The FCC
N9OGL
FROM N9OGL'S BLOG
http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are below
slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against the
FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998 when
I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which has
no local television service. The FCC dismissed the application and
waivers because they weren't filed during the filing window(although
the courts had ruled that the FCC must consider waivers and waivers can
be filed at anytime). As I stated to John Shimkus (who's on the House
Sub Committee on Telecommunication) why should I or anyone else
continue to apply for a license if the FCC won't consider an
application or waiver. It is in fact a waste of time and MONEY to
continue to try to get a license, and the ones who hurt the most is the
community. Here in central Illinois there are not that many TV
stations, so there is a number of television frequency available. So by
not consider my application and waiver the FCC hurt the public interest
because the community of Taylorville still has no local TV service. So
after applying six times I decide to go on the air without a license
because it was a waste of time to apply. In 1999 my group applied for a
low power FM license and again the FCC and Congress FUCKED me, my group
and the community out of a valuable resource. Now, I'm going to
enlighten the ham community with my knowledge and I'm not going to let
some licensed CB operator screw me out of that....So let the fight
begin!
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> The FCC
>
> FROM N9OGL'S BLOG
>
> http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/
>
>
> The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are
below
> slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against
the
> FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998
when
> I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which
has
> no local television service.
It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
"character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not as
strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.
The following quotes from your "blog" is pretty explanatory as to
why they do that:
> The FCC dismissed the application and
> waivers because they weren't filed during the filing window(although
> the courts had ruled that the FCC must consider waivers and waivers
can
> be filed at anytime). As I stated to John Shimkus (who's on the House
> Sub Committee on Telecommunication) why should I or anyone else
> continue to apply for a license if the FCC won't consider an
> application or waiver.
You obviously missed the "Idiot Exclusionary Rule".
You met THAT criteria.
> It is in fact a waste of time and MONEY to
> continue to try to get a license, and the ones who hurt the most is
the
> community.
Maybe you haven't quite gotten the picture yet, Todd. YOU haven't
proven to the FCC that you can meet the standards of being a
licensee...ESPECIALLY in the broadcast services.
> Here in central Illinois there are not that many TV
> stations, so there is a number of television frequency available. So
by
> not consider my application and waiver the FCC hurt the public
interest
> because the community of Taylorville still has no local TV service.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you'e an incometent idiot who hasn't
met the criteria for licensure?
> So after applying six times I decide to go on the air without a
license
> because it was a waste of time to apply.
And you wonder why the FCC wouldn't give you a broadcast license?
You're violating the regulations of the one radio service you ARE
a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
regulations...???
> In 1999 my group applied for a
> low power FM license and again the FCC and Congress ****ED me, my
group
> and the community out of a valuable resource.
A "valuable resource" to whom?
And the FCC and Congress didn't **** you out of anything, Todd.
You didn't qualify to be an FCC licensee for the service you were
requesting then...You don't qualify now.
> Now, I'm going to
> enlighten the ham community with my knowledge and I'm not going to
let
> some licensed CB operator screw me out of that....So let the fight
> begin!
What fight?
You're making a fool out of yourself. (It appears it's an
on-going proceess)
You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a bank
of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after this
episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
bankruptcy.
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
K4YZ wrote:
> N9OGL wrote:
> > The FCC
> >
> > FROM N9OGL'S BLOG
> >
> > http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> > The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are
> below
> > slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against
> the
> > FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998
> when
> > I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which
> has
> > no local television service.
>
> It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
> "character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not as
> strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.
Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE. The FCC Low
Power TV division in the Mass Media Bureau wasn't posting the filing
windows like their suppose to, that's what it comes down to. I suggest
you and your buddies on here stick with ham radio. At any rate the FCC
may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
"the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
window or not. again I suggest you and your buddies stick with ham
radio.
So What? are you saying people mentally handicap can't or shouldn't
give a license, because if the FCC IS doing that it is a violation of
ADA (American Disabilities Act)and I'll be sure to past that on to the
Telecommunications Sub Committee. I'll be the first one to file a
lawsuit against the FCC.
> > So after applying six times I decide to go on the air without a
> license
> > because it was a waste of time to apply.
>
> And you wonder why the FCC wouldn't give you a broadcast
license?
>
> You're violating the regulations of the one radio service you
ARE
> a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
> COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
> regulations...???
Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed sinced
1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter. In my
opinion G.I. JOE you don't know what the fuck your talking about.
> > In 1999 my group applied for a
> > low power FM license and again the FCC and Congress ****ED me, my
> group
> > and the community out of a valuable resource.
>
> A "valuable resource" to whom?
>
> And the FCC and Congress didn't **** you out of anything, Todd.
>
> You didn't qualify to be an FCC licensee for the service you were
> requesting then...You don't qualify now.
>
> > Now, I'm going to
> > enlighten the ham community with my knowledge and I'm not going to
> let
> > some licensed CB operator screw me out of that....So let the fight
> > begin!
>
> What fight?
>
> You're making a fool out of yourself. (It appears it's an
> on-going proceess)
>
> You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
> already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a
bank
> of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after this
> episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
> bankruptcy.
I have a little bit more money and power then what you think G.I. JOE,
So keep lying to yourself.
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> K4YZ wrote:
> > It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
> > "character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not
as
> > strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.
>
> Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE.
Who's "GI Joe"...???
And yes, character is very much a part of FCC licensure,
especially in the broadcast services.
> The FCC Low
> Power TV division in the Mass Media Bureau wasn't posting the filing
> windows like their suppose to, that's what it comes down to. I
suggest
> you and your buddies on here stick with ham radio. At any rate the
FCC
> may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
> "the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
> window or not. again I suggest you and your buddies stick with ham
> radio.
Then >>I<< suggest YOU take your silly diatribe to
"alt.wannabe.broadcaster.abusing.ham.radio", Todd...Other than the
obvious abuse of priviledge, your rantings have nothing to do with
Amateur Radio.
> > Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you're an incometent idiot who
> hasn't
> > met the criteria for licensure?
>
> So What? are you saying people mentally handicap can't or shouldn't
> give a license, because if the FCC IS doing that it is a violation of
> ADA (American Disabilities Act)and I'll be sure to past that on to
the
> Telecommunications Sub Committee. I'll be the first one to file a
> lawsuit against the FCC.
Toddie, Toddie, Toddie...
You try to toggle "incompetence" with "handicap". They are NOT
the same.
Steven Hawking, for example, has one of the most severe physical
handicaps ever known to man, but he is eminently competent in all other
respects.
You, on the otherhand, have all of the physical facilities a
"normal" human being enjoys, however cannot understand even simple
regulatory process or express yourself "effectively" without liberal
use of profanity and insult.
E V E R Y rule, regulation and statute of law at every level
requires that a person be "competent" in order to be a functioning
citizen.
Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION from cerain rights
and priviledges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure by the Federal
Communications Commission.
Since you've apparently admitted that you ARE incompetent, Todd,
perhaps we should make sure that a copy of this exchange makes it to
any public hearing wherein your application for a broadcast license is
subject.
And we can include a copy of your "The FCC is Slime" diatribe from
your "blog". It would certainly lend credence to the argument that you
would be an enforcement risk if a broadcast license were issued to you.
You certainly take liberties with Amateur regulations. What makes
anyone believe you'll comply with commercial ones?
> > You're violating the regulations of the one radio service you
> ARE
> > a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
> > COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
> > regulations...???
>
> Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed sinced
> 1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter.
I go 70MPH on the freeway in places where it's marked 65MPH and
never gotten a speeding ticket.
So what?
>In my
> opinion G.I. JOE you don't know what the #### your talking about.
(1) Who is "GI Joe"...???
(2) P L E A S E don't tell me this vaunted college you're about
to graduate from is bestowing a degree in English upon you, Todd,
because your comprehension, construction and application suck.
You're a prime example of why this nation is in dire straits...Our
schools, primary, secondary and post graduate, are failing.
I'd be humiliated to be a member of the Board of the institution
about to bestow ANY level degree upon a person who can't express
themselves more effectively than what you've demonstrated here.
> > You're going to try and beat the FCC at a game wherein they
> > already have DECADES of case law in thier favor, not to mention a
> bank
> > of lawyers who will still be earning federal wages long after this
> > episode is over with and you're flipping burgers to pay off the
> > bankruptcy.
>
> I have a little bit more money and power then what you think G.I.
JOE,
> So keep lying to yourself.
Who's "G.I. Joe"...???
And you obviously have squat for "power" since you have to resort
to broadcasting via Amateur Radio rather than with the appropriate
commercial licnese, Todd.
As for money...well...if you had spent your (imaginary) funds on a
decent communication's lawyer, you would, in all likelyhood, already
have the broadcast license you so passionately covet.
Instead, you resort to a pontificating, self-promoting "blog" that
is verbally abusive, insulting, and absolutely innefective and useless
for obtaining said licensure. It is, in fact, counter productive to
it.
The only person lying to themselves here, Todd, is you.
Enjoy. It's your fantasy.
Steve, K4YZ
Rabbi Phil
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110895789.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Ahhhhhhhhhh SHUT-UP Robeson! a.k.a. Hot Air & B.S. Boy
K4YZ
Rabbi Phil wrote:
> Ahhhhhhhhhh SHUT-UP Robeson! a.k.a. Hot Air & B.S. Boy
Yet another anonymous coward...No guts...no spine...no idea who his
parents were...
Pity him.
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
K4YZ wrote:
> N9OGL wrote:
> > K4YZ wrote:
>
> > > It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains certain
> > > "character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously) not
> as
> > > strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission licensee.
> >
> > Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE.
>
> Who's "GI Joe"...???
>
> And yes, character is very much a part of FCC licensure,
> especially in the broadcast services.
Well your wrong, the ONLY reason the FCC dismissed the applications
were because they weren't filed during the Filing Window. If you want I
post the cover letter on my webpage and you read it for
yourself...that's if you can read.
> > The FCC Low
> > Power TV division in the Mass Media Bureau wasn't posting the
filing
> > windows like their suppose to, that's what it comes down to. I
> suggest
> > you and your buddies on here stick with ham radio. At any rate the
> FCC
> > may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
> > "the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
> > window or not. again I suggest you and your buddies stick with ham
> > radio.
>
> Then >>I<< suggest YOU take your silly diatribe to
> "alt.wannabe.broadcaster.abusing.ham.radio", Todd...Other than the
> obvious abuse of priviledge, your rantings have nothing to do with
> Amateur Radio.
No but you loosers have to deal with it.
> > > Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...??? Because you're an incometent idiot who
> > hasn't
> > > met the criteria for licensure?
> >
> > So What? are you saying people mentally handicap can't or shouldn't
> > give a license, because if the FCC IS doing that it is a violation
of
> > ADA (American Disabilities Act)and I'll be sure to past that on to
> the
> > Telecommunications Sub Committee. I'll be the first one to file a
> > lawsuit against the FCC.
>
> Toddie, Toddie, Toddie...
>
> You try to toggle "incompetence" with "handicap". They are NOT
> the same.
>
> Steven Hawking, for example, has one of the most severe physical
> handicaps ever known to man, but he is eminently competent in all
other
> respects.
There is a difference between physical handicap and mental
handicap...Hawkings as you stated above has a Physical Handicap.
> You, on the otherhand, have all of the physical facilities a
> "normal" human being enjoys, however cannot understand even simple
> regulatory process or express yourself "effectively" without liberal
> use of profanity and insult.
>
> E V E R Y rule, regulation and statute of law at every level
> requires that a person be "competent" in order to be a functioning
> citizen.
>
> Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION from cerain
rights
> and priviledges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure by the Federal
> Communications Commission.
OH STEVE, THERE YOU GO AGAIN SAYING I'M IN VIOLATION OTHE
RULES.....YET, HAVE YOU HEARD MY BULLETINS????
> Since you've apparently admitted that you ARE incompetent, Todd,
> perhaps we should make sure that a copy of this exchange makes it to
> any public hearing wherein your application for a broadcast license
is
> subject.
NO, I JUST LIKE ASSHOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL
> And we can include a copy of your "The FCC is Slime" diatribe
from
> your "blog". It would certainly lend credence to the argument that
you
> would be an enforcement risk if a broadcast license were issued to
you.
Turst me, i've called the FCC a lot worst to their faces.
> You certainly take liberties with Amateur regulations. What
makes
> anyone believe you'll comply with commercial ones?
>
> > > You're violating the regulations of the one radio service
you
> > ARE
> > > a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
> > > COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
> > > regulations...???
> >
> > Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed
sinced
> > 1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter.
>
> I go 70MPH on the freeway in places where it's marked 65MPH and
> never gotten a speeding ticket.
no my point is your Claiming i'm violating the rules yet you don't have
the balls to back up your statement. yet, you've never heard my
transmission, nor, do you have the balls to explain what rules I'm
"suppose" to be violation. i have two forums here and my blog which you
can make your case yet you fail to do so.
N9OGL
NO, I JUST DONT LIKE ASSHOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL
K4YZ
What's a "coorection"...?!?!
Who's discriminating against the mentally ill?
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
"HAM-RADIO" needs to be shot. because frankly you don't deserve that
title. As for my writing skills, as I've probably stated before I'm not
a writer. but I sure as hell can write a lot better then some amateurs
around here.. Hell, some of letter's In the past that I've got from the
FCC when they responded to a question was a hell of lot worse then what
I write. FInally I think people who keep bitching about someone writing
skills are trying to envade the questions being asked. Now I know your
probably going to say, well if the person could write so we could
understand them....well read the unstructured text and try to make
sense of it....or is it too much like work.... have fun on t newsgroup
Mr "Hate Radio"
Todd N9OGL
Dave Heil
>
> Sorry...coorection
>
> NO, I JUST DONT LIKE ASSHOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL
FCC actions against Todd: Thousands of dollars
Reading a "coorection" from Todd: Priceless
Dave K8MN
K4YZ
> K4YZ wrote:
> > N9OGL wrote:
> > > K4YZ wrote:
> >
> > > > It's been pointed out to you that the FCC maintains
certain
> > > > "character" requirements for licensure. They are (obviously)
not
> > as
> > > > strict for Amateur Radio since you remain a Commission
licensee.
> > >
> > > Character quifications had nothing to do with it GI JOE.
> >
> > Who's "GI Joe"...???
> >
> > And yes, character is very much a part of FCC licensure,
> > especially in the broadcast services.
>
> Well your wrong, the ONLY reason the FCC dismissed the applications
> were because they weren't filed during the Filing Window. If you want
I
> post the cover letter on my webpage and you read it for
> yourself...that's if you can read.
Sure I can read. It's just that trying to wade through your poor
grammar, incoherant rants and frequent profanities that a challenge
exists.
And you didn't answer my question. Very rude.
> > Then >>I<< suggest YOU take your silly diatribe to
> > "alt.wannabe.broadcaster.abusing.ham.radio", Todd...Other than the
> > obvious abuse of priviledge, your rantings have nothing to do with
> > Amateur Radio.
>
> No but you loosers have to deal with it.
What's a "looser"...?!?!
Deal with what? Your immaturity? Your silly behaviour? Your
rantings? Your misconceptions about applicability of certain Amateur
regulations?
> > Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION from cerain
> rights
> > and priviledges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure by the Federal
> > Communications Commission.
>
> OH STEVE, THERE YOU GO AGAIN SAYING I'M IN VIOLATION OTHE
> RULES.....YET, HAVE YOU HEARD MY BULLETINS????
Todd...I didn't say you were violating any rule.
I said you're incompetent.
Here it is again: "Incompetence IS a legally defensible EXCLUSION
from certain rights and privileges of citizenship, INCLUDING licensure
by the Federal Communications Commission."
In asserting that I said you were violating rules when that is NOT
what I said clearly demonstrates YOUR incompetence with English
comprehension.
FCC rules and regulations require certain fluency and competency
in English. Obviously there's just one more thing that makes you
ineligible for licensure in the broadcast services.
> > Since you've apparently admitted that you ARE incompetent,
Todd,
> > perhaps we should make sure that a copy of this exchange makes it
to
> > any public hearing wherein your application for a broadcast license
> is
> > subject.
>
> NO, I JUST LIKE ***HOLES WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE MENTALLY ILL.
So who's discriminating, Todd?
So far, the only ***hole I see is the one who can't express
himself without all the profanity and yelling...which would be you,
Todd.
And by the way, Todd, "incompetence" is STILL a legally defensible
EXCLUSION from certain rights and privileges. It is not
"discrimination". Many laws exist for the SPECIFIC purpose of
preventing the incompetent from causing harm.
So far, you're making a pretty good case for limiting your access
to the airwaves to Amateur Radio...God protect us...
> > And we can include a copy of your "The FCC is Slime" diatribe
> from
> > your "blog". It would certainly lend credence to the argument that
> you
> > would be an enforcement risk if a broadcast license were issued to
> you.
>
> Turst me, i've called the FCC a lot worst to their faces.
"Turst" you?
"...a lot worst"...?!?!
Maybe your behaviour "to their faces" is one of the reasons you're
having to resort to broadcasting on frequencies that are illegal for
broadcasting...?!?!
I "turst" you've made a lasting impression on the Commission,
Todd...One that will, hopefully, prevent you from ever having a
broadcast license.
> > You certainly take liberties with Amateur regulations. What
> makes
> > anyone believe you'll comply with commercial ones?
> >
> > > > You're violating the regulations of the one radio service
> you
> > > ARE
> > > > a licensee in...WHY in Heaven's name would they waste valuable
> > > > COMMERCIAL spectrum on an idiot who can't adhere to AMATEUR
> > > > regulations...???
> > >
> > > Violating what regulation? as for a I know I've been licensed
> sinced
> > > 1991-1992 and have not once gotten a fine or a warning letter.
> >
> > I go 70MPH on the freeway in places where it's marked 65MPH
and
> > never gotten a speeding ticket.
>
> no my point is your Claiming i'm violating the rules yet you don't
have
> the balls to back up your statement.
I've already done it, Todd. Your own words are evidence that
you're violating both the spirit and the letter of the law as it
pertains to broadcasting on the Amateur Radio service.
You're "producing a show"...YOUR words. A "show" is for
entertainment. A "bulletin" is for disseminating timely
news,information and announcements.
>yet, you've never heard my
> transmission, nor, do you have the balls to explain what rules I'm
> "suppose" to be violation.
You've never been to my home, Todd, so how do you know what I have
or have not heard or done?
I know you're doing your best to lose your Amateur license.
>i have two forums here and my blog which you
> can make your case yet you fail to do so.
There's no "case" for ME to make, Todd. You do it yourself.
You have acknowledged that you are producing a "show" which you
air on a frequency allocated to the Amateur Radio service, and that
this "show" incudes commentary colored with your own opinion.
That takes it out of the realm of a "news bulletin", Todd.
Ask any first year journalism student.
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
information bulletin can not be opinionated. A information bulletin is
a vague word. But hey, I there and will propbably be there a
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TIME so enjoy.
Todd N9OGL
N9OGL
Again, NO WHERE, in the FCC rules and regulations does it state an
information bulletin can not be opinionated. A information bulletin is
a vague word. But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TIME so enjoy the show!!!!!!!!
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote: (and again violates "nettiquete" by not citing his
attributions)
> CORRECTIONS.....
>
> Again, NO WHERE, in the FCC rules and regulations does it state an
> information bulletin can not be opinionated.
An "information bulletin" colored by opinion ceases to be an
"information bulletin" and becomes editorial.
> A information bulletin is
> a vague word.
"AN" information bulletin" mya be a vague TERM, Todd.
However that will be up to the Engineer in your FCC District to
decide upon.
> But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TIME so enjoy the show!!!!!!!!
If it's a "show", you're violating the law.
Steve, K4YZ
Bathrooman
yee scurvy dogs and man the guns!!! There's piratin' ta do!!!" Arrg.
Dave Heil
>
> N9OGL wrote: (and again violates "nettiquete" by not citing his
> attributions)
> > a vague word.
>
> "AN" information bulletin" mya be a vague TERM, Todd.
Not to be picking nits, Steve, but "information bulletin" is two words.
> However that will be up to the Engineer in your FCC District to
> decide upon.
>
> > But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
> > LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TIME so enjoy the show!!!!!!!!
>
> If it's a "show", you're violating the law.
This guy obviously has some issues, Steve. Tread lightly lest you be
accused under the ADA with cruelty to the mentally handicapped.
Todd's claims to inventions, to a recent state administered IQ test, his
inability to put together a properly constructed sentence, his inability
to spell, his lurches back and forth between upper/lower case
dim-wittedness and PROFANE UPPER CASE RANTING and his delusions about
the FCC being out to get him, all mark him as someone who is not quite
right.
I doubt that Todd is airing any informational bulletins/broadcasts/shows
at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.
As to his blog: Who's reading it?
Dave K8MN
K4YZ
Dave Heil wrote:
> K4YZ wrote:
> >
> > N9OGL wrote: (and again violates "nettiquete" by not citing his
> > attributions)
>
> > > A information bulletin is
> > > a vague word.
> >
>
> Not to be picking nits, Steve, but "information bulletin" is two
words.
Hi Dave...You and I know that, but Todd doesn't. That's why I said
"term", rahter than "word".
Any just-about-to-be-graduated-from-third-grader wouldn't have
taht mistake...But Todd did.
> > However that will be up to the Engineer in your FCC District
to
> > decide upon.
> >
> > > But hey, I'm there and will propbably be there a
> > > LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG TIME so enjoy the
show!!!!!!!!
> >
> > If it's a "show", you're violating the law.
>
> This guy obviously has some issues, Steve. Tread lightly lest you be
> accused under the ADA with cruelty to the mentally handicapped.
Mark Morgan tired that with me...remember! Didn't work then,
either!
> Todd's claims to inventions, to a recent state administered IQ test,
his
> inability to put together a properly constructed sentence, his
inability
> to spell, his lurches back and forth between upper/lower case
> dim-wittedness and PROFANE UPPER CASE RANTING and his delusions about
> the FCC being out to get him, all mark him as someone who is not
quite
> right.
Thereby providing even MORE justification for the FCC from
preventing his ascendency to commercial broadcasting.
> I doubt that Todd is airing any informational
bulletins/broadcasts/shows
> at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
> regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.
He still doesn't get it...
His "opinion" doesn NOT meet the test of an "information
bulletin", no matter HOW impressed he is with the sound of his own
voice.
> As to his blog: Who's reading it?
I can't say I "read" it, however what parts I did read were
rambling, paranoid and accusatory.
What an idiot.
Good to see you, Dave...How's things?
73
Steve, K4YZ
Dave Heil
> Good to see you, Dave...How's things?
Working on some antenna projects and chasing a little DX here. I spend
some of the rest of my time pondering the antics of Leonard H. Anderson
and they boy broadcaster.
Oh, and so Leonard won't have ammunition for his "chat room" rants,
I support retention of the measly five word per minute morse code test
in amateur radio.
Dave K8MN
Dan/W4NTI
Dan/W4NTI
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110895789.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
N9OGL
N9OGL
Information can be gathered through facts as well as opinions.
I doubt that Todd is airing any informational
bulletins/broadcasts/shows
at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.
I would count on it....I am on. As for material is "consisting solely
of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur service"
Todd N9OGL
Dan/W4NTI
"N9OGL" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1110929676.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> K1MAN has been on he air for a long time....So will I hehehehehe
>
Really? I haven't heard your hero in several weeks, in fact the word has
it he is gone.
Dan/W4NTI
Cmd Buzz Corey
> The FCC
>
> FROM N9OGL'S BLOG
>
> http://n9oglvoice.blogspot.com/
>
>
> The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are slime, no they are below
> slime. As most of aware I have been fighting a long battle against the
> FCC over the licensing system. This battle began in the 1997, 1998 when
> I applied six time for a Low Power TV license for a community which has
> no local television service.
So because you can't write a proposal that shows you have an education
above 6th grade, and there is a no need for your local television
service, the FCC dismisses it and they are slime.
Just because you request something isn't an automatic guarantee you will
get it. The FCC doesn't exists just to grant your childish wishes.
Grow up toddyboy.
> Now, I'm going to
> enlighten the ham community with my knowledge
That shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. Grow up toddyboy.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> At any rate the FCC
> may consider waivers at anytime and courts have gone farther to say
> "the FCC MUST consider waivers" regardless if they are in a filing
> window or not.
But it doesn't say they must grant them.
Grow up toddyboy.
Cmd Buzz Corey
> Hey Steve....ya think this guy is kin to K1MAN?
>
> Dan/W4NTI
Maybe it MAN's son! They do act a somewhat alike.
N9OGL
must of cut his coax.
Todd N9OGL
Bathrooman
piratin' ta do!! Arrrg!!
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote: (and once again violates nettiquette by not making
attributions)
> K1MAN has been on he air for a long time....So will I hehehehehe
Yes, he has...
He also has a huge legal bill. He also has a history of federal
fines and charges.
So will you. Hope it's worth it, Toddie!
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote (without attributing his quotes):
> Not to be picking nits, Steve, but "information bulletin" is two
words.
Hey...no kidding, Toddie. WHERE did I say OTHERWISE...?!?!
> Information can be gathered through facts as well as opinions.
You can call it blue polka dotted hen feathers for all I care,
Toddie. The results will be the same.
>> I doubt that Todd is airing any informational
>> bulletins/broadcasts/shows
>> at all. If he is, and the material is outside that permitted by
>> regulation, the FCC will nail his hide to the barn door.
>
>
> I would count on it....I am on. As for material is "consisting solely
> of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur service".
If it's tainted with your opinion, it ceases to be "information"
and is highly unlikely to be of any interest to "the amateur service".
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
> Hey Steve....ya think this guy is kin to K1MAN?
Hey Dan...I dunno...can any two "human beings" have that little
supporting DNA and still maintain life? If he is, he comes from an
already shallow gene pool!
73
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> If he was removed by the FCC they would of announce it......someone
> must of cut his coax.
Uhhhhh...Mr Information Bulletin Man...HOW LONG do you thing that
OTHER idiot was going to be able to keep dodging the legal bullet
before succumbing to the will of the courts?
And if I were you I'd take your own "cut coax" comment to heart.
Some folks are very skilled at getting in and out of places in the
middle of the night and creating mayhem along the way. Sure would be a
shame if your arrogance caused to you lose your ability to radiate RF,
now wouldn't it...???
Steve, K4YZ
Lloyd
Post proof that MAN has ever *once* been sanctioned by the FCC.
And his legal work is being done pro bono publico by long time
professional associates of his.
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, as usual.
73,
Lloyd
Lee Scott
--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO
Saw this on a Tee-shirt:
"I am a bomb technician. If you see
me running, try to keep up
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110960267.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I agree. I have the same concern with my coax run. Here's a pic of it, any
suggestions?
http://img178.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img178&image=scan00032co.jpg
Cmd Buzz Corey
If the gene pool had a lifeguard, they would tell toddyboy to get out.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
>
> Post proof that MAN has ever *once* been sanctioned by the FCC.
> And his legal work is being done pro bono publico by long time
> professional associates of his.
> YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT, as usual.
Who are these professionsl associates that are doing this pro bono
stuff? I think we know who is full of it.
Lloyd
"Cmd Buzz Corey" <m...@that.moc> wrote in message
news:FMqdnbouaoA...@gbronline.com...
Suppose we address things in the order they were brought up ok?
First the proof that MAN was ever sanctioned by the commission?
73,
Lloyd
N9OGL
an articles about the FCC going to his house and comfiming that he was
in compliance with Part 97. I think right now their question him about
not being at the control point. But as far as his opinionated program
the FCC has stated a number of times that it is in compliance with Part
97. The problem is many ham operator can't deal with that fact.
Todd N9OGL
Nick
The commission has corresponded with MAN via official U.S. mail and
has inspected his station. The commission has *NEVER* sanctioned
MAN. Big difference, a difference which has the societal misfits in this
forum frothing at their collective mouths. ROTFLMAO!
Nick
CB operator
N9OGL
this group and big fans of QRZ, a website that kick K1MAN off their
site. Me, I would say I'm a K1MAN, he's want got me intrested in
starting my own "opinoinated" bulletins on HF
Dan/W4NTI
> If he was removed by the FCC they would of announce it......someone
> must of cut his coax.
>
>
>
> Todd N9OGL
>
A few years back, when the FCC was breathing down his throat, MAN took a
very sudden hiatus, he claimed it was because he took a teaching job. I
figure he did the same thing again. Unfortunately for him there is enough
documentation at the FCC for his crap over the last many years that he will
be history when its renewal time.
Dan/W4NTI
John
Unfortunately Dan I just heard him start up on 75 AM - as usual right on
top of a station already on the frequency.
73
John
K4YZ
Who said anything about being "sactioned", Lloydie?
Please do not put words into anyone else's mouth...God know's
where YOUR hands have been.
And please show us Baxter's pro bono agency...?!?!
Steve, K4YZ
Psychiatrist-to-Hams
We are still waiting for you to post proof that MAN was sanctioned.
Well?
Dan/W4NTI
"John" <JohnA...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4238CFE9...@worldnet.att.net...
Oh well.....I can't and don't bother, listening to him on 75. He is way too
weak down here. I normally hear him during the day on 14.275. BUT he has
been noticably absent recently.
Dan/W4NTI
Cmd Buzz Corey
Suppose you provide some proof of these professsional asociates that you
claim are doing pro bono stuff for the idiot MAN, or is this more of
your blathering?
K4YZ
I love a guy who tells others to "remeber" about "morons".
And who can take seriously some idiot who can't even spell
"opinionated", yet want's everyone to accept his...?!?!
Sheeeeesh...
Steve, K4YZ
Lloyd
When is K4YZ going to post proof that MAN was sanctioned?
Well?
N9OGL
K4YZ: "down our collective throats via a medium that wasn't intended
for it (Amateur Radio)."
Collective throats??? what is this a Communist country, I think not! I
think you and your little commie buddies need to read some books on
indvidualism or go back to China or some other communist country.
K4YZ: "Blab your "bulletins" all you want via this blog or via Internet
outlets, but your "informational bulletins" on the 20 meter Amateur
band are just pirate broadcasts."
yo ho ho ho A PRIATE LIFE FOR ME!!!!
K4YZ: It may not happen tomorrow, or even the week after, however
sooner or later the FCC >>WILL<< be at your door, and your troubles
will have multiplied.
Doubtful, at any rate I'll fight them over it, including violating my
first amendment right, and violating the content control restrictions.
I'll fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to.
K4YZ: "And we'll be laughing our collective butts off at you!"
OH STEVE, it's nice that you share butts with your friends on
rec.radio.amateur.policy
9:46 PM
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> K4YZ: "Blab your "bulletins" all you want via this blog or via
Internet
> outlets, but your "informational bulletins" on the 20 meter Amateur
> band are just pirate broadcasts."
>
> yo ho ho ho A PRIATE LIFE FOR ME!!!!
I think you'll be "yo ho ho'ing" in the shower at the county men's
detention facility, Todd.
> K4YZ: It may not happen tomorrow, or even the week after, however
> sooner or later the FCC >>WILL<< be at your door, and your troubles
> will have multiplied.
>
> Doubtful, at any rate I'll fight them over it, including violating my
> first amendment right, and violating the content control
restrictions.
> I'll fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to.
And you'll lose. Instead of doing something constructive and
meaningful, you'll try to fight the same battles that have already been
established by case law.
> K4YZ: "And we'll be laughing our collective butts off at you!"
>
> OH STEVE, it's nice that you share butts with your friends on
> rec.radio.amateur.policy
Well...I guess it's better than BEING a "butt", on RRAP, 20 meters,
or your "blog".
Steve, K4YZ
Lloyd
When is the "butt" k4yz going to post proof that k1man was cited
by the commission?
K4YZ
Done deal. A simple Google search.
I wonder if LLoydie will apologize or snivvel out.
I vote on the snivvelling.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
K4YZ wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > When is the "butt" k4yz going to post proof that k1man was cited
> > by the commission?
>
> Done deal. A simple Google search.
>
> I wonder if LLoydie will apologize or snivvel out.
>
> I vote on the snivvelling.
Five days later and no acknowledgement of his error noted.
Lloydie snivvled. As expected.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
> You know steve, your an ###hole, who ever gave you the title
> "HAM-RADIO" needs to be shot.
No one ever "gave" me ANY title, Toddie. I've earned each and
every "title" that I've ever used...United States Marine, Private
Pilot, Nurse, Paramedic, Amateur Radio licensee...
Unlike SOME people who sign documents as the "CEO" of non-existant
companies and organizations, using ficticious last names, etc...
> because frankly you don't deserve that title.
If you mean "licensed Amateur Radio operator", sure I deserve it.
Passed the legally required tests, including the 20WPM code test.
And I passed them "BB"..."Before Bash".
> As for my writing skills, as I've probably stated before I'm not
> a writer.
That's obvious.
Nor are you a professional broadcaster, engineer, inventor,
lawyer, etc, but you try to impress us with how competent you allegedly
are in all those disciplines. The evidence to the contrary is glaring.
You don't have to have an advanced degree in English to be
reasonably competent, Todd. It just scares the bee-jeebers out of me
that some post-secondary institution in Illinois is allgedly granting
you a degree, and yet you are now no more competent in English than you
were on Day One of Kindergarten.
You're the proof that the end-product of many of our educational
institutions is woefully incompetent in basic social and educational
skills.
> but I sure as hell can write a lot better then some amateurs
> around here..
Uhhhhhh...No, you're actually WORSE than most in here. And unless
Mark I-Am-A-Drafted-Gay-Pagan-Chemical-Corps-Colonel Morgan, KB9RQZ,
returns to the fray, YOU'RE it!
You should to a Google on Mark's past postings herein and see what
REALLY terrible can be! (You're not that far off, though...)
> Hell, some of letter's In the past that I've got from the
> FCC when they responded to a question was a hell of lot worse then
what
> I write.
Now you're blatantly lying. I DARE you to scan and post the
letters on your blogs or other publically accessible website.
Now...don't get me wrong...I don't doubt that you didn't
understand what was being said in the letters, however that doesn't
make them worse than anything YOU have written!
Todd...You're borderline incompetent with the written English
language...And considering you're "in college" and have the resources
of spellcheckers, etc, there's no excuse for it.
Everyone, including me, makes occassional typos. Oh well.
You, on the otherhand, make it an Olympic sport. But you'd still
only make the Silver or Bronze...Mark pretty well had the Gold tied up!
> FInally I think people who keep bitching about someone writing
> skills are trying to envade the questions being asked.
But I'm not the one evading anything, Todd.
> Now I know your
> probably going to say, well if the person could write so we could
> understand them....well read the unstructured text and try to make
> sense of it....or is it too much like work....
It's not my responsibility to make YOU legible or understood, Todd.
Nor is it my job to understand your frequent lapses into complete
gibberish.
If you want to be understood, take the time to express yourself
effectively and correctly.
And tying your thoughts together with the "f" word or other
profanities is not "effective expression". That's just profanity, and
that undermines even the most poignant of posts.
>have fun on t newsgroup Mr "Hate Radio"
Who's "Mr Hate Radio"...?!?!
If you mean me, Todd, that's inaccurate on several levels...First
and foremeost because I love radios...Amateur...CB...LMR...Military,
etc. I've been an Amateur since 1972, spent a career in government
service doing aircraft electronics, and am still involved in
radiocommunication, both as a professional and Amateur, to this day.
If you mean that I "hate" on the radio, that's wrong too.
I don't even hate you. I understand you better than you think.
It may be a bit cruel of me to take advantge of someone so
obviously ill-equipped to engage in such toe-to-toe exchanges in this
forum, but you keep coming back for more and making a fool out of
yourself, so I just assumed you like being publically humiliated. You
do keep giving us so much to work with, after all!
Enjoy!
Steve, K4YZ
Cmd Buzz Corey
Nor has he provied any proof of these so called lawyers that are
allegedely providing these pro-bono services for the idiot MAN.
N9OGL
>companies and organizations, using ficticious last names, etc...
Not true, we are a non-profit organization who's purpose is to promote
Theater, Telecommunications, and the Performing Arts, and what
ficticious name??? I think your smoking crack.
N9OGL
>companies and organizations, using ficticious last names, etc...
Not true, we are a non-profit organization who's purpose is to promote
N9OGL
>companies and organizations, using ficticious last names, etc...
Not true, we are a non-profit organization who's purpose is to promote
K4YZ
OK, Toddie...Is your last name "Daugherty", as you have it on your
Amateur Radio license, or is it "O'Dochartaigh" as you've posted on
USENET posts, recent and current?
>I think your smoking crack.
You're welcome to make that suggestion to the authorities, Todd.
Of course it would be yet another unfounded, "barking at the moon"
outburst from one who is already so well known for being an idiot in
public.
Lastly, I wonder if "the members" of your "non-profit organization
who's purpose is to promote Theater, Telecommunicaitons and the
Performing Arts" know that you use thier name in the signature line of
posts that are profane, functionally illiterate, acknowledge violation
of federal law and are just basically humiliating...???
I know in the programs that I belong to, if I were to "represent"
myself as speaking on thier behalf in posts that were as assinine,
profane, threatening and irrational as yours, I'd be "removed from
office" if not removed from the membership altogether!
Under what chapter of Illinois law are you organized? Do you have
IRS 501(c)3 tax exclusionary status? If so, what is the certificate
number or date of waiver and who is the authorizing agent?
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
> N9OGL wrote:
> > >Unlike SOME people who sign documents as the "CEO" of non-existant
> > >companies and organizations, using ficticious last names, etc...
> >
> > Not true, we are a non-profit organization who's purpose is to
> promote
> > Theater, Telecommunications, and the Performing Arts, and what
> > ficticious name???
>
> OK, Toddie...Is your last name "Daugherty", as you have it on
your
> Amateur Radio license, or is it "O'Dochartaigh" as you've posted on
> USENET posts, recent and current?
You've answered other posts today, Todd, but avoided answering
this one, for some reason.
Why?
> >I think your smoking crack.
>
> You're welcome to make that suggestion to the authorities, Todd.
>
> Of course it would be yet another unfounded, "barking at the
moon"
> outburst from one who is already so well known for being an idiot in
> public.
>
> Lastly, I wonder if "the members" of your "non-profit
organization
> who's purpose is to promote Theater, Telecommunicaitons and the
> Performing Arts" know that you use thier name in the signature line
of
> posts that are profane, functionally illiterate, acknowledge
violation
> of federal law and are just basically humiliating...???
>
> I know in the programs that I belong to, if I were to
"represent"
> myself as speaking on thier behalf in posts that were as assinine,
> profane, threatening and irrational as yours, I'd be "removed from
> office" if not removed from the membership altogether!
>
> Under what chapter of Illinois law are you organized? Do you
have
> IRS 501(c)3 tax exclusionary status? If so, what is the certificate
> number or date of waiver and who is the authorizing agent?
You didn't answer this one, either...Is there a problem...??? Do
you not know? Did you not understand the questions?
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
Still have the recognition/comprehension issues, Toiddie?
Need someone to read the questions to you?
Steve, K4YZ