What is sad is that you consider your position so important and so valid that anybody that any opinion to the contrary is sad. I have in on good authority that your positions do not carry that degree of validity or, for that matter, importance.
What is sad is that you consider your position so important and so valid that anybody that any opinion to the contrary is sad.
To the contrary, it is painfully apparent that you (and people like you) consider your positions so important that anyone who holds any opinions other than your own need not bother to comment.
Clearly, your collective objective is to dominate the discussion and "win" the argument at any cost, not to engage in and informed debate and a lively, but yet respectful discussion.
THAT is what's really sad, Lee.
Quote:
I have in on good authority that your positions do not carry that degree of validity or, for that matter, importance.
NI7I
...in your opinion.
Which is yet another one of your (sadly ill-informed) opinions regarding someone else's sources of information.
And if my arguments and opinions are not "important" and have no "validity" as you say, then why do you feel it neccessary to continually refute them with boorish personal attacks? Those are desperate measures usually employed by people who have run out of cogent ideas to add to the discussion, but who still need to dominate and "win" it at all costs in order to feel "secure"
Once again, as Bill has so eloquently suggested (and if we're all still alive at that point) may I simply suggest we agree to meet here in ten years' time to see who got it right?
...may I simply suggest we agree to meet here in ten years' time to see who got it right?
My prediction is that, in ten years, the FCC amateur regs will not have been been gutted and you'll still be complaining about it. Oh, I almost forgot. I'll be on the air.
To the contrary, it is painfully apparent that you (and people like you) consider your positions so important that anyone who holds any opinions other than your own need not bother to comment.
Clearly, your collective objective is to dominate the discussion and "win" the argument at any cost, not to engage in and informed debate and a lively, but yet respectful discussion.
THAT is what's really sad, Lee.
...in your opinion.
Which is yet another one of your (sadly ill-informed) opinions regarding someone else's sources of information.
And if my arguments and opinions are not "important" and have no "validity" as you say, then why do you feel it neccessary to continually refute them with boorish personal attacks? Those are desperate measures usually employed by people who have run out of cogent ideas to add to the discussion, but who still need to dominate and "win" it at all costs in order to feel "secure"
Once again, as Bill has so eloquently suggested (and if we're all still alive at that point) may I simply suggest we agree to meet here in ten years' time to see who got it right?
Keith
KB1SF/ VA3KSF
What you have is a great imagination. What is clear to you is not clear to most of the people on this thread. You have managed to change the topic, I suppose, in order to state (again) your position in the FCC’s method of testing or the advanced age of hams. Intelligent discussion is always welcome.
It’s interesting that anybody with a different opinion than yours is “ill informed”… You can certainly change whether we are informed about your sources by naming them. I’m not going to take your word for it.
So far, I have made no personal attacks, boorish or otherwise. There is no aspect of ham radio that makes me desperate. It is, after all, a hobby. One of several that I enjoy spending time with.. You seem to be painting a self portrait in your description of “desperate people”
When you decide to get back to the topic of the thread perhaps we can argue that issue.
It’s interesting that anybody with a different opinion than yours is “ill informed”… You can certainly change whether we are informed about your sources by naming them. I’m not going to take your word for it.
Nor am I suggesting that you do.
I also well realize that nothing is going to fundamentally change in our FCC licensing structure unless and until someone (or some organization) with deep enough pockets actually files a federal class action lawsuit against the FCC (and/or) initiates a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
I certainly can't afford the former. But I can sure as hell pester my Congresspersons for the latter. And I have been.
Only time will tell if I (and they) are ultimately successful.
In the meantime, I'll leave you gents to your ongoing "kabuki dances" on this subject because what's being discussed here doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things.
We appreciate your support.
Linear Mode
