[no subject]

"Profane: Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred"

Please point out where I've done that. What's sacred? ARRL? Ed (March) Hare?
Male bovine excrement? What?

>You have twisted the point of every point I tried to make.

I've merely quoted you or the ARRL web site or the ARRL CEO. Any twists
would seem to be your doing.

>I have spent three years of my life working on this. I serve on IEEE
>industry committees working on EMC and BPL standards, chairing some of
>its study projects and sub committees.

Then we're in deeper trouble than I imagined.

>You bring to the table a few minutes of thought about the subject and a
>few insults and profanities.
>
>It is pretty clear that you don't want to discuss this; you want to
>argue and insult and curse like a high-school child.

As I noted above I've been monitoring and commenting on this topic for a few
years.

Please point out where I have cursed.

Once again from Dictionary.com...

"Curse: profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger"

I may have far more expertise in this area (and other areas) than you can
even dream of. Whoever solicited your help in this thread neglected to warn
you that I do my research and have an extensive technical and managerial
background.

>I wish you well. I shall not trouble you again or contradict the
>authority you have tried to establish on this NG.

I wish you and the ARRL the oblivion you deserve.

>And I sure understand why you noted that some of the other Amateurs who
>posted here argued with you. :-)

I sure do! Some bought into the ARRL propaganda and are now undoubtedly
deeply chagrined by the recent doublecross. A couple have argued that
licensed hams are entitled to buy and use devices that are illegal to sell
under FCC rules. They deserve something other than oblivion and should the
FCC ever get the personnel and budget to again enforce the rules I intend to
see that they get what they deserve. You really should do better research.

Let's reiterate a few key points, shall we?

1. Cinergy started their trial in 2003 using HomePlug technology which they
say you had tested and blessed before their trials began. (You refused to
comment on this point.)

2. The FCC approved Access BPL in October 2004. The ARRL adamantly opposed
this.

3. ARRL opposed in-house BPL before the FCC despite the results of their
joint tests with HomePlug. (I bet HomePlug felt your definition of
"cooperation" was a bit different from theirs.)

4. ARRL petitioned the FCC in February 2005 asking them to rescind their
approval of Access BPL. (Seems you were still opposed to all BPL at that
time.)

5. ARRL filed an Emily Litella petition with the FCC in October 2005.

The only thing that seems to have changed between the time that Cinergy
started their trial and your October 2005 petition are your views on the
HomePlug technology Cinergy uses. The technology hasn't changed but you've
gone from opposing in-house BPL (HomePlug 1.0) to praising Cinergy for their
implementation of Access BPL (which uses HomePlug 1.0). Go figure.

(I have to admit that, in this thread, you've waffled significantly on your
approval of HomePlug 1.0. You seem to like being on both sides of an issue
or maybe it's just that you lack the competetence to decide which end is
up.)

I'm amazed that the ARRL membership hasn't demanded that you and the ARRL
CEO be fired for gross incompetence. Actually, I'm amazed that they haven't
been gathering faggots of wood and looking for stakes.

Given that the EU approved Access BPL last year and that there are BPL
trials underway in Australia and Asia, the change in the ARRL position has
all the earmarks of a deathbed conversion. RIP.