About Us

November 21st 05, 07:01 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Nov 19, 6:34 pm

wrote:
From: on Thurs 17 Nov 2005 02:45
wrote:
From: on Nov 16, 2:20 am
Dave Heil wrote:

In other words, if it didn't make money for you, it wasn't going to
get your time and effort.
You really can't understand anyone who doesn't have YOUR
immaculate set of "standards" can you?
I've met people like you, Len.

No you haven't, Heil.

That's funny. I could have sworn that I just wrote that I had.

People like me would AVOID your kind.

They certainly might try.

Such avoidance allows you to continue living.

I wouldn't really get goose bumps over threats made by an unpleasant
geezer, Len, especially one nearly three thousand miles away.

Be greatful for that.

Are you trying to come off as menacing? The word is "grateful".

They're all about what positions they've
held, how much they made, the cost of their home(s), the brand and year
of the car they drive.

Such as those who were "in the foreign service"...

"Foreign Service"

now living in a large residence with many antennas? That fancy,
expensive Orion transceiver? :-)

I don't recall making any issue of my home. I don't recall expounding
on the expense of my antenna system. I don't think I've ever used the
word "expensive" in describing my radio equipment. Perhaps you can't
refresh my memory.

They miss a lot of life.

They do? Ohm my. Do you define "life" as only enjoying what
YOU enjoy?

No, I define life by events, experiences and people. I made a postive
comment about the late Vic Clark the other day. What was your response?

I don't think that's right. Everyone ought to do what THEY
like...at least in my mind.

We're supposed to do what we like in your mind?

You seem to think that is wrong.

Well now, it certainly *seems* wrong. I'd have likely said, "To my way
of thinking, people should do what they enjoy doing. Of course, that'd
be wrong too. Everyone is faced with doing some responsible things or
some unpleasant things or some things they'd rather not be doing.

What am I "missing?" I have many activities, all of which
I have selected based on what I enjoy.

See above. Add that you seem to measure men by their material
possessions and by the trappings of worldly success. You miss a lot of
things doing it that way.

I enjoy some luxuries in life and the freedom of retirement.
I enjoy the relationship I have renewed with my wife (after
a long absence since our days together in high school). I
enjoy a new car which is not a luxury vehicle and replaces
a 1992 model. I enjoy a number of friends both here and
around the country, just recently having a reunion with
family friends in the midwest plus good companionship with
my wife's classmates at their 50th Graduation Reunion.

You must present quite a different face than the one you put on here.

They never seem to do anything for the love of it.

No? :-)

Have you ever considered that what YOU observe in others
might be flawed?

Not really. I'm thinking that you must keep a spare face on hand for
those occasion when you're zipping around visiting those friends.

Nah. You are without flaw...you are an Extra Morseman!

I have my flaws, Len. I spend way too much time here, jousting with
those who don't really have any impact on my life. I'm intolerant of
boneheads, blowhards and the stupid. I *am* an Extra Class Amateur
Radio licensee and I use morse code among the several others I enjoy.

It isn't just about baby steps (not baby shoes), is it? You don't care
to join an activity where you'd still be considered a beginner, do you?
I mean, you haven't achieved the neophyte level in amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...more arrogant superiority manifest there, Heil.

It is a factual statement, is it not?

Amateur radio is basically a HOBBY. It isn't a craft, guild,
or union that demands some kind of "apprentice-journeyman-
master" hierarchial order...

It is more than a hobby. Part 97 of the Amateur Service regs do not
outline amateur radio as a hobby. There certainly is a hierarchy,
though it does not necessarily depend upon one's license class. There's
nothing wrong with being a beginner in amateur radio. To become a
beginner, you'd need to start. You never started.

...except in the minds of some olde
fahrts who love to talk down to "lesser folk" (the ones THEY
think are "lesser").

That's the kind of thing which I can guaranty to make your time as a
beginner difficult.

Am I some kind of "beginner" in radio after a half century
of experience in more parts of the EM spectrum than any
amateur is allowed?

No, but you'd be a beginner in amateur radio. You aren't there yet.

Am I some kind of "beginner" because I've
operated transmitters with far higher power outputs than
amateurs are allowed to have?

No, but you'd be a beginner in amateur radio. You aren't there yet.

Am I some kind of "beginner"
because long ago I learned how to design radio circuits from
a blank pad with pen on to the finished hardware and gotten
them to perform as originally specifed?

No, but you'd be a beginner in amateur radio. You aren't there yet.

You seem to think so. What it really boils down to is
manual telegraphy.

Not at all. It has nothing to do with mode of operation. You'd still
be an amateur radio beginner if you chose FM or SSB. Everyone who
enters something for the first time is a beginner. Live with it.

I would be an absolute beginner at telegraphy, no dispute,
if I were to take that up again. All I know is the pattern
of dots and dashes and their corresponding English language
characters. That's suffed into a good memory with lots and
lots and lots of other data, some useful, some not.

You'd be a beginner at all of it, Len. You'd be a new licensee firing
up your rig and calling CQ or responding to one. You'd need to know all
the things which make for a good op and all of the pertinent regulations
governing your operation. You'd need to know the techniques used by
amateurs for specialized modes such as meteor scatter or auroral
communications.

But - and this is very important in the NPRM 05-143 decision -
the FCC has ALREADY made ALL ALLOCATED MODES OPTIONAL TO USE.
There just isn't ANY mandate to exclusively use radiotelegraphy
except on two small slivers of the lower end of 6m and 2m.

I've stated that being a beginner in amateur radio is not mode-dependent.

But, getting the amateur license to use ANY amateur band
below 30 MHz still requires passing a telegraphy test!

Yes, it does. I happen to think that is a good thing.

I'm seeking to eliminate that telegraphy test.

I've gathered that over the years.

There's no
point in having it except as a vestige of pride still felt
by those long-timers who once considered themselves as
'compagnons de telegraphe' because the human-made regulations
gave them status-rank-privileges BECAUSE of that telegraphy
test.

You're starting a speech, Len. The mode is in widespread use. It takes
some skill to use. I already know that it chafes you.
Sorry to snip the rest of your speech. It is much too long and I don't
have the time to devote to reading it.

Beep your little Orion to outer space if you want.

That's not the kind of thing apt to stand you in good stead as an
amateur radio beginner.

You are not yet a god of anything,
are not divine.

You've debated this within yourselves for some time. There are times
when you write that I am a god and times when you write that I'm not a
god. You've never developed a consensus.

You are simply inflexible and self-
righteous...

That's pretty much the way I see you, Leonard--and you aren't even involved.

What do your former employment, income, home and marital status have to
do with your getting an amateur radio license, Len?

If you wish to make some kind of game out taking words
and sentences out of context, then I can beat your game
any time for amount that you can count. That's wasted
effort and impolite.

Feel free to explain how your words were used out of context.

You've told us how great things are for you many, many times, Len.
As if all that somehow explains your obsession.

"Obsession?!?" :-)
Trying to change federal law is an "obsession?"

In your case, yes, it is. You are obsessed.

Incorrect. It is PERSISTENCE.

Feel free to rename your obsession if it pleases you.

It is IDEALISM, a quest to
make things better for others who share some of my interests.

No, I'm sorry. I can't accept your attempt at claiming your motives are
idealism. It just doesn't wash in light of your history of postings.
Even capitalization can't make me buy that.

It is many things but it is definitely not some deviant
obsession.

I don't recall using the word "deviant". Maybe we're nearing a
breakthrough.

On the other hand, those who have met old test regulations
and insist and insist that those should be kept for the
future are suspect. Their self-righteousness is suspect.

I find your own self-righteousness to be suspect, Len--and remember: you
aren't involved.

Their failure to change with a changing reality is suspect.
Their obstinancy

"Obstinacy", Len. You know, I've often had the same feeling about some
guy who breezes into an activity with ideas about changing everything.
He usually does so with the mistaken idea that everything old is bad and
that everything new is good. He takes the position that being seen as
doing anything is better than being seen leaving things alone. The
Foreign Service is rife with them. They typically get "promoted" to
some position where they can't gum up the works.

on keeping the old ways forever in this
new millennium are suspect. Their perceived self-worth
is threatened by feared loss of status and privilege,
perhaps even rank in the pecking order of the "amateur
community."

You've not managed to peck your way in yet, Len. You keep babbling
about self-worth, status, privilege and pecking order. Your own
self-worth is tied up in this somehow. You aren't apt to change rank,
status or pecking order in amateur radio or anything else with your
attitude.

I've just rounded up the usual suspects and shown some light
on them. You complain of the glare in your eyes. Too bad,
that makes it hard for you to admire yourself in the mirror.
Apologies to you for that. I may have to change to a more
intense light source...

Walter! Walter Mitty! You take that trash down to the curb!

You can write "YES it IS" all you want. Obtaining an amateur radio
license isn't about those things.

True, the U.S. amateur radio test regulations have nothing
about baby shoes or taking little baby steps.

Nope. You'll need to put those babies in motion if you intend to get
that (insert license class here) "right out of the box".

RIGHT NOW the U.S. amateur test regulations require a
telegraphy test for any class privileges below 30 MHz.
THAT is what many are trying to change.

It surely is. Many are trying to prevent that change. Many more
couldn't care less.

Then why are you so unfriendly here, Len?

Because both Miccolis and Heil are decidedly unfriendly to
all who disagree with them.

Does this sound like the logic of a man in his seventies?
"Jim and Dave are being mean to me"?

They will not bend from their
self-righteous opinions,

Uhhhhh, you won't bend from your self-righteous opinions.

offer no real concessions on the
code test...

You've never offered *any* concessions on morse code testing.

...act arrogant and superior (Heil becomes abusive)
on the subject of radiotelegraphy.

You were acting arrogant and superior from the very first day I read one
of your posts in this newsgroup. You can't blame it on me. I hadn't
yet made a post.

They increase all that
on replies having opposite opinions. They continue attempts
at "pushing buttons" of those opposed to them.

That sounds like one from the Len Anderson play book.

They have sown what they now reap in return.

Back to Walter Mitty, I see.

That's simply incorrect, Leonard. You insult anyone who favors
retention of morse testing in amateur radio.

Miccolis and Heil both PERCEIVE insults where there is only
strong, sharp responses to their overbearing self-images.

I can't speak for Miccolis. Heil perceives insult where there is
insult. You are all about insult but you like to be on the giving end.
You don't do very well when on the receiving end.

This venue is a debate forum, not a gathering around the
bar at a local fraternal order.

I've read your stuff since about 1996. I've seen very little of debate
from you but much insult.

It does not have to be
"friendly" in the sense that all "must" think alike, have
the same opinions. If you wish "hail fellow well met"
gatherings, seek fellowship among your own kind. This
venue is open to ALL who are able to access it.

Are you telling me to go away again, Len?

Please explain how retention of morse testing is regression in any form.
After all, morse code is used daily by thousands of radio amateurs.

Those radio amateurs - if operating legally - below 30 MHz
using radiotelegraphy have ALREADY passed a federal
telegraphy test. If they have already passed it, removal
of the code test regulation will not affect their operating
privileges.

You didn't answer the question posed to you. Where's the regression?

However, the code test retention WILL affect all those
uncountable in the future who MAY want to get an amateur
radio license having below-30-MHz privileges. They are
not invisible, only uncountable because there is no
accurate way to get their numbers. At best, the Commission
gets only a general impression of their numbers in the
filings on Docket 05-235. So far, those numbers of the
public against code testing are about even with those
for its retention.

Where's the regression?

Care to see your special profile, Leonard?

A "profile" by whom?

Do you know of more than one?

Someone who dislikes me intensely in
public?

You're getting warmer.

By someone who has no claimed training/schooling
in psychology?

I don't think you wrote your own profile.

By someone who is a staunch, stubborn,
steadfast pro-code-test-advocate?

I think he might admit to a couple of those.

Feel free to post any "profile" you wish. I will repeat
it for the benefit of all those who might miss one...as I
have before.

That's awfully big of you, Len. It would really save a lot of extra
work if, every time you act like a jackass, you could post the profile.

Feel free to make a Big Issue of it. All that
does is show what a self-righteous little spiteful
sociopath you are in here when your personal opinions are
countered.

I think I'd have to direct my ire to more of society in order to be
considered a sociopath, Len. Now you take a guy like Roger Wiseman.
You've seen his output here and you've seen the great numbers of
individuals he has targeted. Now *he's* a sociopath. I'm just a guy
who isn't likely to let your insults, wild inaccuracies and fabricated
bafflegab go by unchallenged.

You continue to complain that others insult or denigrate you. You've
told Jim that he never had any "PRIDE" in his work.

Yes, I should be taken to task on that, considering that
Miccolis has NEVER TOLD ANYONE HERE *EXACTLY* WHAT HE DOES
AT HIS *UNNAMED* EMPLOYMENT PLACE.

What's it to you?

You go on to call him "Brother of Dudly".

In some ways Miccolis *IS* like Dudly the Imposter...

Sorry, there is no "Dudly" or "Dudly the Imposter".

...yielding
only vague generalities of what he does/did without giving
more specific descriptions.

Again, what's it to you?

You fit that description in some
posts...such as your "being in a country at war" implying that
you were somehow personally engaged in warfare

What's it to you? I was in the country where the war took place. I
drew combat pay for my entire time in-country. I had orders which
permitted me to anywhere in the geographical confines of the RVN.

...and that
later your only description of military experiences of any
specific nature involved operating some MARS radios in a
"behind the front lines" location.

....and, as you've been told at least twice before, those were not my
assigned duties. That's something I did in my off-duty hours. What's
it to you?

You've then made repeated
denigrating statements about my assignment at a "rear area,"
something that I had no choice but to accept at the time.

Fess up, Len. Were you insulted simply because you were in the rear?
Would you like to see it verbatim?

Do you consider your behavior to be rude?

No.

Well, that's flat out wrong.

It is strong and confrontational...which has been quite
normal in computer-modem networks since the original ARPANET
spread out into the world.

It is much, much more than strong and it is certainly confrontational.
When you're confrontational, you get confrontational in return. You've
found that out. It doesn't work for you. It makes you no converts.

These networks are not for the
faint of heart or the easily disturbed one-sided inflexible
ideological bigots who refuse to compromise.

That's the kind of stuff that'll get you burned when and if you ever
become a beginner in amateur radio.

Are the smileys supposed to excuse your churlish manner?

"Smileys" are just emoticons that represent my mood after
having made some statement. In-person, there would be
much more in the way of expressed emotion, tone of voice,
"body language" and so forth to indicate my mood at any
particular time. Given the limitations of allowed
character limitations in this particular medium, emoticons
are a minimal extension of what would be readily apparent
during in-person encounters.

It seems that you often follow rude and insulting remarks with smileys.

Your use of "churlish" is inappropriate and a bit insulting.

It is quite appropriate. If you find it insulting, good. Maybe you'll
rethink your methods.

"Churl" is a rather old descriptor of "1. a peasant, 2.
a surly, ill-bred person; a boor."

As you can see, I chose the word which conveys my thinking.

You wish to place
yourself "above" others, to be "their superior."

I've often felt superior to a boorish, surly person.

[that is
readily apparent in your many previous postings in here]
Your general attitude seems to be nothing more than
bullying with strong overtones of bravado, a "don't mess
with ME" sort of thing. That reveals much to all other
readers.

Print that part and paste it to your monitor. Maybe you could read it
just before hitting the "send" button on your posts.

If I use "smileys" [ :-) ] that only indicates I am
actually physically smiling on having written something.

You smile at your insulting remarks? The corny Vaudeville stuff that
your write puts a smile on your mug? Really?

I rarely use other emoticons, such as a mild frown
or disagreement [ :-( ] because I am more amused at
the general commentary in here than disapproving. :-)

Talk about misdirection. You dodged the question, Leonard.

Tsk, tsk. There is NO imperative or mandate that all
"must" answer someone's question. You presume too much
authority. An infinite amount of presumptions since you
are not the moderator in here.

I understand your embarrassment at being asked. I note that you've
deleted the question to save yourself further embarrassment.

We readers will just put you down as either NOT WORKING or
at some place not associated with electronics at all.

We readers? You're now speaking for all other readers of this
newsgroup?

Not at all. I read ALL postings in this public venue,
therefore reiterating that I am one of those readers.

That doesn't make sense. Why not write "I"?

I speak only for myself. For whom do you speak as your
"authority?"

If I'm stating my view, I write "I". I never write "we readers" or "us
readers".

You can't blame Jim for not wanting to talk shop with you. Look what
has happened to others who have revealed details of their work (and who
happen to favor retention of morse testing).

Miccolis has not revealed any details of what he does for
a living...other than he is a "professional" and is "proud
of his work."

What's it to you? He has seen what you do with information about the
jobs of others. Why should he expose himself to the same kind of abuse?

Miccolis has expressed a number of varying
opinions of alleged knowledge, even expertise in areas
where he has not claimed any experience (aerospace,
specifically on spacecraft; non-amateur communications
where he refused to give anything specific on where or what),
yet has been highly confrontational, even antagonistic to
those who HAVE had experience.

That's kind of what you do with radio amateurs--particularly those who
use morse, isn't it?

Miccolis has admitted that
he has NEVER served in any military postion, yet he chides
veterans who have served by claiming expertise in military
matters and military life.

He's caught you in a couple of big ones. Remember the one about the
Soviet Bears and the flying time to Tokyo? Remember that sphincter post?

Look at Steven James Robeson who has woven a veritable,
virtual straw skyscraper of claims in here. He is exposed
constantly on his outright fraudulent claims, yet he
persists.

Why don't you admit that you have no facts to back up your claim?

I have drawn a parallel to his actions in here
to the "Dudley" description found in Ernest K. Gann's
auotbiographical book "Fate Is The Hunter." That Dudley
was an outrageous fraud in commercial aviation and
eventually killed himself and his passengers in a crash
caused by his incompetence. The "Major Dud" label he got
(and deserved) is a play on words, a contraction of my
comparison to Gann's presented example with the name
contracted...

Steve deserved the label you made up for him? You have facts at your
disposal? I've not seen any--just speculation.

Why have you been strangely silent on the miitary claims of "Colonel",
er... "Lieutenant" Mark Morgan, the drafted officer who served after the
end of the draft?

Frank Gilliland applied the "major" both
from Robeson's claim of rank of major in the CAP and the
former half-hour TV sitcom "Major Dad" about an active-
duty USMC officer. Marine veterans, indeed most veterans
of any branch with a pride in their military service, are
justifiably insulted both personally and as a group at
ANY poseur, any fake "veteran" who makes claims of
machismo and/or heroism when they have NO PROOF of such
claims.

And the "Nursie" thing and the "Murine" thing you cooked up long before
any CB Frank showed up? What were they about? That leads me back to
that "Sphincter post" of yours. You wrote of what it was like to be
under an artillery barrage, only it turned out that you'd never been
under any artillery barrage. Would you agree that such a tale makes you
an imposter, a fraud or a poseur? Do you think that most veterans of
any branch would be insulted by your claim of machismo?

YOU have made numerous denigratory personal insults about
my "rear area service"

....only in light of the Soviet Bears and the "sphincter post"

in my military experience, a
voluntary enlistment in the Army, a branch that had
selective service draftees during a definite war period.

Sorry, that's untrue.

If you are a REAL military veteran, then you should know
that no one in the military, especially in the enlisted
ranks, has much choice of where they are assigned.

I'm a REAL military veteran.

I went
where I was told, did my duties, got promotions because I
did my duties competently. That my assignment involved
HF radio communications on a large scale was an eye-
opening revelation into the much larger world of radio.
It was "the luck of the draw" and it resulted in a major
life career change for me that I never regretted.

That's all very good, Len, but not all that unique. I entered the
military and began operating in large scale HF communications at age 19.
I'd already been a ham for nearly five years by then. Thanks to the
knowledge I'd already gained as a ham, I was able to skip Air Force tech
school and proceed directly to my first duty station. There are
thousands of stories like that. They aren't particularly special.

That
you were resentful of that fortuitous circumstance is
not my problem.

Where do you get this stuff?

The ACAN-STARCOM-DCS worldwide net was
and remains far larger than any Department of State
communications network;

And your point is what--that yours is bigger than mine?

the military nets did carry State
communications then and both share the DSN now.

Wrong-o, Len. I never operated into any military facility.

Brian Kelly, formerly a regular in here, vacillated on
his postings, taking several "sides." While NEVER having
served, he boasted of "more important work" for the
military than I, negatively criticized what I did as both
a military and a civilian person, yet made a number of
embarassing faux pas on his knowledge of the military,
including the activities of the now-closed NADC in
Pennsylvania. He might have changed his mind on NPRM
05-143, maybe not. He has stopped posting in here.

No, he hasn't. Where've you been? I seem to remember you denigrating
every experience which he posted. They seemed to be more of your "mine
is bigger than yours". That's what kind of guy you are.

Hans Brakob, a proud morseman and USN veteran, a Master
Chief Petty Officer, has gone on the record as favoring
the elimination of the U.S. amateur radio code test. I
respect his military service and I think he respects mine.

My only "disagreement" with Hans is his penchant for
posting/forwarding so many stories/tales on USN life,
some of them of quite an emotional nature. While the
USN and the entire maritime world enthusiastically
boosted the use of early radio a century ago, there is
a sense of overkill in boosting morsemanship from an
emotional, visceral level a century later...especially
given the enormous improvements in all radio techniques
and technologies during that century.

Get over it.

Brian Burke is a USAF veteran and I do not discredit his
service nor insult his active-duty assignments. Robeson
does that for no reason. Brian is a meteorologist, not
one directly involved in the worldwide USAF radio network,
but he is conversant and knowledgeable about military
radio procedures on land. Burke favors the elimination
of the U.S. amateur radio license exam code test and is
a code-tested radio amateur licensee.

Yeah? What of it? What's with the bio sketches?

Frank Gilliland is a USMC veteran and works IN radio,
does not have an amateur radio license yet takes the
side against the NPRM. That's fine with me. Frank
does not insult me yet we have had some mild disagreements
in here. Frank is frank and believable.

Frank is frank? Frankly, I don't care. Frank is some guy who comes
here to tout the virtues of CB radio.

His postings
have an air of honesty. Frank takes no guff from Dudly
and speaks up on Dudly's fakery, misuse of what is
known jargon in the Corps, and Dudly's general weird
attitude.

There is no one named Dudly posting here. What accounts for your
generally weird attitude?

You make up derogatory
names for those folks and you insult their jobs and military service.

I WILL endeavor to insult, demean, and generally despise
ANY military veteran FAKE that exists or shows up.

And, absent any evidence, you'll proceed anyway. That's what you've
done in regard to Steve.

I'm a military veteran of the Vietnam War. You've done nothing but
insult my military service. I wasn't writing only of military veterans.
You've insulted jobs, military service--pretty much anything you can
find out about anyone who opposes you.

That
is a PROMISE.

Yeah, yeah. Great.

I WILL endeavor to insult, demean, and generally despise
anyone who attempts the same sort of insults, denigrations,
and personal insults on ME. They get back what they hurl.

You don't explain how it can be that they get back what they hurl when
you've done the first hurling. How can that be?

I have digitized records of proof of my military service,
my civilian jobs, personal references (both mentioned in
here in specifics plus those not yet mentioned), plus
some additional verification documents from government
agencies on my ordinary life.

That's all great, Len. I really don't care all that much about your
military service or your ordinary life. I have no doubt that you served
when you say your served and where you say you served. I have a little
problem with you doing the sphincter post, the Soviet Bear post and
hitching your wagon to the fellows in your outfit who were killed in a
war zone while you were safely in the rear.

While not an exceptional
life, it exists, has existed, and was real.

I have no doubts of that. What accounts for your inability to accept
that others have lives which exist, have existed and are real? What
accounts for your necessity of playing the ultimate expert and the
necessity of derogatory remarks made by you toward the jobs or military
service of others?

Anyone who
challenges that, in any way, shape, or form had damn
well be able to PROVE their charges beyond any doubt.
If they cannot prove what they charge, they will get
much worse than they try to give.

....or even if they don't make any charges, they're pretty sure of
getting back much worse than they give, just for daring to hold an
opposite view.

In my life experience I've encountered a number of
"churlish" bullies who've attempted many things against
me, including physical violence. I learned to stand up
to them, face them down, and, in a few cases, had to
physically defeat them when they were not able to control
themselves.

You need to ask yourself if you're in a position to write checks that
your body can't fill. About the only guys who tremble at the wrath of a
guy in his seventies are guys in their eighties.

I'm not looking for trouble but if trouble
finds me, then woe is that trouble; such will not find
an easy adversary.

I'm betting that trouble won't likely be able to find you at all. You
seem to be losing your grip.

Gee, Lennie, you are constantly AGAINST the retention of morse code
testing in amateur radio. Imagine that.

TS.

...and, poor baby, you still wonder why you are insulted and denigrated?

Up yours.

That's brave of you, Leonard.

You can continue to maintain the code test on your purely
personal level of your targeted insults to me specifically.
You have received responses. You apparently don't like
being countered on the personal level. Your problem. If
I have the time you will get replies as I choose.

I'll wait with bated breath.

Since you started this thread with an overt personal insult
as the title, you are in no position to claim yourself
either "civil" in this war of words or as the "neutral
judge" of What Should Be. You are neither "neutral" nor
"judge."

I've never claimed to be neutral, Len. Neither did I use a document
submitted to the Federal Government to attack the view of any individual.

Or, it could shift to the broader perspective of actually
talking regulation policy and arguing on that plane.

If
you choose to resort to the personal level again, you are
the one to have failed in the shift.

You've not made a shift. Your words in the material above make it clear
that you've no intention of reverting to reasoned debate. Your behavior
here is asinine.

You get NO points
for already being IN amateur radio through licensing since
the code test regulations affect only those who are either
not in amateur radio or those inside who wish to "upgrade."

That's mere wind, Leonard. You don't assign or remove points here.

You are in neither category.

....nor are you, Len. Your last statement on the matter was that you
have no intention of getting an amateur radio license and you don't have
a license to upgrade. Anything which changes amateur radio effects
those already licensed. I am in that category.

You are not in the FCC nor
do you control any licensing regulations.

When were you hired to administer amateur radio?

You have no
qualifications that make you "superior" for arguing policy
on the public level...

Au contraire. I have forty-two years experience as a radio amateur.
You have jack-doodly-squat.

...can only resort to puerile personal
insults. QED.

....and you remain a horse's patoot. QED.

Dave K8MN

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments	Dave Heil	Policy	388	March 31st 06 09:03 PM
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235	[email protected]	Policy	140	November 24th 05 01:27 AM
BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED	Rob Kemp	Policy	0	July 10th 03 08:09 AM

Menu

About Us