Comments: Hiiiiiiiii Guuyyys K6MWT AND YOU'RE NOT 
Comments: Why Hammy Sammy do you only fight for one person that has been supposedly slandered on Flamebook. There are many on this platform that could be eligible for your defense and truth services. Ham Sandwich, Jimmy Houghton, Roger Bly, and many more have been accused of many of these similar allegations but they aren't out here with a protecting angel. Please answer in detail Hammy Sammy. I find some of your responses very vague and open ended. Thank you!
Comments: In reply to the peculiar comments of "The Dark Fleas", who said: "Note that in all of what Hammy Sammy wrote he offered no evidence whatsoever that the recordings are incorrect or fake." I find it interest that you state that I pen "decent responses", which you seemingly neither read - or read with comprehension - nor, generally, respond to substantively. As far as it concerns whether or not these particular recordings were "fake", my previous response to "Not the FCC" did not assert that those particular recordings were fake. What I did say was that audio provided in the past by the "Snitchboi" spammer was selectively edited - which it is and was. As for being "incorrect", within the context of the conversations I've been attempting to have with your "team" since March, it's incorrect to assert that any of the audio provided - most at my request - has either been "evidence" of any great wrongdoing on the part of JMM, or that it's been even slightly "provocative". When I think of poor operators, I think of audio such as that that was illustrated in all of those video captures I put up links to in my last response to your alleged associate the "Snitchboi" spammer; nothing either of you have offered amounts to anything more than the mundane, frankly boring conversation of average "good buddy" hams; there is nothing provocative or even controversial in anything audio you've attributed to JMM. In fact, I believe only the last few minutes of your capture which allegedly includes audio over seven different days - an average of just over three minutes per conversation - is JMM allegedly talking directly to a "squeaky", yet you only hear the squeaky in that conversation. So, not to put too fine a point on it, but for all you seem to believe that your alleged many hours of recordings of this obscure, seemingly harmless individual you're so obsessed with amounts to something, all I hear is relatively benign conversation of otherwise model hams who happen to occasionally address an unidentified operator for short a duration. Your work is the equivalent of a busybody neighbor standing outside with a camera watching his neighbor's grass grow, hoping to catch it at the point it grows beyond a certain height so you can bellow far and wide that your neighbor is violating an HOA rule, or perhaps some layabout with a stopwatch trying to catch people doing 40 MPH where it's marked 35, but behaving as though you have Epstein evidence. "All his efforts were directed at attacking our little team, calling names and other keyboard warrior tactics..." The only name which I referred to your "team" by in my previous post was your moniker, "the Dark Fleas". If you're complaining about my previous references to you as, "Dark Sleaze", do remember that members of your so-called "team" accuse people of, among other things, molesting children - falsely. You really are in no position to whine about name calling or these "keyboard warrior" tactics you're referring to; again I'll remind you that your "team" has spent more than half a decade using this site as a platform for defamation and harassment of a person who's greatest "sin" appears to be being highly boring. "The recordings are extremely solid samples of those four hams repeatedly violating part 97..." While exchanging with unidentified operators is a poor practice, the "solid" examples you've provided are, as I said, the equivalent of catching someone doing 40 in a 35 zone and are perhaps, the most ridiculous and petty things you could possibly complain about as far as it concerns violations of the rules or simply bad acting on a SoCal 2m/70cm repeater. When compared to the poor operating practices of, among others, those people singled out by callsign in the video captures I offered previously, these examples pale in comparison. "...and were chosen to show how a bad control operator can encourage others to ignore the rules. As a side note, the repeater owner first asked KA6JMM to step down as control operator. As JMM continued to talk to the squeakies as well as engage in other poor behavior the owner issued an edict that NO ONE was to communicate with the unidentified stations or they would be permanently banned. We have that recording too 😎." While we would find common ground on your initial point, if you're referring to the audio that was posted here recently at my request, then the edict not to communicate with unidentified stationed was issued NOT as a result of JMM or anyone else talking to a "squeaky", but to people on the W6CDW repeater - JMM mostly, but others as well - rightly having bad reactions to unidentified persons - persons who are a part of your "team" - maliciously interfering with the legal communications of licensed stations using vulgar, obscene recordings and whispering voices making homophobic comments about JMM. If you're attempting to assert that the problems on that repeater were due primarily to various operators there talking to "squeakies" while there was no other traffic on the repeater, as opposed to the activities of members of your "team" operating without benefit of call, maliciously interrupting the legal operations of all the legitimate users of that repeater during peak usage - specifically to harass and ridicule JMM - then you're simply being dishonest, and I suspect you know it. As for that final paragraph, there's not good reason to quote it; while you're correct in your assertions, you're also entirely hypocritical; you call out a minor infraction while, if not actively engaging in, support people and fail to call out people who have engaged in much more significant rule violations. There seems to be a lot of sarcasm in your couple of post so, again, I think you know that you're acting in a completely hypocritical way, and that you imagine you're somehow making a legitimate point against a person you have a highly irrational obsession with.
Comments: I want to get Jack onto the SPARC machine. Does he lack a radio and decent antenna? I can donate him a 75W mobile and a decent directional beam.
Comments: Not The FCC, Note that in all of what Hammy Sammy wrote he offered no evidence whatsoever that the recordings are incorrect or fake. All his efforts were directed at attacking our little team, calling names and other keyboard warrior tactics although if he wants to he can pen some decent responses. The recordings are extremely solid samples of those four hams repeatedly violating part 97 and were chosen to show how a bad control operator can encourage others to ignore the rules. As a side note, the repeater owner first asked KA6JMM to step down as control operator. As JMM continued to talk to the squeakies as well as engage in other poor behavior the owner issued an edict that NO ONE was to communicate with the unidentified stations or they would be permanently banned. We have that recording too 😎. Anyhow, JMM continued with his lack of self restraint and the repeater owner permanently banned him. A good example of firm and legal leadership! Antics such as those can be warning signs that you don’t want to be involved with those sorts of hams. Fortunately bad apples are not in the majority. You should find a good local club that is well organized and has online meetings such that you might match up faces and voices. See if there are folks with interests similar to yours and also move swiftly to eliminate bad apples. Let us know how you do.
Comments: Ham Sandwich hasn't posted out here for months. The fucking wordsmith hammy Sammy is a fraud. Go run your bullshit on some other Flamebook.
Comments: "Not The Fcc" The tapes sound legit to me. Hammy Sammy always asks for proof then immediately trashes whatever is offered. It's just his way of having fun but it's nuthin' serious if you read between the lines. Based on that FCC letter you offered you can see those four hams in the recordings are stupidly violating part 97 because they feel as if they are ID'ing themselves and that's good enough. If the FCC chooses to they could nail them. Anyhow, don't be discouraged by 4 bad hams. There's lots of great ones out there so stick with the hobby.
Comments: In reply to "Not the FCC" with regard to the offerings of the so-called "Dark Fleas"... I would be cautious of giving too much legitimacy to anything presented by the "Dark Fleas", in particular the "Snitchboi" spammer who typically appropriates my handle, KA6JMM's call letters, the call letters of other amateur radio operators, the proper names of people who they aren't and all while spreading falsehoods, half-truths and spun truths. They're known for highly selective editing of their audio clips. That said, with what's been provided via the "JMM the Model Ham" Soundcloud page - which falsely asserts to be controlled by KA6JMM and which falsely portrays an innocent Youtuber by the moniker of "Boogie" [who also portrays a character called "Francis"] as though he is JMM to viciously and needlessly mock JMM [and, in effect, "Boogie"] for being overweight - is an example of poor operating practices. Indeed, persons who purport to be model hams should not engage with unidentified stations. In this instance their criticism of JMM is warranted. Unfortunately, this same "group" [of, at best, three people] who refer to themselves as "Dark Fleas" has also followed KA6JMM to multiple repeaters, harassing him with - often vulgar and obscene - recordings over a period of time much longer than the 22:00 minutes of that video, and they've done it while themselves failing to ID - I suspect this is because they don't actually have licenses - and while interfering with licensed operators engaged in legal QSOs. So, consider that when you determine how much weight to give to the ostensibly legitimate criticisms of people known for much more egregious rule violations across a much longer period of time - months, if not years - as compared to these entirely tame technical violations.
Comments: Dark Fleas! These tapes have left me a bit dismayed about ham radio. I had no idea such poor operating behavior extended beyond 435 and 450. I appreciate all the effort to share the recordings and had no idea about the amount of effort required to satisfy my somewhat naive request. I am looking forward to discussing these audio tracks with Hammy Sammy and how the individual hams clearly violated FCC rules by repeatedly communicating with an unidentified station. Someone pointed out to me that sometimes hams will attempt to keep unidentified stations on the air as a means to perform RDF triangulation. However, I would think that would not involve four different hams chatting so casually in the late hours with this "squeeky" character over so many months. I can't believe that the control op woke up in the middle of the night to RDF/chase a few minutes of the squeekies conversation. It would have to be a much larger and coordinated effort; not easy to gear up at 2 in the morning. As I understand it, most repeater groups prefer not to acknowledge the squeekies at all and will keep all RDF efforts a secret.
Comments: Hammy Sammy is SO ANXIOUS for attention he is barfing up posts from "Ham Sandwich" attacking "Hammy Sammy". I guess no one was interested when "Ham Sandwich" was challenging BB to fights that never were to occur. ---This recent "Ham Sandwich" post is pure Hammy Sammy, full of big words and bizarre sentence structure. Especially notable is Hammy Sammy's Signature Accusation of "projection" which is all he ever accomplishes in his limitless manifestos of innuendo and unsubstantiated imputations: "Casual conversation does not require justification of your motives or invasive inquiries of others. Your perspective or projection of your purpose Hammy Sammy on Flamebook is not congruent with the truth. You can post your lengthy and colorful sales pitches here all day but in the end you have sold nothing. NO SALE! Again and again."
Comments: Question: What if I don't use a Baofeng but another radio brand for the SPARC alarm contest? Is this acceptable per rules of the contest? Answer: Other brands might be acceptable if you can perfectly emulate the childish wail of the cheap Baofeng siren. If you really want to follow KA6JMM's questionable advice and achieve maximum points you should consider the purchase of "..100 Baofengs for right around three hundred bucks.." although only Our Dear Lord knows where JMM could truly obtain that price or if the cheap loser ever spends that much groceries money in one go. 24-Slevin
Comments: Nothing like listening to an old fucking liar tell his lies 24 7 What a shitshow Lie and give money to a pussy.. all while pretending not to know anything That lying old kook has the victim routine down better than a millenial Even his wife cant stand him. Goes on vacations to other countries to avoid his statin riddled adipose diabetic ass.
Comments: Not The FCC We saw the discussion about hams who flaunt the FCC rules so they can have (illegal) fun talking to unidentified stations called squeakies. We are sharing a sound basis for criticism of KA6JMM and others for their regular and outright friendly conversations with an unidentified station they called "Squeakers", "Squeaky", “KI6Squeaky”, “our own personal Squeaky” and often declared “We love our Squeaky”. This "Squeaky" person operated for at least three years on the W6CDW repeater during KA6JMM's tenure as the Control Op and up to the point KA6JMM was permanently banned from the repeater. As a control operator he condoned his repeater friends’ (KM6ACH, N6FTW & KE6RXE) similar behavior when communicating with the unidentified station they identified as “Squeaky” and occasionally an unidentified station they called "CW Guy". Our sources have told us that the repeater owner, Cliff Wallace overheard JMM talking to “Squeaky” and ordered JMM to “get rid of him by any means necessary”. Incredibly, JMM did not stop talking to the unidentified station and Cliff took note of it. These LEGAL recordings were captured on 3/11/18, 8/01/18, 12/31/18, 1/29/19, 2/07/19, 2/17/19, 3/01/19 by various stations, hence the differing quality of audio. Each clip is separated by the repeater ID. There are too many hours of original material to audit and parse so we offer these 7 examples of what occurred almost nightly as this unidentified "Squeaky" drove to and from work. Interception and rebroadcast of amateur transmissions is specifically allowed under FCC rules, Title 18 of the USC . FCC rules specifically prohibit use of the amateur bands with a view toward a pecuniary interest; Richard Bebout can't copyright said transmissions without having a pecuniary interest. Because this is a recording of an Amateur Radio broadcast Richard Bebout cannot have any monetary interest nor does he own a company that can claim ownership of the audio content from an amateur radio broadcast. See §97.3(4): "Amateur service. A radio communication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs,that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest." [See also §97.113(3)] Also see 18 USC §2511(2)(g)(i): "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public" ...and 18 USC §2511(2)(g)(iii)(III): "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person—to intercept ANY radio communication which is transmitted—by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services" ...and also reference §97.113(c):
Comments: Hammy Sammy I'm a bit embarrassed by your praise. I'm sort of a newbie ham trying to reconcile what I hear on some repeaters with the FCC rules that should be of concern to amateur operators displaying poor operating practices. So possibly for the sake of discussion I'd like to ask anyone at all to share an audio recording that we might examine for a direct application of the rules. Definitely illustrating someone who blatantly communicates on ham frequencies with unidentified and possibly unlicensed stations (squeakies) on a long term basis. So more than one example would be needed along with some sort of timeline of the recordings.
Comments: In reply to "Ham Sandwich" who said... honestly, I'm not sure what most of what you said is supposed to mean. "Casual conversation does not require justification of your motives or invasive inquiries of others." While what goes on here may in abstract be classified "casual" conversation, when you get to the point you're accusing people of, among other things, child molestation, when we know, if nothing else, that there is no sound basis for such an accusation, the motives of the defaming party are a legitimate subject for discussion. Also, the defaming party has dropped hints as to the reasons for his obsessive, creepy campaign of stalkerish harassment; attempting to discern if there is merit to those hints is hardly "invasive". When you stand up in the public square and you point the finger of blame for, among other things, ugly, despicable, criminal sex acts against others, you best be prepared to defend your claims, even if you do it while cowering behind a mask. If you imagine that these questions are "invasive" because the answers may in some way serve to identify the anonymous blowhard who has been spamming here for at least five years, you might consider that if there is, in fact, any legitimate basis for his claims, then KA6JMM already knows who he is. Beyond that, one of this person's claims is that JMM obtained personal information about him from something he carelessly discarded. If that claim is true, JMM not only knows who he is, but he knows that he is responsible, in part if not in total, for the harassment JMM has been subject to on multiple amateur radio repeaters, as well as for that person's stalkerish following of him and photographing of his property. "Your purpose is not congruent with the truth". Huh? What's my purpose? What's "the truth"? Which truth? The objective, verifiable, unimpeachable truth based on fact, or subjective, unsubstantiated, unverifiable, unbelievable anecdotes that some people mistakenly label "truth"? "...you have sold nothing." If I were selling something, that might be a problem. I'm seeking knowledge on a particular subject. If you have any, please share. It would be much more interesting than your non-responses.
Comments: Casual conversation does not require justification of your motives or invasive inquiries of others. Your perspective or projection of your purpose Hammy Sammy on Flamebook is not congruent with the truth. You can post your lengthy and colorful sales pitches here all day but in the end you have sold nothing. NO SALE! Again and again.
Comments: What if I don't use a Baofeng but another radio brand for the SPARC alarm contest? Is this acceptable per rules of the contest?
Comments: is Buzz t-hunting for SPARC?
Comments: In re: to "Not the FCC" - who SHOULD be with the FCC, but for the fact that the FCC doesn't generally employ people with common sense and critical thinking skills - who said: "Amateur radio is ONLY for communicating with other licensed amateur stations who clearly identify with their amateur service call sign. Any amateur displaying poor operating practices and even better yet who is _documented_ displaying such poor behavior is to be condemned. Wouldn't you agree?" Generally I would. That said, the criticism of RXZ for talking to an "unlicensed" station attached to that video may - MAY - have been a misstatement. In that specific instance, an argument could - COULD - be made that Joan should be classified as "third-party-traffic". Now, obviously, she herself did not specifically identify as third-party traffic, nor did any licensee ID and specifically refer to her as TPT operating via their station, or via a non-RF input to the repeater. But it's my understanding that she was getting in via a Roger Blight-approved medium. Now, we know that Roger Blight allows a great many things that are properly classified as rule violations to go on on his repeater, that he allows people who he likes to have "priority" access through VOIP, "private" RF inputs and phone patches, and he has no problem with them violating the rules - specifically not identifying - and that he even encourages his control operators [who are all unrepentant rulebreakers, persons who have boasted of being "bootleggers" (the way Roger has), persons who on a near daily basis jam stations they don't like or who they imagine are jamming them] to violate Part 97 with impunity under the doctrine of, "your repeater, your rules". I believe it's pretty clear that "your repeater, your rules" does not mean that you can violate Part 97, but it doesn't seem to be that Roger or his control operators understand that. So while it may be "approved" by Roger, and while it's clear that he fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of "your repeater, your rules", AND while it doesn't appear that there was a legitimate operator exercising proper station control during that audio capture, I can see where the FCC's position would be that while there might have been a failure to ID, you're still - effectively - dealing with a person who is operating as third-party traffic. All other criticisms of Henry's poor behavior remain valid as a basis for criticism. And let me take this opportunity to thank you for your well-reasoned thoughts on the matter, and your gentlemanly way of conversing. You get bonus points for your choice of warning letters to cite as a reference.
Comments: I don't care so much about the squeakies as it is the FCC's paid jobb to catch them. Hams who don't want to volunteer there time to help catch the unidentifieds should not be talking to them and ultimately encouraging the squeakies to continue. Screw WA6RXZ. I hope he gets a warning letter from the FCC. |
| < Previous 20 | Next 20 > |