do with radiotelephony, radiodata,
teletypewriter over radio, slow or fast-scan television,
facsimile over radio. The amateur radio license tests have
NO test elements for physically OPERATING any radio, are not
required to have radio equipment AT a license exam site.

So? Why is that significant?

Why do you consider yourself so "significant?" :-)

It's not about me, Len.

Tsk, everything you post in here is about YOU. :-)

INCORRECT

The sole manual test for anything at any amateur license exam
is about telegraphy, telegraphy as used on amateur radio (there
is NO landline telegraphy tested), more technically,
radiotelegraphy. As it is NOW, that is.

And that's a good thing.

It is a "good thing" only to those that took that test and
passed it, thus fulfilling the "proper jump through hoops"
of "tradition." :-)

Incorrect. There were comments to the FCC by people who had
not passed the Morse Code test which said it was a good thing
and should be retained.

Sorry, Jimmy, they were outnumbered by those who wanted the TEST
gone. :-)

Of course. But the exceptions prove your sweeping statement to be
false.

If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that.

Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005.
3,795 of them. :-)

So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise.

When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone
proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's
basic logic.

No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-)

In your illogical mind, I suppose.

There's NO "logic" in your exceptions statements, only spite...

YOU are NOT in the FCC.

Neither are you, Len.

YOU are NOT in the FCC. Never were. It doesn't look like you
will ever be in the FCC...

The same is even more true of you, Len.

Tsk, your definition of "polite" seems to be everyone agreeing
with you and giving your gratuitous praise for whatever you do.

Nope. That's *your* definition.

Tsk, another morseman with the "mirror syndrome" displayed.

Yes, I hold up a mirror to your misbehaviour, and you don't like
what you see.

FCC does not consider
*you* to be qualified to operate an amateur radio station, though.

Wrong on two accounts.

How so? Did you get an amateur radio license?

First of all, I already got a Commercial
Radiotelephone license 49 years ago so the FCC "qualified" me
(legally) to do so.

Nope. Wrong. Incorrect.

Your Commercial license does not qualify you to operate an
amateur radio station. Legally, you are the same as a person
with no license at all when it comes to operating an amateur
radio station.

Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur
radio license

(that's good)

so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or
"unqualified."

Incorrect again!

FCC considers every unlicensed person to be unqualified to operate
an amateur radio station. That's why they issue licenses - to identify
those who are qualified.

FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

Third, by law, to operate ON THE FREQUENCIES
allocated only to radio amateurs requires an amateur radio
license, neither "qualification" or "unqualification" but just
a condition of the regulations.

Three wrongs in two counts!

The license is the qualification. By definition. FCC says you're
not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

It's understandable that you'd not understand a superior intellect, Len

When one shows up, I'll be sure NOT to understand them.

You prove that with every reply to me...

OTOH I understand you all too well. That's why you're so hostile to me.

"Hostile?" What you mean "hostile," white man?

There you go. How do you know I'm "white"?

Po' bebbe, y'all been trin' ta shoot down all them NCTAs fer
years and ya dint do it. Tsk, tsk. All dat HOSTILE in-tent
of yourn.

Gee, we'll have to add "racist" to Len's profile...

Len, you're and NCI BELIEVER. You're so biased that you cannot
conduct enough to see what really happens.

Oh, my, you are doing the word-twisting thing today!

Just the facts.

I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI
together.

Prove it.

I don't speak FOR NCI but you are going to try to MISDIRECT
the thread flow to make that a cause celebre'. Not buying
that.

Fact is, I proved you wrong.

Try to think about marriage for YOU, Jimmy. It would make you
less of a one-track Believer.

Len, for all you know, I could have more marriage experience than
you have.

Judging by all the time you spend in here...I'd say you have NO
"experience" right now. :-) Or you don't really work for a
living (thereby getting more free time to surf the newsgroup).

Ah yes, a desperate phishing expedition, as Len tries to extract
personal information. Doesn't work, Len.

Yes, Len, your control-freak ego sure does go off at times.
Telling everyone How It Should Be.

Tsk, more mirror gazing on your part, Jimmy.

All I'm doing - in between replying to some of the PCTA heckling -
is trying to get rid of the code test.

INCORRECT

You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it
again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that
license.

Doesn't matter - I could pass it again easily. You can't even pass it
once.

YOU are telling ALL NEWCOMERS to test for morse code. You've been
doing that for years. Why are you so hostile to newcomers?

Telling someone the Morse Code test is a good thing isn't hostile, Len.
Except maybe to you, who sees any disagreement as hostile.

Afraid you'll be proven wrong?

Tsk, there you go again with nasty attitude.

IOW, yes, you're afraid.

You are nuts.

Not me. I'm not the one who's afraid to turn on a receiver and
listen to the low ends of the HF amateur bands....

Have been for a very long time...ever since getting my
"first job in radio."

So you're old. Big deal. You want a merit badge?

At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't
have one.

How do you know, Len?

WHAT are YOU going to tell ME?

That Morse Code is alive and well in the amateur bands.

Wonderful for you, then. You will always have a morseman to play
with.

Is contesting "operation" your main interest in amateur radio?

One of my main interests in amateur radio. I have several. You don't
seem to have any.

"It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-)

I know what they are, Len.

Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those
subjects.

"Near-complete ignorance?!?"

Yes.

Sunday is another nice
get-together with good people, and I don't expect any of the
talk will be about amateur radio or morse code or contests or
the beeping state of the radio art.

That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model.

"Hardly a good role model?!?"

Yep.

Tsk, tsk, that is HOSTILITY, Jimmy. Why are you so hostile?

I'm not the one calling people names, Len.

No "contests" of any real kind. Sunnuvagun!

Can't take the competition, huh?

Try to understand that normal social behavior is NOT about
"competition." Normal, that is, not some HOSTILE type who
always has to sound more important than the group...such
behavior exemplified by the PCTA.

Gee, Len, almost all of your postings here are your attempt to
sound smarter than the group.

From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am

wrote:
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

I get along with all sorts of people, Len. Including many who disagree with
me.

Not absolutely true... :-)

My statement (taken as a whole) is absolutely true, Len. ;-)

No, not "absolute." You become upset and combative to any
remark not accepting morse code as the finest mode in radio.


You're the one that has the problem getting along with others if they
don't agree with everything you say.

Tsk, with Jimmy it's always the other guy's fault... :-)

No, Len. Just a simple statement of fact that you have a problem
getting along with people who don't agree with everything you say.

Tsk, tsk..."always the other guy's fault.


The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations
for 71 years. :-)

That's true ;-)

It's also been in the regulations for 72 years, and 73 years, and 74
years,

Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC. It
was created in 1934.


As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the
reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with:

- cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics

No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto.

Ancient history. ;-)

You have no valid comparison to morse code. Try not to venture
into areas where you have no competence.

When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both
had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in
it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic
transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear
changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy
Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic
transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro
(as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual
gear changing.


Didn't have to know morse code to drive...

But isn't manual transmission a "dying" technology? Why would anyone
bother to learn it in 2005?

Manual transmission is not favored in many states due to emission
limits, by law, not by the fact that manual transmissions are a
decided inconvenience.

Truck-tractors have manual transmissions. Most cars equipped with
automatic transmissions can also do manual gear changing; they
just don't have any clutch.

- sailboats instead of power boats

Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats...

Morse Code takes less power than voice transmission.

There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order
to pilot a sailing vessel.

Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound-
powered" telecommunications sets. No DC or AC power needed to
operate them. There is no equivalent for telegraphy.



Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using
sail power about 100 years ago.

Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are
real.

No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat.

There are almost no commercial uses
for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating,
and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well.

That is an absolute? Very well, we will put you down as a
claimed "Master of Marine Craft."

There are NO commercial uses for morse code skill in the USA
except for the companies selling morse code practice material.


- Drawing and painting instead of photography

No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do.

Still have your crayons, huh?

Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design
in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles. Pasadena forensics
could practice on what was left of you after saying that. When
I went to Art Center it was in the city of Los Angeles, on 3rd
Street, somewhat near CBS City and the Pan-Pacific Auditorium.

Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography? I can
give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My
photographs and illustrations have been published in national
magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and
illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that
isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day
screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints,
brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still
works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system
common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for
painting in preference for the finer linen media.

Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or
photography?

Didn't have to know morse code to do any of those three.

Still don't.


- Homemade food instead of packaged

How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-)

Is that where your cooking winds up, Len?

Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow
campers.

Try not to "get along so well with others" in your writing.
It looks hostile and argumentative.


Cooking doesn't require morse code knowledge.

Tsk, it still doesn't.


Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has
used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series
with the antenna lead... :-)

Why?

It would further prove the efficacy of "morse code efficiency"
to all others. You have a need to be "superior." Demonstrate
that with more of your little factoids.



Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in
"engineering?" :-)

What gaffe, Len? "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Electronics is a part of Physics. Part of Electronics is SCIENCE.
What isn't science is technology. Application of electronic
technology is done in electrical and electronic engineering.



You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s.

Yes, you did. Also UCMJ, usenet, and many others. Buck
up and learn to live with your own imperfections, Len.

You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to
you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You
cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ
other than some casual thing that applies only to others.


For someone who uses so many smileys, you're certainly
humor-impaired, Len.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.


If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that.

Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005.
3,795 of them. :-)

So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise.

The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of
them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one
more has been added in the ECFS.

There is NO "evidence" at www.ah0a.org except in the highly-
biased opinion of a long-time morseman...one whose Petitions
before the Commission have been DENIED.


When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone
proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's
basic logic.

No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-)

In your illogical mind, I suppose.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.




Your Commercial license does not qualify you to operate an
amateur radio station.

Your amateur radio operator's license does NOT "qualify" you
to operate any commercial radio station, radionavigation
station, space-communications station, radiosonde station,
radar of any kind, television transmitter, aircraft
transmitter, maritime vessel transmitter, land mobile radio
service transmitter, or microwave radio relay station.
Mine does.

Legally, you are the same as a person
with no license at all when it comes to operating an amateur
radio station.

Do you wish to take me to civil court? Federal court?

Why all the hostility and combative behavior on your part
over NPRM 05-143?



Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur radio license

(that's good)

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.


so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or "unqualified."

Incorrect again!

You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and
AUTHORIZED.



FCC considers every unlicensed person to be unqualified to operate
an amateur radio station. That's why they issue licenses - to identify
those who are qualified.

Wrong. The FCC issues licenses as part of their overall civil
radio regulatory task.

The FCC was never chartered by LAW to be an academic or skill-
achievement agency. They AUTHORIZE license holders to operate
and transmit RF energy according to the regulations pertaining
to the type and kind of radio service they are AUTHORIZED in.


FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC has "said" no such thing to me. They've never once
written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything...



The license is the qualification.

It is an AUTHORIZATION. It is a PERMISSION. It is a GRANT.

By definition. FCC says you're
not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

No, I am not permitted - by regulation - to transmit RF energy
exceeding incidental RF radiation limits on allocated amateur-
only frequencies without possessing an amateur radio license
grant.

The military of the United States and the federal government of
the United States (other than the FCC) have QUALIFIED me to
operate radio transmitters according to military/government
regulations. Experience in actual successful transmission of
RF energy has furthered that qualification.


Oh, my, you are doing the word-twisting thing today!

Just the facts.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

Some of your facts are mistaken. That's just the way it is.



I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI
together.

Prove it.

Go to the FCC Reading Room and look up correspondence to them
prior to the earliest ECFS-available date. That is an un-
alterable third-party reference.

I did not keep ALL correspondence I've done in the last four
decades. I cannot digitize and present what I no longer have.
The FCC Reading Room keeps records intact, archived.


I don't speak FOR NCI but you are going to try to MISDIRECT
the thread flow to make that a cause celebre'. Not buying
that.

Fact is, I proved you wrong.

Incorrect. I've pointed out your mistakes. You refuse to
accept them. That's just the way you are.


You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it
again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that
license.

Doesn't matter - I could pass it again easily. You can't even pass it
once.

More hostility and combativeness. Tsk, NOT "getting along with
others" on your part.

I have never taken any amateur radio license test, therefore I
neither "passed" nor "failed" it. That only proves the PAST.

You stated what I allegedly "could not do" in the future.
You are not prescient, cannot tell the future. Ergo, your
remark is simply one of hostility and combatativeness.



Telling someone the Morse Code test is a good thing isn't hostile, Len.

Sorry, it IS hostile when you presume your opinion to be an
absolute. It is only your opinion. You frequently try to make
your opinions as absolutes. That is wrong.



Not me. I'm not the one who's afraid to turn on a receiver and
listen to the low ends of the HF amateur bands....

Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced. First, I was
not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day
holiday weekend. Second, I've already "turned on and listened"
to all parts of the MF and HF spectrum...many times...even
looked at it with a spectrum analyzer.



At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't
have one.

How do you know, Len?

You've never served in the armed forces of the United States.
Had you done so, you would have received a DD-214 as a release
from active duty. You've said you did not serve, ergo you
cannot have a DD-214. You will never have a DD-214.


"It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-)

I know what they are, Len.

Incorrect again. All you "know" is what I've written in here.
I've not written about all of my "interests" or "what I've
done" or "what I do."


Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those
subjects.

"Near-complete ignorance?!?"

Yes.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.


That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model.

"Hardly a good role model?!?"

Yep.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.


Tsk, tsk, that is HOSTILITY, Jimmy. Why are you so hostile?

I'm not the one calling people names, Len.

True, you are just hostile and combative. The ones who call
others "names" in here is Dudly the Imposter and a few other
anonymous posters.


Can't take the competition, huh?

Try to understand that normal social behavior is NOT about
"competition." Normal, that is, not some HOSTILE type who
always has to sound more important than the group...such
behavior exemplified by the PCTA.

Gee, Len, almost all of your postings here are your attempt to
sound smarter than the group.

Tsk, subjective opinion on your part. Can't take competition?

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm


wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am
DIRECT as in laying on of hands,
moving controls, operating, all that stuff.
I get the feeling that your knowledge of radio operating might be a
little light. Are you of the opinion that operating a radio falls under
"all that stuff"?
Len does not consider "operating skills" to be of much (if any) value.
a fair enough assesment of len views
I disagree, Mark. I do not consider a RADIOTELEGRAPHY TEST to be
any "operating skill" worthy of being part of an amateur radio
operator's license.

my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim...

Paper? Where's the paper?

...as a
Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that
says Cw test was the same as operating skill...

I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel.

(just tryin some
hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as
traped as Stevie and Dave

Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm

cut
my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim...

Paper? Where's the paper?

gog find it

...as a
Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that
says Cw test was the same as operating skill...

I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel.

beg all you like I can't help

(just tryin some
hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as
traped as Stevie and Dave

Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody.

did you have anything to say?

it doesn't look like it

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am
wrote:
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 8:02 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon 21 Nov 2005 09:41
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 9:25 am

The morse code test has been in amateur radio regulations
for 71 years. :-)

That's true ;-)

It's also been in the regulations for 72 years, and 73 years, and 74
years,

Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC.

You didn't specify "regulations of the FCC" before. Now you're
trying to change the boundary conditions. Old trick, doesn't work.

It was created in 1934.

As to why anyone would fuss with Morse Code in 2005, the
reasons are the same as why anyone would fuss with:

- cars that have manual transmissions instead of automatics

No problem to me...I learned to drive in a manual-transmission auto.

Ancient history. ;-)

You have no valid comparison to morse code.

Yes, I do. Manual transmissions are a valid comparison to Morse Code.
Someone who was really interested in a logical argument could point
out that there is no separate skill test for manual transmission skill
anymore.

Try not to venture into areas where you have no competence.

I don't do that, Len. I am skilled in both manual transmission
operation
and Morse Code operation.

You, on the other hand, have no competence in Morse Code operation,
yet you blather on about it endlessly. Perhaps you should take your
own advice of "Try not to venture into areas where you have no
competence."

When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both
had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in
it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic
transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear
changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy
Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic
transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro
(as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual
gear changing.

But they are not manual transmissions. They are automatic
transmissions.

Didn't have to know morse code to drive...

But isn't manual transmission a "dying" technology? Why would anyone
bother to learn it in 2005?

Manual transmission is not favored in many states due to emission
limits, by law, not by the fact that manual transmissions are a
decided inconvenience.

Doesn't answer the question, Len.

Truck-tractors have manual transmissions.

For various reasons.

Most cars equipped with
automatic transmissions can also do manual gear changing; they
just don't have any clutch.

There are more differences than "they just don't have any clutch",
however. But that is all beside the point.

- sailboats instead of power boats

Sailing under the wind takes much less fuel than power boats...

Morse Code takes less power than voice transmission.

There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order
to pilot a sailing vessel.

Not the point.

Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound-
powered" telecommunications sets.

Actually, I have.

No DC or AC power needed to
operate them. There is no equivalent for telegraphy.

Sure there is - it's called wigwag.

Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using
sail power about 100 years ago.

Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are
real.

Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces. They
represent
less than 1% of the fleet of those military services.

Morse Code, OTOH, represents much more than 1% of amateur radio
operation.

No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat.

There are almost no commercial uses
for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating,
and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well.

That is an absolute?

Yes - is it not true?

Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft."

Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple
facts.
Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby"
boating?

There are NO commercial uses for morse code skill in the USA
except for the companies selling morse code practice material.

And the companies selling Morse Code equipment.

In any event, the analogy between sailing and Morse Code is obvious,
valid, and very clear.

- Drawing and painting instead of photography

No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do.

Still have your crayons, huh?

Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design
in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles.

Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there?

Pasadena forensics
could practice on what was left of you after saying that.

Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a
simple question? Sure looks like it.

When
I went to Art Center it was in the city of Los Angeles, on 3rd
Street, somewhat near CBS City and the Pan-Pacific Auditorium.

Do you still have your crayons, Len?

Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography?

No.

I can
give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My
photographs and illustrations have been published in national
magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and
illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that
isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day
screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints,
brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still
works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system
common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for
painting in preference for the finer linen media.

That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies.
Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer
graphics. Why do you live in the past?

Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or
photography?

By analogy.

- Homemade food instead of packaged

How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-)

Is that where your cooking winds up, Len?

Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow
campers.

I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-)

Try not to "get along so well with others" in your writing.
It looks hostile and argumentative.

Awwww...can't you take a little humor, Len? :-)
Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten
others?

Show me ANY evidence that ANY AM transmitter since 1906 has
used amplitude modulation via a carbon microphone in series
with the antenna lead... :-)

Why?

It would further prove the efficacy of "morse code efficiency"
to all others.

How? The point is simply that Fessenden was using AM voice
effectively more than 100 years ago. You deny and denigrate
his successes, but they are well documented all the same.

Tsk, tsk, trying to get around your gaffe by bringing in
"engineering?" :-)

What gaffe, Len? "Electronics" is a subset of electrical engineering.

Electronics is a part of Physics.

No, it isn't. I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college.
None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical
engineering covered electronics.

Part of Electronics is SCIENCE.
What isn't science is technology.

No, it's all part of engineering.

Application of electronic
technology is done in electrical and electronic engineering.

Says who? You? Bwaaahaahaa!

Science is about discovering the laws of nature. Engineering
is about doing practical things.

Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true
electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous)
kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was
simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God,
celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly
thought at the time.

Franklin the scientist determined the nature of
lightning.

But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where
I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree)
didn't stop with just the scientific discovery of
the nature of lightning. He went on to develop the
first systems of lightning protection (commonly
known even today as "lightning rods" to protect
structures. His system was the first practical
electrical device or system, earning him the
honor of being the first Electrical Engineer.

You are confused. I made NO mistake about DD-214s.

Yes, you did. Also UCMJ, usenet, and many others. Buck
up and learn to live with your own imperfections, Len.

You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to
you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You
cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ
other than some casual thing that applies only to others.

Irrelevant - you didn't even know what the acronym "UCMJ"
stood for. You made a mistake.

If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that.

Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005.
3,795 of them. :-)

So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise.

The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of
them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one
more has been added in the ECFS.

You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len,
even though the url was given in the filed comments. If you'd
actually read and understood them, you'd know have seen it and
been able to compare it with your own.

There is NO "evidence" at www.ah0a.org

Yes, there is. Each filing is categorized, and a direct, automatic
link provided so that anyone can compare the categorization to
the actual filing documents.

I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments
so accessible.

except in the highly-
biased opinion of a long-time morseman...

How are those results "biased", Len?

How are they any more "biased" than yours, in which you
count multiple filings by the same person as separate
opinions, as long as they are not exactly identical?

Do you think your anticodetest opinion is 10 times more
valid than the procodetest opinion of someone who
simply filed a comment?

one whose Petitions
before the Commission have been DENIED.

Lots of people have had their petitions DENIED,
either in whole or in part:

NCI's petition to have a "sunset" clause on Morse Code testing was
DENIED

NCI and NCVEC's petitions to simply dump Element 1 by Memorandum
Report and Order, and to avoid the whole NPRM cycle, were both DENIED

ARRL and NCI's petitions to give free upgrades to over 300,000 amateurs
were DENIED

NCVEC's petition to create a new "Communicator" license class was
DENIED.

And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age
requirement for
an amateur radio license was DENIED.

Have you *ever* filed a real petition with FCC, Len? One that got an RM
number,
drew comments, etc.? I think not.

When you make a sweeping general statement, and someone
proves an exception, the statement is shown to be false. That's
basic logic.

No, Jimmy, all that proves is EXCEPTIONS. :-)

In your illogical mind, I suppose.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine. I
will not stop writing facts and truth just because they bother you.

Your Commercial license does not qualify you to operate an
amateur radio station.

Your amateur radio operator's license does NOT "qualify" you
to operate any commercial radio station, radionavigation
station, space-communications station, radiosonde station,
radar of any kind, television transmitter, aircraft
transmitter, maritime vessel transmitter, land mobile radio
service transmitter, or microwave radio relay station.

Never said it did.

Mine does.

Do you own any of those?

Legally, you are the same as a person
with no license at all when it comes to operating an amateur
radio station.

Do you wish to take me to civil court? Federal court?

If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station
illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job,
not mine.

Secondly, I've never tested for any amateur radio license

(that's good)

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

so the FCC cannot say I am either "qualified" or "unqualified."

Incorrect again!

You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and
AUTHORIZED.

Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an
amateur radio station.

FCC considers every unlicensed person to be unqualified to operate
an amateur radio station. That's why they issue licenses - to identify
those who are qualified.

Wrong.

No, it's exactly right. Those whom the FCC considers qualified are
issued licenses. FCC does not consider any unlicensed person to
be qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC issues licenses as part of their overall civil
radio regulatory task.

FCC only issues licenses to those who demonstrate that they are
qualified. The licenses can be revoked if the licensee demonstrates
that they are not qualified.

All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are
considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither
qualified nor authorized.

The FCC was never chartered by LAW to be an academic or skill-
achievement agency. They AUTHORIZE license holders to operate
and transmit RF energy according to the regulations pertaining
to the type and kind of radio service they are AUTHORIZED in.

You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio
station, Len. FCC says so.

FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC has "said" no such thing to me.

Yes, they have.

They've never once
written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything...

They don't have to, Len. The regulations clearly define what an
amateur radio station is, and what license is required to operate
one. You don't have the required license, so by definition you
are not qualified - and not authorized - to operate an amateur
radio station.

The license is the qualification.

It is an AUTHORIZATION. It is a PERMISSION. It is a GRANT.

You have none of those.

By definition. FCC says you're
not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

No, I am not permitted - by regulation - to transmit RF energy
exceeding incidental RF radiation limits on allocated amateur-
only frequencies without possessing an amateur radio license
grant.

True, but incomplete.

By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed
to operate an amateur radio station.

The military of the United States and the federal government of
the United States (other than the FCC) have QUALIFIED me to
operate radio transmitters according to military/government
regulations. Experience in actual successful transmission of
RF energy has furthered that qualification.

None of which extends to amateur radio stations. You are not
authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed to operate an amateur
radio station.

Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio
station, Len?

I was against the code test long before Bruce Perens put NCI
together.

Prove it.

Go to the FCC Reading Room and look up correspondence to them
prior to the earliest ECFS-available date. That is an un-
alterable third-party reference.

What date should I look for?

I did not keep ALL correspondence I've done in the last four
decades.

So you have no proof.

I cannot digitize and present what I no longer have.
The FCC Reading Room keeps records intact, archived.

And what date are you claiming?

You've already taken that test, will never have to test for it
again unless you miss the last renewal date and expire that
license.

Doesn't matter - I could pass it again easily. You can't even pass it
once.

More hostility and combativeness. Tsk, NOT "getting along with
others" on your part.

I'm just telling you the facts.

I have never taken any amateur radio license test, therefore I
neither "passed" nor "failed" it. That only proves the PAST.

You can't even pass the tests once. Not all of them, anyway.

You stated what I allegedly "could not do" in the future.
You are not prescient, cannot tell the future. Ergo, your
remark is simply one of hostility and combatativeness.

No, I simply point out what you can't do *now*....

Telling someone the Morse Code test is a good thing isn't hostile, Len.

Sorry, it IS hostile when you presume your opinion to be an
absolute. It is only your opinion. You frequently try to make
your opinions as absolutes. That is wrong.

Where have I made my opinions absolute? Give us a concrete example.

Also consider how many times you have stated your opinions as
facts, then had them shown to be unsupported by facts.

Not me. I'm not the one who's afraid to turn on a receiver and
listen to the low ends of the HF amateur bands....

Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced.

Really? ;-)

First, I was
not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day
holiday weekend.

But you could have been...

Second, I've already "turned on and listened"
to all parts of the MF and HF spectrum...many times...even
looked at it with a spectrum analyzer.

But you avoid those parts where Morse Code can most likely
be found, right?

At the end of my "first job in radio" I got a DD-214. You don't
have one.

How do you know, Len?

You've never served in the armed forces of the United States.

How do you know?

Had you done so, you would have received a DD-214 as a release
from active duty. You've said you did not serve,

When?

I have never claimed to have served in any military. That does not
mean I never served.

There's a lot of things I have done which I have not mentioned here.
That really seems to bother you.

"It must drive you nuts not knowing" what my interests are... :-)

I know what they are, Len.

Incorrect again. All you "know" is what I've written in here.
I've not written about all of my "interests" or "what I've
done" or "what I do."

You've written such long diatribes about your activities that
it's hard not to know, Len.

Considering your near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, it's a good thing you didn't talk about those
subjects.

"Near-complete ignorance?!?"

Yes.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

It's a fact that you have near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, Len.

That's good, considering that you're hardly a good role model.

"Hardly a good role model?!?"

Yep.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. More combative hostility and a decided LACK of
ability to get along with others on your part.

Do you think others should act like you, Len? Do you think you're
a good role model of professional - or amateur - behavior?

Or are you one of those who think that others should do as you
say, not as you do?

From: on Dec 2, 5:33 pm


wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am
wrote:
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm


Not longer than 71 years in the regulations of the FCC.

You didn't specify "regulations of the FCC" before. Now you're
trying to change the boundary conditions. Old trick, doesn't work.

"Boundary conditions?" :-)

Tsk, you aren't old enough to have been licensed under any
other federal radio agency besides the FCC. :-)


You have no valid comparison to morse code.

Yes, I do. Manual transmissions are a valid comparison to Morse Code.

Sorry, but that's really so far out of "boundary conditions"
that it is a ridiculous analogue. :-)


I don't do that, Len. I am skilled in both manual transmission
operation and Morse Code operation.

Oh? Tsk, I didn't see you at that NASCAR awards banquet
telecast tonight...were you waiting in the wings or
something?

Can you hop into any 18-wheeler's tractor and "skillfully"
operate the gear shifting there? :-)


You, on the other hand, have no competence in Morse Code operation,
yet you blather on about it endlessly. Perhaps you should take your
own advice of "Try not to venture into areas where you have no
competence."

Now, now, your "boundary conditions" are getting blurred by
the red haze of your hostility... :-)


When my wife and I got our new 2005 Chevy Malibu in June, we both
had to learn part of its transmission control, very different in
it's "low" setting from previous Chevrolets with automatic
transmission. That automatic transmission allows manual gear
changing. The automatic transmission on our older 1992 Chevy
Cavalier Wagon allowed manual gear changing. The automatic
transmission on our even older 1982 Chevy Berlinetta Camaro
(as well as my old '70 Camaro and '67 Camaro) allowed manual
gear changing.

But they are not manual transmissions. They are automatic
transmissions.

Funny! Takes MANUAL MOVEMENT by hands to set the right gear. :-)


Doesn't answer the question, Len.

What "question?" Vehicle transmissions aren't involved in any
amateur radio license examinations. My, you DO stray from the
subject a lot when misdirecting... :-)


There are more differences than "they just don't have any clutch",
however. But that is all beside the point.

Ah! NOW you are getting the point. Took you long enough...



There is NO federal requirement to learn morse code in order
to pilot a sailing vessel.

Not the point.

Ah, but YOU brought that up to begin with... :-)


Obviously you've never been on a water vessel that had "sound-
powered" telecommunications sets.

Actually, I have.

Oh, my, you "have" done everything? :-)


Sure there is - it's called wigwag.

No, those are called SEMAPHORE FLAGS. Those are useless at night
so the U.S. Army Signal Corps used TORCHES at night. Both kinds
on both sides during the U.S. Civil War. The very same flag/torch
positions, too! :-)

The flags crossed, overlaid by a single torch, appear as the
collar insignia of all U.S. Army signal persons today...the
same as they did when I served in the U.S. Army as a signalman.



Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using
sail power about 100 years ago.

Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are
real.

Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces.

Funny! I suppose lots of USN and USCG academy midshipmen
"train to be museum curators?" :-)

They represent less than 1% of the fleet of those military services.

How do you KNOW? :-)


No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat.

There are almost no commercial uses
for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating,
and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well.

That is an absolute?

Yes - is it not true?

Yes, it is not true. :-)


Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft."

Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple facts.
Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby"
boating?

I think your terms are a bit wrong. It is PLEASURE boating, not
"hobby" boating. :-)

So, is morse code skill required to pilot ANY boat or ship?



In any event, the analogy between sailing and Morse Code is obvious,
valid, and very clear.

Only in a dense fog of your own making. Sound your foghorn
like a good little "hobby" mariner...toot, toot! :-)



- Drawing and painting instead of photography

No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do.

Still have your crayons, huh?

Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design
in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles.

Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there?

I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on
3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-)

Pasadena forensics
could practice on what was left of you after saying that.

Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a
simple question? Sure looks like it.

BWWAAAAAAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!!

Poor lad, you are WORRIED? :-)


Do you still have your crayons, Len?

A couple of "Conte crayons." Stubs, left-overs. Few use Conte
crayons now. As far as I know, those weren't made by Crayola.

Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography?

No.

You might find references to Conte crayons in an old art text.

Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience."


I can
give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My
photographs and illustrations have been published in national
magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and
illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that
isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day
screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints,
brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still
works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system
common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for
painting in preference for the finer linen media.

That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies.
Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer
graphics.

Oh, my, you'll have to tell all the illustrators everywhere that
their techniques are "dying!" All the lithography producers
will have to shut down! All the Art Schools have to shut down!
Oh, my, all that commotion! :-)

Why do you live in the past?

I live in the past?!?

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell us how morse code skill is used in art or illustration or
photography?

By analogy.

Is "analogy" a new kind of art media? [yes, I Gesso... :-) ]


- Homemade food instead of packaged

How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-)

Is that where your cooking winds up, Len?

Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow
campers.

I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-)

How do you KNOW?

Tsk, tsk, more HOSTILITY showing there...


Awwww...can't you take a little humor, Len? :-)

I love humor. Too bad you don't display any.

Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten
others?

I "threatened" you? How so?

Are you worried about "threats?" Are you insecure?


How? The point is simply that Fessenden was using AM voice
effectively more than 100 years ago. You deny and denigrate
his successes, but they are well documented all the same.

Tsk. Show me ANY OTHER AM transmitter that "modulates" by
putting a carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead.

:-)


... I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college.
None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical
engineering covered electronics.

Tsk. "As you studied it" so goes the world? :-)


Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true
electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous)
kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was
simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God,
celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly
thought at the time.

Tsk, tsk. I read Ben's biography entitled "Benjamin
Franklin - An American Life," by Walter Isaacson.

Franklin the scientist determined the nature of
lightning.

Franklin was hardly schooled. He had only HONORARY
degrees.

But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where
I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree)

Yes, yes, on and on with the Philly stuff. :-)

Franklin died in 1790. The first morse code wasn't
used until 1844. "Radio" was still very unknown as
to what it was in 1844.


You have never, ever been subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. You have never had a DD-214 issued to
you. You will never have a DD-214 issued to you. You
cannot ever understand the actual implications of the UCMJ
other than some casual thing that applies only to others.

Irrelevant - you didn't even know what the acronym "UCMJ"
stood for.

You mean UNIFORM Code of Military Justice? :-)

I knew full well what it "stood for." I was subject to it
for four years of active duty in the United States Army.

You made a mistake.

Oh HORRORS! A MISTAKE! :-)

Let's see...this is the year 2005...and the last time I wore
a full U.S. Army UNIFORM was in 1956. That's 49 years in the
past. I still have one set of winter, one set of summer
UNIFORM clothing in a clothing bag stored in the empty space
of the guest room at the southern house. All mine. Has
the last four digits of my Army serial number stamped on the
clothing. Do you have anything like that? I don't think so.


If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that.

Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005.
3,795 of them. :-)


So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise.

The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of
them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one
more has been added in the ECFS.

You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len,
even though the url was given in the filed comments.

I don't really care one lil bitty rat snit about those
"other analyses." :-)

I did mine. The Commission knows it. That's enough for me.

By the way, as of 2 PM EST on 2 December 2005, there were
exactly 3,800 filings in WT Docket 05-235.

Haven't you been keeping up?


I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments
so accessible.

"Jealous" of Joe Speroni? The Hawaiian Morseman?

Hardly. All his Petitions before the Commission have been DENIED.


Lots of people have had their petitions DENIED,
either in whole or in part:

Speroni's have been DENIED in WHOLE. :-)


And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age
requirement for an amateur radio license was DENIED.

Tsk, my SUGGESTION to the Commission (filed on 13 January
1999) on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to Comments wasn't
even mentioned in FCC 99-412, the R&O for Restructuring. :-)

Those are the breaks in regulatory politics. :-)



You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine.

Nope, NOT "my problem." You are simply hostile to anyone
who won't accept morse code wholeheartedly. You insist on
keeping the code test and don't have any valid reasons
for doing so except for canned phrases that were conditioned
into your mind by the league.

Why ARE you so obsessed with putting down all who want the
code test eliminated? I won't matter to you, personally.
You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges
regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays.

Not to worry. There will always be some morseperson around
to play with you in your morse playground.


If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station
illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job,
not mine.

Oh, my...do you carry a "shield" that states you are an
"official" radio person "authorized by the federal
government" or something like that?

Tsk, tsk, you ought to hang around truck stops and butt in
on truckers who you suspect are doing "illegal" CB activity!

Why, you could even be a RADIO BOUNTY HUNTER! Might even
get a movie done on your life a la Domino Harvey!


You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and
AUTHORIZED.

Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an
amateur radio station.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you have no "boundary conditions" there, senior.

[ chuckle, chuckle ]



All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are
considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither
qualified nor authorized.

[ remember the "boundary conditions!" :-) ]




FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC has "said" no such thing to me.

Yes, they have.

In a real document addressed to ME? :-)

Maybe in a telephone call? :-)

They've never once
written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything...

They don't have to, Len.

Please make up your mind. :-)

First you said the FCC "said something to me," now you say
"they don't have to."

You contradict yourself.


You have none of those.

None of what?

You have no DD-214 form. You will never have a DD-214 form.
Yet you claim to have knowledge of "how military life is."

Hey, no problem with me. Dudly the Imposter probably does
all your fantasizing for you. :-)


By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed
to operate an amateur radio station.

Wow! Several months ago I was looking at the Burbank HRO store
station, even tweaked a transceiver dial to tune in a SSB signal
clearer! Hey, get the surveilance camera tapes! You might find
me on them doing that! Wowee! You can make an ARREST!

You might even make the cover of QST for doing that! Fame!
:-)

Article 73 of the UNIFORM Code of Amateur Morse Excellence?

[ UCAME ] [ I'll bet you did! ]



Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio
station, Len?

Tsk, why SHOULD I do such a thing? :-)

You might ARREST me or something!

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



What date should I look for?

Yours for Saturday night...you need to get out more...



I'm just telling you the facts.

Before you kept on saying "all I'm doing is asking questions."

Which is it?



You can't even pass the tests once. Not all of them, anyway.

How do you KNOW that? :-)



Where have I made my opinions absolute? Give us a concrete example.

What kind of mix? Structural? Fill? Fine-sand type?


Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced.

Really? ;-)

I have served in the military of the United States. Volunteering
during a war time. Taking an oath to defend the United States
and its Constitution with my life if needs be.

You've NEVER done that, haven't served, don't know dink about
real military life...yet you imply "cowardice" on the part of
others and try to tell them what real military life is like.

Yes, really, no-guts.


First, I was
not at any HF receiver during most of the Thanksgiving Day
holiday weekend.

But you could have been...

BBWWWAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I have never claimed to have served in any military. That does not
mean I never served.

You served as a civilian waiter in an officer's club? :-)



There's a lot of things I have done which I have not mentioned here.

You and Dudly the Imposter ought to get together and write a book
about "all the things you've not mentioned here!"

It ought to be a best smeller on some newspapers' literary section!


It's a fact that you have near-complete ignorance of Morse Code and
amateur radio, Len.

Oh, dear, there you go again...all that HOSTILITY! :-)

Near-COMPLETE Ignorance! :-)



Do you think others should act like you, Len?

Considering I'm NOT in show business, yes, I don't think so! :-)

My acting would return Hollywood productions back to the silent
era. :-)


Not to worry. I'll wait patiently for amateur agents of the
UNIFORM Code of Amateur Morsemanship Excellence (UCAME) to
arrest me for "cowardice" and "being a bad role model", perhaps
some unspecified "charges" which are considered heretical to
the mighty Church of St. Hiram!

Captain Code! Captain Code! Where is Captain Code when he is
needed?!?

Help! Help! Call Isaac...I'm laughing my ass-im-off!

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Sun, Nov 27 2005 6:55 pm

cut
my apologies I was trying to simply agee on paper with Jim...

Paper? Where's the paper?

gog find it

Gog find it?

Isn't "Gog" that troll-like character in the comic strip
"B.C."...?!?!?

...as a
Retorical tactic I was also accepting the screwed up procode difer that
says Cw test was the same as operating skill...

I beg to "difer" with your "Retorical" tactic, Colonel.

beg all you like I can't help

There's so little you CAN help with, Markie.

(just tryin some
hypothecials to see if Jim could get past the nonsense or if Jim is as
traped as Stevie and Dave

Only "hyptothecially" could you "trape" anybody.

did you have anything to say?

it doesn't look like it

The point he was making, Blockhead, is that who can understand
YOUR point...?!?!

E N G L I S H ! ! ! !

S P E L L C H E C K E R ! ! ! !

H O O K E D O N P H O N I C S ! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

wrote


They're floating museum pieces.


In your dreams, landlubber! Just a couple of examples for you.....

The USS Constitution, homeported at Boston, is a commissioned US Navy ship (in
fact the flagship of the US Navy) with a full active duty crew of sailors. Not
a museum (the museum is across the street from her berth).

The USCG Barque Eagle, homeported at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticutt, is
a working training ship, used in training future seagoing officers.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
From: on Dec 2, 5:33 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Nov 29 2005 3:38 am
wrote:
From: on Nov 27, 3:55 pm

Tsk, you aren't old enough to have been licensed under any
other federal radio agency besides the FCC. :-)

Neither are you, Len ;-) ;-)

Sure there is - it's called wigwag.

No, those are called SEMAPHORE FLAGS.

No, they're not. Semaphore and wigwag are two different things.
Look it up.

Except for a few floating museum pieces, the US Navy stopped using
sail power about 100 years ago.

Go to the docking area at the U.S. Naval Academy or the U.S. Coast
Guard Academy. Are those "tall ships" illusions? No, they are
real.

Nobody said they aren't real. They're floating museum pieces.

Funny! I suppose lots of USN and USCG academy midshipmen
"train to be museum curators?" :-)

In a way, yes. They're keeping a tradition alive. Those sailing vessels
aren't used for actual Navy or Coast Guard operations other than
training and display.

No morse code skill is needed to pilot a sail or power boat.

There are almost no commercial uses
for sailboats in the USA - powerboats dominate all but "hobby" boating,
and power boats probably dominate hobby boating as well.

That is an absolute?

Yes - is it not true?

Yes, it is not true. :-)

Why isn't it true, Len?

Very well, we will put you down as a claimed "Master of Marine Craft."

Why? I don't claim to be an expert. I just stated a few plain, simple facts.
Are those facts not true? Do not powerboats dominate all but "hobby"
boating?

I think your terms are a bit wrong. It is PLEASURE boating, not
"hobby" boating. :-)

It's amateur radio, not "hobby" radio...

- Drawing and painting instead of photography

No problem to me...I did all three as a kid, still do.

Still have your crayons, huh?

Ha. Ha. You would be a hit at the Art Center School of Design
in the Pasadena area of Greater Los Angeles.

Do you teach there, Len? Do you have a degree from there?

I went to Art Center for a year at their old campus on
3rd Street in Los Angeles. :-)

Did you flunk out? Or perhaps you just GAVE UP?

Pasadena forensics
could practice on what was left of you after saying that.

Why? Are you threatening violence against me for asking a
simple question? Sure looks like it.

BWWAAAAAAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!!!!!

Poor lad, you are WORRIED? :-)

Not me. I'm just curious why you would mention

"Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying
that."

What did you mean by that sentence?

Do you still have your crayons, Len?

A couple of "Conte crayons." Stubs, left-overs. Few use Conte
crayons now. As far as I know, those weren't made by Crayola.

Do you need lessons in art, illustration, or photography?

No.

You might find references to Conte crayons in an old art text.

Texts and old books seems to be where you get your "experience."

Well, you're wrong about that.

I can
give you them and show how it is done by actual examples. My
photographs and illustrations have been published in national
magazines. I can work with nearly all media in art and
illustration: pencil, pen, (yes) crayon (but of a type that
isn't sold to children), chalk, ink on scratchboard, Ben Day
screen illustration board, oils, watercolors, caesin paints,
brush or air-brush (my Paasche air-brush compressor still
works although I preferred the CO2 bottle pressure system
common in commercial practice). I've given up "canvas" for
painting in preference for the finer linen media.

That's nice, Len. But the fact is that all those are old technologies.
Many would say they are "dying" or "dead" compared to computer
graphics.

Oh, my, you'll have to tell all the illustrators everywhere that
their techniques are "dying!"

It's what you've told us about Morse Code, even though you're not
involved.

All the lithography producers
will have to shut down! All the Art Schools have to shut down!
Oh, my, all that commotion! :-)

Why do you live in the past?

I live in the past?!?

Yes.

- Homemade food instead of packaged

How do you categorize campfire cooking? :-)

Is that where your cooking winds up, Len?

Only when camping, Jimmy, and then into the interior of fellow
campers.

I meant it winds up *in* the campfire....;-)

How do you KNOW?

It's clear from your gassiness here....;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Are you so INTENSE and SERIOUS that you must threaten
others?

I "threatened" you? How so?

"Pasadena forensics could practice on what was left of you after saying
that."

What did you mean by that?

... I studied lots of Physics in both highschool and college.
None of the physics courses covered Electronics. Electrical
engineering covered electronics.

Tsk. "As you studied it" so goes the world? :-)

Can you show any physics textbooks or courses that include
electronic design or analysis?

Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist and the first true
electrical engineer. His elegant (and very dangerous)
kite/key/Leyden jar experiment proved that lightning was
simply an electrical discharge, and not the wrath of God,
celestial fire, or some other force as was commonly
thought at the time.

Tsk, tsk. I read Ben's biography entitled "Benjamin
Franklin - An American Life," by Walter Isaacson.

So?

Franklin the scientist determined the nature of
lightning.

Franklin was hardly schooled. He had only HONORARY
degrees.

So he founded a great University that thrives today.

But ol' Ben (who also founded the University where
I earned my first Electrical Engineering degree)

Yes, yes, on and on with the Philly stuff. :-)

It's good stuff. Our country was born right here in
Philadelphia.

Franklin died in 1790. The first morse code wasn't
used until 1844. "Radio" was still very unknown as
to what it was in 1844.

You mean UNIFORM Code of Military Justice? :-)

Yep - not "universal" as you mistakenly wrote.

I knew full well what it "stood for."

No you didn't. You messed up.

If you actually read all of the comments, you'd know that.

Each and every filing from 15 July 2005 to 23 November 2005.
3,795 of them. :-)

So you claim, but the evidence says otherwise.

The evidence is the filings on WT Docket 05-235. All 3,796 of
them from 15 July 2005 to 25 November 2005. Note that one
more has been added in the ECFS.

You didn't know where to find the other analysis of the filings, Len,
even though the url was given in the filed comments.

I don't really care one lil bitty rat snit about those
"other analyses." :-)

You sure made a lot of noise about them, though. Yet
you couldn't find them even though they were right in
the comments you claim to have read and understood.

I think you didn't really read and understand all the comments.

I did mine. The Commission knows it. That's enough for me.

Yes, Len, we know you can't deal with facts and opinions different
from your own.

I think you're jealous that someone else made the comments
so accessible.

"Jealous" of Joe Speroni?

Yes. You're obviously very jealous. Green with envy. Your
behavior shows it.

The Hawaiian Morseman?

There you go, acting all jealous and envious because someone
did a better analysis than you did.

Hardly. All his Petitions before the Commission have been DENIED.

You don't have any Petitions before the Commission, Len. You're
too afraid to write one and have it DENIED.

And your request (not even a petition, really) to create an age
requirement for an amateur radio license was DENIED.

Tsk, my SUGGESTION to the Commission (filed on 13 January
1999) on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to Comments wasn't
even mentioned in FCC 99-412, the R&O for Restructuring. :-)

Yep - it wasn't worth the Commission's time or effort.

More important, you didn't follow the rules on Reply Comments
back in 1999. Reply Comments are only supposed to be a
reply to comments made by others - they are not supposed to
bring up new suggestions. If you wanted to suggest an age
requirement, the time to do that was during the Comment
period, not the Reply Comment period. You're just as guilty
of procedural mistakes as the folks who send in comments
long after the deadline.

You see facts and truth as hostile, Len. Your problem, not mine.

Nope, NOT "my problem."

Yes, your problem.

You are simply hostile to anyone
who won't accept morse code wholeheartedly.

Wrong!

Am I "hostile" to K2UNK? WK3C? K2ASP?

You insist on
keeping the code test

Yes, I do. Is that not allowed?

and don't have any valid reasons
for doing so except for canned phrases that were conditioned
into your mind by the league.

That's simply not the case, Len. You're completely wrong on that.
Grow up and accept that yours is not the only way of looking at
things.

Why ARE you so obsessed with putting down all who want the
code test eliminated?

Where have I done that?

I won't matter to you, personally.

You don't matter to me at all, Len.

You will retain your full amateur rank-status-privileges
regardless of whether the code test goes away or stays.

It's not about those things at all, Len. It's about what's good and
bad for the Amateur Radio Service. I see the code test as being
a good thing for the Amateur Radio service.

Not to worry. There will always be some morseperson around
to play with you in your morse playground.

Can you be sure?

If I had evidence that you operated an amateur radio station
illegally, I would report it to FCC. Enforcement is their job,
not mine.

Oh, my...do you carry a "shield" that states you are an
"official" radio person "authorized by the federal
government" or something like that?

Don't need any such thing.

You do not understand the difference between "qualified" and
AUTHORIZED.

Yes, I do. You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an
amateur radio station.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you have no "boundary conditions" there, senior.

[ chuckle, chuckle ]

You are neither qualified nor authorized to operate an amateur radio
station,
Len.

All persons who have not demonstrated qualification to FCC are
considered unqualified. You, Leonard H. Anderson, are neither
qualified nor authorized.

[ remember the "boundary conditions!" :-) ]

FCC says you're not qualified to operate an amateur radio station.

The FCC has "said" no such thing to me.

Yes, they have.

In a real document addressed to ME? :-)

Maybe in a telephone call? :-)

In the regulations.

They've never once
written to me that I am "unqualified" in anything...

They don't have to, Len.

Please make up your mind. :-)

First you said the FCC "said something to me," now you say
"they don't have to."

You contradict yourself.

Do you think you are qualified and/or authorized to operate an
amateur radio station, Len?

Do you think you are qualified and/or authorized to operate *my*
amateur radio station, Len?

By definition, you are not authorized, qualified, permitted or licensed
to operate an amateur radio station.

Wow! Several months ago I was looking at the Burbank HRO store
station, even tweaked a transceiver dial to tune in a SSB signal
clearer! Hey, get the surveilance camera tapes! You might find
me on them doing that! Wowee! You can make an ARREST!

That's not "operating".

Do you think you are qualified to operate *my* amateur radio
station, Len?

Tsk, why SHOULD I do such a thing? :-)

I'll take that as a "no".

You might ARREST me or something!

For answering a question?

Your implication of "cowardice" is misplaced.

Really? ;-)

I have served in the military of the United States. Volunteering
during a war time. Taking an oath to defend the United States
and its Constitution with my life if needs be.

That's a brave act, Len. But it was more than a half-century ago.

You've NEVER done that, haven't served, don't know dink about
real military life...yet you imply "cowardice" on the part of
others and try to tell them what real military life is like.

Not me, Len. I said you were afraid - and you are. People are
afraid of all sorts of things. You were afraid to let your neighbors
build two-story houses....

Yes, really, no-guts.

I didn't say you had no guts, Len.

But you sure don't display any courage
or bravery here....