Re: ARS License Numbers [Archive]

Vshah101

July 17th 03, 04:58 AM

From: "Carl R. Stevenson"

>Still slower growth than desirable by a long shot ...

I'd like to get some of my friends licensed and use it for utility purposes.
Other than that, what does it matter about ARS license numbers?

>eliminating Morse testing will help

No, it won't. The entry-level license is already code free. Eliminating Morse
testing will not cause more people to want to join.

Some do join just for HF, but that won't affect ARS license numbers.

> but more needs to be done to promote ham radio
>to those <40-50 years old if we want long-term survival .

I hate to say this, but vanity helps. Better to appeal to selfish motives than
selfless motives. The emergency communicator, the public service aspect - What
young person wants that?

Morse code and contesting don't appeal to vanity.

Morse code may be fun, but it takes more than that. If that fun makes you the
object of ridicule, then its not worth it. That makes it a "guilty pleasure"
-something you keep to yourself.

When they call contesting competition, it offends the normal sensibilities.
Making short QSOs (oops, I used a codeword) and counting contacts. Contesting
is competitive in a way, but its just one way. To exclude several kinds of
competition for contesting just isn't right. It means that competition isn't
the real motive. That's just a rationalization.

Real competition is expanding one's limitations. It includes radio direction
finding, APRS, mobile operation, tuning, troubleshooting, real emergency
preparedness.

And don't forget the social aspect.

Contesting is really boring too. It's human nature not to like boring
activities.

Some Hams will take a day off for a Hamfest that is on Friday and Saturday.
That takes one day away that could be used for a real vacation day. Just go
Saturday - you won't miss anything. Also, lets not schedule Hamfests and other
Ham Radio events during people's free social time, as Hams often do.

If you make the social aspect intolerable, some young people will not join for
that.

Brian

July 17th 03, 06:07 AM

Scott Unit 69 > wrote in message >...
> > As of July 15, 2003:
> > Technician - 257,319 (increase of 51,925)
>
> It would have been 51,922 if I hadn't dragged 2 others with me...

Way to go, Scott.

bb

Brian

July 17th 03, 06:11 AM

(N2EY) wrote in message >...
> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
> As of May 14, 2000:
>
> Novice - 49,329
> Tech - 205,394
> Tech Plus - 128,860
> General - 112,677
> Advanced - 99,782
> Extra - 78,750
> Total - 674,792
>
>
> As of July 15, 2003:
>
> Novice - 33,662 (decrease of 15,667)
> Technician - 257,319 (increase of 51,925)
> Technician Plus - 67,055 (decrease of 61,805)
> General - 141,181 (increase of 28,605)
> Advanced - 83,239 (decrease of 16,590)
> Extra - 104,301 (increase of 25,551)
> Total - 686,861 (increase of 12,069)
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Hmmm. Yet another increase. What will Kelley say?

I'm going to start calling him "weatherman." He's wrong more than 50%
of the time, yet you'se guys still pay attention to him.

Jim Hampton

July 17th 03, 06:26 AM

Scott, I *love* it. You even used unit 69! BTW, congratulations. Now the
CBers will hate you. You've gotta go middle of the road like me (until we
get squished, like a grape!)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Scott Unit 69" > wrote in message
...
> > As of July 15, 2003:
> > Technician - 257,319 (increase of 51,925)
>
> It would have been 51,922 if I hadn't dragged 2 others with me...

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/15/03

Dick Carroll

July 17th 03, 08:16 AM

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

> "Vshah101" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Some Hams will take a day off for a Hamfest that is on Friday and
> Saturday.
> > That takes one day away that could be used for a real vacation day. Just
> go
> > Saturday - you won't miss anything. Also, lets not schedule Hamfests and
> other
> > Ham Radio events during people's free social time, as Hams often do.
> >
> >
>
> That's the only time available to schedule. You can't schedule during work
> time or not enough people will be able to come.

When it comes to ham radio, Vipul has virtually everything bassackwards. I sure
home he isn't so consigned in everything he does, or he's in for serious difficulty
in life.

Dick Carroll

July 17th 03, 08:25 AM

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

> eliminating Morse
> testing will help,

Depends on an accurate definition of "help". I seriously doubt any help will accrue
from allowing all the freebanding illiterati to migrate down to HF.

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

July 17th 03, 03:14 PM

(Vshah101) wrote in message >...
> From: "Carl R. Stevenson"
>
> >Still slower growth than desirable by a long shot ...
>
> I'd like to get some of my friends licensed and use it for utility purposes.
> Other than that, what does it matter about ARS license numbers?
>
> >eliminating Morse testing will help
>
> No, it won't. The entry-level license is already code free. Eliminating Morse
> testing will not cause more people to want to join.

Another back-peddling "engineer".

Just a month ago he was adamandt that the code had to go to get
people in...

> I hate to say this, but vanity helps. Better to appeal to selfish motives than
> selfless motives. The emergency communicator, the public service aspect - What
> young person wants that?

Then get your $14.50 out...KV1PPY and KV1PUL are still available.

> When they call contesting competition, it offends the normal sensibilities.

BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....
! ! ! !

Calling "contesting" competition is offensive..?!?!

You have teams of Amateurs trying to beat other teams scores...

What's different about that than say...a chessmaster trying to
outscore HIS opponent? Or watching the Cowboys run over the Rams? Or
a poker player hoping his two of a kind beats what the other guy is
holding...?!?!

> Making short QSOs (oops, I used a codeword) and counting contacts. Contesting
> is competitive in a way, but its just one way. To exclude several kinds of
> competition for contesting just isn't right. It means that competition isn't
> the real motive. That's just a rationalization.

What an idiot.

> Real competition is expanding one's limitations. It includes radio direction
> finding, APRS, mobile operation, tuning, troubleshooting, real emergency
> preparedness.

You don't "expand" limitations, Vippy...you exceed them, you
overcome them, you....

Oh wait...this is YOU we are talking about...Yes, I guess YOU do
"expand" your limitations...

> And don't forget the social aspect.
>
> Contesting is really boring too. It's human nature not to like boring
> activities.

Yeah...that's why there are more and more "bored" people every
year on the air...Sure is depressing to hear all those "bored" people
on those weekends, isn't it? Especially when YOU can't get in there
and be bored right along with them...

Somewhere in all of that was a point to be made, but I'll be
danged if I know what he was trying to get at...

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo

July 17th 03, 03:38 PM

Dick Carroll wrote:
>
> "Dee D. Flint" wrote:
>
>
>>"Vshah101" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Some Hams will take a day off for a Hamfest that is on Friday and
>>
>>Saturday.
>>
>>>That takes one day away that could be used for a real vacation day. Just
>>
>>go
>>
>>>Saturday - you won't miss anything. Also, lets not schedule Hamfests and
>>
>>other
>>
>>>Ham Radio events during people's free social time, as Hams often do.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That's the only time available to schedule. You can't schedule during work
>>time or not enough people will be able to come.
>
>
> When it comes to ham radio, Vipul has virtually everything bassackwards. I sure
> home he isn't so consigned in everything he does, or he's in for serious difficulty
> in life.
>

He be a troll. I can't imagine anyone really thinks like that.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson

July 17th 03, 05:09 PM

"Vshah101" > wrote in message
...
> From: "Carl R. Stevenson"
>
> >Still slower growth than desirable by a long shot ...
>
> I'd like to get some of my friends licensed and use it for utility
purposes.
> Other than that, what does it matter about ARS license numbers?

Numbers = use of our spectrum = justification for keeping what we have
(and maybe getting a bit more in the future)

Numbers = political influence (also necessary to protect our spectrum)

Numbers (of younger hams) = hams that will survive longer into the
future ... with today's demographic, the sad reality is that a large
percentage of current hams will be SK in the next 10-20 years, resulting
in a major drop in our numbers unless we make ham radio more attractive
and interesting to the younger generation. To do that, we can't force the
PC/internet generation to cling to/embrace some "traditions" (such as Morse)
in which the "older generation" iks so deeply invested (in an emotional
sense).

>
> >eliminating Morse testing will help
>
> No, it won't. The entry-level license is already code free. Eliminating
Morse
> testing will not cause more people to want to join.

Many folks are interested in HF access as part of their "portfolio" of
capabilities ... the entry level license currently precludes them from
HF use ... that is a major disincentive to many.

Carl - wk3c

Scott Unit 69

July 17th 03, 08:58 PM

If the trolling CBers weren't sniffing around trying to find out about me,
I would be more then happy to post a call. Until the stalkers find a life,
you guys will just have to deal with my old moniker.

> Scott, I *love* it. You even used unit 69! BTW, congratulations. Now the
> CBers will hate you. You've gotta go middle of the road like me (until we
> get squished, like a grape!)

I need to find out if my TS-250 with SRF3800's (27 to 50 MHz) will
work on 6 meters (at a lower power output). It is very clean on SSB,
and was also tested by a ham on 10 meters. Anyone got an RCI5054 to sell?

> > > Technician - 257,319 (increase of 51,925)
> >
> > It would have been 51,922 if I hadn't dragged 2 others with me...

And #3 is waiting in the wings for the next test session.

Vshah101

July 18th 03, 12:37 AM

From: "Dee D. Flint"

>"Vshah101" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Some Hams will take a day off for a Hamfest that is on Friday and
>Saturday.
>> That takes one day away that could be used for a real vacation day. Just
>go
>> Saturday - you won't miss anything. Also, lets not schedule Hamfests and
>other
>> Ham Radio events during people's free social time, as Hams often do.
>>
>That's the only time available to schedule. You can't schedule during work
>time or not enough people will be able to come.
>
>Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>

Dee, you must of not read what I wrote. The Hamfest was on Friday and Saturday.
Friday is a work day. Several Hams took a day off to attend on Friday and
Saturday. Therefore, it was partly scheduled during work. Yet, people were able
to come.

I didn't want to be direct and was still hoping people would understand. Thats
not what I meant by free social time. I meant that hams should not be at their
radios on Saturday night. Yet, at hamfests and ham gathering events (such as
DXpeditions), hams are at their radios the whole night.

Vshah101

July 18th 03, 12:45 AM

From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

>Calling "contesting" competition is offensive..?!?!
> You have teams of Amateurs trying to beat other teams scores...

Its competetive. Things is hams don't like other kinds of competitions, such as
radio direction finding. Hams stay with their activities.

>From: "Carl R. Stevenson"

>Numbers = use of our spectrum = justification for keeping what we have
>(and maybe getting a bit more in the future)

Don't forget, having more activities, rather than fewer also helps. More growth
in homebrewing, tuning, direction finding, emergency communications, APRS, etc.

N2EY

July 18th 03, 02:21 AM

In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> writes:

(Vipul wrote:)
>>what does it matter about ARS license numbers?
>
>Numbers = use of our spectrum = justification for keeping what we have
>(and maybe getting a bit more in the future)

Not necessarily! What really matters is how many ACTIVE hams we have, and how
active they are.

There are more US hams now than ever before. More modes, more activities,
smaller and much less expensive equipment, etc. We have about the same amount
of spectrum below 500 MHz as we had 45 years ago, when there were fewer than
half as many US hams. (WARC-79 added 250 kHz of HF in 3 bands, and we lost
220-222 MHz about a dozen years after that).

But are the bands full-to-busting with activity 24/7? Yes, it's hard to
coordinate a new repeater in some metro areas - but are all the existing ones
tied up around the clock so that we need more?

>Numbers = political influence (also necessary to protect our spectrum)

Only those who are active will have influence. Back in the '60s, with about
250,000 hams and no internet or email, FCC got over 6000 comments in response
to its restructuring proposal. A few years ago, with about 675,000 hams, and
the ECFS system, FCC's restructuring proposal got less than 2300 comments. (It
is left to the reader to figure out the percentages).
>
>Numbers (of younger hams) = hams that will survive longer into the
>future ...

Only matters if they are active. I know several hams who got licenses back in
the '80s and '90s for "honeydew" purposes. Now they have cellphones. Will they
renew when the license runs out? Don't count on it.

> with today's demographic,

What IS today's demographic? Do you have a reliable source?

>the sad reality is that a large
>percentage of current hams will be SK in the next 10-20 years, resulting
>in a major drop in our numbers unless we make ham radio more attractive
>and interesting to the younger generation.

Actually, the younger generation first has to know ham radio even exists.

>To do that, we can't force the
>PC/internet generation to cling to/embrace some "traditions" (such as Morse)
>in which the "older generation" iks so deeply invested (in an emotional
>sense).

How do you know, Carl?

From 1996 to 2001, I did Field Day with a local group of clubs at a local park.
Location was chosen for visibility to the non-ham public. Lots of young people
came through, asked lots of questions, took lots of literature. The computers
and voice operation got a passing glance from most of 'em. But they were almost
universally fascinated by the CW tent, where I and a few others held forth,
with one ham operating while another explained and translated.

This was not an isolated occurrence - it happened again and again. The fact
that we were making CW contacts faster and with less effort than the 'phone
folks was not lost on the visitors, either.

>> >eliminating Morse testing will help

>> No, it won't. The entry-level license is already code free. Eliminating
>> Morse testing will not cause more people to want to join.

Yup. The real problem is things like lack of publicity.

omigawd, I'm agreeing with Vipul!

>Many folks are interested in HF access as part of their "portfolio" of
>capabilities ... the entry level license currently precludes them from
>HF use ... that is a major disincentive to many.

I disagree 100%, but let's put that aside for a moment.

Suppose tomorrow morning, next week or next month, by some method or another,
FCC just dumps Element 1 and merges the Tech and Tech Plus licenses. The
entry-level license will then have some HF access, consisting of little CW-only
slivers of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus a slightly bigger chunk of 10 meters with
SSB and CW. All with a power limitation. Above 30 MHz, though, the entry level
license has all privileges. Is that really the best arrangement? Will the
removal of Element 1 fix that alleged disincentive problem?

Or are other changes needed?

73 de Jim, N2EY
>

Mike Coslo

July 18th 03, 03:02 AM

Vshah101 wrote:
> From: "Dee D. Flint"
>
>
>>"Vshah101" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Some Hams will take a day off for a Hamfest that is on Friday and
>>
>>Saturday.
>>
>>>That takes one day away that could be used for a real vacation day. Just
>>
>>go
>>
>>>Saturday - you won't miss anything. Also, lets not schedule Hamfests and
>>
>>other
>>
>>>Ham Radio events during people's free social time, as Hams often do.
>>>
>>
>>That's the only time available to schedule. You can't schedule during work
>>time or not enough people will be able to come.
>>
>>Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>>
>
>
> Dee, you must of not read what I wrote. The Hamfest was on Friday and Saturday.
> Friday is a work day. Several Hams took a day off to attend on Friday and
> Saturday. Therefore, it was partly scheduled during work. Yet, people were able
> to come.
>
> I didn't want to be direct and was still hoping people would understand. Thats
> not what I meant by free social time. I meant that hams should not be at their
> radios on Saturday night.

Good grief, what should they be doing on Saturday night? I have a
social life also, but no one is dictating what night I'm socializing.

I would say that people shouldn't be spending all their weekends partying.

> Yet, at hamfests and ham gathering events (such as
> DXpeditions), hams are at their radios the whole night.

And this is bad, why? I rather enjoy the late shift at field day.
Doesn't do me any harm, but for a bit of sleep lost.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo

July 18th 03, 03:06 AM

Vshah101 wrote:
> From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
>
>
>>Calling "contesting" competition is offensive..?!?!
>> You have teams of Amateurs trying to beat other teams scores...
>
>
> Its competetive. Things is hams don't like other kinds of competitions, such as
> radio direction finding. Hams stay with their activities.

You are simply WRONG. I love contesting, and I also still play sports.
I'm quite competitive.

Oh, and I do RDF too.

Why do you perpetuate this strange stereotype?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

July 18th 03, 04:56 AM

(Vshah101) wrote in message >...
> From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
>
> >Calling "contesting" competition is offensive..?!?!
> > You have teams of Amateurs trying to beat other teams scores...
>
> Its competetive. Things is hams don't like other kinds of competitions, such as
> radio direction finding. Hams stay with their activities.

Vippy, you've already been proven wrong by more than one poster
here. WHY do you persist in insisting that Amateurs don't like RDF,
etc?

> >From: "Carl R. Stevenson"
>
> >Numbers = use of our spectrum = justification for keeping what we have
> >(and maybe getting a bit more in the future)
>
> Don't forget, having more activities, rather than fewer also helps. More growth
> in homebrewing, tuning, direction finding, emergency communications, APRS, etc.

Again, it has already been proven that the things you insist don't
happen DO happen. Why do you insist that they don't?

Steve, K4YZ

Vshah101

July 18th 03, 05:34 AM

>From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

>> Don't forget, having more activities, rather than fewer also helps. More
>growth
>> in homebrewing, tuning, direction finding, emergency communications, APRS,
>etc.
>
> Again, it has already been proven that the things you insist don't
>happen DO happen. Why do you insist that they don't?

They don't happen to me. Doesn't happen in the four closest clubs to me, at
Hamfests in MA, NH, CT. Doesn't happen despite my best efforts to search for
such activities. Its not what Hams are interested in.

Dave Heil

July 18th 03, 06:00 AM

Vshah101 wrote:

> Dee, you must of not read what I wrote. The Hamfest was on Friday and Saturday.
> Friday is a work day. Several Hams took a day off to attend on Friday and
> Saturday. Therefore, it was partly scheduled during work. Yet, people were able
> to come.

What is that to you?

> I meant that hams should not be at their
> radios on Saturday night. Yet, at hamfests and ham gathering events > (such as DXpeditions), hams are at their radios the whole night.

What is that to you? Why not try something different for your amateur
radio activities, Vipul? You do what you want and let others do what
they want. It is obvious that your group fetish isn't working out.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil

July 18th 03, 06:01 AM

Vshah101 wrote:
>
> From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
>
> >Calling "contesting" competition is offensive..?!?!
> > You have teams of Amateurs trying to beat other teams scores...
>
> Its competetive. Things is hams don't like other kinds of competitions, such as
> radio direction finding.

Yes, there are hams who enjoy radio direction finding.

> Hams stay with their activities.

Yes, they do. You'll find it difficult to persuade other hams to drop
what they're doing and to do what you want to do unless it coincides
with what they enjoy doing. You seem to have a problem with the
concept.

> >From: "Carl R. Stevenson"
>
> >Numbers = use of our spectrum = justification for keeping what we have
> >(and maybe getting a bit more in the future)
>
> Don't forget, having more activities, rather than fewer also helps. More growth
> in homebrewing, tuning, direction finding, emergency communications, APRS, etc.

So start doing those things. I'm sure that "tuning" thing will catch on
rapidly.

Dave K8MN

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

July 18th 03, 12:47 PM

Dave Heil > wrote in message >...
> Vshah101 wrote:

> > Don't forget, having more activities, rather than fewer also helps. More growth
> > in homebrewing, tuning, direction finding, emergency communications, APRS, etc.
>
> So start doing those things. I'm sure that "tuning" thing will catch on
> rapidly.

I am sure that if "they" ever create a picture dictionary,
Vippy's picture will premier next to the term "clueless".

Steve, K4YZ

Carl R. Stevenson

July 18th 03, 03:06 PM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> > writes:
>
> (Vipul wrote:)
> >>what does it matter about ARS license numbers?
> >
> >Numbers = use of our spectrum = justification for keeping what we have
> >(and maybe getting a bit more in the future)
>
> Not necessarily! What really matters is how many ACTIVE hams we have, and
how
> active they are.

I agree that that is true, but in purely political terms, the number of
licensees counts,
too.

> There are more US hams now than ever before. More modes, more activities,
> smaller and much less expensive equipment, etc. We have about the same
amount
> of spectrum below 500 MHz as we had 45 years ago, when there were fewer
than
> half as many US hams. (WARC-79 added 250 kHz of HF in 3 bands, and we lost
> 220-222 MHz about a dozen years after that).
>
> But are the bands full-to-busting with activity 24/7? Yes, it's hard to
> coordinate a new repeater in some metro areas - but are all the existing
ones
> tied up around the clock so that we need more?

That's a whole different argument.

> > with today's demographic,
>
> What IS today's demographic? Do you have a reliable source?

The last data I saw, the average age of US hams was somewhere
in the 60's ... how that's changed in the last couple of years is probably
anyone's guess, since the age data no longer seems to be available,
but I doubt it's come down dramatically.

> >the sad reality is that a large
> >percentage of current hams will be SK in the next 10-20 years, resulting
> >in a major drop in our numbers unless we make ham radio more attractive
> >and interesting to the younger generation.
>
> Actually, the younger generation first has to know ham radio even exists.

This is true ...

> >To do that, we can't force the
> >PC/internet generation to cling to/embrace some "traditions" (such as
Morse)
> >in which the "older generation" iks so deeply invested (in an emotional
> >sense).
>
> How do you know, Carl?

It seems obvious that you generally can't force anyone to do something
they don't want to do ...

> >> >eliminating Morse testing will help
>
> >> No, it won't. The entry-level license is already code free. Eliminating
> >> Morse testing will not cause more people to want to join.

I disagree. Eliminating Morse testing will remove a barrier to advancement
that many folks find disagreeable ... keep the carrot, eliminate the stick.

> >Many folks are interested in HF access as part of their "portfolio" of
> >capabilities ... the entry level license currently precludes them from
> >HF use ... that is a major disincentive to many.
>
> I disagree 100%, but let's put that aside for a moment.

We obviously disagree. What makes you think that "Many folks are interested
in HF access as part of their 'portfolio' of capabilities." ???
(That the entry level license currently precludes them from HF use is a fact
and
I don't see how you could begin to dispute that.)

> Suppose tomorrow morning, next week or next month, by some method or
another,
> FCC just dumps Element 1 and merges the Tech and Tech Plus licenses. The
> entry-level license will then have some HF access, consisting of little
CW-only
> slivers of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus a slightly bigger chunk of 10 meters
with
> SSB and CW. All with a power limitation. Above 30 MHz, though, the entry
level
> license has all privileges. Is that really the best arrangement? Will the
> removal of Element 1 fix that alleged disincentive problem?

I believe so ... getting even a "taste" of HF operation as a Tech will be a
good
thing.

I also believe that many current Techs will upgrade to General rather
promptly
once the code test goes away. (some won't, being content with their current
privs, but I believe many will want to extend their privs to HF and will
take,
and pass, the General written to get there).

> Or are other changes needed?

Is that supposed to be a "trick question" ???

NCI's "agenda" is to eliminate Morse testing.

Carl - wk3c

Mike Coslo

July 18th 03, 05:28 PM

Vshah101 wrote:
>>From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
>
>
>>>Don't forget, having more activities, rather than fewer also helps. More
>>
>>growth
>>
>>>in homebrewing, tuning, direction finding, emergency communications, APRS,
>>
>>etc.
>>
>> Again, it has already been proven that the things you insist don't
>>happen DO happen. Why do you insist that they don't?
>
>
> They don't happen to me. Doesn't happen in the four closest clubs to me, at
> Hamfests in MA, NH, CT. Doesn't happen despite my best efforts to search for
> such activities. Its not what Hams are interested in.

Perhaps you need to look to other possibilities for why you don't get
along with hams.

- mike KB3EIA -

Scott Unit 69

July 18th 03, 10:28 PM

Scott Unit 69 wrote:
>
> > As of July 15, 2003:
> > Technician - 257,319 (increase of 51,925)
>
> It would have been 51,922 if I hadn't dragged 2 others with me...

And I got someone to renew their license after 1.5 years had passed
after expiration.

My current total: 4

1 for me.
2 for new.
1 for renew.

N2EY

July 19th 03, 12:21 AM

In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> writes:

>"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
>> > writes:
>>
>> (Vipul wrote:)
>> >>what does it matter about ARS license numbers?
>> >
>> >Numbers = use of our spectrum = justification for keeping what we have
>> >(and maybe getting a bit more in the future)
>>
>> Not necessarily! What really matters is how many ACTIVE hams we have, and
>> how active they are.
>
>I agree that that is true, but in purely political terms, the number of
>licensees counts, too.

Sure - but it's only part of the picture.
>
>> There are more US hams now than ever before. More modes, more activities,
>> smaller and much less expensive equipment, etc. We have about the same
>> amount
>> of spectrum below 500 MHz as we had 45 years ago, when there were fewer
>> than
>> half as many US hams. (WARC-79 added 250 kHz of HF in 3 bands, and we lost
>> 220-222 MHz about a dozen years after that).
>>
>> But are the bands full-to-busting with activity 24/7? Yes, it's hard to
>> coordinate a new repeater in some metro areas - but are all the existing
>> ones tied up around the clock so that we need more?
>
>That's a whole different argument.

I mean it as a discussion. One of the reasons hams have stuck with technology
such as FM repeaters on dedicated pairs is that except in a few areas there's
no pressing need for more. Also why bands like 222 and above 450 are
underutilized.

For example, one of the things that drove hams to abandon AM and NBFM in the
'50s was the crowding and heterodynes in the 'phone bands when AM was king.
This may be a big reason for the "great giveaway" of late 1952.
>
>> > with today's demographic,
>>
>> What IS today's demographic? Do you have a reliable source?
>
>The last data I saw, the average age of US hams was somewhere
>in the 60's ...

From what source? FCC has been on-again, off-again with the requirement for DOB
info.

"average age" tells us very little unless we know how it is determined. Mean?
Median? What's the distribution curve look like?

I recall seeing an 11 year old Extra and a 79 year old Advanced talking at FD a
few years back. Their "average age" works out to 45...

>how that's changed in the last couple of years is probably
>anyone's guess, since the age data no longer seems to be available,
>but I doubt it's come down dramatically.
>
Perception can be quite different from reality. Unless we have the entire
database or a truly representative sample, impressions are misleading.

>> >the sad reality is that a large
>> >percentage of current hams will be SK in the next 10-20 years, resulting
>> >in a major drop in our numbers unless we make ham radio more attractive
>> >and interesting to the younger generation.
>>
>> Actually, the younger generation first has to know ham radio even exists.
>
>This is true ...

Something we gotta fix.
>
>> >To do that, we can't force the
>> >PC/internet generation to cling to/embrace some "traditions" (such as
>> >Morse)
>> >in which the "older generation" iks so deeply invested (in an emotional
>> >sense).
>>
>> How do you know, Carl?
>
>It seems obvious that you generally can't force anyone to do something
>they don't want to do ...

Of course. But how do you know that young people won't embrace traditions? For
many people, the novelty of doing something that isn't mainstream is a big
attraction. PCs used to be like that - now they're appliances.
>
>> >> >eliminating Morse testing will help
>>
>> >> No, it won't. The entry-level license is already code free. Eliminating
>> >> Morse testing will not cause more people to want to join.
>
>I disagree. Eliminating Morse testing will remove a barrier to advancement
>that many folks find disagreeable ... keep the carrot, eliminate the stick.

And if removal doesn't change the growth appreciably?
>
>> >Many folks are interested in HF access as part of their "portfolio" of
>> >capabilities ... the entry level license currently precludes them from
>> >HF use ... that is a major disincentive to many.
>>
>> I disagree 100%, but let's put that aside for a moment.
>
>We obviously disagree. What makes you think that "Many folks are interested
>in HF access as part of their 'portfolio' of capabilities." ???

The disagreement is that the code test is a major disincentive to many. It's
just a requirement. However, let's put that aside because it will soon be a
moot point.

>(That the entry level license currently precludes them from HF use is a fact
>and I don't see how you could begin to dispute that.)

I'm not disputing it
>
>> Suppose tomorrow morning, next week or next month, by some method or
>> another,
>> FCC just dumps Element 1 and merges the Tech and Tech Plus licenses. The
>> entry-level license will then have some HF access, consisting of little
>> CW-only
>> slivers of 80, 40 and 15 meters, plus a slightly bigger chunk of 10 meters
>> with
>> SSB and CW. All with a power limitation. Above 30 MHz, though, the entry
>> level
>> license has all privileges. Is that really the best arrangement? Will the
>> removal of Element 1 fix that alleged disincentive problem?
>
>I believe so ... getting even a "taste" of HF operation as a Tech will be a
>good thing.

Even if that "taste" consists of nothing but Morse/CW on little parts of four
bands, plus a bit of SSB on a fourth band that will largely be dead as we head
into the sunspot minimum? That's what you're saying - take away the code test
but leave most of the entry-level HF privs as CW/Morse!
>
>I also believe that many current Techs will upgrade to General rather
>promptly
>once the code test goes away. (some won't, being content with their current
>privs, but I believe many will want to extend their privs to HF and will
>take,
>and pass, the General written to get there).

We'll see. I think many won't. Look what happened to existing Tech Pluses -
even after three years, the number of Tech Pluses is about half what it was in
April 2000. Of those are gone from the Tech Plus numbers, some upgraded, some
dropped out, and some were renewed as Techs - even though none of them had to
take a code test to get a General, and many didn't even have to take a written
test.

Look at how little the Advanced numbers have dropped, even though getting an
Extra only takes a written test.
>
>> Or are other changes needed?
>
>Is that supposed to be a "trick question" ???

Nope. The whole artificial above/below 30 MHz thing came about because of
S25.5. That's not going to be an issue much longer. Time to take a fresh look
at things.
>
>NCI's "agenda" is to eliminate Morse testing.
>
I'm not asking "NCI". I'm asking a wideranging question of anyone who's
interested. It's time to look beyond the code test as the only issue on the
table, if we're really interested in improving the future of the ARS.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

July 19th 03, 02:21 PM

In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> writes:

>"Dick Carroll" > wrote in message
...

>> "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

>> > eliminating Morse testing will help,

>> Depends on an accurate definition of "help". I seriously doubt any help
>> will accrue
>> from allowing all the freebanding illiterati to migrate down to HF.

>That's a bogus argument

Not really. It's not universal, either.

>... since the "freebanders" operate without any
>regard for the law, why would the allow a Morse test requirement to
>dissuade them ...

I think you meant "why would they allow" - I'll go on that assumption

>they have no licenses to operate any way (and don't
>care to get them) ...

Here's how it works - in theory, anyway:

Most freebanders started out as cb users who then got tired of the limitations
of 5 watts and 40 channels. But, having had "a taste of HF", they wanted more -
more power, more spectrum, etc. Some became hams. Others looked into the
requirements for a ham license, saw the code test, and said 'no thanks".
Instead, they began running higher power and on frequencies adjacent to the
legal 40 channels.

With the code test gone, it will be a lot easier for folks like that to get ham
licenses. Most of them already know enough theory and regs to pass the
Technician written. They already have antennas and equipment that will work on
10 meters.

Carl, you have told us repeatedly that you know engineers who would have become
hams except for the code test. I think the word was "disincentive". And even
after the code test was gone for VHF/UHF, they did not become hams because they
wanted HF access.

If that was true for those engineers, why wouldn't it be true for lots of other
people?

>This reminds me of the "We'll be over-run by the 'mongrel hordes' from
>the CB bands FUD ... that hasn't happened either.

A lot of today's hams were or are cb users. Most are well behaved, but a few
are not.

>Get real.

One of the most-repeated arguments I have heard from the nocodetest folks is
that the code test acts as a "barrier" to a ham license for many people who are
interested in radio not interested in code. If that is true, why wouldn't it be
true for cb users, freebanders and lots of other people?

--

Now maybe, just maybe, the removal of the code test will result in lots of new
law-abiding, progressive hams, interested in helping the ARS progress into the
21st century with new modes, new technologies and a new vision of the future.
We'll know pretty soon.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

Vshah101

July 19th 03, 02:39 PM

From: Mike Coslo

>Perhaps you need to look to other possibilities for why you don't get
>along with hams.

I was re-invited to the last DXexpedition I went to, so I get along with Hams.

Vshah101

July 19th 03, 02:55 PM

From: (N2EY)

>Carl, you have told us repeatedly that you know engineers who would have
>become
>hams except for the code test.

>And even
>after the code test was gone for VHF/UHF, they did not become hams because
>they
>wanted HF access.

The full spectrum, except HF, is a good incentive to get a Ham license.
Probably not all Engineers want or need HF so much that they wouldn't become a
Ham because of a code test.

>A lot of today's hams were or are cb users.

Not me.

>Now maybe, just maybe, the removal of the code test will result in lots of
>new
>law-abiding, progressive hams, interested in helping the ARS progress into
>the
>21st century with new modes, new technologies and a new vision of the future.

There is a code free license right now, so probably not.

Mike Coslo

July 19th 03, 03:51 PM

Vshah101 wrote:
> From: Mike Coslo
>
>
>>Perhaps you need to look to other possibilities for why you don't get
>>along with hams.
>
>
> I was re-invited to the last DXexpedition I went to, so I get along with Hams.

Do they know how you talk about them?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil

July 20th 03, 04:53 AM

Vshah101 wrote:
>
> From: Mike Coslo
>
> >Perhaps you need to look to other possibilities for why you don't get
> >along with hams.
>
> I was re-invited to the last DXexpedition I went to, so I get along with Hams.

You didn't go on a "DXexpedition".

Dave K8MN

Vshah101

July 20th 03, 06:58 PM

From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

>> They don't happen to me. Doesn't happen in the four closest clubs to me, at
>> Hamfests in MA, NH, CT. Doesn't happen despite my best efforts to search
>for
>> such activities. Its not what Hams are interested in.
>
> And you refuse to identify these clubs by name. I am sure that is
>directly due to the fact that we will then be able to confirm, via
>third parties, that you silly assertions are false.

I went to a Ham club in CT yesterday. I know, failure results from doing the
same things that didn't work before, but it was a "new" type of club. It was
the VHF/UHF/Microwave club in CT. Between the DXpedition and this event, I will
skeptical of any Ham Radio event from now on.

Lots of homebrewed microwave stuff. And they supposedly did Minimum Signal
Testing, although I didn't stick around to verify this.

I found the Ham culture similar to other clubs, however. Mostly talking about
Ham stuff. Some technical talk about their setup. However, the technical person
would feel out of place there. A few talked about the people they contacted. A
few were happy to include others. Most of them were not. They seemed to contact
people through the radio, but not in person.

About 20+ people were there. More were showing up, but I didn't say long. Also,
it was 100% male. About half were old and about 75% were overweight. Not that
there is anything wrong with that. There just seems to be a correlation in Ham
Radio demographics. What is is about Ham radio that makes you want to eat
alot? Surprising, Ham Radio brings in few females.

>Again, WHY do you insist that these things don't go on when
>indeed they are frequent topics of conversation in QST, 73, CQ,
>etc...?!?!

I cant find any, despite my best effort. Lets face it, Hams are anti-social
males. Significant percentages are overweight and older. Most do not like the
technical aspect, either. You'll find that at any random Ham Radio gathering or
event.

Len Over 21

July 21st 03, 01:29 AM

In article >, (N2EY)
writes:

>In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> writes:
>

>For example, one of the things that drove hams to abandon AM and NBFM in the
>'50s was the crowding and heterodynes in the 'phone bands when AM was king.
>This may be a big reason for the "great giveaway" of late 1952.

"AM?!?" All along you've insisted that US hams had SSB in the 1950s!

>Perception can be quite different from reality. Unless we have the entire
>database or a truly representative sample, impressions are misleading.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you keep interpreting your database info and claiming it
is THE interpretation. Are you saying you are now MISLEADING
everyone?!?

>>> Actually, the younger generation first has to know ham radio even exists.
>>
>>This is true ...
>
>Something we gotta fix.

Why? Is it broke? No sense "fixing" something if it ain't broken. :-)

>Of course. But how do you know that young people won't embrace traditions?
>For many people, the novelty of doing something that isn't mainstream is a big
>attraction. PCs used to be like that - now they're appliances.

Radio stations in homes were once new and interesting. Around 1935
or so. Now, HF transceivers are just appliances.

1935 was, oh, around SIXTY-EIGHT YEARS AGO. :-)

>>We obviously disagree. What makes you think that "Many folks are interested
>>in HF access as part of their 'portfolio' of capabilities." ???
>
>The disagreement is that the code test is a major disincentive to many. It's
>just a requirement. However, let's put that aside because it will soon be a
>moot point.

No, no!! Say it isn't so! You've reiterated that a morse code test is
NECESSARY because so many hams around the world use morse
code! Don't tell us you've changed your mind?!?!

>Nope. The whole artificial above/below 30 MHz thing came about because of
>S25.5. That's not going to be an issue much longer. Time to take a fresh look
>at things.

A "fresh look?!?" Good grief.

Definitely a change of mind. Reverend Jim must have found a new stash.

>>NCI's "agenda" is to eliminate Morse testing.
>>
>I'm not asking "NCI".

Sorry, you are blatantly addressing Carl and NCI.

>I'm asking a wideranging question of anyone who's
>interested. It's time to look beyond the code test as the only issue on the
>table, if we're really interested in improving the future of the ARS.

Then apply for a staff position at ARRL. Remember, Dave Sumner will
retire eventually...there's your CHANCE at becoming Executive
Director For Life! :-)

Until then, test element 1 is still in Part 97. The fat lady hasn't sung.
It ain't over in here yet until test element goes away.

LHA

Vshah101

July 22nd 03, 01:57 AM

From: Dave Heil k8mn

>I thought you told us that hams don't homebrew gear.

I guess VHF/UHF/Microwave or QRP clubs do.

>What would you expect hams to talk about a ham radio club meeting?

It was an operating event, not a club meeting.

I did not expect them to be similar to other clubs. When I asked different
people about their setup, he seemed busy and not wanting to talk about it. If
it was me, I would happily explain what I made, brag about it, show interested
people schematics, share technical info, etc.

>However, the technical person
>> would feel out of place there.
>
>You mean around the homebrew microwave gear?

Yes, once they were setup, they were much the same as the non-homebrewing Ham.

>Are you telling us that they sat around conversing with each other by
>using their homebrew microwave gear while at the meeting?

They contacted other Hams, not the same hams that were at the gathering, of
course.

>> What is is about Ham radio that makes you want to eat
>> alot?
>
>Oh, you believe that amateur radio causes overeating. Ever hang around
>a Burger King?

Okay, it was not a random group (they were a VHF/UHF/Microwave club), but it
was still Hams. And this trend occurs at several Ham radio events. Such events
require little physical activity. Also, people often eat unhealthy food at
these events. This could be a good reason for the tendency to weigh more.

>> Most do not like the
>> technical aspect, either. You'll find that at any random Ham Radio
>gathering or
>> event.
>
>You don't know anything about what most do.

Sure, I have not taken a poll. But isn't it foolish to believe otherwise when
you always encounter is anti-social, non technical people? I "let" my club
membership expire. If I am missing a segment that fits what I am looking for, I
would like to know about it and I would join that type of club.

Vshah101

July 24th 03, 05:25 AM

From: Dave Heil k8mn

>> When I asked different
>> people about their setup, he seemed busy and not wanting to talk about it.
>If
>> it was me, I would happily explain what I made, brag about it, show
>interested
>> people schematics, share technical info, etc.
>
>The more you go on with these tales, the more I suspect that you
>fabricate portions so as to promote your agenda.

Please tell me how what I said was fabricated. What would they have said
instead? Are you saying they were enthiusiastic about explaining their setup,
and I said the reverse?

>> Sure, I have not taken a poll.
>
>Then you have no factual evidence.

I have seen it first hand. Where it the alternate reality? If its not too far
from me (so I can get there), then tell me about it. Please provide an example.

Dave Heil

July 24th 03, 10:29 PM

Vshah101 wrote:
>
> From: Dave Heil k8mn
>
> >> When I asked different
> >> people about their setup, he seemed busy and not wanting to talk about it.
> >If
> >> it was me, I would happily explain what I made, brag about it, show
> >interested
> >> people schematics, share technical info, etc.
> >
> >The more you go on with these tales, the more I suspect that you
> >fabricate portions so as to promote your agenda.
>
> Please tell me how what I said was fabricated. What would they have said
> instead?

I suppose you mean, "How could I have fabricated portions to further my
hidden agenda?" The answer would be: by stretching the truth so as to
make it seem that no radio amateur at any gathering is interested in
talking to you. If, however, your statements are true, you seem to have
a god-given gift for honking people off. In all of your tales, no one
seems to want to have a thing to do with you. That leads me to believe
that you are the problem.

> Are you saying they were enthiusiastic about explaining their setup,
> and I said the reverse?

No.

>
> >> Sure, I have not taken a poll.
> >
> >Then you have no factual evidence.
>
> I have seen it first hand.

So you say. Either things aren't as you say or your presence brings out
the worst in people.

> Where it the alternate reality? If its not too far
> from me (so I can get there), then tell me about it. Please provide an > example.

There may not be an "alternate reality" for you, Vipul. You seem to
have your personal black could following wherever you go.

Dave K8MN

N2EY

August 2nd 03, 02:27 PM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of July 31, 2003:

Novice - 33,409 (decrease of 15,920)
Technician - 257,791 (increase of 52,397)
Technician Plus - 66,704 (decrease of 62,156)
General - 141,381 (increase of 28,704)
Advanced - 83,141 (decrease of 16,641)
Extra - 104,453 (increase of 25,703)
Total - 686,879 (increase of 12,087)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Larry Roll K3LT

August 17th 03, 05:33 AM

In article >,
(N2EY) writes:

>As of May 14, 2000:
>
>Novice - 49,329
>Tech - 205,394
>Tech Plus - 128,860
>General - 112,677
>Advanced - 99,782
>Extra - 78,750
>Total - 674,792
>
>
>As of August 15, 2003:
>
>Novice - 33,205 (decrease of 16,124)
>Technician - 258,384 (increase of 52,990)
>Technician Plus - 66,402 (decrease of 62,458)
>General - 141,381 (increase of 28,840)
>Advanced - 83,038 (decrease of 16,699)
>Extra - 104,543 (increase of 25,793)
>Total - 687,134 (increase of 12,342)
>
>73 de Jim, N2EY

Dear NCTA:

I regret to inform you that "Restructuring" the US Amateur Radio Service's
licensing system, to reduce the code testing speed to 5 WPM for General
and Extra class, in addition to the existing No-Code Technician-class
license, has resulted in a whopping 1.79 percent growth rate in the ARS
overall! What do you suppose we're gonna get from No-Code HF? Maybe
2 percent?

Perhaps I should take this time to suggest a new motto for the ARRL:

Ham Radio -- Stick A Fork In Us, We're Done!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Dwight Stewart

August 17th 03, 07:55 PM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> writes:
>
>> As of May 14, 2000:
>>
>> Novice - 49,329
>> Tech - 205,394
>> Tech Plus - 128,860
>> General - 112,677
>> Advanced - 99,782
>> Extra - 78,750
>> Total - 674,792
>>
>> As of August 15, 2003:
>>
>> Novice - 33,205 (decrease of 16,124)
>> Technician - 258,384 (increase of 52,990)
>> Technician Plus - 66,402 (decrease of 62,458)
>> General - 141,381 (increase of 28,840)
>> Advanced - 83,038 (decrease of 16,699)
>> Extra - 104,543 (increase of 25,793)
>> Total - 687,134 (increase of 12,342)
>
>
> I regret to inform you that "Restructuring" the
> US Amateur Radio Service's licensing system, to
> reduce the code testing speed to 5 WPM for
> General and Extra class, in addition to the
> existing No-Code Technician-class license, has
> resulted in a whopping 1.79 percent growth rate
> in the ARS overall! (snip)

And without the 52,990 increase in non-code proficient Technicians, there
would instead be a 7.85 percent decrease in overall numbers. Of course,
that's a rough estimate - as rough as the numbers used in your argument.

> What do you suppose we're gonna get from No-Code
> HF? Maybe 2 percent?
>
> Perhaps I should take this time to suggest a new
> motto for the ARRL: Ham Radio -- Stick A Fork In
> Us, We're Done!

If those with your views continue to deride modern Ham Radio, perhaps even
less then 2 percent. Those changes are part of Ham Radio today. If you
belittle those changes, you belittle today's Ham Radio.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dee D. Flint

August 18th 03, 12:18 AM

"Vshah101" > wrote in message
...
> From Larry, K3LT
>
> >I regret to inform you that "Restructuring" the US Amateur Radio
Service's
> >licensing system, to reduce the code testing speed to 5 WPM for General
> >and Extra class, in addition to the existing No-Code Technician-class
> >license, has resulted in a whopping 1.79 percent growth rate in the ARS
> >overall! What do you suppose we're gonna get from No-Code HF? Maybe
> >2 percent?
>
> The base of EEs can be expanded. You can get more EE from the rf
specialty.
> Not all EEs have an interest in that specialty. But, from those that do,
> amateur radio could be a good hobby.
>
> Amateur radio is not an EE friendly hobby. Those that like to build
circuits
> are not welcomed as those that want to learn Morse code, contest, or work
DX.
> EEs that are put off by Hams don't join the hobby.
>

You keep putting out this misinformation. I know of no one who has not been
welcomed into ham radio. Everyone is welcom. As far as building circuits,
again everyone is welcome. When someone in our club mentions that they are
building something, others ask about the progress of the project and help if
needed.

> As, I have noted before, the quality of rf courses could be improved with
ARRL
> publications. The projects have real, rather than just textbook
applications.
> This is not being currently done in most colleges.
>
> Secondly, EEs are not joining amateur radio clubs. Some Profs that teach
rf
> courses that I took do not have amateur radio licenses. People in the rf
field
> are not attending club meetings.
>

It is not the business of a university or college to promote ham radio. The
university will have no higher percentage of hams than the general
population. Unless one is or wants to become a ham, there is no need for
someone to attend ham club meetings. There is no requirement that EE
professors be hams or need for them to be so.

> The ARRL should make more efforts in this area. This would increase the
number
> of people in the hobby. Also, there is a strong connection between EE and
> amateur radio that is not being realized.

As with any organization, the ARRL has limited resources. They must pick
and choose where to apply those resources. Recruiting new hams is something
that can be done easily and cheaply by individual hams via word of mouth if
they choose. It would be much more costly for the ARRL to try to do that
recruiting as they would need to purchase advertising on TV, radio, and in
the magazines and send recruiters out on lecture circuits to schools of all
levels. They just can't do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Larry Roll K3LT

August 18th 03, 05:01 AM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

> If those with your views continue to deride modern Ham Radio, perhaps even
>less then 2 percent. Those changes are part of Ham Radio today. If you
>belittle those changes, you belittle today's Ham Radio.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Dwight:

Belittling ham radio? Moi??? Hmmm, you may have a point there. Now
that ham radio licensing requirements in the U.S. have been reduced to
insignificance, and are about to be made a whole lot less significant when
code testing is abolished, I guess one could make the point that there is
a lot "belittleable" about ham radio these days! We are about to start
the first "generation" of hams who have never been bothered to learn the
Morse code, and will never know the benefits and advantages of the
Morse/CW mode from personal operational experience. Now THERE's
a perfect example of something that would inspire one to "belittle"
ham radio, indeed!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Dwight Stewart

August 18th 03, 05:11 AM

"WA3IYC" wrote:
>
> That 52,990 "increase" is not all new license
> issues. (snip)
>
> (snip) How "code proficient" any amateur is
> cannot be determined from license class alone.

Of course, Jim. I clearly stated my numbers were a "rough estimate."

> The important point is that the number of US hams
> is growing at a slow rate. Restructuring did not
> result in a big change in growth. (snip)

True. However, to make something out of that, one has to eliminate all
factors outside restructuring. In my last message, I hinted at factors such
as the attitude of current operators towards those new to ham radio. Today's
new operator faces more ridicule and harassment than perhaps any new
operator in the history of this activity. And lets face it, that new
operator is not likely going to invite friends or family members to join
after an negative exchange with Larry in this newsgroup (or someone like him
here or elsewhere). Clearly, the attitude of current operators has a role to
play in the lackluster growth of ham radio today, perhaps even far more than
restructuring at this point.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

August 18th 03, 06:50 PM

(Vshah101) wrote in message >...

> Amateur radio is not an EE friendly hobby. Those that like to build circuits
> are not welcomed as those that want to learn Morse code, contest, or work DX.
> EEs that are put off by Hams don't join the hobby.

This is so absolutely false and rediculous as to make one wonder
what you were consuming when you wrote it, Vipul.

> Secondly, EEs are not joining amateur radio clubs. Some Profs that teach rf
> courses that I took do not have amateur radio licenses. People in the rf field
> are not attending club meetings.

Most people who do "x" for a living generally do not do it for a
past time either, Vippy. So what?

> The ARRL should make more efforts in this area. This would increase the number
> of people in the hobby. Also, there is a strong connection between EE and
> amateur radio that is not being realized.

How? Hit them over the head with a mallet then drag them off to
the shack?

Sheeesh.

Steve, K4YZ

Dwight Stewart

August 18th 03, 11:53 PM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> Belittling ham radio? Moi??? Hmmm, you may have
> a point there. Now that ham radio licensing
> requirements in the U.S. have been reduced to
> insignificance, and are about to be made a whole
> lot less significant when code testing is
> abolished, I guess one could make the point that
> there is a lot "belittleable" about ham radio
> these days! We are about to start the first
> "generation" of hams who have never been bothered
> to learn the Morse code, and will never know the
> benefits and advantages of the Morse/CW mode from
> personal operational experience. Now THERE's a
> perfect example of something that would inspire
> one to "belittle" ham radio, indeed!

Well, if you don't like ham radio today, perhaps you should find another
hobby. Only a masochist would continue doing something that makes him or her
miserable. Ham radio is moving in a direction opposite from what you seem to
want and is not likely to move in the direction you want anytime soon. When
that happens, you either learn to live with it, walk away, or continue to be
miserable. If you choose the later, it is rather sleazy of you to take your
misery out on the new members of this activity. They didn't ask for your
negative garbage (none of us did), and this activity certainly would be far
better off without it.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

DickCarroll

August 19th 03, 03:53 AM

(Brian) wrote in message >...
> (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message >...
> > (Vshah101) wrote in message >...
>
> > > Secondly, EEs are not joining amateur radio clubs. Some Profs that teach rf
> > > courses that I took do not have amateur radio licenses. People in the rf field
> > > are not attending club meetings.
> >
> > Most people who do "x" for a living generally do not do it for a
> > past time either, Vippy. So what?
>
> From just the small sample called RRAP,
>
> Exhibit 1: David Heil. Claims to have been a Dept. of State
> Radioman.
>
> Exhibit 2: Parson Jim. Claims to be an EE.
>
> Exhibit 3: Barrister Phil. Claims to be an Radio attorney.
>
> Exhibit 4: Labman Ed. Claims to be ARRL Lab Manager.
>
> Exhibit 5: 1000' tall Alien Ed. Claims to be an EE.
>
> Exhibit 6: Machine Gun Kelly. Claims to be some kind of an Engineer,
> mainly in rubberband technologies.
>
> But, as Heil, Jim, Kelly, and you continually point out, doing it for
> a living, i.e., professionally, has absolutely nothing to do with
> doing it amateurishly, i.e., without compensation.

Well, that's a few percent of all posters to rrap.

Evidently you thught you had a point but discovered you were still wearing
it as headgear.

Ryan, KC8PMX

August 19th 03, 06:11 AM

Wrong..... All the arrl needs to do is create the PSA's and distribute them
to the various radio and/or television stations.
Commercial radio and television stations are REQUIRED to air a certain
amount of PSA announcements per day and being a non-profit, allegedly
service-based organization, that would definitely fit the bill. The only
cost involved is the creation of the tapes, and the distribution thereof.

>
> As with any organization, the ARRL has limited resources. They must pick
> and choose where to apply those resources. Recruiting new hams is
something
> that can be done easily and cheaply by individual hams via word of mouth
if
> they choose.

Aparently that has not worked like it should...... If the word of mouth
thing really worked, we have better numbers to have N2EY to post each month!
After all, how many times can we hit up our friends and relatives??

It would be much more costly for the ARRL to try to do that
> recruiting as they would need to purchase advertising on TV, radio, and in
> the magazines and send recruiters out on lecture circuits to schools of
all
> levels. They just can't do it.

As far as sending out "recruiters," where the hell is this all-fired
important field organization?? Apparently there is a decent enough amount
of people that could direct people/groups to work on presentations! I
worked out a wonderful Powerpoint presentation to take to the schools and
tried and tried to get at least ONE person to assist me in going to the
30-40 schools just in my county alone! Not one person would help. I don't
have a ton of stuff along the lines of equipment to "impress upon" some of
these students so I wanted to enlist the help of others. My goal was to
attract ONE person from each school (not a huge effort) each year with this
plan. What really boiled my ass in all of this, was that to get information
regarding the ARRL (their brochures) was going to cost me a bunch of cash.
What the hell do these people pay dues for? Apparently the ARRL does not
have to justify where the money goes, although they allege to spend it in
the defense of amateur radio. I have asked in the past (as a possible
condition of choosing to be a member or not) as to where in DC the money
goes, and so far, still have not heard anything. Still have yet to see
proof that the ARRL is nothing more than an expensive subscription to a
magazine. (I do however think QST is a decent magazine, not the best, but
pretty good.)

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Ryan, KC8PMX

August 19th 03, 06:12 AM

Probably a little growth initially, but it will flatten back out to where it
is now is my guess Jim.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
> >there
> >would instead be a 7.85 percent decrease in overall numbers. Of course,
> >that's a rough estimate - as rough as the numbers used in your argument.
>
> The important point is that the number of US hams is growing at a slow
rate.
> Restructuring did not result in a big change in growth. If Element 1 is
> dropped, it will be interesting to see if there is any significant
increase in
> growth.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Ryan, KC8PMX

August 19th 03, 06:14 AM

In addition to my other response to this particular message is, "A good
defense is a good offense." This can be read into as if something is
promoted more in a positive light, to educate the public, then less effort
is needed to defend it.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Dee D. Flint" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> "Vshah101" > wrote in message
> ...
> > From Larry, K3LT
> >
> > >I regret to inform you that "Restructuring" the US Amateur Radio
> Service's
> > >licensing system, to reduce the code testing speed to 5 WPM for General
> > >and Extra class, in addition to the existing No-Code Technician-class
> > >license, has resulted in a whopping 1.79 percent growth rate in the ARS
> > >overall! What do you suppose we're gonna get from No-Code HF? Maybe
> > >2 percent?
> >
> > The base of EEs can be expanded. You can get more EE from the rf
> specialty.
> > Not all EEs have an interest in that specialty. But, from those that do,
> > amateur radio could be a good hobby.
> >
> > Amateur radio is not an EE friendly hobby. Those that like to build
> circuits
> > are not welcomed as those that want to learn Morse code, contest, or
work
> DX.
> > EEs that are put off by Hams don't join the hobby.
> >
>
> You keep putting out this misinformation. I know of no one who has not
been
> welcomed into ham radio. Everyone is welcom. As far as building
circuits,
> again everyone is welcome. When someone in our club mentions that they
are
> building something, others ask about the progress of the project and help
if
> needed.
>
> > As, I have noted before, the quality of rf courses could be improved
with
> ARRL
> > publications. The projects have real, rather than just textbook
> applications.
> > This is not being currently done in most colleges.
> >
> > Secondly, EEs are not joining amateur radio clubs. Some Profs that teach
> rf
> > courses that I took do not have amateur radio licenses. People in the rf
> field
> > are not attending club meetings.
> >
>
> It is not the business of a university or college to promote ham radio.
The
> university will have no higher percentage of hams than the general
> population. Unless one is or wants to become a ham, there is no need for
> someone to attend ham club meetings. There is no requirement that EE
> professors be hams or need for them to be so.
>
> > The ARRL should make more efforts in this area. This would increase the
> number
> > of people in the hobby. Also, there is a strong connection between EE
and
> > amateur radio that is not being realized.
>
> As with any organization, the ARRL has limited resources. They must pick
> and choose where to apply those resources. Recruiting new hams is
something
> that can be done easily and cheaply by individual hams via word of mouth
if
> they choose. It would be much more costly for the ARRL to try to do that
> recruiting as they would need to purchase advertising on TV, radio, and in
> the magazines and send recruiters out on lecture circuits to schools of
all
> levels. They just can't do it.
>
> Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

August 19th 03, 02:41 PM

(Vshah101) wrote in message >...
> From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)
>
> >Some Profs that teach rf
> >> courses that I took do not have amateur radio licenses.
>
> >Most people who do "x" for a living generally do not do it for a
> >past time either, Vippy. So what?
>
> Some EE got interested from building kits as a hobby and then decided to get an
> EE degree. Most EEs like to build circuits for fun. They enjoy that.

And they are certainly welcome to do exactly that, with or
without an Amatuer Radio license.

> Many Profs or working EEs belong to the IEEE section of their field. For
> example If they are in the rf field, they would be a member of the microwave
> techniques society.

Those "societies" are professional organization, Vippy. Hardly
relevent to the Amateur Radio service.

> In other words, you would be a part of the organizations and associations
> related to your field. If you are a professor or a person working in the rf
> field, it seems logical and likely you would get an amateur radio license.

Which STILL does not, in any way, shape of form, make any sense
of your assertion that EE's are "turned away" from Amatuer Radio. I
know of at least 15 people who are EE's (two holding doctorates) who
are Amateurs.

> I know a few Profs that teach rf courses. An antenna theory Prof has also
> worked in industry doing rf antenna work. This Prof does NOT have an amateur
> radio license. Also, another Prof that teaches microwave circuits do not have
> an amateur radio license.

And your "Prof" is not in this forum or insisting that he be
granted an Amateur license based solely upon his status as an
instructor, either...

You STILL have not answered the question, Vippy...SO WHAT...?!?!?

> That points to the lack of relavance of amateur radio to people in the rf
> specialization.

No more than my lack of membership in the NRA "proves" that I am
not interested in firearms. I can still hit a target in the black
from 800 meters and am not a member of the NRA..So what?

> >> The ARRL should make more efforts in this area. This would increase the
> number
> >> of people in the hobby. Also, there is a strong connection between EE and
> >> amateur radio that is not being realized.
> >
> > How? Hit them over the head with a mallet then drag them off to
> >the shack?
>
> One idea is to expand the ARRL courses available now (such as antenna
> modelling). More publicity on these courses as useful to industry would help as
> well. It would show that people that took these courses have certain skills
> that could be useful in industry.

These courses aer well distributed and made available to anyone
who cares to use them.

They are, however, written for NON-TECHNICALLY educated folks who
want to LEARN the basics...NOT for professional engineers.

> Sleep.

Please do. Maybe you'll wake up a bit more alert and responsible
when you do.

Steve, K4YZ

Dwight Stewart

August 19th 03, 02:57 PM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> (snip) The newcomer "hams" will, from now on,
> have to deal with the fact that they are here
> on a pass. I'm not suggesting that they be
> deliberately treated with antagonism; however
> they will have to be VERY careful not to make
> any implications of total equality with their
> Pre-Restructuring superiors. The only
> "equality" they possess is that granted by a
> government agency that could simply care less,
> as opposed to that granted by their superior
> "peers" in the ARS itself. The newcomers are
> here on a pass, and will have a lot to prove
> in order to be granted acceptance. To date,
> they have not even scratched the surface.

Larry, you're one of the most pampas, bigoted, individuals I've ever
talked to. I've honestly met Klux Klux Klan members with less bigoted views.
How do you live with yourself? How can you post what you write and still
have any self-respect afterward?

Let me make something very clear - you don't have the right, or moral high
ground, to assign or not assign equality to others. You're a two-bit punk
trying to make yourself feel important by pointing to your petty code skill.
In this world today, that skill is so trivial as to be almost laughable (and
you know that is true). For you to hold it up like a badge of honor is
laughable.

I'm one of those newcomers you keep talking about - a newcomer damn tired
of your hateful comments towards those like me in this newsgroup. If you
want to play this game, then you, Larry, are my inferior, as a human being
and as a ham operator. In fact, you're inferior to just about anyone with
more civilized views, which probably includes just about everyone else.

You keep yelling about how superior you are. Each time you do, you instead
show how inferior you are, as a person and as a member of this ham radio
community.

If I were not aware of how harmful bigoted people who practice
discrimination can be in a community, I would almost pity your desperate
need to feel important. As it is, I'm simply ashamed to be associated with
you, even if that association is nothing more than a mutual interest.

And that is all I have to say to you, Larry. If you want to talk further,
do so with someone who is interested in what you have to say.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WA8ULX

August 19th 03, 03:16 PM

> Larry, you're one of the most pampas, bigoted, individuals I've ever
>talked to. I've honestly met Klux Klux Klan members with less bigoted views.
>How do you live with yourself? How can you post what you write and still
>have any self-respect afterward?
>
> Let me make something very clear - you don't have the right, or moral high
>ground, to assign or not assign equality to others. You're a two-bit punk
>trying to make yourself feel important by pointing to your petty code skill.
>In this world today, that skill is so trivial as to be almost laughable (and
>you know that is true). For you to hold it up like a badge of honor is
>laughable.
>
> I'm one of those newcomers you keep talking about - a newcomer damn tired
>of your hateful comments towards those like me in this newsgroup. If you
>want to play this game, then you, Larry, are my inferior, as a human being
>and as a ham operator. In fact, you're inferior to just about anyone with
>more civilized views, which probably includes just about everyone else.
>
> You keep yelling about how superior you are. Each time you do, you instead
>show how inferior you are, as a person and as a member of this ham radio
>community.
>
> If I were not aware of how harmful bigoted people who practice
>discrimination can be in a community, I would almost pity your desperate
>need to feel important. As it is, I'm simply ashamed to be associated with
>you, even if that association is nothing more than a mutual interest.
>
> And that is all I have to say to you, Larry. If you want to talk further,
>do so with someone who is interested in what you have to say.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Cry Whinner CRY. All you CBplussers have left, is your useless attempts to try
and Justify your Welfare Status as Hams.
All we want to be is an Equal to you real Hams, seems to be all you guys can
come up with. Guess what Dwight, it will never happen.You guys have got what
you wanted a Dumb Down Service with no effort required. So stop your Damn
Whinning and get to the back of the Bus where you belong.

Dave Heil

August 19th 03, 03:43 PM

Dwight Stewart wrote:

> Larry, you're one of the most pampas...

Was Larry ever a gaucho in Argentina?

Dave K8MN

Mike Coslo

August 19th 03, 04:38 PM

Dave Heil wrote:
> Dwight Stewart wrote:
>
>
>> Larry, you're one of the most pampas...
>
>
> Was Larry ever a gaucho in Argentina?

Anyone here remember Gaucho cookies?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Larry Roll K3LT

August 19th 03, 06:32 PM

In article >, Dave Heil >
writes:

>Dwight Stewart wrote:
>
>> Larry, you're one of the most pampas...
>
>Was Larry ever a gaucho in Argentina?
>
>Dave K8MN

Dave:

Si!

73 de Larry, LU3LT

Disclaimer: "LU3LT" is not my real callsign. In fact, it isn't anyone's
real callsign!

Larry Roll K3LT

August 19th 03, 06:32 PM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

>
> Larry, you're one of the most pampas, bigoted, individuals I've ever
>talked to. I've honestly met Klux Klux Klan members with less bigoted views.
>How do you live with yourself? How can you post what you write and still
>have any self-respect afterward?
>
> Let me make something very clear - you don't have the right, or moral high
>ground, to assign or not assign equality to others. You're a two-bit punk
>trying to make yourself feel important by pointing to your petty code skill.
>In this world today, that skill is so trivial as to be almost laughable (and
>you know that is true). For you to hold it up like a badge of honor is
>laughable.
>
> I'm one of those newcomers you keep talking about - a newcomer damn tired
>of your hateful comments towards those like me in this newsgroup. If you
>want to play this game, then you, Larry, are my inferior, as a human being
>and as a ham operator. In fact, you're inferior to just about anyone with
>more civilized views, which probably includes just about everyone else.
>
> You keep yelling about how superior you are. Each time you do, you instead
>show how inferior you are, as a person and as a member of this ham radio
>community.
>
> If I were not aware of how harmful bigoted people who practice
>discrimination can be in a community, I would almost pity your desperate
>need to feel important. As it is, I'm simply ashamed to be associated with
>you, even if that association is nothing more than a mutual interest.
>
> And that is all I have to say to you, Larry. If you want to talk further,
>do so with someone who is interested in what you have to say.

Awww, c'mon, Dwight -- what do you really think???

Unfortunately, Bruce stole my thunder as far as a reply to the above
is concerned, so all I have to say is, enjoy the ride in the back of the
bus with the rest of your dumbed-down Welfare-class ham radio
underlings. And, do feel free to open the Emergency Exit door and bail
out whenever you please!

Anyway, it's nice to know that when I yank a chain, it STAYS yanked!
Keep stewing, Dwight!

73 de Larry, K3LT
Dwight's Intellectual and Moral Superior (which doesn't take much effort
on my part!)

N2EY

August 19th 03, 09:19 PM

(WA8ULX) wrote > >

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> Cry Whinner CRY. All you CBplussers have left, is your useless attempts to try
> and Justify your Welfare Status as Hams.
> All we want to be is an Equal to you real Hams, seems to be all you guys can
> come up with. Guess what Dwight, it will never happen.You guys have got what
> you wanted a Dumb Down Service with no effort required. So stop your Damn
> Whinning and get to the back of the Bus where you belong.

Y'know, Dwight, it's kinda surreal to read somebody lambasting others
about "effort" who won't even turn on the spellchecker, let alone look
at grammar, punctuation and capitalization.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dave Heil

August 19th 03, 09:34 PM

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:
>
> In article >, Dave Heil >
> writes:
>
> >Dwight Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> Larry, you're one of the most pampas...
> >
> >Was Larry ever a gaucho in Argentina?
> >
> >Dave K8MN
>
> Dave:
>
> Si!
>
> 73 de Larry, LU3LT
>
> Disclaimer: "LU3LT" is not my real callsign. In fact, it isn't anyone's
> real callsign!

Larry,

You're just going to have to be less pampas.

Dave K8MN

WA8ULX

August 19th 03, 10:57 PM

>Y'know, Dwight, it's kinda surreal to read somebody lambasting others
>about "effort" who won't even turn on the spellchecker, let alone look
>at grammar, punctuation and capitalization.....

Hell no I wont turn it on.

Brian

August 20th 03, 12:00 AM

(DickCarroll) wrote in message >...
> (Brian) wrote in message >...
> > (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message >...
> > > (Vshah101) wrote in message >...
>
> > > > Secondly, EEs are not joining amateur radio clubs. Some Profs that teach rf
> > > > courses that I took do not have amateur radio licenses. People in the rf field
> > > > are not attending club meetings.
> > >
> > > Most people who do "x" for a living generally do not do it for a
> > > past time either, Vippy. So what?
> >
> > From just the small sample called RRAP,
> >
> > Exhibit 1: David Heil. Claims to have been a Dept. of State
> > Radioman.
> >
> > Exhibit 2: Parson Jim. Claims to be an EE.
> >
> > Exhibit 3: Barrister Phil. Claims to be an Radio attorney.
> >
> > Exhibit 4: Labman Ed. Claims to be ARRL Lab Manager.
> >
> > Exhibit 5: 1000' tall Alien Ed. Claims to be an EE.
> >
> > Exhibit 6: Machine Gun Kelly. Claims to be some kind of an Engineer,
> > mainly in rubberband technologies.
> >
> > But, as Heil, Jim, Kelly, and you continually point out, doing it for
> > a living, i.e., professionally, has absolutely nothing to do with
> > doing it amateurishly, i.e., without compensation.
>
>
>
> Well, that's a few percent of all posters to rrap.

DICK, you're just miffed that I left you and gudbuddy Bruce off.

Exhibit 7: DICK, former SWR adjuster at the Sheriff's office.

Exhibit 8: Bruce, professional electronics repairman. Specialized in
getting p-nut butter sandwiches and vanilla wafers out of the kids
VCR.

> Evidently you thught you had a point but discovered you were still wearing
> it as headgear.

I've never worn a thught as headgear. Are they comfortable in long
contests? Can you get one with a boom mic?

Kim W5TIT

August 20th 03, 01:56 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dwight Stewart
> > writes:
>
> > If those with your views continue to deride modern Ham Radio, perhaps
even
> >less then 2 percent. Those changes are part of Ham Radio today. If you
> >belittle those changes, you belittle today's Ham Radio.
> >
> >
> >Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> Dwight:
>
> Belittling ham radio? Moi??? Hmmm, you may have a point there. Now
> that ham radio licensing requirements in the U.S. have been reduced to
> insignificance, and are about to be made a whole lot less significant when
> code testing is abolished, I guess one could make the point that there is
> a lot "belittleable" about ham radio these days! We are about to start
> the first "generation" of hams who have never been bothered to learn the
> Morse code, and will never know the benefits and advantages of the
> Morse/CW mode from personal operational experience. Now THERE's
> a perfect example of something that would inspire one to "belittle"
> ham radio, indeed!
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>

I wonder if you realize how incessant your whining is...

Kim W5TIT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 20th 03, 04:54 AM

In article >, Dave Heil >
writes:

>> Disclaimer: "LU3LT" is not my real callsign. In fact, it isn't anyone's
>> real callsign!
>
>Larry,
>
>You're just going to have to be less pampas.
>
>Dave K8MN

Dave:

Perhaps Dwight knew what he was talking about. Pampas grass is
pretty nasty stuff, and perhaps, he was insinuating the same about
me. How charming.

http://www.nps.gov/redw/pampas.htm

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 20th 03, 04:54 AM

In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
writes:

>
>I wonder if you realize how incessant your whining is...
>
>Kim W5TIT

As usual, Kim, you stole the words right out from under my fingertips!
What I'd like to know is, when are you going to even make an attempt
to come up with an original thought?

73 de Larry, K3LT

Vshah101

August 20th 03, 05:00 AM

From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

>Those "societies" are professional organization, Vippy. Hardly
>relevent to the Amateur Radio service.

Thats right. RF people would benefit by knowing people that are also interested
in rf circuits. They would soon find that out that Hams are not interested in
that if they went to a few club meetings. So, someone specializing in rf
electronics would not benefit from association with Hams.

WA8ULX

August 20th 03, 06:53 AM

sniped of no value
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>

Dwight Stewart

August 20th 03, 07:06 AM

"WA8ULX" wrote:
>
> Cry Whinner CRY. All you CBplussers have left,
> is your useless attempts to try and Justify
> your Welfare Status as Hams. All we want to
> be is an Equal to you real Hams, seems to be
> all you guys can come up with. Guess what
> Dwight, it will never happen.You guys have got
> what you wanted a Dumb Down Service with no
> effort required. So stop your Damn Whinning
> and get to the back of the Bus where you
> belong.

If you and Larry are examples of what a real ham is, then I have no
problem with being considered something else. And, observing your rudeness
and demonstrated ignorance, I have no desire to be your equal. Finally, I
don't ride on a bus - there are too many like Larry driving them and too
many like you riding as passengers.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

August 20th 03, 07:45 AM

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
>
> "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>>
>> Belittling ham radio? Moi??? Hmmm, you may
>> have a point there. Now that ham radio
>> licensing requirements in the U.S. have been
>> reduced to insignificance, (snip)
>
>
> I wonder if you realize how incessant your
> whining is...

At this point, I don't think Larry can think of anything else, Kim. I've
been reading his negative garbage for four or five years now. The same
subjects (code, licensing requirements, and newer hams) are almost always
the focus of his messages and those messages are almost always filled with
delusions about his own self-importance and insults towards others.

I don't know if Larry thinks he's being funny or if he really believes the
hatred he spews. Whatever the case, I'm getting real darn tired of it. If he
continues with ridicule that includes me as a target, I'm not going to
continue to sit back and say nothing.

If the majority of respondents in this newsgroup side with him, making him
the de facto spokesperson for ham radio and the higher license classes, then
perhaps this isn't an activity I wish to continue participating in.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

August 20th 03, 10:54 AM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kim W5TIT" wrote:
> >
> > "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
> >>
> >> Belittling ham radio? Moi??? Hmmm, you may
> >> have a point there. Now that ham radio
> >> licensing requirements in the U.S. have been
> >> reduced to insignificance, (snip)
> >
> >
> > I wonder if you realize how incessant your
> > whining is...
>
>
> At this point, I don't think Larry can think of anything else, Kim. I've
> been reading his negative garbage for four or five years now. The same
> subjects (code, licensing requirements, and newer hams) are almost always
> the focus of his messages and those messages are almost always filled with
> delusions about his own self-importance and insults towards others.
>
> I don't know if Larry thinks he's being funny or if he really believes
the
> hatred he spews. Whatever the case, I'm getting real darn tired of it. If
he
> continues with ridicule that includes me as a target, I'm not going to
> continue to sit back and say nothing.
>
> If the majority of respondents in this newsgroup side with him, making
him
> the de facto spokesperson for ham radio and the higher license classes,
then
> perhaps this isn't an activity I wish to continue participating in.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

Oh goodness, Dwight! That's a lot said right there. BUT, it's *in spite
of* the likes of Larry that I like being in the hobby/service of ham radio.
And, believe me, Larry really believes what he is saying. He's a desperate,
lonely, little man--and his delusions are all he's got.

Oh, and by the way. Look real close at who is actually communicating with
him on an intellectual level. Nada. Zip. There are people in this
newsgroup who get communicated with, and there are people in this newsgroup
who get communicated to. Larry is in the latter. For all the times I've
****ed people off, across the board, there are still times when threads have
been maintained for a good length of time that involved intellectual debate.
Same for you. Same for any of us "antagonizers" as we are affectionately
called.

But, not for Larry, not for a couple of others. Larry isn't "spewing"
anything that sticks; his kind of logic and reasoning are quite in the
minority in ham radio.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY

August 21st 03, 12:07 AM

Dwight Stewart > wrote in message >...
> "WA3IYC" wrote:
> >
> > That 52,990 "increase" is not all new license
> > issues. (snip)
> >
> > (snip) How "code proficient" any amateur is
> > cannot be determined from license class alone.
>
> Of course, Jim. I clearly stated my numbers were a "rough estimate."
>
What I was getting at is that a test is just one data point. There are
hams who passed 20 per once-upon-a-time who would be hard pressed to
pass Element 1 today. And there are hams whose testing never exceeded
5 wpm who have gone far beyond 20 wpm. Etc.

And the same thing applies to the writtens.

They're all just one data point, often decades old.

> > The important point is that the number of US hams
> > is growing at a slow rate. Restructuring did not
> > result in a big change in growth. (snip)
>
> True. However, to make something out of that, one has to eliminate all
> factors outside restructuring.

Agreed! There are all sorts of factors - cost of equipment, antenna
restrictions, RFI concerns, even competing radio services. Not too
many years ago, it was common to encounter hams who had gotten
licenses for the express purpose of "honeydew" communications. Today
almost all of them have cellphones.

> In my last message, I hinted at factors such
> as the attitude of current operators towards those new to ham radio.

I hope you mean "the attitude of *some* current operators...."

> Today's
> new operator faces more ridicule and harassment than perhaps any new
> operator in the history of this activity.

I don't know about that. Around here, and everywhere else I've lived
since becoming a ham 36 years ago, newcomers of all ages, sizes,
genders, ethnicities, etc., are welcomed and encouraged, as a general
rule.

Yes, there are a few sourpusses with negative addytoods. They've been
around forever. I can recall comments that Novices were "not real
hams" and that my homebrew CW rigs were "not real radios", etc., etc.,
ad infinitum. Ol' W2OY was well known for his misanthropic "no kids,
no lids, no space cadets" tirades. Oddly enough, most of those folks
are not hams anymore, but I am. bwaahaahaa....

If you look for and listen to the naysayers and sourpusses, it just
encourages them.

> And lets face it, that new
> operator is not likely going to invite friends or family members to join
> after an negative exchange with Larry in this newsgroup (or someone like him
> here or elsewhere).

Sure.

But are folks like that the rule or the exception?

> Clearly, the attitude of current operators has a role to
> play in the lackluster growth of ham radio today, perhaps even far more than
> restructuring at this point.
>
True - but consider also the attitudes expressed by a very few
newcomers towards experienced amateurs. Should we welcome a newcomer
who says all hams are fat and that no EE with self-respect would use
Morse code? How about one who insults others' employment, technical
knowledge, education, ethnicity, appearance, age, and name?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Larry Roll K3LT

August 21st 03, 04:58 AM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

> I don't know if Larry thinks he's being funny or if he really believes the
>hatred he spews. Whatever the case, I'm getting real darn tired of it. If he
>continues with ridicule that includes me as a target, I'm not going to
>continue to sit back and say nothing.

Dwight:

By all means, feel free to say something about it. We're waiting...
>
> If the majority of respondents in this newsgroup side with him, making him
>the de facto spokesperson for ham radio and the higher license classes, then
>perhaps this isn't an activity I wish to continue participating in.

Hey, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

73 de Larry, K3LT

WA8ULX

August 21st 03, 06:49 AM

>In the end, the only clear way to completely get away from
>his nonsense is to leave this newsgroup (an occasional break from this
>newsgroup is probably not a bad idea anyway).
>

Good, your leaving, might I suggest you go back to cb.rec. At least there you
will be able to talk to your kind of people.

Brian

August 21st 03, 12:19 PM

(DickCarroll) wrote in message >...

> Those pointy caps need no further introduction nor accessories.

Apparently, they do. You might want to have QST feature them in an
article and explain how they are different from ceramic and
electrolytic caps.

Brian

August 22nd 03, 05:09 AM

(DickCarroll) wrote in message >...
> (Brian) wrote in message >...
> > (DickCarroll) wrote in message >...
> >
> > > Those pointy caps need no further introduction nor accessories.
> >
> > Apparently, they do. You might want to have QST feature them in an
> > article and explain how they are different from ceramic and
> > electrolytic caps.
>
> I'll just suggest you as a reference.

Sorry, but I'm not an Extra.

Dwight Stewart

August 22nd 03, 06:50 AM

"WA8ULX" wrote:
>
> Good, your leaving, might I suggest you go
> back to cb.rec. At least there you will be
> able to talk to your kind of people.

My kind of people? Do you mean people like yourself? I see you've posted a
few messages in the CB newsgroup (well over 100 according to Google). Most
of my messages there were cross-posted to rec.radio.cb from messages posted
elsewhere, but most of yours were posted directly in that newsgroup.

In fact, the first message I ever saw from you was in that newsgroup. If I
remember correctly, you were talking about the big tube-type linear amp you
were using with the 10 meter radio you had modified to use on the
frequencies in and above the CB band. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I certainly
don't think so.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WA8ULX

August 22nd 03, 02:32 PM

> My kind of people?

Yes your kind of people

> If I
>remember correctly, you were talking about the big tube-type linear amp you
>were using with the 10 meter radio you had modified to use on the
>frequencies in and above the CB band.

Pure BS and you know it

WA8ULX

August 22nd 03, 02:34 PM

>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

PS, get to the back of the Bus where you and your kind belong.

Dwight Stewart

August 23rd 03, 04:13 PM

"WA3IYC" wrote:

> A problem only if you take them seriously.

I used to not take them seriously. However, after I start hearing what is
written here repeated outside this newsgroup, it is perhaps time to start
taking the stuff written here more seriously. A lot of people, far more than
perhaps some imagine, read this newsgroup. Absent an alternative viewpoint,
they have no reason not to believe what they read here, and repeat it
elsewhere. Enough of this and the entire image of this radio service is
dragged down - which is exactly what I think is going on now.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

August 23rd 03, 04:35 PM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "WA3IYC" wrote:
>
> > A problem only if you take them seriously.
>
>
> I used to not take them seriously. However, after I start hearing what
is
> written here repeated outside this newsgroup, it is perhaps time to start
> taking the stuff written here more seriously. A lot of people, far more
than
> perhaps some imagine, read this newsgroup. Absent an alternative
viewpoint,
> they have no reason not to believe what they read here, and repeat it
> elsewhere. Enough of this and the entire image of this radio service is
> dragged down - which is exactly what I think is going on now.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

You're right, Dwight. If Riley Hollingsworth's words that he spoke to many
groups, many times are correct, then ham radio is dead--or is dying a slow
death. I know and have heard the very conversations you speak of. When I
first heard talk like that on the air when I got my ticket, I was shocked
because I didn't think it was allowed.

There's a repeater here in Dallas. During the last Presidential campaign
and election, the hate spewed on that repeater was horrifying--and that is
not an overreaction. I heard things like that Democrats were the equivalent
of people who "let" things like Hitler happen and, believe me, that is mild.
That is why Larry remarks about my callsign--or anyone else's for that
matter--are such a damned joke. My callsign has nothing to do with the
destruction of the ARS. It is people like Larry and his attitudes that are
destroying the ARS. In Larry's mind, it's probably my fault because he has
to be so hateful toward me because of my callsign :)

Kim W5TIT

WA8ULX

August 23rd 03, 05:03 PM

>Enough of this and the entire image of this radio service is
>dragged down - which is exactly what I think is going on now.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET

Damn its working.

Dwight Stewart

August 24th 03, 07:13 AM

"WA8ULX" wrote:

> Damn its working.

Bruce, I realize your agenda is to drive Ham Radio right into the ground.
Why you would want to do so is beyond me. Perhaps your messages in the CB
newsgroup offer a hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
against Ham Radio operators.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WA8ULX

August 24th 03, 02:09 PM

>Perhaps your messages in the CB
>newsgroup offer a hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
>against Ham Radio operators.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Your so full of it, produce the message, oh mighty CBplusser.

Brian

August 24th 03, 02:59 PM

Dwight Stewart > wrote in message >...
> "WA8ULX" wrote:
>
> > Damn its working.
>
>
> Bruce, I realize your agenda is to drive Ham Radio right into the ground.
> Why you would want to do so is beyond me. Perhaps your messages in the CB
> newsgroup offer a hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
> against Ham Radio operators.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Bruce is classic CB riffraff, and is the R.R.A.P. posterboy for the
Morse Myth that the Morse Exam keeps riffraff out of the Amateur Radio
Service.

WA8ULX

August 24th 03, 03:07 PM

>Bruce is classic CB riffraff

Hey Dumb Ass, I have never been on CB, well thats not true. I have been on 2
Meter FM which is the same as 11 Meters.

Larry Roll K3LT

August 24th 03, 04:49 PM

In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
writes:

>There's a repeater here in Dallas. During the last Presidential campaign
>and election, the hate spewed on that repeater was horrifying--and that is
>not an overreaction. I heard things like that Democrats were the equivalent
>of people who "let" things like Hitler happen and, believe me, that is mild.
>That is why Larry remarks about my callsign--or anyone else's for that
>matter--are such a damned joke. My callsign has nothing to do with the
>destruction of the ARS.

Kim:

Mr. Riley Hollingsworth seems to disagree with you. Have you forgotten
that he said that your call sign has the potential to take the ARS
"...one step closer to extinction"?

> It is people like Larry and his attitudes that are
>destroying the ARS.

I don't see how that's possible, Kim. After all, I'm not the one who
is sporting a callsign which is shamefully demeaning to women in
general, and YL hams in particular. However, you are -- and even
Riley Hollingsworth has said so, and I can't think of anyone who is
more qualified to make that judgment than he is!

>In Larry's mind, it's probably my fault because he has
>to be so hateful toward me because of my callsign :)

It's not hate, Kim. It's concern. Concern for the negative image of
the ARS that you are projecting through the selection of your
callsign, which places amateur radio operators, and particularly YL
hams, in a negative light. If anyone is being "hateful," it is you --
and you are showing this hate toward your fellow hams by demonstrating
a blatant lack of respect for the image of the service.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Kim W5TIT

August 25th 03, 02:28 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kim W5TIT"
>
> writes:
>
> >There's a repeater here in Dallas. During the last Presidential campaign
> >and election, the hate spewed on that repeater was horrifying--and that
is
> >not an overreaction. I heard things like that Democrats were the
equivalent
> >of people who "let" things like Hitler happen and, believe me, that is
mild.
> >That is why Larry remarks about my callsign--or anyone else's for that
> >matter--are such a damned joke. My callsign has nothing to do with the
> >destruction of the ARS.
>
> Kim:
>
> Mr. Riley Hollingsworth seems to disagree with you. Have you forgotten
> that he said that your call sign has the potential to take the ARS
> "...one step closer to extinction"?
>

Riley would never have done such a thing, Larry. His message was speaking
in generality. So, no, he never directly said that about my callsign. As
usual, you translated something to a way you wanted it.

> >
> > It is people like Larry and his attitudes that are
> >destroying the ARS.
>
> I don't see how that's possible, Kim. After all, I'm not the one who
> is sporting a callsign which is shamefully demeaning to women in
> general, and YL hams in particular. However, you are -- and even
> Riley Hollingsworth has said so, and I can't think of anyone who is
> more qualified to make that judgment than he is!
>

If you truly believe that about my callsign, Larry--and I don't believe you
do, then you are destroying it as much as anyone else.

> >
> >In Larry's mind, it's probably my fault because he has
> >to be so hateful toward me because of my callsign :)
>
> It's not hate, Kim. It's concern. Concern for the negative image of
> the ARS that you are projecting through the selection of your
> callsign, which places amateur radio operators, and particularly YL
> hams, in a negative light. If anyone is being "hateful," it is you --
> and you are showing this hate toward your fellow hams by demonstrating
> a blatant lack of respect for the image of the service.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>

IF for one minute you are concerned about negative images for the ARS, then
you would shut up, Larry.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT

August 25th 03, 02:33 AM

"Brian" > wrote in message
om...
> Dwight Stewart > wrote in message
>...
> > "WA8ULX" wrote:
> >
> > > Damn its working.
> >
> >
> > Bruce, I realize your agenda is to drive Ham Radio right into the
ground.
> > Why you would want to do so is beyond me. Perhaps your messages in the
CB
> > newsgroup offer a hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
> > against Ham Radio operators.
> >
> >
> > Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
> >
> > http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>
> Bruce is classic CB riffraff, and is the R.R.A.P. posterboy for the
> Morse Myth that the Morse Exam keeps riffraff out of the Amateur Radio
> Service.

"Bruce" (if that's what you wish to call him--I call him Creep) is classic
riffraff, let CB alone...LOL

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT

August 25th 03, 02:38 AM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kim W5TIT" wrote:
> >
> > You're right, Dwight. If Riley Hollingsworth's
> > words that he spoke to many groups, many times
> > are correct, then ham radio is dead--or is dying
> > a slow death. (snip)
> >
> > (snip) It is people like Larry and his attitudes
> > that are destroying the ARS. In Larry's mind, it's
> > probably my fault because he has to be so hateful
> > toward me because of my callsign :)
>
>
> You would think these people would know better. This type of endless
> negative rhetoric from members would bring down any organization, from the
> local church group to the worse prison gang. Even if one doesn't agree
with
> that premise, most would agree it certainly doesn't help or improve
> anything. If people care about Ham Radio, they need to start speaking out
> against some of the most destructive behavior. Debate is fine, but there
is
> a huge difference between honest debate and hateful rhetoric. I think even
> Larry knows he has stepped over that line.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

I don't think Larry cares...

Kim W5TIT

WA8ULX

August 25th 03, 02:49 AM

>"Bruce" (if that's what you wish to call him--I call him Creep) is classic
>riffraff, let CB alone...LOL
>
>Kim W5TIT

I call you TIT, a FAT CB PIG.

WA8ULX

August 25th 03, 04:59 AM

>Like the time you took an exam on a lark.
>

That still bothers you, that I could do that. And after all this time with Free
Handout Licenses, you still cant pass it. Dont feel bad your NCI Leader Karl
only took a Year to pass it. And of course he will not tell how many times he
Flunked it.

Larry Roll K3LT

August 25th 03, 05:01 AM

In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
writes:

>> Kim:
>>
>> Mr. Riley Hollingsworth seems to disagree with you. Have you forgotten
>> that he said that your call sign has the potential to take the ARS
>> "...one step closer to extinction"?
>>
>
>Riley would never have done such a thing, Larry. His message was speaking
>in generality. So, no, he never directly said that about my callsign. As
>usual, you translated something to a way you wanted it.

Kim:

I "translated" the words of Mr. Hollingsworth? Hmmm, let's examine
that concept. I know that this breaks long-standing Usenet/rrap tradition,
but here's the quote:

.................Quoted message begins.....................
In article <59B7203A07395FF0.50F2CC864D4ED7FE.54A4CB093D32584C @lp.airnews.net>,
"Kim W5TIT" > writes:

>Probably more a thoughtful wish of the prefix I wish I'd been able to get.
>Speaking of callsigns, here's Riley's response after I wrote and told him I
>was sorry for bothering him, since the FCC had already spoken on callsigns
>at the Dayton Hamfest (the rest of the email is also with it):
>
>While that's true, just because a person has a right to do something doesn't
>mean it's right to do it on every occasion. While the call sign may fit the
>constitution, for every instance where a parent or uncle or grandparent
>doesn't want a young person to get involved in Ham Radio because of
>something they hear on the bands, then you have taken the ARS one step
>closer to extinction. Then we can sit around and debate what happened to
>all those Amateur frequencies that industry bought at auction---debating, of
>course, on the internet and cellular because that'll be all we have left.
>The first amendment will still be alive and well, just as it is now, tho, if
>that's any consolation.

.................Quoted message ends.......................

OK, Kim, did you find the part about taking the ARS "...one step closer
to extinction," or not? If not, which part did I "translate" into that exact
language?

>> > It is people like Larry and his attitudes that are
>> >destroying the ARS.

Don't look now, Kim, but I've never been admonished by Riley
Hollingsworth about doing something which could potentially cause
prospective hams to decide to go fishing instead.

>> I don't see how that's possible, Kim. After all, I'm not the one who
>> is sporting a callsign which is shamefully demeaning to women in
>> general, and YL hams in particular. However, you are -- and even
>> Riley Hollingsworth has said so, and I can't think of anyone who is
>> more qualified to make that judgment than he is!

>If you truly believe that about my callsign, Larry--and I don't believe you
>do, then you are destroying it as much as anyone else.

I do believe that, Kim, but I fail to find any logic in your statement above.
However, that's just you being you.

>> >In Larry's mind, it's probably my fault because he has
>> >to be so hateful toward me because of my callsign :)
>>
>> It's not hate, Kim. It's concern. Concern for the negative image of
>> the ARS that you are projecting through the selection of your
>> callsign, which places amateur radio operators, and particularly YL
>> hams, in a negative light. If anyone is being "hateful," it is you --
>> and you are showing this hate toward your fellow hams by demonstrating
>> a blatant lack of respect for the image of the service.
>>
>> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>>
>
>IF for one minute you are concerned about negative images for the ARS, then
>you would shut up, Larry.

What am *I* doing to give the ARS a negative image, Kim? My on-the-air
operating is the only thing that matters regarding my "image" as a ham, and
I've never had any complaints. However, Riley Hollingsworth has made it
quite clear that *you* and *your* callsign are definitely a problem. In fact,
a big enough problem to cause him to take the time to compose his
reply to your E-mail. That speaks volumes.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Dwight Stewart

August 25th 03, 06:21 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> OK, Kim, did you find the part about taking
> the ARS "...one step closer to extinction,"
> or not? If not, which part did I "translate"
> into that exact language?
>
> Don't look now, Kim, but I've never been
> admonished by Riley Hollingsworth about doing
> something which could potentially cause
> prospective hams to decide to go fishing
> instead.

Larry, I seriously doubt Hollingsworth would have said anything if he had
known his words would be used as a basis for your harassment of Kim over
this subject for several years.

You've never been admonished by Hollingsworth simply because you've never
had the guts to tell him what you're doing. So, since Kim was willing to
contact Hollingsworth over the choice of her callsign (her behavior), why
don't you contact Hollingsworth to ask if he feels your behavior (your use
of his words to publicly harass Kim for all this time) has any effect on Ham
Radio?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

August 25th 03, 06:24 AM

"WA8ULX" wrote:
>
> Dwight Stewart wrote...
>>
>> Perhaps your messages in the CB newsgroup offer a
>> hint - you're really a CB'er with some type of grudge
>> against Ham Radio operators.
>
>
> Your so full of it, produce the message, (snip)

What message? Obviously, you can't read any better than you can write. I
mentioned your messages (plural) in the CB newsgroup, not a specific
message.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

August 25th 03, 06:29 AM

"Brian" wrote:

> Bruce is classic CB riffraff, and is the
> R.R.A.P. posterboy for the Morse Myth that
> the Morse Exam keeps riffraff out of the
> Amateur Radio Service.

Ironic, isn't it? Code didn't keep him out, certainly dispelling that
myth.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WA8ULX

August 25th 03, 06:51 AM

> What message? Obviously, you can't read any better than you can write. I
>mentioned your messages (plural) in the CB newsgroup, not a specific
>message.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>

Well than CBplusser produce the PLURAL MESSAGES

Brian

August 25th 03, 12:45 PM

(WA8ULX) wrote in message >...
> >Like the time you took an exam on a lark.
> >
>
> That still bothers you, that I could do that.

Bruce, I've read your postings here year in and year out. There's no
way you could get 100% on any amateur exam, even with studying. You
can barely spell your own name.

So, no, you couldn't do that.

WA8ULX

August 25th 03, 02:52 PM

>Bruce, I've read your postings here year in and year out. There's no
>way you could get 100% on any amateur exam, even with studying. You
>can barely spell your own name.
>
>So, no, you couldn't do that.
>

Still bugs you, I could misspell all these words, score 100%, collect 250
dollars, and your still are not able to pass it. Maybe CW wasnt your weak
point, maybe your still waiting for another FREE Handout

Dwight Stewart

August 26th 03, 01:54 AM

"WA8ULX" wrote:
>
> Well (snip) produce the PLURAL MESSAGES

Bruce, there are over a hundred messages posted by you in the CB
newsgroup. I'm certainly not going to post a copy of all those messages
here. Any person, including yourself, can do a Google search to see those
messages.

You're a CB'er, Bruce. Pointing a finger at others is not going to hide
that truth. And, based on your behavior here, you're probably one of the
worst type of CB'ers - rude, foul mouthed, no respect for others, using
equipment illegally, and so on. Since I don't live in your hometown, I
certainly can't prove that - but a leopard rarely changes it's spots. So
your behavior here is probably similar to your behavior there.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WA8ULX

August 26th 03, 02:46 AM

> You're a CB'er, Bruce.

You Dip ****, I have never owned a CB or even operated there. Unless you mean
to 2 meter Fm. Yea thats it you mean 2 Meter CB.

WA8ULX

August 26th 03, 03:12 AM

>Bruce, tell it to someone who believes you. Anyone at all.

You just cant face the FACTS

Kim W5TIT

August 26th 03, 05:03 AM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
> >
> > OK, Kim, did you find the part about taking
> > the ARS "...one step closer to extinction,"
> > or not? If not, which part did I "translate"
> > into that exact language?
> >
> > Don't look now, Kim, but I've never been
> > admonished by Riley Hollingsworth about doing
> > something which could potentially cause
> > prospective hams to decide to go fishing
> > instead.
>
>
> Larry, I seriously doubt Hollingsworth would have said anything if he
had
> known his words would be used as a basis for your harassment of Kim over
> this subject for several years.
>

You've got that right, Dwight. I've had the pleasure to meet Riley, to
interview him for a local newsletter, and to speak with him one-on-one when
he spoke here in Texas at HamCom. We met out in the hallway before his
talk. He's too much a gentleman to act like Larry.

>
> You've never been admonished by Hollingsworth simply because you've
never
> had the guts to tell him what you're doing. So, since Kim was willing to
> contact Hollingsworth over the choice of her callsign (her behavior), why
> don't you contact Hollingsworth to ask if he feels your behavior (your use
> of his words to publicly harass Kim for all this time) has any effect on
Ham
> Radio?
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

Because Larry knows what would happen...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT

August 26th 03, 05:12 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kim W5TIT"
>
> writes:
>
> >> Kim:
> >>
> >> Mr. Riley Hollingsworth seems to disagree with you. Have you forgotten
> >> that he said that your call sign has the potential to take the ARS
> >> "...one step closer to extinction"?
> >>
> >
> >Riley would never have done such a thing, Larry. His message was
speaking
> >in generality. So, no, he never directly said that about my callsign.
As
> >usual, you translated something to a way you wanted it.
>
> Kim:
>
> I "translated" the words of Mr. Hollingsworth? Hmmm, let's examine
> that concept. I know that this breaks long-standing Usenet/rrap
tradition,
> but here's the quote:
>
> ................Quoted message begins.....................
> In article
<59B7203A07395FF0.50F2CC864D4ED7FE.54A4CB093D32584C @lp.airnews.net>,
> "Kim W5TIT" > writes:
>
> >Probably more a thoughtful wish of the prefix I wish I'd been able to
get.
> >Speaking of callsigns, here's Riley's response after I wrote and told him
I
> >was sorry for bothering him, since the FCC had already spoken on
callsigns
> >at the Dayton Hamfest (the rest of the email is also with it):
> >
> >While that's true, just because a person has a right to do something
doesn't
> >mean it's right to do it on every occasion. While the call sign may fit
the
> >constitution, for every instance where a parent or uncle or grandparent
> >doesn't want a young person to get involved in Ham Radio because of
> >something they hear on the bands, then you have taken the ARS one step
> >closer to extinction. Then we can sit around and debate what happened to
> >all those Amateur frequencies that industry bought at auction---debating,
of
> >course, on the internet and cellular because that'll be all we have left.
> >The first amendment will still be alive and well, just as it is now, tho,
if
> >that's any consolation.
>
> ................Quoted message ends.......................
>
> OK, Kim, did you find the part about taking the ARS "...one step closer
> to extinction," or not? If not, which part did I "translate" into that
exact
> language?
>

Yep, and I am corrected. He does say "you." And, I respectfully disagree
with his observation.

>
> >> > It is people like Larry and his attitudes that are
> >> >destroying the ARS.
>
> Don't look now, Kim, but I've never been admonished by Riley
> Hollingsworth about doing something which could potentially cause
> prospective hams to decide to go fishing instead.
>

Larry, it doesn't take being admonished by anyone to be proven that you have
a bad attitude--and one that is poisonous for the ARS. Your attitude is
more venomous than my callsign--for sure.

> >>
> >> I don't see how that's possible, Kim. After all, I'm not the one who
> >> is sporting a callsign which is shamefully demeaning to women in
> >> general, and YL hams in particular. However, you are -- and even
> >> Riley Hollingsworth has said so, and I can't think of anyone who is
> >> more qualified to make that judgment than he is!
>
> >If you truly believe that about my callsign, Larry--and I don't believe
you
> >do, then you are destroying it as much as anyone else.
>
> I do believe that, Kim, but I fail to find any logic in your statement
above.
> However, that's just you being you.
>

And, I don't think you do believe that.

> >> >In Larry's mind, it's probably my fault because he has
> >> >to be so hateful toward me because of my callsign :)
> >>
> >> It's not hate, Kim. It's concern. Concern for the negative image of
> >> the ARS that you are projecting through the selection of your
> >> callsign, which places amateur radio operators, and particularly YL
> >> hams, in a negative light. If anyone is being "hateful," it is you --
> >> and you are showing this hate toward your fellow hams by demonstrating
> >> a blatant lack of respect for the image of the service.
> >>
> >> 73 de Larry, K3LT
> >>
> >
> >IF for one minute you are concerned about negative images for the ARS,
then
> >you would shut up, Larry.
>
> What am *I* doing to give the ARS a negative image, Kim? My on-the-air
> operating is the only thing that matters regarding my "image" as a ham,
and
> I've never had any complaints. However, Riley Hollingsworth has made it
> quite clear that *you* and *your* callsign are definitely a problem. In
fact,
> a big enough problem to cause him to take the time to compose his
> reply to your E-mail. That speaks volumes.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>

Then, that given, I haven't been on the air for over a year, Larry. And,
the only reason Riley made any comment at all about my callsign is that I
was big enough to approach him about it. It proves I'm the better person.
You can't even own up to your own destructiveness. Why don't you invite
comments from Riley on you?

He's much too much a gentleman and scholar to be found responding to the
likes of you...

Kim W5TIT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 26th 03, 05:29 AM

In article >,
(Brian) writes:

>Larry, do I need to regurge all your "my favorite black on the bus" episodes?

Why not?

73 de Larry, K3LT

Kim W5TIT

August 26th 03, 01:25 PM

"Larry Roll K3LT" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dwight Stewart
> > writes:
>
> > Larry, I seriously doubt Hollingsworth would have said anything if he
had
> >known his words would be used as a basis for your harassment of Kim over
> >this subject for several years.
>
> Dwight:
>
> If that's the case, then he would have to blame Kim for that outcome, not
> me. After all, it was Kim who quoted Riley's comments made in a
> private E-mail in this public newsgroup, thereby making them public
> domain and subject to being used against her in the future.
>

Being used "against" me? You are hilarious, Larry. I thought you said your
posts were intellectual and logical.

>
> If I were her,
> I would not have done that. However, Kim was eager to make the point
> that she had a legal, Constitutional "right" to choose her call sign, such
as
> it is.
>

Yeah, and you apparently don't like it.

>
> In his reply, Mr. Hollingsworth assured Kim that she did, indeed have
> that "right," but the exercise thereof was potentially harmful to the
image
> of the ARS, to the extent that he predicted that it had the potential to
take
> the ARS ".one step closer to extinction."
>

You'll note, Larry, that by your own post of the words from Riley, he's
quite capable of something you are not: being a gentleman and democratic
about his--"HIS"--personal opinion. Anyone is entitled to their opinion,
Larry, even you. However, you'll also note that Riley never went beyond
making a statement on his own personal opinion.

>
> Kim's act of hubris, in making the attempt to get a well-known authority
> to validate her action, has backfired on her in a most inconvenient way.
> If Mr. Hollingsworth has any objection to the way his words are being
> utilized, he needs to take that matter up with Kim, not me.
>

You dumb-ass, Larry. I did not try to "make" Riley validate anything. You
completely missed the point that was done for.

>
> > You've never been admonished by Hollingsworth simply because you've
never
> >had the guts to tell him what you're doing.
>
> Mr. Hollingsworth has the same access to this newsgroup as anyone else.
> If he wanted to do anything about it, he certainly has the technology to
> do so. Should he contact me with the request that I desist in using his
> quote in the manner in which I have been doing, I will certainly comply.
> However, this would not absolve Kim of her responsibility for introducing
> Mr. Hollingsworth's words to this public forum.
>

Again, Riley would never request that someone desist anything; while he is
offering his own personal opinions. He likely would caution that you are as
destructive, if not more than, as I to the ARS. My callsign, in my opinion,
is not destructive to the ARS. My opinion is as valid as Riley's, yours, or
anyone else's.

> >
> >So, since Kim was willing to
> >contact Hollingsworth over the choice of her callsign (her behavior), why
> >don't you contact Hollingsworth to ask if he feels your behavior (your
use
> >of his words to publicly harass Kim for all this time) has any effect on
Ham
> >Radio?
>
> For the simple reason that my behavior is not in question here. Kim is
not
> being "harassed." She is merely experiencing the justified reaction to an
> action she took which is potentially harmful to the image of the ARS, and
> that is my right
>

You give yourself way too much importance, Larry. I am not experiencing
anything but humor at your ignorance and desperate attempt to be right.

>
> -- just as it was Kim's "right" to self-select a call sign
> with
> a vulgar, sexualized, and demeaning connotation which reflects poorly on
> YL radio amateurs everywhere. As someone else put it in another posting,
> if her call sign had been issued as a sequential assignment, then this
> whole matter would not be at issue.
>

More at issue is your destructive attitude toward the ARS by being such an
idiot, Larry.

>
> Kim deliberately chose that call sign
> in order for it to have the effect of generating attention to herself, and
to
> stir up controversy. Well, it worked -- and now she is responsible for
> any and all consequences appertaining to her action.
>

That is your interpretation of why I have this callsign, Larry.

>
> As for whether my "behavior" will have any affect on ham radio, I
> certainly hope so. I happen to be expressing my vehement and
> determined opposition to an action by a radio amateur which has the
> potential to do serious damage to the image of the ARS. By doing
> so, I hope to send the message that behavior such as Kim's is not
> to be tolerated.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>

Good grief, Larry. Your "behavior" is despicable. The only message you
send is one of idiocy.

And, I seem to recall that I told you when you had something intelligent and
logical to say that you'd see me responding to you. I've seen nothing
intelligent and logical yet--and I've given you every opportunity. So,
you'll see nothing from me again until you have something intelligent and
logical. Every time that is requested, you act like a fly on **** with the
callsign issue. Not intellectual, not logical.

You can't do it, can you?

Kim W5TIT

Bert Craig

August 26th 03, 06:21 PM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "WA8ULX" wrote:
> >
> > Well (snip) produce the PLURAL MESSAGES
>
>
> Bruce, there are over a hundred messages posted by you in the CB
> newsgroup.

At least he posted there under his own name, Dwight. He gets points for
that.

> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

Brian

August 26th 03, 11:43 PM

(WA8ULX) wrote in message >...
> >Bruce, tell it to someone who believes you. Anyone at all.
>
> You just cant face the FACTS

Sure I can. Got any?

WA8ULX

August 27th 03, 01:07 AM

>Sure I can. Got any?

You have allready heard the FACTS, your problem is you cant handle it.

Dwight Stewart

August 27th 03, 04:24 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> If that's the case, then he would have to
> blame Kim for that outcome, not me. After
> all, it was Kim who quoted Riley's comments
> made in a private E-mail in this public
> newsgroup, thereby making them public domain
> and subject to being used against her in
> the future.

His words here, or posted/published anywhere else, don't provide you with
an excuse to use those words in an ongoing smear campaign against Kim or
anyone else. I think Hollingsworth would be appalled by your actions.

> For the simple reason that my behavior is
> not in question here.

Your behavior is in question here - by me. So, again, since Kim was
willing to contact Hollingsworth over the choice of her callsign (her
behavior), why don't you contact Hollingsworth to ask if he feels your
behavior (your use of his words to publicly harass Kim for many months) has
any effect on Ham Radio?

> Kim is not being "harassed." She is merely
> experiencing the justified reaction to an
> action she took which is potentially harmful
> to the image of the ARS, and that is my
> right -- just as it was Kim's "right" to
> self-select a call sign with a vulgar,
> sexualized, and demeaning connotation which
> reflects poorly on YL radio amateurs
> everywhere. (snip)

Get off your pulpit, Larry. You do not speak for YL radio amateurs. My
wife is not offended by Kim's callsign. Instead, she thinks you're stuck in
a sexist past - a past where men told women what they could and could not
do. That past is gone.

That is two female radio amateurs (Kim and my wife) saying the opposite of
what you claim. So exactly where are all those YL radio amateurs you claim
are offended by Kim's callsign, Larry?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

August 27th 03, 04:36 AM

"Bert Craig" wrote:

> At least he posted there under his own name,
> Dwight. He gets points for that.

He's so far in the hole on points, awarding points at this point isn't
even worth the effort. But, we'll give him credit for that - I won't call
him a CB'er in one message. In fact, I've did that today, so his credit is
taken care of. ;)

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WA8ULX

August 27th 03, 04:38 AM

> a past where men told women what they could and could not
>do.

You mean you dont, you little sissy

What would be interesting is to find out from KIM WHY she choose that
Callsign, what was her motivation.

Dwight Stewart

August 27th 03, 11:55 AM

"WA8ULX" wrote:

> What would be interesting is to find out
> from KIM WHY she choose that Callsign,
> what was her motivation.

Actually, I believe she has explained that before. So, perhaps you should
search through the message archives for the answer. As for myself, since
it's really none of my business, I'm not really interested in the reason.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

August 27th 03, 06:16 PM

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

>
> I have never stated that any specific YL hams *were* offended by Kim's
> call sign. I have only stated that I agree with Riley Hollingsworth when he
> says that Kim's call sign has the potential to do harm to the image of the ARS,
> and YL hams in general. Kim and your XYL prove absolutely nothing
> with regard to the validity of my objections to her (Kim's) call sign.
>
> 73 de Larry, K3LT

There are a ton of things potentially more harmful and more
likely to bring amateur radio "one step closer to extinction"
than Kim's call sign. However, it is in bad taste and I can't
imagine anyone requesting such a call sign other than to bring
attention to one's self, but then there are those who seem to
seek the lowest common denominator.
I knew one ham couple and the wife's call sign (not requested,
just what was issued) had the last letters DTA. He had a T shirt
made for her that gave the call across the chest with the
phonetics, "Don't Touch Anything".

Dee D. Flint

August 28th 03, 12:03 AM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> That is two female radio amateurs (Kim and my wife) saying the opposite of
> what you claim. So exactly where are all those YL radio amateurs you claim
> are offended by Kim's callsign, Larry?
>

Nor am I offended but I do question the good sense of a person who would
pick a designation that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
misinterpretations.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dwight Stewart

August 28th 03, 03:50 AM

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

> Nor am I offended but I do question the good
> sense of a person who would pick a designation
> that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
> misinterpretations.

Clearly, I certainly wouldn't pick such a callsign, and hopefully neither
would my wife. But that is just our choice, not a condemnation of Kim's
choice. I'm not going to attempt to walk in Kim's shoes, simply because I
know little about where she walks. She does, so I'll accept her choice for
what it is.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

August 28th 03, 05:12 AM

"Dee D. Flint" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> "Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > That is two female radio amateurs (Kim and my wife) saying the opposite
of
> > what you claim. So exactly where are all those YL radio amateurs you
claim
> > are offended by Kim's callsign, Larry?
> >
>
> Nor am I offended but I do question the good sense of a person who would
> pick a designation that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
> misinterpretations.
>
> Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>

Dee, to be as succinct with this: there are many things in one's life that
can be misinterpreted. While I chose this callsign with a desire borne out
of a dare from friends and local hams here; nevertheless I didn't really
consider that there would be misunderstandings about my callsign. And, for
those whom have come to know me; or who "just know" me by virtue of their
having a sort of twisted sense of humor--the callsign has been no big deal.

I've been in casual, contest, and emergency situations with my callsign. It
has never, never been degraded, questioned, or commented on over the
air--save one time when a passerby happened upon our repeater one day and I
introduced myself, our folks and the repeater. He came back with, "well,
hello Kim, W5TIT. I am passing through the....what did I just say?" He
ended his question in giggles and that was all that was ever said.

To make a long, boring story short, the callsign has had the most inane
objections right here in this newsgroup, and nowhere else. There's not a
lady ham out there who's ever had anything but a hand covered giggle over
this callsign. It's been a great ice breaker and it immediately lets folks
know that to know me means to know and understand that I in no way take
myself seriously--and there's not much they are going to have done or do
that's going to run me off. Simple as that.

That it runs folks like Larry off--for me--is a godsend...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT

August 28th 03, 05:13 AM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dee D. Flint" wrote:
>
> > Nor am I offended but I do question the good
> > sense of a person who would pick a designation
> > that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
> > misinterpretations.
>
>
> Clearly, I certainly wouldn't pick such a callsign, and hopefully
neither
> would my wife. But that is just our choice, not a condemnation of Kim's
> choice. I'm not going to attempt to walk in Kim's shoes, simply because I
> know little about where she walks. She does, so I'll accept her choice for
> what it is.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

Thankee, Dwight. And, that's a typical example of a civil, and normal,
human relationship. There are those of us who can have those.... ;)

Kim W5TIT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 28th 03, 05:24 AM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

> His words here, or posted/published anywhere else, don't provide you with
>an excuse to use those words in an ongoing smear campaign against Kim or
>anyone else. I think Hollingsworth would be appalled by your actions.

Dwight:

Well so far, I haven't heard any complaints from anyone but you.
Objection noted. That doesn't mean I'll desist.

>> For the simple reason that my behavior is
>> not in question here.

> Your behavior is in question here - by me.

However, your "questioning" of my behavior would leave one to suspect
your own motivation. Since you object to the majority of my opinions,
yet seem unequipped to debate me in an effective manner, one can only
conclude that, like all liberals, you just want the opposition (me) to shut
up and go away. That's not going to happen, except at my own
convenience.

>So, again, since Kim was
>willing to contact Hollingsworth over the choice of her callsign (her
>behavior), why don't you contact Hollingsworth to ask if he feels your
>behavior (your use of his words to publicly harass Kim for many months) has
>any effect on Ham Radio?

Asked and answered.

>> Kim is not being "harassed." She is merely
>> experiencing the justified reaction to an
>> action she took which is potentially harmful
>> to the image of the ARS, and that is my
>> right -- just as it was Kim's "right" to
>> self-select a call sign with a vulgar,
>> sexualized, and demeaning connotation which
>> reflects poorly on YL radio amateurs
>> everywhere. (snip)

> Get off your pulpit, Larry. You do not speak for YL radio amateurs. My
>wife is not offended by Kim's callsign. Instead, she thinks you're stuck in
>a sexist past - a past where men told women what they could and could not
>do. That past is gone.

With all due respect to your XYL, she is not qualified to judge me. She
has no idea how I relate to women in person. Moreover, I don't tell ANYONE
what they can and cannot do. All I am trying to do is influence Kim to
make up her own mind to do the right thing.

> That is two female radio amateurs (Kim and my wife) saying the opposite of
>what you claim. So exactly where are all those YL radio amateurs you claim
>are offended by Kim's callsign, Larry?

I have never stated that any specific YL hams *were* offended by Kim's
call sign. I have only stated that I agree with Riley Hollingsworth when he
says that Kim's call sign has the potential to do harm to the image of the ARS,
and YL hams in general. Kim and your XYL prove absolutely nothing
with regard to the validity of my objections to her (Kim's) call sign.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 28th 03, 05:24 AM

In article m>, "Dee D.
Flint" > writes:

>> That is two female radio amateurs (Kim and my wife) saying the opposite of
>> what you claim. So exactly where are all those YL radio amateurs you claim
>> are offended by Kim's callsign, Larry?
>>
>
>Nor am I offended but I do question the good sense of a person who would
>pick a designation that would/could lead to misunderstandings and
>misinterpretations.

Dee:

I believe that is precisely what Riley Hollingsworth was addressing in his
response to Kim's E-mail. There are certainly some people with bad
enough taste and judgment to not be "offended" by Kim's call sign, but
that hardly accommodates all possible perceptions. My perception of
her call sign is that it was chosen to purposely place a vulgar, sexualized
image of YL hams "in the face" of her fellow hams, and worse, the faces
of prospective hams who may not share her libertine philosophy regarding
the image of the female form, hers in particular. This is supposed to
be a family-oriented hobby/service, and I don't believe such an image as
Kim is imposing on the whole of the ARS is the correct one. Therefore,
unless and until she decides to change her call sign, she will remain the
object of my outspoken disapproval. How long this continues is totally
up to her.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 28th 03, 05:24 AM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

> Actually, I believe she has explained that before. So, perhaps you should
>search through the message archives for the answer. As for myself, since
>it's really none of my business, I'm not really interested in the reason.

Dwight:

Actually, it most certainly is the business of any radio amateur who
is properly concerned with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr. Hollingsworth said it most
succinctly in his response to Kim when he raised the issue of the
possible negative reaction of a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle who may
be considering this hobby for a young child in their life. Kim's callsign
most certainly could cause such a person to question the judgment,
if not the personal integrity and morality, of radio amateurs in general,
through this one bad example.

Throughout my adult life, I've been told that "perception is reality."
While I would personally make some allowances for poor choices based
on the immature judgment of younger people, Kim is certainly of an
age and station in life where such poor judgment is much less likely
to be excused. She is the only one who can make this controversy
go away. Should she choose not to, she leaves herself open to the
criticism of those of us who *are* offended and *do* object to her choice
of a Vanity call sign.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Dwight Stewart

August 29th 03, 12:02 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> Actually, it most certainly is the business
> of any radio amateur who is properly concerned
> with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
> to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr.
> Hollingsworth said it most succinctly in his
> response to Kim when he raised the issue of
> the possible negative reaction of a parent/
> grandparent/aunt/uncle who may be considering
> this hobby for a young child in their life.
> Kim's callsign most certainly could cause such
> a person to question the judgment, if not the
> personal integrity and morality, of radio
> amateurs in general, through this one bad
> example. (snip)

Who's really seeking the lowest common denominator, Larry? You seem to be
saying that nothing should be mentioned on Ham Radio that might offend or
confuse a young child. If we accept that position, all we'd be allowed to
talk about is Barney and the Sesame Street characters.

Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not offended or
confused by the simple mention of it. If a child is, the parent should
consider a discussion with them about human sexuality. If they're too young
for that discussion, they're probably too young to be talking with adults on
the radio or most other places.

If you're offended by Kim's callsign, you need to grow up. The adults of
this world are not going to censor their discussions simply to cater to your
unusually delicate sensitivities. And, to be honest with you, I wouldn't
want to see Ham Radio go in that direction.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

August 29th 03, 12:39 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> With all due respect to your XYL, she is not
> qualified to judge me. She has no idea how
> I relate to women in person. (snip)

Since you're basing your objection on how it reflects on women ("a vulgar,
sexualized, and demeaning connotation which reflects poorly on YL radio
amateurs everywhere"), she is, as a woman, qualified to judge the weight of
that argument. She has done so, and feels your argument lacks substance. She
is, as a woman, also able to say whether Kim's callsign is offensive to her.
She says it is not.

Your argument lacks substance, Larry. Three women have disagreed with your
position (my wife, Kim, and Dee). While two of the three have reservations
about Kim's callsign (they wouldn't choose it), none find it outright
offensive.

Men once used shame and ridicule to force women to comply with their
domination. That time has passed, Larry. Women are not ashamed of their
bodies anymore, nor are they embarrassed by the mere mention of some part of
that body. Would we (men) really want it any other way?

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

August 29th 03, 12:46 AM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it most certainly is the business
> > of any radio amateur who is properly concerned
> > with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
> > to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr.
> > Hollingsworth said it most succinctly in his
> > response to Kim when he raised the issue of
> > the possible negative reaction of a parent/
> > grandparent/aunt/uncle who may be considering
> > this hobby for a young child in their life.
> > Kim's callsign most certainly could cause such
> > a person to question the judgment, if not the
> > personal integrity and morality, of radio
> > amateurs in general, through this one bad
> > example. (snip)
>
>
> Who's really seeking the lowest common denominator, Larry?
>

<GRIN> Larry *is* the lowest common denominator here, Dwight...LOL Know
that saying, "can't see the forest for the trees?"

>
> You seem to be
> saying that nothing should be mentioned on Ham Radio that might offend or
> confuse a young child. If we accept that position, all we'd be allowed to
> talk about is Barney and the Sesame Street characters.
>

I get the oddest vision in my mind when I think of Larry and his incessant
whining about such puritanical thoughts. Know the vision? You know the
one: where a spanking is more the pleasure of the person touching the butt
than anything else? "I'm doing this for your own good" kind of thinking?

>
> Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not offended
or
> confused by the simple mention of it.
>

We are dealing here, with someone who is not--no where near--most adults.

>
> If a child is, the parent should
> consider a discussion with them about human sexuality.
>

Man, you got that right.

>
> If they're too young
> for that discussion, they're probably too young to be talking with adults
on
> the radio or most other places.
>

More like if they're too young for that discussion, they probably wouldn't
be able to decipher W5TIT into the word tit.

>
> If you're offended by Kim's callsign, you need to grow up. The adults of
> this world are not going to censor their discussions simply to cater to
your
> unusually delicate sensitivities. And, to be honest with you, I wouldn't
> want to see Ham Radio go in that direction.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

Growing up won't be done any time soon. We all know that. Let him have his
fun--that's all this is to him. I can guarantee you that Larry doesn't mind
my callsign one bit. He just likes having the topic to throw around once in
a while. I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be saving the poor wretch
from complete and awesome boredom!

Kim W5TIT

Dan/W4NTI

August 29th 03, 01:17 AM

"Kim W5TIT" > wrote in message
...
> "Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, it most certainly is the business
> > > of any radio amateur who is properly concerned
> > > with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
> > > to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr.
> > > Hollingsworth said it most succinctly in his
> > > response to Kim when he raised the issue of
> > > the possible negative reaction of a parent/
> > > grandparent/aunt/uncle who may be considering
> > > this hobby for a young child in their life.
> > > Kim's callsign most certainly could cause such
> > > a person to question the judgment, if not the
> > > personal integrity and morality, of radio
> > > amateurs in general, through this one bad
> > > example. (snip)
> >
> >
> > Who's really seeking the lowest common denominator, Larry?
> >
>
> <GRIN> Larry *is* the lowest common denominator here, Dwight...LOL Know
> that saying, "can't see the forest for the trees?"
>
> >
> > You seem to be
> > saying that nothing should be mentioned on Ham Radio that might offend
or
> > confuse a young child. If we accept that position, all we'd be allowed
to
> > talk about is Barney and the Sesame Street characters.
> >
>
> I get the oddest vision in my mind when I think of Larry and his incessant
> whining about such puritanical thoughts. Know the vision? You know the
> one: where a spanking is more the pleasure of the person touching the butt
> than anything else? "I'm doing this for your own good" kind of thinking?
>
> >
> > Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not
offended
> or
> > confused by the simple mention of it.
> >
>
> We are dealing here, with someone who is not--no where near--most adults.
>
> >
> > If a child is, the parent should
> > consider a discussion with them about human sexuality.
> >
>
> Man, you got that right.
>
> >
> > If they're too young
> > for that discussion, they're probably too young to be talking with
adults
> on
> > the radio or most other places.
> >
>
> More like if they're too young for that discussion, they probably wouldn't
> be able to decipher W5TIT into the word tit.
>
> >
> > If you're offended by Kim's callsign, you need to grow up. The adults
of
> > this world are not going to censor their discussions simply to cater to
> your
> > unusually delicate sensitivities. And, to be honest with you, I wouldn't
> > want to see Ham Radio go in that direction.
> >
> >
> > Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
> >
> > http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
> >
>
> Growing up won't be done any time soon. We all know that. Let him have
his
> fun--that's all this is to him. I can guarantee you that Larry doesn't
mind
> my callsign one bit. He just likes having the topic to throw around once
in
> a while. I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be saving the poor wretch
> from complete and awesome boredom!
>
> Kim W5TIT
>
>

I think most of us on here are adults Kim. We have all heard and all know
what a TIT is. I doubt that most of us think your choice of W5TIT for a
callsigh is offensive. I think most of us believe it is a pathetic attempt
for attention.

I personally believe you are a closet exhibitionist.

Thank you for your time Twit.

Dan/W4NTI

Dwight Stewart

August 29th 03, 10:07 AM

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

> (snip) Growing up won't be done any time
> soon. We all know that. Let him have his
> fun--that's all this is to him. I can
> guarantee you that Larry doesn't mind my
> callsign one bit. He just likes having
> the topic to throw around once in a while.
> I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be
> saving the poor wretch from complete and
> awesome boredom!

I'm just having a little fun also, Kim. Periodic "discussions" with Larry
are a great diversion from a boring week. That situation will change this
weekend through most of next week and I'll have to reduce my participation
in this newsgroup. But, until then, this is a fun distraction.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Ryan, KC8PMX

August 29th 03, 02:40 PM

"Larry Roll K3LT" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dwight Stewart
> > writes:
>
> > Actually, I believe she has explained that before. So, perhaps you
should
> >search through the message archives for the answer. As for myself, since
> >it's really none of my business, I'm not really interested in the reason.
>
> Dwight:
>
> Actually, it most certainly is the business of any radio amateur who
> is properly concerned with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
> to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr. Hollingsworth said it most
> succinctly in his response to Kim when he raised the issue of the
> possible negative reaction of a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle who may
> be considering this hobby for a young child in their life. Kim's callsign
> most certainly could cause such a person to question the judgment,
> if not the personal integrity and morality, of radio amateurs in general,
> through this one bad example.

I'll say it again, the person uninvolved with amateur radio won't know the
difference whether it was a sequentially or vanity-requested callsign. The
average person would assume the FCC merely assigned it. (Yes, believe it or
not I actually polled people to see their responses the last time this
bullsh*t came up). There is the root of the problem, if you have such a
****y feeling towards Kim's (and many other potentially offensive by your
apparent standards) the why don't you spend your efforts whining to the FCC
than wasting your time with posts that will not achieve ANY results other
than to get it off your chest and to hear yourself "bellow" in a "electronic
medium."

>
> Throughout my adult life, I've been told that "perception is reality."
> While I would personally make some allowances for poor choices based
> on the immature judgment of younger people, Kim is certainly of an
> age and station in life where such poor judgment is much less likely
> to be excused. She is the only one who can make this controversy
> go away. Should she choose not to, she leaves herself open to the
> criticism of those of us who *are* offended and *do* object to her choice
> of a Vanity call sign.
>

Once again, if the callsign is so offensive, it is the FCC to blame. Any
vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
deemed offensive is their fault. I should have the right to request ANY
callsign that is listed as "available" provided I have the initial right to
do so by licensure requirements/benefits. If the list is including some of
what you refer to as offensive, that is your problem, and the FCC's, not the
rest of us.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Kim W5TIT

August 30th 03, 03:38 AM

"Ryan, KC8PMX" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Roll K3LT" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Dwight Stewart
> > > writes:
> >
> > > Actually, I believe she has explained that before. So, perhaps you
> should
> > >search through the message archives for the answer. As for myself,
since
> > >it's really none of my business, I'm not really interested in the
reason.
> >
> > Dwight:
> >
> > Actually, it most certainly is the business of any radio amateur who
> > is properly concerned with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
> > to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr. Hollingsworth said it most
> > succinctly in his response to Kim when he raised the issue of the
> > possible negative reaction of a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle who may
> > be considering this hobby for a young child in their life. Kim's
callsign
> > most certainly could cause such a person to question the judgment,
> > if not the personal integrity and morality, of radio amateurs in
general,
> > through this one bad example.
>
> I'll say it again, the person uninvolved with amateur radio won't know the
> difference whether it was a sequentially or vanity-requested callsign.
The
> average person would assume the FCC merely assigned it. (Yes, believe it
or
> not I actually polled people to see their responses the last time this
> bullsh*t came up). There is the root of the problem, if you have such a
> ****y feeling towards Kim's (and many other potentially offensive by your
> apparent standards) the why don't you spend your efforts whining to the
FCC
> than wasting your time with posts that will not achieve ANY results other
> than to get it off your chest and to hear yourself "bellow" in a
"electronic
> medium."
>

Know why he won't? He kept alluding to the fact that he was going to, or
kept inspiring others to do it. So, I wrote. I wrote knowing that Riley
would more than likely be the kind of person who probably doesn't appreciate
the humor in my callsign, but also knowing that he upholds to the principles
of a democracy. And, he did exactly that. He does not like my callsign.
But, he doesn't believe it is for the FCC to govern such things.

> >
> > Throughout my adult life, I've been told that "perception is reality."
> > While I would personally make some allowances for poor choices based
> > on the immature judgment of younger people, Kim is certainly of an
> > age and station in life where such poor judgment is much less likely
> > to be excused. She is the only one who can make this controversy
> > go away. Should she choose not to, she leaves herself open to the
> > criticism of those of us who *are* offended and *do* object to her
choice
> > of a Vanity call sign.
> >
>
> Once again, if the callsign is so offensive, it is the FCC to blame. Any
> vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
> deemed offensive is their fault. I should have the right to request ANY
> callsign that is listed as "available" provided I have the initial right
to
> do so by licensure requirements/benefits. If the list is including some of
> what you refer to as offensive, that is your problem, and the FCC's, not
the
> rest of us.
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan, KC8PMX
> FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
> --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
> .. --. .... - . .-. ...
>

It's not offensive, in any way. Larry just doesn't like a woman who can
think for herself, ergo he doesn't like anything about me. That's all it
is. He has no problem at all with my callsign. How could anyone as
offensive, crude, rude and belligerent as him have a problem with this
callsign?

Kim W5TIT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 30th 03, 06:24 AM

In article >, JJ >
writes:

>> I have never stated that any specific YL hams *were* offended by Kim's
>> call sign. I have only stated that I agree with Riley Hollingsworth when
>he
>> says that Kim's call sign has the potential to do harm to the image of the
>ARS,
>> and YL hams in general. Kim and your XYL prove absolutely nothing
>> with regard to the validity of my objections to her (Kim's) call sign.
>>
>> 73 de Larry, K3LT
>
>There are a ton of things potentially more harmful and more
>likely to bring amateur radio "one step closer to extinction"
>than Kim's call sign. However, it is in bad taste and I can't
>imagine anyone requesting such a call sign other than to bring
>attention to one's self, but then there are those who seem to
>seek the lowest common denominator.

JJ:

Yes, indeed.

>I knew one ham couple and the wife's call sign (not requested,
>just what was issued) had the last letters DTA. He had a T shirt
>made for her that gave the call across the chest with the
>phonetics, "Don't Touch Anything".

Well, such a call sign is not offensive on it's face. The problem
with Kim's call is that it is both offensive and "in your face." Any
self-respecting YL who may have been issued a call with the "TIT"
suffix on a sequential basis would have to immediately request
a re-issue. Otherwise, if she voluntarily chose to keep it, then
she would be just as guilty as Kim is for having it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 30th 03, 06:24 AM

In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
writes:

>
>Dee, to be as succinct with this: there are many things in one's life that
>can be misinterpreted. While I chose this callsign with a desire borne out
>of a dare from friends and local hams here; nevertheless I didn't really
>consider that there would be misunderstandings about my callsign. And, for
>those whom have come to know me; or who "just know" me by virtue of their
>having a sort of twisted sense of humor--the callsign has been no big deal.

Kim:

This "admission" just makes your situation worse. Not only is your call sign
ill-considered, it was chosen as a result of a desire to impress your so-called
friends. I suggest you find new friends -- yours don't seem to be doing you
very much good.

>I've been in casual, contest, and emergency situations with my callsign. It
>has never, never been degraded, questioned, or commented on over the
>air--save one time when a passerby happened upon our repeater one day and I
>introduced myself, our folks and the repeater. He came back with, "well,
>hello Kim, W5TIT. I am passing through the....what did I just say?" He
>ended his question in giggles and that was all that was ever said.

He obviously realized that it was just plain silly to attempt to have an
intelligent conversation with someone who would have such a call sign.

>To make a long, boring story short,

That's never been a problem for you before, Kim -- so why should you care
about it now?

>the callsign has had the most inane
>objections right here in this newsgroup, and nowhere else. There's not a
>lady ham out there who's ever had anything but a hand covered giggle over
>this callsign.

They're not laughing with you, Kim -- they're laughing AT you.

>It's been a great ice breaker and it immediately lets folks
>know that to know me means to know and understand that I in no way take
>myself seriously--and there's not much they are going to have done or do
>that's going to run me off. Simple as that.

Obviously, taking yourself a bit more seriously would seem to be well in
order.

>That it runs folks like Larry off--for me--is a godsend...

Does my participation in this newsgroup, and on this topic in particular,
indicate to ANYONE that I'm being "run off?" If so, please explain how!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 30th 03, 06:24 AM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

>
>"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>>
>> With all due respect to your XYL, she is not
>> qualified to judge me. She has no idea how
>> I relate to women in person. (snip)
>
>
> Since you're basing your objection on how it reflects on women ("a vulgar,
>sexualized, and demeaning connotation which reflects poorly on YL radio
>amateurs everywhere"), she is, as a woman, qualified to judge the weight of
>that argument. She has done so, and feels your argument lacks substance. She
>is, as a woman, also able to say whether Kim's callsign is offensive to her.
>She says it is not.

Dwight:

Well, if that's the case, then I guess my "due respect" for your XYL is no
longer deserved.

> Your argument lacks substance, Larry. Three women have disagreed with your
>position (my wife, Kim, and Dee). While two of the three have reservations
>about Kim's callsign (they wouldn't choose it), none find it outright
>offensive.
>
> Men once used shame and ridicule to force women to comply with their
>domination. That time has passed, Larry. Women are not ashamed of their
>bodies anymore, nor are they embarrassed by the mere mention of some part of
>that body. Would we (men) really want it any other way?
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

My intention is hardly to "dominate" Kim or any other woman, Dwight.
However, I'm curious as to why that thought occurred to you! In reality,
Kim's call sign tends to encourage men to think of her in that way, but,
then again, that's undoubtedly her intent. Not the kind of behavior I would
expect from a married woman and/or a mother, assuming she has any
children.

Like all men, I have a very deep appreciation for the female body, and I
enjoy the image of an attractive woman as much as anyone else. However,
I also have very traditional moral values, and know that the proper place
for such demonstrations of sexuality should be confined to the private
lives of committed, monogamous intimate partners. If you think that
sounds hopelessly old-fashioned, then thank you, very much!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 30th 03, 06:24 AM

Larry Roll K3LT

August 30th 03, 06:24 AM

In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
writes:

><GRIN> Larry *is* the lowest common denominator here, Dwight...LOL Know
>that saying, "can't see the forest for the trees?"

Kim:

A classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

>> You seem to be
>> saying that nothing should be mentioned on Ham Radio that might offend or
>> confuse a young child. If we accept that position, all we'd be allowed to
>> talk about is Barney and the Sesame Street characters.

>I get the oddest vision in my mind when I think of Larry and his incessant
>whining about such puritanical thoughts. Know the vision? You know the
>one: where a spanking is more the pleasure of the person touching the butt
>than anything else? "I'm doing this for your own good" kind of thinking?

Kim, YOU'RE the one who just put that image in everyone's mind -- not me.
And in so doing, you've just cemented my position about you and your
call sign firmly into place.

>> Regardless, most adults today know what a "tit" is and are not offended
>or
>> confused by the simple mention of it.
>>
>
>We are dealing here, with someone who is not--no where near--most adults.
>
>>
>> If a child is, the parent should
>> consider a discussion with them about human sexuality.

>Man, you got that right.

Any adult who is attempting to introduce a child to the wonderful world of
amateur radio should properly expect to find an atmosphere which would
not require them to "have a discussion of human sexuality." Moreover, I'm
certain that outside of this newsgroup, you would find more agreement with
that statement than anything you've offered on the subject so far.

>> If they're too young
>> for that discussion, they're probably too young to be talking with adults
>on
>> the radio or most other places.
>>
>
>More like if they're too young for that discussion, they probably wouldn't
>be able to decipher W5TIT into the word tit.

No "deciphering" is required, Kim -- your call sign spells it out in the clear.

>> If you're offended by Kim's callsign, you need to grow up. The adults of
>> this world are not going to censor their discussions simply to cater to
>your
>> unusually delicate sensitivities. And, to be honest with you, I wouldn't
>> want to see Ham Radio go in that direction.
>>
>>
>> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>>
>> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>>
>
>Growing up won't be done any time soon. We all know that. Let him have his
>fun--that's all this is to him. I can guarantee you that Larry doesn't mind
>my callsign one bit. He just likes having the topic to throw around once in
>a while. I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be saving the poor wretch
>from complete and awesome boredom!

I assure you, Kim, that I don't need to pursue this particular subject to
allay my boredom!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 30th 03, 06:24 AM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

>
>"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
>
>> (snip) Growing up won't be done any time
>> soon. We all know that. Let him have his
>> fun--that's all this is to him. I can
>> guarantee you that Larry doesn't mind my
>> callsign one bit. He just likes having
>> the topic to throw around once in a while.
>> I don't mind it at all; in fact, I may be
>> saving the poor wretch from complete and
>> awesome boredom!
>
>
> I'm just having a little fun also, Kim. Periodic "discussions" with Larry
>are a great diversion from a boring week. That situation will change this
>weekend through most of next week and I'll have to reduce my participation
>in this newsgroup. But, until then, this is a fun distraction.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>

I'm glad to see that a good time is being had by all. Have a safe and
happy Labour Day week end, Dwight!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 30th 03, 06:24 AM

In article >, "Ryan, KC8PMX"
> writes:

>> Dwight:
>>
>> Actually, it most certainly is the business of any radio amateur who
>> is properly concerned with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
>> to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr. Hollingsworth said it most
>> succinctly in his response to Kim when he raised the issue of the
>> possible negative reaction of a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle who may
>> be considering this hobby for a young child in their life. Kim's callsign
>> most certainly could cause such a person to question the judgment,
>> if not the personal integrity and morality, of radio amateurs in general,
>> through this one bad example.
>
>I'll say it again, the person uninvolved with amateur radio won't know the
>difference whether it was a sequentially or vanity-requested callsign. The
>average person would assume the FCC merely assigned it.

Ryan:

Well, that may be true, but it is the kind of moral relativism which is causing
our society to plummet straight into the ground on full afterburner.

>(Yes, believe it or
>not I actually polled people to see their responses the last time this
>bullsh*t came up). There is the root of the problem, if you have such a
>****y feeling towards Kim's (and many other potentially offensive by your
>apparent standards) the why don't you spend your efforts whining to the FCC
>than wasting your time with posts that will not achieve ANY results other
>than to get it off your chest and to hear yourself "bellow" in a "electronic
>medium."

I can't say I disagree with you here, Ryan. However, it is HERE that Kim
started on her campaign to trash up the image of the ARS, and it will be
here that I continue to keep the heat turned up under her feet. On the slight
chance that she may throw in the towel and change her callsign, I could then
take credit for saving her personal image and that of the ARS.

>> Throughout my adult life, I've been told that "perception is reality."
>> While I would personally make some allowances for poor choices based
>> on the immature judgment of younger people, Kim is certainly of an
>> age and station in life where such poor judgment is much less likely
>> to be excused. She is the only one who can make this controversy
>> go away. Should she choose not to, she leaves herself open to the
>> criticism of those of us who *are* offended and *do* object to her choice
>> of a Vanity call sign.
>>
>
>Once again, if the callsign is so offensive, it is the FCC to blame.

Not really. The FCC is a government bureaucracy which must comply with
the demands placed on it by it's liberal, politically-appointed leaders. They
simply cannot impose any kind of "judgment" upon radio amateurs with
regard to call sign selection, since to do so would imply that there are, in
fact, moral absolutes...and that's one thing the government, which cannot
even permit a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building, just
isn't going to do these days. More's the pity.

>Any
>vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
>deemed offensive is their fault.

Yes on the sequential assignments, a definite no on the vanity calls.
A Vanity call sign is self-selected by it's recipient; the FCC, as stated
above, is not going to interfere.

>I should have the right to request ANY
>callsign that is listed as "available" provided I have the initial right to
>do so by licensure requirements/benefits.

I totally agree. Moreover, I would add that you have the responsibility to
make your selection one which is acceptable and not damaging to the
image of the ARS. Kim deliberately and willfully violated that concept
for the purpose of being able to flaunt a vulgar, "in your face," expression
of her "individuality."

>If the list is including some of
>what you refer to as offensive, that is your problem, and the FCC's, not the
>rest of us.

No, it is the "problem" of everyone who seeks to uphold some semblance of
traditional moral values in our society.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT

August 31st 03, 05:28 AM

In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
writes:

>
>Know why he won't? He kept alluding to the fact that he was going to, or
>kept inspiring others to do it. So, I wrote. I wrote knowing that Riley
>would more than likely be the kind of person who probably doesn't appreciate
>the humor in my callsign, but also knowing that he upholds to the principles
>of a democracy. And, he did exactly that. He does not like my callsign.
>But, he doesn't believe it is for the FCC to govern such things.

Kim:

That is quite correct, it's nice to see you finally get something right. The
FCC should not be in the business of controlling which call signs any ham
can or cannot have. That is, and always should be, entirely up to the good
taste and judgment of the individual ham. In your case, you have
demonstrated neither good taste nor good judgment. That's why you're
doing the carpet dance.

>> > Throughout my adult life, I've been told that "perception is reality."
>> > While I would personally make some allowances for poor choices based
>> > on the immature judgment of younger people, Kim is certainly of an
>> > age and station in life where such poor judgment is much less likely
>> > to be excused. She is the only one who can make this controversy
>> > go away. Should she choose not to, she leaves herself open to the
>> > criticism of those of us who *are* offended and *do* object to her
>choice
>> > of a Vanity call sign.
>> >
>>
>> Once again, if the callsign is so offensive, it is the FCC to blame. Any
>> vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
>> deemed offensive is their fault. I should have the right to request ANY
>> callsign that is listed as "available" provided I have the initial right
>to
>> do so by licensure requirements/benefits. If the list is including some of
>> what you refer to as offensive, that is your problem, and the FCC's, not
>the
>> rest of us.

>It's not offensive, in any way.

It *is* offensive, Kim -- in virtually EVERY way.

>Larry just doesn't like a woman who can
>think for herself,

That's the only kind of woman I *do* like, Kim. However, you have not
demonstrated much of what I'd call "thinking" ability in your choice of a call
sign.

>ergo he doesn't like anything about me.

The pity of this whole thing is, Kim, that there just may be some things
about you that I do like. However, I can't get past the call sign, or your
"in your face" attitude toward it.

>That's all it is. He has no problem at all with my callsign.

Earth to Kim, come in Kim! Yes, Kimmie dear, I DO have a problem with
your callsign!

>How could anyone as
>offensive, crude, rude and belligerent as him have a problem with this
>callsign?

Well, you're obviously out of arguments, since the name calling is
being dragged out again. You lose!

73 de Larry, K3LT

Brian

August 31st 03, 07:30 PM

(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message >...
> In article >, "Kim W5TIT" >
> writes:
>
> >
> >Know why he won't? He kept alluding to the fact that he was going to, or
> >kept inspiring others to do it. So, I wrote. I wrote knowing that Riley
> >would more than likely be the kind of person who probably doesn't appreciate
> >the humor in my callsign, but also knowing that he upholds to the principles
> >of a democracy. And, he did exactly that. He does not like my callsign.
> >But, he doesn't believe it is for the FCC to govern such things.
>
> Kim:
>
> That is quite correct, it's nice to see you finally get something right. The
> FCC should not be in the business of controlling which call signs any ham
> can or cannot have. That is, and always should be, entirely up to the good
> taste and judgment of the individual ham.

Bzzzzt. I don't think so. I think the FCC was on track with
sequential calls. I think the BMV was on track with sequential
license plates.

Now we've got the US Postal Service thinking about issuing "vanity
postage stamps."

Good grief.

Ryan, KC8PMX

September 1st 03, 04:45 AM

> The
> > average person would assume the FCC merely assigned it. (Yes, believe
it
> or
> > not I actually polled people to see their responses the last time this
> > bullsh*t came up). There is the root of the problem, if you have such a
> > ****y feeling towards Kim's (and many other potentially offensive by
your
> > apparent standards) the why don't you spend your efforts whining to the
> FCC
> > than wasting your time with posts that will not achieve ANY results
other
> > than to get it off your chest and to hear yourself "bellow" in a
> "electronic
> > medium."
> >
>
> Know why he won't? He kept alluding to the fact that he was going to, or
> kept inspiring others to do it. So, I wrote. I wrote knowing that Riley
> would more than likely be the kind of person who probably doesn't
appreciate
> the humor in my callsign, but also knowing that he upholds to the
principles
> of a democracy. And, he did exactly that. He does not like my callsign.
> But, he doesn't believe it is for the FCC to govern such things.

Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again, if the FCC is making
any specific callsigns available that are allegedly deemed "offensive" then
they are the ones that are responsible for that callsign. The efforts to
get those callsigns blocked/banned/removed etc. falls on them as long as
they are the governing body over amateur radio. It's just that simple.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Ryan, KC8PMX

September 1st 03, 05:01 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Ryan, KC8PMX"
> > writes:
>
> >> Dwight:
> >>
> >> Actually, it most certainly is the business of any radio amateur who
> >> is properly concerned with the image of the ARS. This is supposed
> >> to be a family-oriented hobby/service. Mr. Hollingsworth said it most
> >> succinctly in his response to Kim when he raised the issue of the
> >> possible negative reaction of a parent/grandparent/aunt/uncle who may
> >> be considering this hobby for a young child in their life. Kim's
callsign
> >> most certainly could cause such a person to question the judgment,
> >> if not the personal integrity and morality, of radio amateurs in
general,
> >> through this one bad example.
> >
> >I'll say it again, the person uninvolved with amateur radio won't know
the
> >difference whether it was a sequentially or vanity-requested callsign.
The
> >average person would assume the FCC merely assigned it.
>
> Ryan:
>
> Well, that may be true, but it is the kind of moral relativism which is
causing
> our society to plummet straight into the ground on full afterburner.

And it started long before Kim was even born for that matter......

>
> >(Yes, believe it or
> >not I actually polled people to see their responses the last time this
> >bullsh*t came up). There is the root of the problem, if you have such a
> >****y feeling towards Kim's (and many other potentially offensive by your
> >apparent standards) the why don't you spend your efforts whining to the
FCC
> >than wasting your time with posts that will not achieve ANY results other
> >than to get it off your chest and to hear yourself "bellow" in a
"electronic
> >medium."
>
> I can't say I disagree with you here, Ryan. However, it is HERE that Kim
> started on her campaign to trash up the image of the ARS, and it will be
> here that I continue to keep the heat turned up under her feet. On the
slight
> chance that she may throw in the towel and change her callsign, I could
then
> take credit for saving her personal image and that of the ARS.

Right, and this is not ham radio, it is merely a discussion group relating
to amateur radio in some fashion or another.....

>
> >> Throughout my adult life, I've been told that "perception is reality."
> >> While I would personally make some allowances for poor choices based
> >> on the immature judgment of younger people, Kim is certainly of an
> >> age and station in life where such poor judgment is much less likely
> >> to be excused. She is the only one who can make this controversy
> >> go away. Should she choose not to, she leaves herself open to the
> >> criticism of those of us who *are* offended and *do* object to her
choice
> >> of a Vanity call sign.
> >>
> >
> >Once again, if the callsign is so offensive, it is the FCC to blame.
>
> Not really. The FCC is a government bureaucracy which must comply with
> the demands placed on it by it's liberal, politically-appointed leaders.
They
> simply cannot impose any kind of "judgment" upon radio amateurs with
> regard to call sign selection, since to do so would imply that there are,
in
> fact, moral absolutes...and that's one thing the government, which cannot
> even permit a display of the Ten Commandments in a public building, just
> isn't going to do these days. More's the pity.

The FCC is the issuing body that gives the licenses out to recipients who
have met the requirements for each license class at the time of issuance.
Unless some other governmental organization is the one actually issuing the
licenses and maintaining the callsign database, they ARE responsible. Write
to your congress or senatorperson to get the FCC to remove the list of what
callsigns you deem offensive. After all, the majority of the congress and
senate ARE Republicans now.

>
> >Any
> >vanity callsign or even if it even was a sequentially assigned that is
> >deemed offensive is their fault.
>
> Yes on the sequential assignments, a definite no on the vanity calls.
> A Vanity call sign is self-selected by it's recipient; the FCC, as stated
> above, is not going to interfere.

Pure BS.... the FCC has people on their staff that can manage a database,
it's that simple. Remove the ones that are not "acceptable.

>
> >I should have the right to request ANY
> >callsign that is listed as "available" provided I have the initial right
to
> >do so by licensure requirements/benefits.
>
> I totally agree. Moreover, I would add that you have the responsibility
to
> make your selection one which is acceptable and not damaging to the
> image of the ARS. Kim deliberately and willfully violated that concept
> for the purpose of being able to flaunt a vulgar, "in your face,"
expression
> of her "individuality."

I guess that is all a matter of perception. I would actually have to see
real proof that it really has damaged the ARS, other that a perception of a
few people here....

>
> >If the list is including some of
> >what you refer to as offensive, that is your problem, and the FCC's, not
the
> >rest of us.
>
> No, it is the "problem" of everyone who seeks to uphold some semblance of
> traditional moral values in our society.
>

Define which moral values. Different groups have different values that they
deem to be of the utmost importance. That is a different subject
all-together though.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Kim W5TIT

September 1st 03, 03:55 PM

"Ryan, KC8PMX" > wrote in message
...
>
> Define which moral values. Different groups have different values that
they
> deem to be of the utmost importance. That is a different subject
> all-together though.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ryan, KC8PMX
> FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
> --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
> .. --. .... - . .-. ...
>
>

Here is what I think is an excellent parody:

We could (hopefully) all agree that all crime is "offensive." All crime is
offensive because, well, it is against the law. However, I (me, personally)
disagree that the growth and use of marijuana for personal use is OK, and
should not be against the law. Even so, I understand and agree that anyone
caught growing, carrying or using should "pay the crime." Yet, I will
support a goal aimed at the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use.

That's more than I intended to say, but my point is: we could all agree that
something is offensive. I do not agree that my callsign is offensive. We
could all agree that some moral values are deemed to be of the utmost
importance. I do not agree that my callsign is morally incorrect;
therefore, my callsign does not commit offense to any morals.

Kim W5TIT

Dwight Stewart

September 2nd 03, 09:36 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
> Well, if that's the case, then I guess my "due
> respect" for your XYL is no longer deserved.

She'll do just fine without your concept of respect, Larry.

> (snip) My intention is hardly to "dominate" Kim or
> any other woman, Dwight. However, I'm curious as to
> why that thought occurred to you! In reality, Kim's
> call sign tends to encourage men to think of her in
> that way, but, then again, that's undoubtedly her
> intent. Not the kind of behavior I would expect
> from a married woman and/or a mother, assuming she
> has any children. (snip)

The thought occurred to me because you've spent the last several years
trying to sexualize Kim's callsign. I can remember back when I first ran
into this discussion. At the time, since I hadn't noticed her callsign
before, it took me several messages to figure out what you were talking
about. I ignored that discussion and didn't respond to the topic for several
more months (many dozens of messages later).

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

September 2nd 03, 09:48 AM

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

> I'm glad to see that a good time is being had
> by all. Have a safe and happy Labour Day week
> end, Dwight!

Are you kidding? I busted my tail this last weekend. In addition to moving
to a new apartment (and cleaning the old one), I sold an old computer, spent
days shopping for a new computer, took my wife's car to the shop (had to get
it running well enough to do that), and more. At this point, I darn glad
this last weekend is over. I still have a ton to do, but it can be spaced
out enough to get a break occasionally.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Larry Roll K3LT

September 2nd 03, 05:56 PM

In article >, Dwight Stewart
> writes:

>"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>>
>> Well, if that's the case, then I guess my "due
>> respect" for your XYL is no longer deserved.

> She'll do just fine without your concept of respect, Larry.

Dwight:

Thanks, that's quite reassuring.

>> (snip) My intention is hardly to "dominate" Kim or
>> any other woman, Dwight. However, I'm curious as to
>> why that thought occurred to you! In reality, Kim's
>> call sign tends to encourage men to think of her in
>> that way, but, then again, that's undoubtedly her
>> intent. Not the kind of behavior I would expect
>> from a married woman and/or a mother, assuming she
>> has any children. (snip)

> The thought occurred to me because you've spent the last several years
>trying to sexualize Kim's callsign. I can remember back when I first ran
>into this discussion. At the time, since I hadn't noticed her callsign
>before, it took me several messages to figure out what you were talking
>about. I ignored that discussion and didn't respond to the topic for several
>more months (many dozens of messages later).

Well, Dwight, it's nice to know that after you've been repeatedly smacked
upside the haid with the plainly obvious, you eventually get it.

73 de Larry, K3LT

N2EY

September 3rd 03, 01:19 AM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of September 1, 2003:

Novice - 33,156 (decrease of 16,173)
Technician - 257,830 (increase of 52,436)
Technician Plus - 65,928 (decrease of 62,932)
General - 141,402 (increase of 28,725)
Advanced - 82,931 (decrease of 16,851)
Extra - 104,512 (increase of 25,762)
Total - 685,759 (increase of 10,967)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo

September 3rd 03, 03:23 AM

Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
>
>
>>I'm glad to see that a good time is being had
>>by all. Have a safe and happy Labour Day week
>>end, Dwight!
>
>
>
> Are you kidding? I busted my tail this last weekend. In addition to moving
> to a new apartment (and cleaning the old one), I sold an old computer, spent
> days shopping for a new computer, took my wife's car to the shop (had to get
> it running well enough to do that), and more. At this point, I darn glad
> this last weekend is over. I still have a ton to do, but it can be spaced
> out enough to get a break occasionally.

I know what you mean. I have such a huge list of to-dos during the
summer that I have come to hate summer and most of the holidays.

In addition, I have an Alaska body thermostat. So I've learned to love
the winter.

Vince Fiscus, KB7ADL

September 3rd 03, 04:22 AM

(N2EY) wrote in news:20030902191946.00545.00000362@mb-
m02.aol.com:

> As of September 1, 2003:
>
> Novice - 33,156 (decrease of 16,173)
> Technician - 257,830 (increase of 52,436)
> Technician Plus - 65,928 (decrease of 62,932)
> General - 141,402 (increase of 28,725)
> Advanced - 82,931 (decrease of 16,851)
> Extra - 104,512 (increase of 25,762)
> Total - 685,759 (increase of 10,967)
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Some of those aren't REAL Generals, or Extra's. The number of true
Generals and Extra's is actually less than the numbers shown.

Why is there never a Wouff Hong around when you really need one?
KB7ADL

Dwight Stewart

September 3rd 03, 08:02 AM

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
>
> I know what you mean. I have such a huge list
> of to-dos during the summer that I have come
> to hate summer and most of the holidays.
>
> In addition, I have an Alaska body thermostat.
> So I've learned to love the winter.

Please, lets not talk about the weather. This is the south - the place
with months of hot, steamy, days. And this last weekend was certainly no
exception. I prefer cooler weather also. I can get ten times the amount of
work done and not suffer nearly as much.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

September 3rd 03, 01:14 PM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
>
> > Dwight you've obviously forever been devoid
> > of a clue, and if this statement doesn't prove
> > it nothing ever could. But it's far beyond
> > obvious anyway.
>
>
> Well, Dick, since you're such an expert, why don't you explain what you
> think I've missed? The only clue I get from the above is that you're again
> speaking of things you have no idea about.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

heh heh heh. Asking Dick to answer an honest question with facts is like
getting Bill Clinton to .... uh, well, never mind.

Kim W5TIT

Dwight Stewart

September 4th 03, 08:35 AM

"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
>
> You said to Larry, in part-
>
>> you've spent the last several years trying
>> to sexualize Kim's callsign....
>
>
> So you presume that Kim didn't sexualize it
> when she chose it???
>
> Yep. Truly clueless, that's our boy Dwight.

Well, no kidding. I thought Kim's part in all this was pretty obvious to
anyone with even a partial clue (which seems to rule you out). Instead, I
was talking to Larry about his part in this - the years he's spent trying to
sexualize Kim's callsign. Few others have made such an issue out of Kim's
callsign. And that has drawn more attention to that callsign than perhaps
anything else, even Kim's use of it.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

September 4th 03, 08:45 AM

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

> heh heh heh. Asking Dick to answer an honest
> question with facts is like getting Bill
> Clinton to .... uh, well, never mind.

Well, I'm not going to be too hard on Dick. He missed the fact that I was
talking about what Larry had done, not what others had done. Without that
understanding, it is easy to see how he could become even more confused.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

September 4th 03, 01:19 PM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dick Carroll;" wrote:
> >
> > You said to Larry, in part-
> >
> >> you've spent the last several years trying
> >> to sexualize Kim's callsign....
> >
> >
> > So you presume that Kim didn't sexualize it
> > when she chose it???
> >
> > Yep. Truly clueless, that's our boy Dwight.
>
>
> Well, no kidding. I thought Kim's part in all this was pretty obvious to
> anyone with even a partial clue (which seems to rule you out). Instead, I
> was talking to Larry about his part in this - the years he's spent trying
to
> sexualize Kim's callsign. Few others have made such an issue out of Kim's
> callsign. And that has drawn more attention to that callsign than perhaps
> anything else, even Kim's use of it.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

Pretty astute of you, Dwight. Since having this callsign I've been on the
air very little.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY

September 4th 03, 05:27 PM

"Carl R. Stevenson" > wrote in message >...
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
> > These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> > licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
> >
> > As of May 14, 2000:
> >
> > Novice - 49,329
> > Tech - 205,394
> > Tech Plus - 128,860
> > General - 112,677
> > Advanced - 99,782
> > Extra - 78,750
> > Total - 674,792
> >
> >
> > As of September 1, 2003:
> >
> > Novice - 33,156 (decrease of 16,173)
> > Technician - 257,830 (increase of 52,436)
> > Technician Plus - 65,928 (decrease of 62,932)
> > General - 141,402 (increase of 28,725)
> > Advanced - 82,931 (decrease of 16,851)
> > Extra - 104,512 (increase of 25,762)
> > Total - 685,759 (increase of 10,967)
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
> >
>
> So ... 54.8158101% of US hams will immediately benefit from
> dropping the Morse test (Techs/total of all classes, since Novices
> already have 5 wpm credit for life.

No, they won't. You are mistaken. Math error!

Both Novices and most (but not all!) code-tested Techs have 5 wpm
credit for life. Check Part 97.

> Interesting fact ... I'll have to remember that for my comments. Thanks.
>
You might want to get your facts right before embarrassing yourself,
Carl.

All Tech Pluses, as well as an unknown number of Techs, already have
credit for all of the code testing now required. The 257,830
Technicians on the books consist of the following:

- Techs who don't have the credit (never passed the test)
- Techs who don't have the credit (passed the test but let the CSCE
expire)
- Techs who have the credit (Tech Pluses who did a post-restructure
renewal)
- Techs who have the credit (valid CSCE)
- Techs who have the credit (Novices who did a post-restructure
upgrade)

Of these, only the first two groups will "benefit". The rest won't.
How many are in each group? You tell us. But remember that for more
than three years all Tech Pluses have been renewed as Techs.

You might want to check your math, too. Even if all 257,830 Techs are
counted as not having code test credit, 257,830/685,759 is
37.5977....%, not the 54+% you posted.

If we take the number of the first two groups as 210,000, (which is
reasonable considering new license issues, renewal and upgrade rates),
the percentage drops to less than 31%.

BIG differences from 54%.

You still want to tell FCC that 54.8158101% of US hams will
immediately benefit from dropping the Morse test? Be my guest.

Now if the number of US hams who are active NCI members is (let's be
generous) 4,000, that's 0.583....%

73 de Jim, N2EY

FISTS #4360

Mike Coslo

September 4th 03, 07:53 PM

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

> So ... 54.8158101% of US hams will immediately benefit from
> dropping the Morse test (Techs/total of all classes, since Novices
> already have 5 wpm credit for life.
>
> Interesting fact ... I'll have to remember that for my comments. Thanks.

Don't forget that 300 million or so would benefit if all the
requirements were dropped.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY

September 5th 03, 02:20 AM

In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:

>Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>
>> So ... 54.8158101% of US hams will immediately benefit from
>> dropping the Morse test (Techs/total of all classes, since Novices
>> already have 5 wpm credit for life.
>>
>> Interesting fact ... I'll have to remember that for my comments. Thanks.

Except it's not a fact at all. The correct percentage is about 30%, which is a
little more than half what Carl posted.

> Don't forget that 300 million or so would benefit if all the
>requirements were dropped.
>
Those derned writtens...

73 de Jim, N2EY

S. Hanrahan

September 5th 03, 05:37 AM

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:02:29 -0400, Bob Brock >
wrote:

>Actually, the last time I subscribed to the ng, TIT's had left the
>group and vowed never to return. Things changed I guess.

I told myself when she vowed to the group that she'd never return...

"she'll be back".

Bob Brock

September 5th 03, 07:00 AM

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:37:04 -0600, S. Hanrahan >
wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:02:29 -0400, Bob Brock >
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, the last time I subscribed to the ng, TIT's had left the
>>group and vowed never to return. Things changed I guess.
>
>I told myself when she vowed to the group that she'd never return...
>
>"she'll be back".

Did she ever really leave?

Dwight Stewart

September 5th 03, 07:12 AM

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

> Pretty astute of you, Dwight. Since having this
> callsign I've been on the air very little.

Well, get on the air, girl! This is, after all, what this is all about.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

September 5th 03, 02:03 PM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kim W5TIT" wrote:
>
> > Pretty astute of you, Dwight. Since having this
> > callsign I've been on the air very little.
>
>
> Well, get on the air, girl! This is, after all, what this is all about.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>

heh heh...yeah, I know. There's been one reason or another for not having
the equipment connected. Right now, it's been for the last (nearly) two
years because of the new truck, having to find where I want the equipment;
then having to pause all that while I have some work done, etc.

Never have really talked from the house, except to run a training net, so
that's pretty much out of the question. In fact, both of us still wonder
why we put up a 70' tower, loaded it up with antennas and don't even have a
radio connected in here now. We used to have the HF rig set up and used to
use it every night; but haven't done that in nearly four years...maybe
longer.

Kim W5TIT

N2EY

September 5th 03, 07:38 PM

"Kim" > wrote in message >...

> put up a 70' tower, loaded it up with antennas and don't even have a
> radio connected in here now.

I know a ham who did that - put up the tower and antennas when they
first moved in and left all of the coax ends coiled in a bucket
outside the house. hen they set about doing various move-in projects
and did not unpack the rigs right away, nor run the coaxes into the
house.

Sure enough, one of the neighbors with Gladys Kravitz syndrome
complained about "interference" and such that supposedly happened
since the antennas went up. Called FCC as I recall. Ham invited over
the neighbor and other interestested parties and showed 'em the coax
ends. No more complaints.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Kim W5TIT

September 6th 03, 03:24 AM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kim" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > put up a 70' tower, loaded it up with antennas and don't even have a
> > radio connected in here now.
>
> I know a ham who did that - put up the tower and antennas when they
> first moved in and left all of the coax ends coiled in a bucket
> outside the house. hen they set about doing various move-in projects
> and did not unpack the rigs right away, nor run the coaxes into the
> house.
>
> Sure enough, one of the neighbors with Gladys Kravitz syndrome
> complained about "interference" and such that supposedly happened
> since the antennas went up. Called FCC as I recall. Ham invited over
> the neighbor and other interestested parties and showed 'em the coax
> ends. No more complaints.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>

ROFLMAO!!! N5TIE, down here, name is Robert. Had a neighbor that would
raise the roof every time he got on CW. Well, one day she starts
complaining. Called him up. He sets his station up to ID every couple of
minutes and send a CW call (automatically). Then, he goes over to visit
with the neighbor.

heh heh, she never called again.

Kim W5TIT

Dwight Stewart

September 7th 03, 02:54 PM

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

> heh heh...yeah, I know. There's been one reason or
> another for not having the equipment connected. Right
> now, it's been for the last (nearly) two years because
> of the new truck, having to find where I want the
> equipment; then having to pause all that while I have
> some work done, etc.

All petty excuses. Anyway, speaking of trucks, mine was almost stolen last
night. I was up late and just happened to look out the door as a guy
approached the truck. I watched him as he looked in the window for several
seconds and then raised a rock over his head to break the glass. At that
point, I shouted for him to get away from the truck. He then ran to a
waiting pickup where his friend sped off. Sadly, the tailgate was down on
the pickup, so I couldn't see the license plate. Since there has been a
string of vehicle thefts around here lately, I called the police and gave
them the best description of the vehicle I could. Of course, by the time
they got here, the guys were long gone.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight Stewart

September 7th 03, 03:09 PM

"N2EY" wrote:
>
> (snip) Sure enough, one of the neighbors with
> Gladys Kravitz syndrome complained about
> "interference" and such that supposedly happened
> since the antennas went up. Called FCC as I recall.
> Ham invited over the neighbor and other interestested
> parties and showed 'em the coax ends. No more
> complaints.

That is funny. Years ago (at a retirement community), the boss suggested I
tell everyone my antennas were for television. Sure enough, two days after
the largest antenna went up (18 foot wide and 20 foot boom), a female
neighbor asked about it. When I told her it was for television, she looked
at it, paused for several seconds (obviously thinking), and seriously said I
must get really great reception. I almost died laughing (as did the boss
when I told him about it). That was my most humorious antenna situation.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Kim W5TIT

September 7th 03, 03:45 PM

"Dwight Stewart" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "Kim W5TIT" wrote:
>
> > heh heh...yeah, I know. There's been one reason or
> > another for not having the equipment connected. Right
> > now, it's been for the last (nearly) two years because
> > of the new truck, having to find where I want the
> > equipment; then having to pause all that while I have
> > some work done, etc.
>
>
> All petty excuses. Anyway, speaking of trucks, mine was almost stolen
last
> night. I was up late and just happened to look out the door as a guy
> approached the truck. I watched him as he looked in the window for several
> seconds and then raised a rock over his head to break the glass. At that
> point, I shouted for him to get away from the truck. He then ran to a
> waiting pickup where his friend sped off. Sadly, the tailgate was down on
> the pickup, so I couldn't see the license plate. Since there has been a
> string of vehicle thefts around here lately, I called the police and gave
> them the best description of the vehicle I could. Of course, by the time
> they got here, the guys were long gone.
>
>
> Dwight Stewart (W5NET)
>
> http://www.qsl.net/w5net/
>
>

Oh man.... Well, I've thought about how I would "handle" the robbery of my
truck--it literally took me a lifetime of dreaming to get one; and I really
never thought I would be able to do it. BUT, if it was stolen I would hope
it was totally destroyed beyond being able to be returned and then I would
hope that the extra coverage I am carrying on it would hook me back up.
Kind of like when the house caught on fire...man the insurance company was
10X worse than the damned fire! I'm scared to death of fire again for fear
of what I'll have to go through with the insurance company!!

I told my neighbor that if he ever gets over here with a garden hose to put
the thing out again, I'll choke him. First he took serious risks standing
at an outside window that had blown, not to mention that the "smoke"
(actually fumes as you know) had reached that greenish-yellow phase, where
they can flash-fire at any point and he was standing right in the middle of
it as it war barreling out the window!! He just doesn't realize what could
have happened to him...and nothing in my home is worth the life of anyone,
nothing.

Kim W5TIT

Dwight Stewart

September 8th 03, 11:08 AM

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:
>
> Oh man.... Well, I've thought about how I would "handle"
> the robbery of my truck--it literally took me a lifetime of
> dreaming to get one; and I really never thought I would be
> able to do it. BUT, if it was stolen I would hope it was
> totally destroyed beyond being able to be returned and
> then I would hope that the extra coverage I am carrying
> on it would hook me back up. (snip)

Mine has full coverage also, but waiting weeks or longer to get any real
response from the insurance company would be a nightmare.

Anyway, one pleasent note is that I've found the two guys I saw last
night - they're staying right here in this building. This place rents both
weekly and monthly suites. They're staying in one of the weekly suites, but
had no business at this end of the parking lot (especially that late at
night). The vehicles at this end of the parking lot either belong to the
company, building staff, or those staying in the two executive suites (I
stay in one).

Anyway, I reported all this to the police (they have the license plate
number now). They're going to keep an eye on these two to see if they have
anything to do with the string of vehicles thefts around here over the last
few months.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Mike Coslo

September 17th 03, 04:19 AM

Clint wrote:
>>Don't forget that 300 million or so would benefit if all the
>>requirements were dropped.

>>- Mike KB3EIA -
>
> oh, are they dropping the written test to? are they just
> going to give away the license to all hams that pay
> the fee?
>
> or are they, in fact, still requireing a knowledge test?
> ah, yes. I'm sure they are.

Very observent, they *are* requireing a knowledge test.

But you know they really DON'T have to.

If you thing they have to, tell me the reasons why.

- Mike -

Dan/W4NTI

September 17th 03, 09:44 PM

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
> Clint wrote:
> >>Don't forget that 300 million or so would benefit if all the
> >>requirements were dropped.
>
> >>- Mike KB3EIA -
> >
> > oh, are they dropping the written test to? are they just
> > going to give away the license to all hams that pay
> > the fee?
> >
> > or are they, in fact, still requireing a knowledge test?
> > ah, yes. I'm sure they are.
>
> Very observent, they *are* requireing a knowledge test.
>
> But you know they really DON'T have to.
>
> If you thing they have to, tell me the reasons why.
>
>
> - Mike -
>
To at least be reasonably sure that the applicant knows where he can put
what kind of a signal.

It is also handy in a enforcement situation. When some fool runs 10kw on
top of a broadcast station the FCC has grounds to nail his butt.

See how simple that is?

Dan/W4NTI

Mike Coslo

September 18th 03, 12:36 AM

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
> "Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clint wrote:
>>
>>>>Don't forget that 300 million or so would benefit if all the
>>>>requirements were dropped.
>>>
>>>>- Mike KB3EIA -
>>>
>>>oh, are they dropping the written test to? are they just
>>>going to give away the license to all hams that pay
>>>the fee?
>>>
>>>or are they, in fact, still requireing a knowledge test?
>>>ah, yes. I'm sure they are.
>>
>>Very observent, they *are* requireing a knowledge test.
>>
>>But you know they really DON'T have to.
>>
>>If you thing they have to, tell me the reasons why.
>>
>>
>>- Mike -
>>
>
> To at least be reasonably sure that the applicant knows where he can put
> what kind of a signal.
>
> It is also handy in a enforcement situation. When some fool runs 10kw on
> top of a broadcast station the FCC has grounds to nail his butt.
>
> See how simple that is?

Oh, personally I agree that there should be a written test, and there
shoud be a Morse code test.

What gets me worked up is those who think that removing the Morse code
part of the testing is not a reduction in the amount of knowedge needed
for the license. Maybe its newspeak. Less is more!

All the learning is ultimately what determines the state of amateur
radio. While not an indicator of the individual ham, in the aggregate a
better educated ARS is a good thing in my book.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY

October 1st 03, 06:41 PM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of September 30, 2003:

Novice - 33,034 (decrease of 16,295)
Technician - 257,250 (increase of 51,856)
Technician Plus - 65,042 (decrease of 63,818)
General - 141,340 (increase of 28,663)
Advanced - 82,724 (decrease of 17,058)
Extra - 104,605 (increase of 25,855)
Total - 683,995 (increase of 9,203)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo

October 1st 03, 08:46 PM

N2EY wrote:
> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

<snip>

> As of September 30, 2003:
>
> Novice - 33,034 (decrease of 16,295)

<snip>

This may be hard to quantify, Jim, but is there any data or even
educated guessing about how many Novices are still actually active?

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY

October 2nd 03, 03:41 AM

In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:

>N2EY wrote:
>> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
><snip>
>
>> As of September 30, 2003:
>>
>> Novice - 33,034 (decrease of 16,295)
>
><snip>
>
>This may be hard to quantify, Jim, but is there any data or even
>educated guessing about how many Novices are still actually active?
>
Not that I know of, Mike.

Let's look at how the three license classes that are closed to new entries have
declined in numbers:

Novice is now ~67% of where it was May 14, 2000
Advanced is now ~83% of where it was May 14, 2000
Tech Plus is now ~50% of where it was May 14, 2000

Of course the Tech Plus will decline the fastest because all Tech Pluses are
being renewed as Techs.

--

But if you want some interesting numbers, note that we are now down below
684,000, after peaking around 687,000. Extra and General continue to grow, and
Advanced is declining slowly. What gives?

One clue is to look at the AH0A site

http://www.ah0a.org

and look at the "new licenses" numbers. For some reason, the number of new
Technicians has dropped significantly in the past 2-3 months. The number of new
Generals and Extras continues at the same rate as before, so it's not due to an
FCC paper backup or seasonal variation.

So why the sudden dropoff in new Techs?

One definite possibility is the new Technician Q&A pool, which was introduced
on July 15th. The new pool has with 511 questions, while the old one had only
384 questions.

Prior to the new pool, the average number of new Techs was about 1700 a month.
Since then, it has dropped to less than 1000 per month.

Maybe this is just a temporary thing - or maybe it isn't. The code test cannot
be blamed for the drop because it's not a part of the Tech license
requirements.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo

October 2nd 03, 04:32 AM

N2EY wrote:

> In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:
>
>
>>N2EY wrote:
>>
>>>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>>>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>As of September 30, 2003:
>>>
>>>Novice - 33,034 (decrease of 16,295)
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>This may be hard to quantify, Jim, but is there any data or even
>>educated guessing about how many Novices are still actually active?
>>
>
> Not that I know of, Mike.
>
> Let's look at how the three license classes that are closed to new entries have
> declined in numbers:
>
> Novice is now ~67% of where it was May 14, 2000
> Advanced is now ~83% of where it was May 14, 2000
> Tech Plus is now ~50% of where it was May 14, 2000
>
> Of course the Tech Plus will decline the fastest because all Tech Pluses are
> being renewed as Techs.
>
> --
>
> But if you want some interesting numbers, note that we are now down below
> 684,000, after peaking around 687,000. Extra and General continue to grow, and
> Advanced is declining slowly. What gives?
>
> One clue is to look at the AH0A site
>
> http://www.ah0a.org
>
> and look at the "new licenses" numbers. For some reason, the number of new
> Technicians has dropped significantly in the past 2-3 months. The number of new
> Generals and Extras continues at the same rate as before, so it's not due to an
> FCC paper backup or seasonal variation.
>
> So why the sudden dropoff in new Techs?
>
> One definite possibility is the new Technician Q&A pool, which was introduced
> on July 15th. The new pool has with 511 questions, while the old one had only
> 384 questions.

Coupled with many prospective technicians possibly holding out until
they might not have to take a Morse code test?

> Prior to the new pool, the average number of new Techs was about 1700 a month.
> Since then, it has dropped to less than 1000 per month.
>
> Maybe this is just a temporary thing - or maybe it isn't. The code test cannot
> be blamed for the drop because it's not a part of the Tech license
> requirements.

Oh, I'll bet some try to blame it on that! 8^)

Robert Casey

October 2nd 03, 04:39 AM

>
>
> This may be hard to quantify, Jim, but is there any data or even
> educated guessing about how many Novices are still actually active?
>
>

One could listen around the various novice subbands and copy down
callsigns, and
then go to qrz.com and look them up to get an idea of the precentage of
novices vs
other licenses active.

Another question would be how soon a new novice who gets into it
upgrades vs novices that never upgraded. Since no new novice licenses
have been issued in the last few years, it seems likely that anyone still
a novice likely lost interest in ham radio and thus inactive. But if
many renewals
of novice licenses are happening, then that's not a valid reasoning.....

Robert Casey

October 2nd 03, 04:42 AM

N2EY wrote:

>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
>As of May 14, 2000:
>
You mean April 14th, yes? I upgraded from tech plus to
"extra lite" on April 15th, 2000. Otherwise I'd be counted as
an old extra below....

>
>Novice - 49,329
>Tech - 205,394
>Tech Plus - 128,860
>General - 112,677
>Advanced - 99,782
>Extra - 78,750 one of these is me!
>Total - 674,792
>
>

Blow Job

October 2nd 03, 04:57 AM

Mike Coslo, > wrote in :

> This may be hard to quantify, Jim, but is there any data or even
> educated guessing about how many Novices are still actually active?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -

Not hard to quantify at all. Any ham that only knows CW to 5 WPM is a
novice. New hams these days are all Novices. So the number of Novices on
the bands are actually increasing. Ten-Four Good buddy?

Carl R. Stevenson

October 2nd 03, 03:23 PM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:
>
> >N2EY wrote:
> >> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> >> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> As of September 30, 2003:
> >>
> >> Novice - 33,034 (decrease of 16,295)
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >This may be hard to quantify, Jim, but is there any data or even
> >educated guessing about how many Novices are still actually active?
> >
> Not that I know of, Mike.
>
> Let's look at how the three license classes that are closed to new entries
have
> declined in numbers:
>
> Novice is now ~67% of where it was May 14, 2000
> Advanced is now ~83% of where it was May 14, 2000
> Tech Plus is now ~50% of where it was May 14, 2000
>
> Of course the Tech Plus will decline the fastest because all Tech Pluses
are
> being renewed as Techs.

Or, alternatively, they are upgrading to General and Extra since they
already have 5 wpm code credit. There's been a lot of that.
(As an "old" techplus with full general written credit and 5 wpm
credit, I simply had to take the extra written to upgrade all the way.
I'm sure there were lots of similarly situated folks who also upgraded,
either as a "paper upgrade", with no test, to general, of as I did by
taking the extra written.)

Carl - wk3c

WA8ULX

October 2nd 03, 03:28 PM

>There's been a lot of that.
>(As an "old" techplus with full general written credit and 5 wpm
>credit, I simply had to take the extra written to upgrade all the way.
>I'm sure there were lots of similarly situated folks who also upgraded,
>either as a "paper upgrade", with no test, to general, of as I did by
>taking the extra written.)
>
>Carl - wk3c
>

Yea and it took you over a year to pass it, I guess it wasnt just the Code Test
that kept you back.

Robert Casey

October 3rd 03, 02:15 AM

Blow Job wrote:

Nice troll handle.

>
>Not hard to quantify at all. Any ham that only knows CW to 5 WPM is a
>novice. New hams these days are all Novices. So the number of Novices on
>the bands are actually increasing. Ten-Four Good buddy?
>
>
>

>Well, how many CBers know 5WPM?
>
Well, I have a "novice-extra" license. And if I admit that I have
since forgotten my code, would that make me a CB-extra? :-)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mike Coslo

October 3rd 03, 03:51 AM

N2EY wrote:

> Suppose the new Q&A pool really is the cause of this dropoff. Will we
> see folks arguing that the writtens are stifling growth, turning
> people away, etc.?
> Will we see a movement to reduce (again) the level of written testing,
> the number of licenses, etc.?

I am inclined to say there will be a push to reduce requirements if
that happens. At the moment, every issue seems to gravitate towards
Morse CW requirement. This question needs revisited after the
requirement is dropped, if it is dropped.

And my opinion is no, we shouldn't reduce the requirements.

- Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY

October 3rd 03, 05:26 AM

In article >,
(WA8ULX) writes:

>>There's been a lot of that.
>>(As an "old" techplus with full general written credit and 5 wpm
>>credit, I simply had to take the extra written to upgrade all the way.
>>I'm sure there were lots of similarly situated folks who also upgraded,
>>either as a "paper upgrade", with no test, to general, of as I did by
>>taking the extra written.)
>>
>>Carl - wk3c
>>
>
>Yea and it took you over a year to pass it, I guess it wasnt just the Code
>Test
>that kept you back.
>
Carl got a post-restructuring Extra

Bruce got a post-restructuring Extra

Carl does not make fun of Bruce's amateur license

Bruce makes fun of Carl's amateur license.

Carl does not distinguish between "real hams" and others.

Bruce says a sizable percentage of amateurs are not "real hams".

Carl is actively trying to defeat the threat of BPL.

Bruce doesn't give a damn about BPL.

Who should we respect and thank, and who should we despise and ignore?

---

Once upon a time, I was a new Novice, struggling with 5 wpm code and a simple
homebrew station. Was I not a "real ham" back then?

Once upon a time, I was a Technician, having a great time working 6 meter AM on
Field Day with the local club. Was I not a "real ham" back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

who does not make fun of anyone's amateur license

WA8ULX

October 3rd 03, 05:49 AM

>Carl got a post-restructuring Extra
>
>

After a Year of failing it.

>Bruce got a post-restructuring Extra

And $250.00 from from some Dumb Cbers

>Bruce makes fun of Carl's amateur license.

Because Carls License isnt worth the pasper its printed on.

>Carl does not distinguish between "real hams" and others.

ThaTs because Karl doesnt know the difference

>Bruce says a sizable percentage of amateurs are not "real hams".

Just the New ones

>Carl is actively trying to defeat the threat of BPL.

Thats a Joke

>Bruce doesn't give a damn about BPL.

THATS TRUE

Ryan, KC8PMX

October 3rd 03, 09:03 AM

(sarcasm mode on)

Since the entire public is completely aware of amateur radio, therefore they
all are waiting for the code test to drop, then we should have huge growth
eh???

(sarcasm mode off)

Ryan KC8PMX

>
> If/when the code test disappears, what will be the scapegoat for low
growth?
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Carl R. Stevenson

October 3rd 03, 09:52 PM

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
t...
> N2EY wrote:
>
>
> > Suppose the new Q&A pool really is the cause of this dropoff. Will we
> > see folks arguing that the writtens are stifling growth, turning
> > people away, etc.?
> > Will we see a movement to reduce (again) the level of written testing,
> > the number of licenses, etc.?
>
> I am inclined to say there will be a push to reduce requirements if
> that happens. At the moment, every issue seems to gravitate towards
> Morse CW requirement. This question needs revisited after the
> requirement is dropped, if it is dropped.
>
> And my opinion is no, we shouldn't reduce the requirements.
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -

While I obviously support eliminating the Morse test, I do NOT
support ANY lowering of the requirements on the written tests.
(Felt I needed to state that again ...)

The written tests can be made "better" (that does not necessarily
mean "more difficult") by adjusting the question pools to reflect
modern technology, RF/electrical safety, rules/regs, and operating
practices. And, while there is a minimum ratio of questions in the
pool to questions on the tests, there is no maximum number of
questions that can be in the pool ... those who think (and I disagree)
that the question pools are simply "memorized" can push the NCVECs
to increase the number and diversity of questions in the pools.

Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson

October 3rd 03, 10:02 PM

"WA8ULX" > wrote in message
...
> >Carl got a post-restructuring Extra
> >
> >
>
> After a Year of failing it.

BZZZZZZZZT ... wrong answer ... took it EXACTLY ONCE.

Not that I feel I owe Bruce (or anyone else, actually) an explaination,
but just to set the record straight about how full of BS Bruce is ...

I kept being busy with work, work travel, an elderly mother in
poor health and any number of other "excuses" and didn't get
around to going to a VE session until I did ... so what?

I finally decided to set the goal of going and upgrading by a certain
date.

I went to a VE session on a Friday evening, run by one of the
local ham clubs.

The session never happened because the VE who kept the
paperwork for the team had accidentally tossed all of the
forms while "cleaning out" the file box where he kept
the stuff.

I came home, got on the internet, and found a session the
next day (Sat morning, early) about 1-1/2 hour's drive from
home, got up early, drove down, took the test (1st one finished),
and walked out an Extra ... no sweat, no big deal.

> >Bruce got a post-restructuring Extra
>
> And $250.00 from from some Dumb Cbers
>
> >Bruce makes fun of Carl's amateur license.
>
> Because Carls License isnt worth the pasper its printed on.

Maybe Bruce's license is printed on "pasper" ... mine is
printed on paper (and laminated to protect it).

> >Carl does not distinguish between "real hams" and others.
>
> ThaTs because Karl doesnt know the difference

One wonders how long Bruce has been licensed and active?
(I'm a member of QCWA ...)

> >Bruce says a sizable percentage of amateurs are not "real hams".
>
> Just the New ones

I'm not a new one ... and Bruce is, as normal for him, full of
you-know-what.

> >Carl is actively trying to defeat the threat of BPL.
>
> Thats a Joke

No, it's a very serious matter. If Bruce had a clue he'd know that.

> >Bruce doesn't give a damn about BPL.
>
> THATS TRUE

That statement alone pretty well should give folks a good
idea of how much credence to give to Bruce's opinions.

Carl - wk3c

WA8ULX

October 3rd 03, 11:28 PM

>The written tests can be made "better" (that does not necessarily
>mean "more difficult")

Of course not, you wouldnt want anyone to put out any effort.

WA8ULX

October 3rd 03, 11:37 PM

>BZZZZZZZZT ... wrong answer ... took it EXACTLY ONCE.

Which you cannot prove, similar to the Millons of NCI Members

>The session never happened because the VE who kept the
>paperwork for the team had accidentally tossed all of the
>forms while "cleaning out" the file box where he kept
>the stuff.
>

Likely EXCUSE

>. mine is
>printed on paper (and laminated to protect it).

You should try and protect it, after all these years of Lame Excusses why you
couldnt have one.

>One wonders how long Bruce has been licensed and active?
>(I'm a member of QCWA ...)

Oh I dont know, I guess about 1966

>I'm not a new one ... and Bruce is, as normal for him, full of
>you-know-what.

And Karl is still a KOOK who was to Lazy or to Dumb to ever get a GENERAL or
Above, untill the FCC dropped the standards for him, so he would be able to get
one.

>No, it's a very serious matter. If Bruce had a clue he'd know that.

Bruce has a CLUE and could care LESS.

>That statement alone pretty well should give folks a good
>idea of how much credence to give to Bruce's opinions.
>
>Carl - wk3c

Hows the BLACK HELICOPTERS and those mystery GUNS that appear on your MONITOR.
You really are a KOOK.

N2EY

October 4th 03, 02:29 AM

In article >, "Carl R. Stevenson"
> writes:

>"WA8ULX" > wrote in message
...
>> >Carl got a post-restructuring Extra
>> >
>> >
>>
>> After a Year of failing it.
>
>BZZZZZZZZT ... wrong answer ... took it EXACTLY ONCE.

Yeah, me too. 1970. Bruce was nowhere to be found....
>
>Not that I feel I owe Bruce (or anyone else, actually) an explaination,
>but just to set the record straight about how full of BS Bruce is ...

Do you really think anyone is in the dark about that?

>> >Carl does not distinguish between "real hams" and others.
>>
>> ThaTs because Karl doesnt know the difference
>
>One wonders how long Bruce has been licensed and active?
>(I'm a member of QCWA ...)

In four years I can join the OOTC.....

Hmmm...I'm 49, been a ham since age 13, that means I've been licensed about 73%
of my entire life. Bruce is 305, which means he's only been licensed 12%...
>
>> >Bruce says a sizable percentage of amateurs are not "real hams".
>>
>> Just the New ones
>
>I'm not a new one ... and Bruce is, as normal for him, full of
>you-know-what.

Is that not self-evident?
>
>> >Carl is actively trying to defeat the threat of BPL.
>>
>> Thats a Joke
>
>No, it's a very serious matter. If Bruce had a clue he'd know that.
>
>> >Bruce doesn't give a damn about BPL.
>>
>> THATS TRUE
>
>That statement alone pretty well should give folks a good
>idea of how much credence to give to Bruce's opinions.

My point exactly.

Licenses and tests won't mean much if we can't work anybody through the noise.

--

BPL is a bad idea in so many ways. For example, I do *not* want to be around
when (not if) one of those bypass couplers decides to fail and puts 13.2 kV
into somebody's service entrance.

And after reading a "white paper" on 801.15be (I think that's the designation -
you are probably familiar with it, Carl, it uses multiple carriers in the 3-7
GHz range) it mystifoes me why anyone would think 78 MHz of bandwidth is going
to compete with what systems capable of six times that can do - without wires.

Then there's the monopoly issue, and the favoritism issue (cable companies
don't get a bye on Part 15....telcos don't get a bye on Part 15....Wi-Fi
doesn't get a bye on Part 15...) and the simple fact that electric utilities
have a hard enough time keeping the lights on and their equipment from crudding
up the ether with plain old corona noise.

Plus the fact that almost every other country that has tried BPL has given up
trying to make it work. Japan has out-and-out banned it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dwight Stewart

October 4th 03, 03:29 AM

"WA8ULX" > wrote:
>
> Of course not, you wouldnt want anyone to put out any effort.

What does it matter, Bruce? According to you, you're such a smart little
human being, the tests were a breeze - no effort, no study, required. Yet,
at the same, you criticize others for not putting out enough effort. Make up
your mind. Do you want effort? If so, you need to go back and take those
tests again (this time putting in the effort to actually learn something
about what you've read). If you don't want effort, stop complaining about
others not wanting it either.

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

WA8ULX

October 4th 03, 03:38 AM

>My point exactly.
>
>Licenses and tests won't mean much if we can't work anybody through the
>noise.
>

My point also, so since all were concerned about is giving the licenses away,
then screw them, let them compete with BPL..

WA8ULX

October 4th 03, 03:50 AM

>What does it matter, Bruce? According to you, you're such a smart little
>human being, the tests were a breeze - no effort, no study, required.

Thats the point, theres none required now.

>If so, you need to go back and take those
>tests again (this time putting in the effort to actually learn something
>about what you've read).

The difference between me and you, and the other Knuckle Draggers is, I knew
the Info. I didnt have to go practicee a bunch of memory test so I could take
it. As a matter of fact, when I took the test, I hadnt even seen the Question
Pool, let alone the answers. And I still scored 100%

>If you don't want effort, stop complaining about
>others not wanting it either.
>
>
>Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

So now you admit it, you want a No Effort Test, and most likely a No Knowlege
Test.

Mike Coslo

October 4th 03, 05:03 AM

Dick Carroll wrote:

> This proves that it's a snow job by BPL promoters who know that the
> people they must convince almost totally lack knowledge of the techcial
> facts. And that they will be able to ignore their own technical advisors.

For some reason, this reminds me of all those people who have me in
their address books, and yet have allowed their computers to be infected
by the Swen virus. Now I am being e-bombed for it.

So I doubt that most people would even worry that they could get their
systems fried. They just don't know any better.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo

October 6th 03, 10:14 PM

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
> (sarcasm mode on)
>
> Since the entire public is completely aware of amateur radio, therefore they
> all are waiting for the code test to drop, then we should have huge growth
> eh???
>
> (sarcasm mode off)

Is the reason for low growth that people don't know about the ARS?

I'd postulate that anyone that has any interest will pretty quickly
find out about us. have internet access, you'll find us. Read a
newspaper, and there are several articles a year about the ARS.

I'd also bet that there really aren't that many people who are really
that interested in radio. That's okay. I don't pick my hobbies on their
popularity. I pick them because I like to do them.

- mike KB3EIA -

N2EY

October 7th 03, 02:29 AM

In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:

>Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
>> (sarcasm mode on)
>>
>> Since the entire public is completely aware of amateur radio, therefore
>they
>> all are waiting for the code test to drop, then we should have huge growth
>> eh???
>>
>> (sarcasm mode off)
>
>
> Is the reason for low growth that people don't know about the ARS?

I'd say it's #1.
>
> I'd postulate that anyone that has any interest will pretty quickly
>find out about us. have internet access, you'll find us. Read a
>newspaper, and there are several articles a year about the ARS.

Several articles a year out of how many thousand?

Folks hafta know where to look.

Remember the movie "Contact"? Great opening scenes. But nowhere do they mention
that what's going on is amateur radio!

btw - the Vibroplex shown in that film is the very model and vintage I have
used since 1974.
>
> I'd also bet that there really aren't that many people who are really
>that interested in radio. That's okay. I don't pick my hobbies on their
>popularity. I pick them because I like to do them.
>
Radio "for its own sake" has always been a niche avocation. I went to a
highschool (class of 1972) that had 2400 boys and a heavy academic emphasis on
math and science. In my senior year there were exactly six licensed hams there.
Of those six, three remained active long after high school. Now we are two,
with the untimely passing of WA3RVT some years ago.

More publicity can't hurt. But amateur radio isn't a spectator sport - for
most, anyway.

--

There was a great article some years back which I will now paraphrase.

The author whose name escapes me now said that there were three basic kinds of
hams - operators, communicators, and tinkerers. Or words to that effect.

Operators simply like to get on the air and make contacts. It's the medium more
than the message, the skill as much as the results.

Communicators are there for the message. Radio is the tool to get the job done,
that's all.

Tinkerers are into the technology of radio, the projects, etc.

Of course most hams a a mixture of all three, but you can see that the mix
varies widely in different individuals.

It's also clear that as things change, the attractions of these three reasons
wax and wane.

Once upon a time, amateur radio attracted lots of communicator types because
there were so few alternatives within reach of the average person. I recall
reading of hams who got their licenses simply to keep in touch with family
members across the country or around the world. With the advent of cellphones,
email and cheap longdistance, much of that is gone.

Tinkerers are still with us, but it's a different game now. In the past, most
hams had to do some pretty serious tinkering just to get on the air - even with
manufactured equipment. While that sort of thing is still around, it's not so
prevalent as before.

Operator types are most numerous today, for obvious reasons.

The situation is analagous to cars - there are those for whom driving is a joy
in itself, those for whom driving is a means to an end (transportation), and
those who like to mess around with motor vehicles.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Ryan, KC8PMX

October 7th 03, 06:17 AM

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
...
> Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
> > (sarcasm mode on)
> >
> > Since the entire public is completely aware of amateur radio, therefore
they
> > all are waiting for the code test to drop, then we should have huge
growth
> > eh???
> >
> > (sarcasm mode off)
>
>
> Is the reason for low growth that people don't know about the ARS?

I would have to say it is one factor at least. I am not saying it is the
only factor for low growth.

>
> I'd postulate that anyone that has any interest will pretty quickly
> find out about us. have internet access, you'll find us. Read a
> newspaper, and there are several articles a year about the ARS.

That postulation would also have to assume that there is some awareness of
this hobby/service, even if it is only a small amount of awareness. What I
was referring to was, I have run across many people that DID NOT have ANY
awareness whatsoever. Of course after discussing, they did have at least a
little bit of awareness, and it would be up to them to pursue it any
further.

>
> I'd also bet that there really aren't that many people who are really
> that interested in radio. That's okay. I don't pick my hobbies on their
> popularity. I pick them because I like to do them.

I would agree with that statement as well Mike. Those people are not part
of this particular equation; being the awareness issue.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Ryan, KC8PMX

October 7th 03, 06:34 AM

> > I'd postulate that anyone that has any interest will pretty quickly
> >find out about us. have internet access, you'll find us. Read a
> >newspaper, and there are several articles a year about the ARS.
>
> Several articles a year out of how many thousand?

Would love to see a thousand per year or more! This would be more on the
shoulders of local groups, clubs and individuals to coordinate with local
media to make this happen. A person in every club, with the responsibility
of being the PR person would be a good goal. This person would be
responsible for contacting media outlets for every event, including open
meetings etc. I did the PR function for our local club for 2 years, and
even trained a neighboring club PR person with the techniques I had
utilized. I had created a quite a tracking system to keep track of media
contacts, upcoming events, and results thereof. I should write something up
on this to share with others eh?

>
> Folks hafta know where to look.

Any time a ham radio related event is in print media, a website address
should be included in some way or another if the media outlet will do so.

>
> Remember the movie "Contact"? Great opening scenes. But nowhere do they
mention
> that what's going on is amateur radio!
>

I think actually there is some reference, but it is merely in a passing
reference. I would have to watch it again to make sure though. It's been a
while since I have seen that movie.....

> >
> > I'd also bet that there really aren't that many people who are really
> >that interested in radio. That's okay. I don't pick my hobbies on their
> >popularity. I pick them because I like to do them.
> >
> Radio "for its own sake" has always been a niche avocation. I went to a
> highschool (class of 1972) that had 2400 boys and a heavy academic
emphasis on
> math and science. In my senior year there were exactly six licensed hams
there.
> Of those six, three remained active long after high school. Now we are
two,
> with the untimely passing of WA3RVT some years ago.
>

Hey.... I don't know what it is like around where you are at, but
unfortunately around here, electronics are no longer being taught as an
elective class choice. In fact alot of the "vocational" classes that one
could take as an elective in high school around here are being cut out. But
of course the sports and art classes are still supported.....

> More publicity can't hurt. But amateur radio isn't a spectator sport - for
> most, anyway.
>

Oh really..... then that statement in the past about 20% do most of the work
in groups and associations is wrong then??

--
Ryan, KC8PMX

"Symbolism is for the simple minded....."

> --
>
> There was a great article some years back which I will now paraphrase.
>
> The author whose name escapes me now said that there were three basic
kinds of
> hams - operators, communicators, and tinkerers. Or words to that effect.
>
> Operators simply like to get on the air and make contacts. It's the medium
more
> than the message, the skill as much as the results.
>
> Communicators are there for the message. Radio is the tool to get the job
done,
> that's all.
>
> Tinkerers are into the technology of radio, the projects, etc.
>
> Of course most hams a a mixture of all three, but you can see that the mix
> varies widely in different individuals.
>
> It's also clear that as things change, the attractions of these three
reasons
> wax and wane.
>
> Once upon a time, amateur radio attracted lots of communicator types
because
> there were so few alternatives within reach of the average person. I
recall
> reading of hams who got their licenses simply to keep in touch with family
> members across the country or around the world. With the advent of
cellphones,
> email and cheap longdistance, much of that is gone.
>
> Tinkerers are still with us, but it's a different game now. In the past,
most
> hams had to do some pretty serious tinkering just to get on the air - even
with
> manufactured equipment. While that sort of thing is still around, it's not
so
> prevalent as before.
>
> Operator types are most numerous today, for obvious reasons.
>
> The situation is analagous to cars - there are those for whom driving is a
joy
> in itself, those for whom driving is a means to an end (transportation),
and
> those who like to mess around with motor vehicles.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo

October 7th 03, 07:20 PM

N2EY wrote:
> In article >, Mike Coslo > writes:
>
>
>>Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
>>
>>>(sarcasm mode on)
>>>
>>>Since the entire public is completely aware of amateur radio, therefore
>>
>>they
>>
>>>all are waiting for the code test to drop, then we should have huge growth
>>>eh???
>>>
>>>(sarcasm mode off)
>>
>>
>> Is the reason for low growth that people don't know about the ARS?
>
>
> I'd say it's #1.
>
>> I'd postulate that anyone that has any interest will pretty quickly
>>find out about us. have internet access, you'll find us. Read a
>>newspaper, and there are several articles a year about the ARS.
>
>
> Several articles a year out of how many thousand?
>
> Folks hafta know where to look.

All I an say here is a related story. When I was the president of a
youth Ice Hockey association, to recruit new players, we took out ads in
the local newspapers, we took out ads on television, we posted ads on
the bulletin boards in most of the schools in our county, and We posted
flyers, professionally made by the Pittsburgh Penguins. association.

Then along comes a prospective player who's father gives me a dressing
down in the board meeting on how our association just can't survive
doing the poor job we do advertising. I listened patiently while he said
we should advertise in the local newspapers, on television, in the
schools, and in the Ice Rink.

I asked him how he found out about us, and he told me he saw the ad on
tv, and then in the rink. Go figure.

My point is that if prospective amateurs or skaters don't want to get
involved, there's no way we can stop them.

I don't think the ARS is an impulse hobby,the prospect has to want to
do it, and then has to look. Considering the small number of people that
even want to be a ham, a mass advertisement approach would be kind of
like spam.

> Remember the movie "Contact"? Great opening scenes. But nowhere do they mention
> that what's going on is amateur radio!
>
> btw - the Vibroplex shown in that film is the very model and vintage I have
> used since 1974.
>
>> I'd also bet that there really aren't that many people who are really
>>that interested in radio. That's okay. I don't pick my hobbies on their
>>popularity. I pick them because I like to do them.
>>
>
> Radio "for its own sake" has always been a niche avocation. I went to a
> highschool (class of 1972) that had 2400 boys and a heavy academic emphasis on
> math and science. In my senior year there were exactly six licensed hams there.
> Of those six, three remained active long after high school. Now we are two,
> with the untimely passing of WA3RVT some years ago.
>
> More publicity can't hurt. But amateur radio isn't a spectator sport - for
> most, anyway.
>
> --
>
> There was a great article some years back which I will now paraphrase.
>
> The author whose name escapes me now said that there were three basic kinds of
> hams - operators, communicators, and tinkerers. Or words to that effect.
>
> Operators simply like to get on the air and make contacts. It's the medium more
> than the message, the skill as much as the results.
>
> Communicators are there for the message. Radio is the tool to get the job done,
> that's all.
>
> Tinkerers are into the technology of radio, the projects, etc.

Yay! Tinkering for me! Well I do like to contest too.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo

October 7th 03, 08:00 PM

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:20:24 GMT, Mike Coslo >
wrote:

> My point is that if prospective amateurs or skaters don't want to get
>involved, there's no way we can stop them.

Hey, Mike - that sounds like a Yogi Berra-ism! <8*p

" If the people don't want to come out to the ballpark, nobody's going
to stop them "

>
> - Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Mike Coslo

October 7th 03, 08:50 PM

Leo wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:20:24 GMT, Mike Coslo >
> wrote:
>
>
>> My point is that if prospective amateurs or skaters don't want to get
>>involved, there's no way we can stop them.
>
>
> Hey, Mike - that sounds like a Yogi Berra-ism! <8*p
>
> " If the people don't want to come out to the ballpark, nobody's going
> to stop them "

You got it, Leo. There was an interview with the grand old man of
baseball on NPR a week or so ago. Yogi rulez!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo

October 8th 03, 06:36 PM

Dick Carroll wrote:
> Mike Coslo wrote:
>
>> My point is that if prospective amateurs or skaters don't want to
>> get involved, there's no way we can stop them.
>>
>
>
> Yep If they come to a fork in the road and don't take it, there's no
> way to stop them. <g>
>
> Most people either are grabbed by ham radio or they aren't. I can't
> speak for those who are stymied by a code test, though. I haven't yet
> found out how anyone who is actually interested in becoming involved
> could sit by for so long waiting.... I never knew anyone like that.
>

Which brings us full circle, to a thread I started in July.

It is exceptionally difficult for me to imagine that a person who is
interested in something will refuse to participate because of one part
of the entrance requirements. That person is simply not all that interested.

This isn't about whether Morse should or shouldn't be tested for, it's
about basic interest.

-Mike KB3EIA -

N2EY

October 18th 03, 12:08 AM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of October 15, 2003:

Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dan/W4NTI

October 18th 03, 12:46 AM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
om...
> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
> As of May 14, 2000:
>
> Novice - 49,329
> Tech - 205,394
> Tech Plus - 128,860
> General - 112,677
> Advanced - 99,782
> Extra - 78,750
> Total - 674,792
>
>
> As of October 15, 2003:
>
> Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
> Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
> Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
> General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
> Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
> Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
> Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't covering
the HF bands?

Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?

Dan/W4NTI

N2EY

October 18th 03, 02:28 PM

In article t>, "Dan/W4NTI"
<w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> writes:

>"N2EY" > wrote in message
om...
>> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>>
>> As of May 14, 2000:
>>
>> Novice - 49,329
>> Tech - 205,394
>> Tech Plus - 128,860
>> General - 112,677
>> Advanced - 99,782
>> Extra - 78,750
>> Total - 674,792
>>
>>
>> As of October 15, 2003:
>>
>> Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
>> Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
>> Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
>> General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
>> Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
>> Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
>> Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
>>
>> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't covering
>the HF bands?
>
Good question.

Back in May 14 2000, the total number of Generals/Advanceds/Extras (license
classes with lots of HF/MF privileges) was 291,209

On October 15, 2003, that total was 328,562, an increase of 37,353. About 12.8%
in 3-1/2 years.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Brian

October 18th 03, 04:49 PM

"Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message t>...
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> om...
> > These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> > licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
> >
> > As of May 14, 2000:
> >
> > Novice - 49,329
> > Tech - 205,394
> > Tech Plus - 128,860
> > General - 112,677
> > Advanced - 99,782
> > Extra - 78,750
> > Total - 674,792
> >
> >
> > As of October 15, 2003:
> >
> > Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
> > Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
> > Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
> > General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
> > Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
> > Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
> > Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't covering
> the HF bands?
>
> Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?
>
> Dan/W4NTI

So you're saying that HF HASN'T been ruined by hordes of unwashed CBers?

Dan/W4NTI

October 18th 03, 05:37 PM

"Brian" > wrote in message
m...
> "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
t>...
> > "N2EY" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> > > licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
> > >
> > > As of May 14, 2000:
> > >
> > > Novice - 49,329
> > > Tech - 205,394
> > > Tech Plus - 128,860
> > > General - 112,677
> > > Advanced - 99,782
> > > Extra - 78,750
> > > Total - 674,792
> > >
> > >
> > > As of October 15, 2003:
> > >
> > > Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
> > > Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
> > > Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
> > > General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
> > > Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
> > > Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
> > > Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
> > >
> > > 73 de Jim, N2EY
> >
> > How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't
covering
> > the HF bands?
> >
> > Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?
> >
> > Dan/W4NTI
>
> So you're saying that HF HASN'T been ruined by hordes of unwashed CBers?

No, Brian....I'm saying that they are too ignorant to get a signal on HF.

Dan/W4NTI

GMC

October 18th 03, 05:48 PM

In article >, N2EY
> wrote:

> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
> As of May 14, 2000:
>
> Novice - 49,329
> Tech - 205,394
> Tech Plus - 128,860
> General - 112,677
> Advanced - 99,782
> Extra - 78,750
> Total - 674,792
>
>
> As of October 15, 2003:
>
> Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
> Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
> Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
> General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
> Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
> Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
> Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.
AE4FA has posted numbers gleaned from his research into the FCC
database concerning renewals of the Technician class (no code variety)
and has found that almost 97% of them are not renewing. There is only
a small data window to draw from however, as the first people who held
this license class are only starting to reach the end of the grace
periods. He had a way to filter out licensees who had upgraded. I think
there was 8 months of data when the finding were posted. This could be
why we are about 4,000 licensees down from the peak you mentioned.

73
George
K3UD

--
remove NOSPAM from address

Dan/W4NTI

October 19th 03, 12:52 AM

"GMC" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, N2EY
> > wrote:
>
> > These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> > licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
> >
> > As of May 14, 2000:
> >
> > Novice - 49,329
> > Tech - 205,394
> > Tech Plus - 128,860
> > General - 112,677
> > Advanced - 99,782
> > Extra - 78,750
> > Total - 674,792
> >
> >
> > As of October 15, 2003:
> >
> > Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
> > Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
> > Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
> > General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
> > Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
> > Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
> > Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> Jim,
>
> It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.
> AE4FA has posted numbers gleaned from his research into the FCC
> database concerning renewals of the Technician class (no code variety)
> and has found that almost 97% of them are not renewing. There is only
> a small data window to draw from however, as the first people who held
> this license class are only starting to reach the end of the grace
> periods. He had a way to filter out licensees who had upgraded. I think
> there was 8 months of data when the finding were posted. This could be
> why we are about 4,000 licensees down from the peak you mentioned.
>
> 73
> George
> K3UD
>
> --
> remove NOSPAM from address

Not a surprise really. All this happened before the cellphone craze got
going. Why bother with a license, especially when they really didn't care
for ham radio, when all they wanted to do was order a pizza and check up on
the wife/husband.

Dan/W4NTI

Brian

October 19th 03, 01:06 AM

"Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message et>...
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
> t>...

> > > How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't
> covering
> > > the HF bands?
> > >
> > > Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?
> > >
> > > Dan/W4NTI
> >
> > So you're saying that HF HASN'T been ruined by hordes of unwashed CBers?
>
> No, Brian....I'm saying that they are too ignorant to get a signal on HF.
>
> Dan/W4NTI

Bruce, thanks.

Brian

Mike Coslo

October 19th 03, 02:05 AM

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

> "GMC" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >, N2EY
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>>>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>>>
>>>As of May 14, 2000:
>>>
>>>Novice - 49,329
>>>Tech - 205,394
>>>Tech Plus - 128,860
>>>General - 112,677
>>>Advanced - 99,782
>>>Extra - 78,750
>>>Total - 674,792
>>>
>>>
>>>As of October 15, 2003:
>>>
>>>Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
>>>Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
>>>Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
>>>General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
>>>Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
>>>Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
>>>Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
>>>
>>>73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.
>>AE4FA has posted numbers gleaned from his research into the FCC
>>database concerning renewals of the Technician class (no code variety)
>>and has found that almost 97% of them are not renewing. There is only
>>a small data window to draw from however, as the first people who held
>>this license class are only starting to reach the end of the grace
>>periods. He had a way to filter out licensees who had upgraded. I think
>>there was 8 months of data when the finding were posted. This could be
>>why we are about 4,000 licensees down from the peak you mentioned.
>>
>>73
>>George
>>K3UD
>>
>>--
>>remove NOSPAM from address
>
>
> Not a surprise really. All this happened before the cellphone craze got
> going. Why bother with a license, especially when they really didn't care
> for ham radio, when all they wanted to do was order a pizza and check up on
> the wife/husband.

If this really is the case, then what happened to the technically
astute technicians who just refused on principle to learn Morse code?
Are they the remaining 3 percent?

Could be a No-code myth here?

- Mike KB3EIA -

WA8ULX

October 19th 03, 03:45 AM

>If this really is the case, then what happened to the technically
>astute technicians who just refused on principle to learn Morse code?
>Are they the remaining 3 percent?
>
> Could be a No-code myth here?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -

Its always been a myth by the No-Code Crowd.

N2EY

October 19th 03, 07:55 AM

In article >, GMC > writes:

>It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.

Perhaps. There are lots of factors influencing the numbers right now. For
example, a new Tech Q&A pool was put in place July 15, and since then the
number of new Techs has plummeted.

>AE4FA has posted numbers gleaned from his research into the FCC
>database concerning renewals of the Technician class (no code variety)
>and has found that almost 97% of them are not renewing.

I question his methods.

>There is only
>a small data window to draw from however, as the first people who held
>this license class are only starting to reach the end of the grace
>periods. He had a way to filter out licensees who had upgraded.

Before I'd accept such a low renewal rate, I'd like to see how the data was
processed. There are all sorts of procedural pitfalls in trying to figure out
renewal rates. For example, people change their names and addresses frequently,
making tracking difficult. The 1994 changes to the vanity callsign rules
resulted in a lot of Techs getting vanity calls - which carry with them a
renewal.

>I think
>there was 8 months of data when the finding were posted.

And how many were issued in that time?

>This could be
>why we are about 4,000 licensees down from the peak you mentioned.
>
Perhaps. OTOH, look at how many Techs are renewed in a given year, then figure
what 10% of the current Tech-Tech Plus population is. You'll get a much higher
renewal rate than 3%

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dee D. Flint

October 19th 03, 02:26 PM

"Mike Coslo" > wrote in message
. net...
> Dan/W4NTI wrote:
>
> > "GMC" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>In article >, N2EY
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> >>>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
> >>>
> >>>As of May 14, 2000:
> >>>
> >>>Novice - 49,329
> >>>Tech - 205,394
> >>>Tech Plus - 128,860
> >>>General - 112,677
> >>>Advanced - 99,782
> >>>Extra - 78,750
> >>>Total - 674,792
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As of October 15, 2003:
> >>>
> >>>Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
> >>>Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
> >>>Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
> >>>General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
> >>>Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
> >>>Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
> >>>Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
> >>>
> >>>73 de Jim, N2EY
> >>
> >>Jim,
> >>
> >>It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.
> >>AE4FA has posted numbers gleaned from his research into the FCC
> >>database concerning renewals of the Technician class (no code variety)
> >>and has found that almost 97% of them are not renewing. There is only
> >>a small data window to draw from however, as the first people who held
> >>this license class are only starting to reach the end of the grace
> >>periods. He had a way to filter out licensees who had upgraded. I think
> >>there was 8 months of data when the finding were posted. This could be
> >>why we are about 4,000 licensees down from the peak you mentioned.
> >>
> >>73
> >>George
> >>K3UD
> >>
> >>--
> >>remove NOSPAM from address
> >
> >
> > Not a surprise really. All this happened before the cellphone craze got
> > going. Why bother with a license, especially when they really didn't
care
> > for ham radio, when all they wanted to do was order a pizza and check up
on
> > the wife/husband.
>
> If this really is the case, then what happened to the technically
> astute technicians who just refused on principle to learn Morse code?
> Are they the remaining 3 percent?
>
> Could be a No-code myth here?
>
> - Mike KB3EIA -
>

Of course.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint

October 19th 03, 03:08 PM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, GMC >
writes:
>
> >It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.
>
> Perhaps. There are lots of factors influencing the numbers right now. For
> example, a new Tech Q&A pool was put in place July 15, and since then the
> number of new Techs has plummeted.
>
> >AE4FA has posted numbers gleaned from his research into the FCC
> >database concerning renewals of the Technician class (no code variety)
> >and has found that almost 97% of them are not renewing.
>
> I question his methods.
>
> >There is only
> >a small data window to draw from however, as the first people who held
> >this license class are only starting to reach the end of the grace
> >periods. He had a way to filter out licensees who had upgraded.
>
> Before I'd accept such a low renewal rate, I'd like to see how the data
was
> processed. There are all sorts of procedural pitfalls in trying to figure
out
> renewal rates. For example, people change their names and addresses
frequently,
> making tracking difficult. The 1994 changes to the vanity callsign rules
> resulted in a lot of Techs getting vanity calls - which carry with them a
> renewal.
>

I did some exploring around in the FCC database and it appears that there is
a way to determine these things. When a person changes call signs or
upgrades and so on, the old one is marked as "terminated" not "expired".
The term "expired" appears to be used only when a person has neither renewed
nor upgraded. This is based on checking the call signs of persons that I
know upgraded. Changing a name or address does not result in either an
"expired" or "terminated" on the call sign. So if one uses the the feature
so search on the Amateur Radio Service rather than the basic search and
types in dates and checks "expired" and specifies the license class, you
should get those and only those that were not renewed. The numbers are
indeed rather large. Note however, it isn't marked as "expired" until the
two year grace period has elapsed from what I can determine by exploring the
data base.

So using the time period 10/18/2000 through 10/18/2001, here are the number
of expired licenses that pop up.

Novice - 5645 expired in that one year time frame
Tech - 3811 expirations
Tech+ - 3687 expirations

This is a total loss of 13,143 of licensees in the year from 10/18/2000 to
10/18/2001.

On the other hand it does not appear possible to determine the actual number
of truly new licenses from the data base as far as I can tell at this time.
You can select "Grant date" but that gives you all newly issued licenses and
updated licenses (i.e. renewals, adress changes, etc).

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike Coslo

October 19th 03, 03:44 PM

N2EY wrote:
> In article >, GMC > writes:
>
>
>>It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.
>
>
> Perhaps. There are lots of factors influencing the numbers right now. For
> example, a new Tech Q&A pool was put in place July 15, and since then the
> number of new Techs has plummeted.

I might have posted this before, but if I was a prospective ham at this
juncture, I would probably wait and go for the biggist bang for the buck
- that is to wait and just go for the General ticket after the Morse
code test is gone.

Then again, maybe I wouldn't myself, because I personally think its
going to be four years til things get wrapped up in this area (dropping
the CW test). But others think it will only be a few months.

And that is my take on the drop.

Similar situation is my son bought a copy of Finale software. He was
surprised that it offered a free upgrade to the new version, which is
due out in a few months. I asked him if he knew that there was a new
version out in two month, would he have bought this one? Of course the
answer was no for such expensive software. He would have waited, and
Finale's producers would be in a real sales doldrum right now - no one
would be buying.

- Mike KB3EIA -

WA8ULX

October 19th 03, 06:48 PM

>What's a myth, your stupidity?

The correct definition for Studity is.

No-Code CBplussers.

WA8ULX

October 19th 03, 06:50 PM

>You couldn't find your ass with both hands dannyboy.

I see the Homos are back Dan.

Dan/W4NTI

October 19th 03, 08:14 PM

"Brian" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
et>...
> > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > t>...
>
> > > > How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't
> > covering
> > > > the HF bands?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Dan/W4NTI
> > >
> > > So you're saying that HF HASN'T been ruined by hordes of unwashed
CBers?
> >
> > No, Brian....I'm saying that they are too ignorant to get a signal on
HF.
> >
> > Dan/W4NTI
>
> Bruce, thanks.
>
> Brian

As usual, Brian opens mouth, and inserts foot.
If you are trying to infer that Bruce, WA8ULX, is not able to put up a
antenna for HF, you are wrong.

I talked to him on 14.275 a month ago.

Get over it.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI

October 19th 03, 08:16 PM

Dan/W4NTI

October 19th 03, 08:26 PM

Your right. I've tried several times and I kept grabbing your tongue.

Dan/W4NTI

"N8WWM" > wrote in message ...
> You couldn't find your ass with both hands dannyboy.
>
> In article et>,
Dan/W4NTI
> says...
> >
> >
> >"Brian" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
> t>...
> >> > "N2EY" > wrote in message
> >> > om...
> >> > > These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> >> > > licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
> >> > >
> >> > > As of May 14, 2000:
> >> > >
> >> > > Novice - 49,329
> >> > > Tech - 205,394
> >> > > Tech Plus - 128,860
> >> > > General - 112,677
> >> > > Advanced - 99,782
> >> > > Extra - 78,750
> >> > > Total - 674,792
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > As of October 15, 2003:
> >> > >
> >> > > Novice - 32,977 (decrease of 16,352)
> >> > > Technician - 257,303 (increase of 51,909)
> >> > > Technician Plus - 64,686 (decrease of 64,174)
> >> > > General - 141,313 (increase of 28,636)
> >> > > Advanced - 82,589 (decrease of 17,193)
> >> > > Extra - 104,670 (increase of 25,920)
> >> > > Total - 683,538 (increase of 8,746)
> >> > >
> >> > > 73 de Jim, N2EY
> >> >
> >> > How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't
> >covering
> >> > the HF bands?
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?
> >> >
> >> > Dan/W4NTI
> >>
> >> So you're saying that HF HASN'T been ruined by hordes of unwashed
CBers?
> >
> >No, Brian....I'm saying that they are too ignorant to get a signal on HF.
> >
> >Dan/W4NTI
> >
> >
>
> You ask wh
>

Dan/W4NTI

October 19th 03, 08:26 PM

"WA8ULX" > wrote in message
...
> >You couldn't find your ass with both hands dannyboy.
>
> I see the Homos are back Dan.

Sure got a lot of them around, lately. Wonder if that has anything to do
with NCI?

Dan/W4NTI

N2EY

October 19th 03, 08:28 PM

In article >, Mike Coslo
> writes:

>N2EY wrote:
>> In article >, GMC >
>writes:

>>>It looks like we are on the road to some deflation in the numbers.

>> Perhaps. There are lots of factors influencing the numbers right now. For
>> example, a new Tech Q&A pool was put in place July 15, and since then the
>> number of new Techs has plummeted.

> I might have posted this before, but if I was a prospective ham at this

>juncture, I would probably wait and go for the biggist bang for the buck
>- that is to wait and just go for the General ticket after the Morse
>code test is gone.

Perhaps - but that means no ham radio at all until the changes take place.
Which could be years. How interested is somebody who will wait that long?

Also, if FCC does just dump Element 1, newbies will still need to pass the Tech
written.
>
> Then again, maybe I wouldn't myself, because I personally think its
>going to be four years til things get wrapped up in this area (dropping
>the CW test). But others think it will only be a few months.
>
ARRL's guess was two years, which means July 2005. I used to think that was way
too long, but every day it looks more reasonable. The way things look, now,
with all those petitions out there and ARRL not yet weighed in on anything, it
could be next spring before an NPRM shows up. Note how long ago some petitions
were filed (like that 'refarm the Novice bands' idea) that are still hanging
fire.*

And if 98-143 is any guide, such an NPRM will have a long comment period
and...well, you get the idea.

Then ya got NCVEC talking about a whole series of petitions if/when the code
test goes, which to me sounds like doubling the hill.*

You watch, Mike - if/when the code test is dropped, we'll have a surge of
upgrades and new hams for a while - then things will settle back to about where
they were before restructuring.

73 de Jim, N2EY

* special bonus trivia section - how did the phrases "hanging fire" and
"doubling the hill" originate?

> And that is my take on the drop.
>
> Similar situation is my son bought a copy of Finale software. He was
>surprised that it offered a free upgrade to the new version, which is
>due out in a few months. I asked him if he knew that there was a new
>version out in two month, would he have bought this one? Of course the
>answer was no for such expensive software. He would have waited, and
>Finale's producers would be in a real sales doldrum right now - no one
>would be buying.
>
>

WA8ULX

October 19th 03, 08:41 PM

>Sure got a lot of them around, lately. Wonder if that has anything to do
>with NCI?
>
>Dan/W4NTI

Rumor has it there are a bunch of NCI members that are lite in there loafers.

Dan/W4NTI

October 19th 03, 09:14 PM

"WA8ULX" > wrote in message
...
> >Sure got a lot of them around, lately. Wonder if that has anything to do
> >with NCI?
> >
> >Dan/W4NTI
>
> Rumor has it there are a bunch of NCI members that are lite in there
loafers.

Help me out here...how does being anti-morse code equate to being 'that way'
??

Dan/W4NTI

WA8ULX

October 19th 03, 09:25 PM

>Help me out here...how does being anti-morse code equate to being 'that way'
>??
>
>Dan/W4NTI
>

Dan I have tried to figure it out, with no luck, maybe it is just part of being
lieeeberal.

N2EY

October 19th 03, 11:06 PM

In article >, "Dee D. Flint"
> writes:

>I did some exploring around in the FCC database and it appears that there is
>a way to determine these things. When a person changes call signs or
>upgrades and so on, the old one is marked as "terminated" not "expired".

Is this really the case? I thought an upgrade is considered a modification.
It's my understanding that an upgrade does not extend the license term, but a
vanity call does (to avoid having to prorate the vanity fee).

>The term "expired" appears to be used only when a person has neither renewed
>nor upgraded. This is based on checking the call signs of persons that I
>know upgraded. Changing a name or address does not result in either an
>"expired" or "terminated" on the call sign. So if one uses the the feature
>so search on the Amateur Radio Service rather than the basic search and
>types in dates and checks "expired" and specifies the license class, you
>should get those and only those that were not renewed. The numbers are
>indeed rather large. Note however, it isn't marked as "expired" until the
>two year grace period has elapsed from what I can determine by exploring the
>data base.

Interesting stuff, Dee! I wonder how much of this was done by the "97%" folks.
>
>So using the time period 10/18/2000 through 10/18/2001, here are the number
>of expired licenses that pop up.
>
>Novice - 5645 expired in that one year time frame
>Tech - 3811 expirations
>Tech+ - 3687 expirations
>
>This is a total loss of 13,143 of licensees in the year from 10/18/2000 to
>10/18/2001.

In those three license classes, anyway. But this info raises a question: If
your method only counts licenses which have reached the end of the grace period
without a renewal, then the expirations listed above are those for licenses
issued or renewed during the period 10/18/1998 to 10/18/1999. But that time
period is before the Tech/Tech Plus split!
>
>On the other hand it does not appear possible to determine the actual number
>of truly new licenses from the data base as far as I can tell at this time.
>You can select "Grant date" but that gives you all newly issued licenses and
>updated licenses (i.e. renewals, adress changes, etc).
>
I think FCC makes that info available another way, because the AH0A site
carries a "new license" category. But it's based on current data, not historic
stuff.

Perhaps the best indicator is to watch how the total number of each license
class, and the combined Tech/Techplus total, rise and fall. For instance,
notice how slowly (percentagewise) the number of Advanceds is dropping,
compared to how fast the number of Novices is dropping. The number of Tech
Pluses is dropping fast too, but that's aided by the fact that FCC is renewing
all Tech Pluses as Techs.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Mike Coslo

October 19th 03, 11:48 PM

N2EY wrote:

> In article >, Mike Coslo

> Then ya got NCVEC talking about a whole series of petitions if/when the code
> test goes, which to me sounds like doubling the hill.*
>
> You watch, Mike - if/when the code test is dropped, we'll have a surge of
> upgrades and new hams for a while - then things will settle back to about where
> they were before restructuring.
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> * special bonus trivia section - how did the phrases "hanging fire" and
> "doubling the hill" originate?

I don't have a clue here!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dee D. Flint

October 20th 03, 12:01 AM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dee D.
Flint"
> > writes:
>
> >I did some exploring around in the FCC database and it appears that there
is
> >a way to determine these things. When a person changes call signs or
> >upgrades and so on, the old one is marked as "terminated" not "expired".
>
> Is this really the case? I thought an upgrade is considered a
modification.
> It's my understanding that an upgrade does not extend the license term,
but a
> vanity call does (to avoid having to prorate the vanity fee).
>

I'm talking about when they actually change call signs, the old call sign is
marked as terminated. The person's license is modified with the new call
sign but that is listed as a new grant date. I believe an upgrade does
extend the license but a change of address does not.

> >The term "expired" appears to be used only when a person has neither
renewed
> >nor upgraded. This is based on checking the call signs of persons that I
> >know upgraded. Changing a name or address does not result in either an
> >"expired" or "terminated" on the call sign. So if one uses the the
feature
> >so search on the Amateur Radio Service rather than the basic search and
> >types in dates and checks "expired" and specifies the license class, you
> >should get those and only those that were not renewed. The numbers are
> >indeed rather large. Note however, it isn't marked as "expired" until
the
> >two year grace period has elapsed from what I can determine by exploring
the
> >data base.
>
> Interesting stuff, Dee! I wonder how much of this was done by the "97%"
folks.
> >
> >So using the time period 10/18/2000 through 10/18/2001, here are the
number
> >of expired licenses that pop up.
> >
> >Novice - 5645 expired in that one year time frame
> >Tech - 3811 expirations
> >Tech+ - 3687 expirations
> >
> >This is a total loss of 13,143 of licensees in the year from 10/18/2000
to
> >10/18/2001.
>
> In those three license classes, anyway. But this info raises a question:
If
> your method only counts licenses which have reached the end of the grace
period
> without a renewal, then the expirations listed above are those for
licenses
> issued or renewed during the period 10/18/1998 to 10/18/1999. But that
time
> period is before the Tech/Tech Plus split!
> >

I was indeed focusing on the various entry level licenses as the debate has
been over how many people stuck with it. These figures would be for licenses
issued between 10/18/1990 and 10/18/1991. Their grace period expired
10/18/2003 and that is when they show up in the database as expired. That
is to say the expiration date listed in the database is 10 years from the
grant date although it won't show as expired in the database until the two
year grace period has elapsed. For example, if I enter an expired date
range covering the past year, it shows NO expired licenses. That's because
they are still in the grace period and will not be listed as such until that
grace period is up. I hope I've explained it clearly. If not let me know
and I will try again.

> >On the other hand it does not appear possible to determine the actual
number
> >of truly new licenses from the data base as far as I can tell at this
time.
> >You can select "Grant date" but that gives you all newly issued licenses
and
> >updated licenses (i.e. renewals, adress changes, etc).
> >
> I think FCC makes that info available another way, because the AH0A site
> carries a "new license" category. But it's based on current data, not
historic
> stuff.
>
> Perhaps the best indicator is to watch how the total number of each
license
> class, and the combined Tech/Techplus total, rise and fall. For instance,
> notice how slowly (percentagewise) the number of Advanceds is dropping,
> compared to how fast the number of Novices is dropping. The number of
Tech
> Pluses is dropping fast too, but that's aided by the fact that FCC is
renewing
> all Tech Pluses as Techs.
>

That's why we should consider the Tech/Tech+ as a single group for the
purposes whether a class is growing or shrinking.

I would suspect that the number of Advanced licenses drop more slowly than
the Novice for several reasons. The percentage of Advanced licensees who
are active is likely to be higher than the percentage of Novices. The
Advanced licensee is probably more apt to renew, as he/she has a lot more
effort invested. And the Advanced licensee often has little reason to
upgrade as they have almost as much spectrum as the Extras. All the upgrade
would get them would be a minimal increase in band space and the privilege
of being eligible to administer Extra class upgrade exams. If they are not
interested in spectrum space or giving Extra exams, that only leaves the
"prestige" of being able to say they are an Extra. For many that's an
insufficient reason to upgrade. It would not surprise me if the drop in
Advanced licensees is due in a significant part to some of them becoming
silent keys. However, there really isn't any way to determine that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint

October 20th 03, 12:28 AM

"Dee D. Flint" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> "N2EY" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dee D.
> Flint"
> > > writes:
> >
> > >I did some exploring around in the FCC database and it appears that
there
> is
> > >a way to determine these things. When a person changes call signs or
> > >upgrades and so on, the old one is marked as "terminated" not
"expired".
> >
> > Is this really the case? I thought an upgrade is considered a
> modification.
> > It's my understanding that an upgrade does not extend the license term,
> but a
> > vanity call does (to avoid having to prorate the vanity fee).
> >
>
> I'm talking about when they actually change call signs, the old call sign
is
> marked as terminated. The person's license is modified with the new call
> sign but that is listed as a new grant date. I believe an upgrade does
> extend the license but a change of address does not.
>
> > >The term "expired" appears to be used only when a person has neither
> renewed
> > >nor upgraded. This is based on checking the call signs of persons that
I
> > >know upgraded. Changing a name or address does not result in either an
> > >"expired" or "terminated" on the call sign. So if one uses the the
> feature
> > >so search on the Amateur Radio Service rather than the basic search and
> > >types in dates and checks "expired" and specifies the license class,
you
> > >should get those and only those that were not renewed. The numbers are
> > >indeed rather large. Note however, it isn't marked as "expired" until
> the
> > >two year grace period has elapsed from what I can determine by
exploring
> the
> > >data base.
> >
> > Interesting stuff, Dee! I wonder how much of this was done by the "97%"
> folks.
> > >
> > >So using the time period 10/18/2000 through 10/18/2001, here are the
> number
> > >of expired licenses that pop up.
> > >
> > >Novice - 5645 expired in that one year time frame
> > >Tech - 3811 expirations
> > >Tech+ - 3687 expirations
> > >
> > >This is a total loss of 13,143 of licensees in the year from 10/18/2000
> to
> > >10/18/2001.
> >
> > In those three license classes, anyway. But this info raises a question:
> If
> > your method only counts licenses which have reached the end of the grace
> period
> > without a renewal, then the expirations listed above are those for
> licenses
> > issued or renewed during the period 10/18/1998 to 10/18/1999. But that
> time
> > period is before the Tech/Tech Plus split!
> > >
>
> I was indeed focusing on the various entry level licenses as the debate
has
> been over how many people stuck with it. These figures would be for
licenses
> issued between 10/18/1990 and 10/18/1991. Their grace period expired
> 10/18/2003 and that is when they show up in the database as expired. That
> is to say the expiration date listed in the database is 10 years from the
> grant date although it won't show as expired in the database until the two
> year grace period has elapsed. For example, if I enter an expired date
> range covering the past year, it shows NO expired licenses. That's
because
> they are still in the grace period and will not be listed as such until
that
> grace period is up. I hope I've explained it clearly. If not let me know
> and I will try again.
>
>

Just for kicks, I went back and looked up the number of expirations for the
other classes for the same time period (10/18/2000 through 10/18/2001).

General - 1654 expirations
Advanced - 902 expirations
Extra - 493 expirations.

Total = 3049 expirations

Based on other postings in this thread, the number of licensees holding
Novice/Tech/Tech+ licensees in May of 2000 was 383,583. Those holding
General/Advanced/Extra class licenses numbered 291,209. While I should go
back and make my time period start with May 2000 to be really comparable,
I'm just going to use the figures that I have for the next calculation as it
shouldn't make a whole lot of difference. The percentage of
Novice/Tech/Tech+ licenses that expired was approximately 3.4% in that one
year time period. The percentage of General/Advanced/Extra licenses that
expired was approximately 1.0% in that same time frame.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Brian

October 20th 03, 04:09 AM

"Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message et>...
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
> et>...
> > > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > t>...
>
> > > > > How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL ain't
> covering
> > > > > the HF bands?
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan/W4NTI
> > > >
> > > > So you're saying that HF HASN'T been ruined by hordes of unwashed
> CBers?
> > >
> > > No, Brian....I'm saying that they are too ignorant to get a signal on
> HF.
> > >
> > > Dan/W4NTI
> >
> > Bruce, thanks.
> >
> > Brian
>
> As usual, Brian opens mouth, and inserts foot.
> If you are trying to infer that Bruce, WA8ULX, is not able to put up a
> antenna for HF, you are wrong.
>
> I talked to him on 14.275 a month ago.
>
> Get over it.
>
> Dan/W4NTI

Dan, it has nothing to do with Bruce's antenna. It has everything to
do with your attitude, which could have easily come straight out of
Bruce's mouth.

Two (2) peas in a pod. You're just almost as vulgar as Bruce, the
only real difference.

Don't get over it, fix it.

Brian

October 20th 03, 04:12 AM

(WA8ULX) wrote in message >...
> >You couldn't find your ass with both hands dannyboy.
>
> I see the Homos are back Dan.

I guess you've got four (4) hands between the both (2) of you.

Go for it you sickos.

WA8ULX

October 20th 03, 04:17 AM

>You're just almost as vulgar as Bruce, the
>only real difference.

VULGAR, you havent seen VULGAR yet

WA8ULX

October 20th 03, 04:20 AM

>I guess you've got four (4) hands between the both (2) of you.
>
>Go for it you sickos.
>

Dan do you think Brian is ALOT LITE in his shoes?

Leo

October 20th 03, 01:56 PM

Jim,

I think I have the answers to your bonus quiz:

Hanging Fire (or Hang Fire) - an old military term used when a black
powder artillery piece did not immediately fire when the priming
charge was lit (could be a few seconds delay before the main charge
was ignited). Still used in this context whenever modern ammunition
misfires.

Doubling The Hill - this one is probably an old railroad term for the
practice of seperating train cars and taking them up a steep hill in
two runs, back when steam locomotives were common. Insufficient power
to pull the entire train up the hill in one run would have
necessitated this practice.

73, Leo

On 19 Oct 2003 18:28:53 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

>* special bonus trivia section - how did the phrases "hanging fire" and
>"doubling the hill" originate?

Dan/W4NTI

October 20th 03, 07:17 PM

"Brian" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
et>...
> > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > et>...
> > > > "Brian" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > > "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com> wrote in
message
> > > > t>...
> >
> > > > > > How Come with all these 'new' Ektra class tickets they STILL
ain't
> > covering
> > > > > > the HF bands?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps they can't figure out how to cut that dipole, eh?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan/W4NTI
> > > > >
> > > > > So you're saying that HF HASN'T been ruined by hordes of unwashed
> > CBers?
> > > >
> > > > No, Brian....I'm saying that they are too ignorant to get a signal
on
> > HF.
> > > >
> > > > Dan/W4NTI
> > >
> > > Bruce, thanks.
> > >
> > > Brian
> >
> > As usual, Brian opens mouth, and inserts foot.
> > If you are trying to infer that Bruce, WA8ULX, is not able to put up a
> > antenna for HF, you are wrong.
> >
> > I talked to him on 14.275 a month ago.
> >
> > Get over it.
> >
> > Dan/W4NTI
>
> Dan, it has nothing to do with Bruce's antenna. It has everything to
> do with your attitude, which could have easily come straight out of
> Bruce's mouth.
>
> Two (2) peas in a pod. You're just almost as vulgar as Bruce, the
> only real difference.
>
> Don't get over it, fix it.

What makes you think I care what you want, or like, or not like, or not want
? And who appointed you usenet god anyway? Not to mention that to tell
someone who they can talk with is beyond reason.

Let me sum it up for you Brian...

If you don't like what I say, I do, I think, or who I talk with.....get over
it.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI

October 20th 03, 07:19 PM

"WA8ULX" > wrote in message
...
> >I guess you've got four (4) hands between the both (2) of you.
> >
> >Go for it you sickos.
> >
>
> Dan do you think Brian is ALOT LITE in his shoes?

He does keep bringing it up, doesn't he?

Dan/W4NTI

WA8ULX

October 20th 03, 08:15 PM

>He does keep bringing it up, doesn't he?
>
>Dan/W4NTI
>

Well Dan you know he is an NCI Member, that should have given us a CLUE.

N2EY

October 21st 03, 12:29 AM

In article >, Leo >
writes:

>Jim,
>
>I think I have the answers to your bonus quiz:
>
>Hanging Fire (or Hang Fire) - an old military term used when a black
>powder artillery piece did not immediately fire when the priming
>charge was lit (could be a few seconds delay before the main charge
>was ignited). Still used in this context whenever modern ammunition
>misfires.

Also used in connection with cord-fused explosives in blasting for mining,
tunneling, etc. Hang-fires were one of the reasons for the change to blasting
caps.
>
>Doubling The Hill - this one is probably an old railroad term for the
>practice of seperating train cars and taking them up a steep hill in
>two runs, back when steam locomotives were common. Insufficient power
>to pull the entire train up the hill in one run would have
>necessitated this practice.
>
Give the man a cee-gar!

Sometimes the problem was lack of motive power, but there was also the factor
of coupler strength and rail adhesion.

Modern RRs are well-documented enough know that horsepower and train
characteristics are figured out ahead of time by computers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

November 3rd 03, 03:30 AM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of October 31, 2003:

Novice - 32,939 (decrease of 16,390)
Technician - 257,987 (increase of 52,593)
Technician Plus - 64,302 (decrease of 64,558)
General - 141,315 (increase of 28,638)
Advanced - 82,460 (decrease of 17,322)
Extra - 104,706 (increase of 25,956)
Total - 683,709 (increase of 8,917)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

November 17th 03, 02:28 AM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of November 16, 2003:

Novice - 32,875 (decrease of 16,454)
Technician - 258,433 (increase of 53,039)
Technician Plus - 63,976 (decrease of 64,884)
General - 141,350 (increase of 28,673)
Advanced - 82,323 (decrease of 17,459)
Extra - 104,728 (increase of 25,978)
Total - 683,685 (increase of 8,893)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

December 1st 03, 06:00 PM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of November 30, 2003:

Novice - 32,830 (decrease of 16,499)
Technician - 258,967 (increase of 53,573)
Technician Plus - 63,689 (decrease of 65,171)
General - 141,387 (increase of 28,710)
Advanced - 82,209 (decrease of 17,573)
Extra - 104,750 (increase of 26,000)
Total - 683,832 (increase of 9,040)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Robert Casey

December 1st 03, 10:15 PM

N2EY wrote:

>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
>As of May 14, 2000:
>
>
>
Why select May 14th 2000? Restructuring took effect a month
earlier. I upgraded from tech + to extra on April 15, 2000 and
the paperwork reached the FCC just a few days later the next week.
Thus I would show up as an extra in the May 14th 2000. If your
objective is to show the effects of restructuring, you need to list
the numbers for April14, 2000.

N2EY

December 2nd 03, 05:58 AM

In article >, Robert Casey
> writes:

>N2EY wrote:
>
>>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>>
>>As of May 14, 2000:
>>
>>
>>
>Why select May 14th 2000?

Two reasons:

1) I happened to have those numbers recorded

2) By that date, it's reasonable to expect that all of the backlog from before
the April 15 changes had gone through FCC.

> Restructuring took effect a month
>earlier. I upgraded from tech + to extra on April 15, 2000 and
>the paperwork reached the FCC just a few days later the next week.
>Thus I would show up as an extra in the May 14th 2000. If your
>objective is to show the effects of restructuring, you need to list
>the numbers for April14, 2000.
>
If you have them, I'll show them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

>

Robert Casey

December 2nd 03, 09:08 PM

N2EY wrote:

>In article >, Robert Casey
> writes:
>
>
>
>>N2EY wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
>>>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>>>
>>>As of May 14, 2000:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Why select May 14th 2000?
>>
>>
>
>Two reasons:
>
>1) I happened to have those numbers recorded
>
>2) By that date, it's reasonable to expect that all of the backlog from before
>the April 15 changes had gone through FCC.
>
>
>
>>Restructuring took effect a month
>>earlier. I upgraded from tech + to extra on April 15, 2000 and
>>the paperwork reached the FCC just a few days later the next week.
>>Thus I would show up as an extra in the May 14th 2000. If your
>>objective is to show the effects of restructuring, you need to list
>>the numbers for April14, 2000.
>>
>>
>>
>If you have them, I'll show them.
>
>
>
Okay, that makes sense, especially reason #2. There would be some
cross leakage, but probably not enough to matter in determining long term
trends.

73s Bob

PS, I don't have the numbers myself, but as you mentioned, they would miss
the backlog of activity before April 15th.

>
>
>
>
>
>

N2EY

December 4th 03, 06:16 PM

Robert Casey > wrote in message >...
> N2EY wrote:
>
> >In article >, Robert Casey
> > writes:

> >>N2EY wrote:

> >>>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> >>>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

> >>>As of May 14, 2000:

> >>Why select May 14th 2000?
> >
> >Two reasons:
> >
> >1) I happened to have those numbers recorded
> >
> >2) By that date, it's reasonable to expect that all of the backlog from before
> >the April 15 changes had gone through FCC.
> >
> >>Restructuring took effect a month
> >>earlier. I upgraded from tech + to extra on April 15, 2000 and
> >>the paperwork reached the FCC just a few days later the next week.
> >>Thus I would show up as an extra in the May 14th 2000. If your
> >>objective is to show the effects of restructuring, you need to list
> >>the numbers for April14, 2000.

> >>
> >If you have them, I'll show them.
>
> >
> Okay, that makes sense, especially reason #2. There would be some
> cross leakage, but probably not enough to matter in determining long term
> trends.

Yep. One can look at the AH0A site for monthly numbers as well.

FCC and the various VECs got pretty backlogged around then, too. Some
folks didn't see actual database changes for a few weeks.
>
> PS, I don't have the numbers myself, but as you mentioned, they would miss
> the backlog of activity before April 15th.

Yup. I know a bunch of hams who strove to upgrade *before* April 15,
for various reasons (such as getting an Advanced before they were gone
forever).

--

What I find interesting is how *little* the numbers have changed in
almost 4 years. For example, at the end of March, 2000, there were a
little over 103,000 Advanceds. Now there's something over 80,000, even
though the 20 wpm code test is gone. In similar fashion, look how many
Tech Pluses still exist despite the fact that they need never take
another code test, and that many of them already have credit for the
General written as well. And FCC has been renewing Tech Plus as Tech
since April 15, 2000, too.

IOW, perhaps the code test wasn't the "barrier" it was proclaimed to
be.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl

December 6th 03, 12:59 AM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
om...
> Robert Casey > wrote in message
>...
> > N2EY wrote:
> >
> > >In article >, Robert Casey
> > > writes:
>
> > >>N2EY wrote:
>
> > >>>These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> > >>>licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
> > >>>As of May 14, 2000:
>
> > >>Why select May 14th 2000?
> > >
> > >Two reasons:
> > >
> > >1) I happened to have those numbers recorded
> > >
> > >2) By that date, it's reasonable to expect that all of the backlog from
before
> > >the April 15 changes had gone through FCC.
> > >
> > >>Restructuring took effect a month
> > >>earlier. I upgraded from tech + to extra on April 15, 2000 and
> > >>the paperwork reached the FCC just a few days later the next week.
> > >>Thus I would show up as an extra in the May 14th 2000. If your
> > >>objective is to show the effects of restructuring, you need to list
> > >>the numbers for April14, 2000.
>
> > >>
> > >If you have them, I'll show them.
> >
> > >
> > Okay, that makes sense, especially reason #2. There would be some
> > cross leakage, but probably not enough to matter in determining long
term
> > trends.
>
> Yep. One can look at the AH0A site for monthly numbers as well.
>
> FCC and the various VECs got pretty backlogged around then, too. Some
> folks didn't see actual database changes for a few weeks.
> >
> > PS, I don't have the numbers myself, but as you mentioned, they would
miss
> > the backlog of activity before April 15th.
>
> Yup. I know a bunch of hams who strove to upgrade *before* April 15,
> for various reasons (such as getting an Advanced before they were gone
> forever).
>
> What I find interesting is how *little* the numbers have changed in
> almost 4 years. For example, at the end of March, 2000, there were a
> little over 103,000 Advanceds. Now there's something over 80,000, even
> though the 20 wpm code test is gone. In similar fashion, look how many
> Tech Pluses still exist despite the fact that they need never take
> another code test, and that many of them already have credit for the
> General written as well. And FCC has been renewing Tech Plus as Tech
> since April 15, 2000, too.
>
> IOW, perhaps the code test wasn't the "barrier" it was proclaimed to
> be.

Good thing I never made the argument about code testing
being a barrier. I have always strictly viewed the code test
as simply no longer necessary as a test requirement.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

N2EY

December 6th 03, 09:10 PM

In article >, "Bill Sohl"
> writes:

>Good thing I never made the argument about code testing
>being a barrier.

Agreed!

So we have to wonder why, even after almost four years, so many hams have not
upgraded. I can think of several reasons:

1) Perfectly happy with the license they have now
2) Don't know what's involved in upgrading
3) Dead, incapacitated, or completely inactive.
4) Haven't gotten around to it yet.
5) Waiting for the requirements to change yet again (for example, there was a
false rumor some time back that Advanceds would get a free upgrade to Extra)
6) Can't pass the written tests yet.

I expected the numbers of Advanceds and Tech Pluses to drop faster than they
have in the 43 months.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl

December 7th 03, 03:32 PM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Bill
Sohl"
> > writes:
>
> >Good thing I never made the argument about code testing
> >being a barrier.
>
> Agreed!
>
> So we have to wonder why, even after almost four years, so many hams have
not
> upgraded. I can think of several reasons:
>
> 1) Perfectly happy with the license they have now
> 2) Don't know what's involved in upgrading
> 3) Dead, incapacitated, or completely inactive.
> 4) Haven't gotten around to it yet.
> 5) Waiting for the requirements to change yet again (for example, there
was a
> false rumor some time back that Advanceds would get a free upgrade to
Extra)
> 6) Can't pass the written tests yet.
>
> I expected the numbers of Advanceds and Tech Pluses to drop faster than
they
> have in the 43 months.

Jim,

I agree all those reasons are valid...the difficulty is we have no
way of knowing the breakdown.

I think novice will dry up first...i.e. before Advanced.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

N2EY

December 17th 03, 11:03 AM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of December 15, 2003:

Novice - 32,792 (decrease of 16,537)
Technician - 259,563 (increase of 54,169)
Technician Plus - 63,689 (decrease of 65,396)
General - 141,431 (increase of 28,754)
Advanced - 82,092 (decrease of 17,690)
Extra - 104,798 (increase of 26,048)
Total - 684,140 (increase of 9,348)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

January 1st 04, 05:56 PM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of December 31, 2003:

Novice - 32,755 (decrease of 16,574)
Technician - 259,431 (increase of 54,037)
Technician Plus - 63,070 (decrease of 66,015)
General - 141,447 (increase of 28,770)
Advanced - 82,022 (decrease of 17,760)
Extra - 104,867 (increase of 26,117)
Total - 683,592 (increase of 8,800)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

January 16th 04, 06:41 PM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of January 15, 2004:

Novice - 32,718 (decrease of 16,611)
Technician - 259,949 (increase of 54,555)
Technician Plus - 62,714 (decrease of 66,146)
General - 141,443 (increase of 28,766)
Advanced - 81,961 (decrease of 17,821)
Extra - 104,946 (increase of 26,196)
Total - 683,731 (increase of 8,939)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

February 2nd 04, 02:54 AM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of February 1, 2004:

Novice - 32,611 (decrease of 16,718)
Technician - 260,018 (increase of 54,624)
Technician Plus - 62,284 (decrease of 66,576)
General - 141,207 (increase of 28,530)
Advanced - 81,699 (decrease of 18,083)
Extra - 104,923 (increase of 26,173)
Total - 682,742 (increase of 7,950)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY

February 17th 04, 10:31 AM

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792

As of February 15, 2004:

Novice - 32,541 (decrease of 16,788)
Technician - 260,212 (increase of 54,818)
Technician Plus - 61,993 (decrease of 66,867)
General - 141,124 (increase of 28,447)
Advanced - 81,565 (decrease of 18,217)
Extra - 104,978 (increase of 26,228)
Total - 682,413 (increase of 7,621)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl

February 17th 04, 02:10 PM

Jim.

Thought you said there were 34,000 Novices the other day?

Also, take a look at the upcoming expirations in the next
6 months...some pretty hefty numbers of hams with
expirations coming up. I expect at least a 10K overall
reduction of licensed hams by end of 2004 based on
SK, lack of interest, etc. based on past renewal rates.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
> licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
>
> As of May 14, 2000:
>
> Novice - 49,329
> Tech - 205,394
> Tech Plus - 128,860
> General - 112,677
> Advanced - 99,782
> Extra - 78,750
> Total - 674,792
>
>
> As of February 15, 2004:
>
> Novice - 32,541 (decrease of 16,788)
> Technician - 260,212 (increase of 54,818)
> Technician Plus - 61,993 (decrease of 66,867)
> General - 141,124 (increase of 28,447)
> Advanced - 81,565 (decrease of 18,217)
> Extra - 104,978 (increase of 26,228)
> Total - 682,413 (increase of 7,621)
>
> 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
>

N2EY

February 18th 04, 12:00 PM

In article t>, "Bill Sohl"
> writes:

>> >Also, take a look at the upcoming expirations in the next
>> >6 months...some pretty hefty numbers of hams with
>> >expirations coming up.
>>
>> All that means is that the dates when today's hams got their licenses are
>> not
>> evenly distributed. Renewal dates are driven by things like rules changes
>> and vanity gates.
>
>True, but if the non-renewal rate is the same then I predict a total drop of
>all hams by something on the order of 10K by year's end.

Perhaps. But where are your numbers, Bill? How many licenses were due to expire
in, say, 2003, vs. how many were renewed? (IOW, what % were renewed?)

I did some quick figuring and found that for 2003, for every 11 license
renewed, 1 was renewed in the grace period.
>
>> >I expect at least a 10K overall
>> >reduction of licensed hams by end of 2004 based on
>> >SK, lack of interest, etc. based on past renewal rates.
>> >
>> Another WAG, Bill?
>
>SWAG!

How about some numbers to back it up?

>> Note that even if a license is due to expire in, say, June
>> 2004, there is a 27 month window during which it can be renewed. How do we
>> capture all of that?
>
>True, but...
>Look at Speroni's grace period renewals for the last few
>years. No big numbers there.

For every 11 renewals there was 1 in the grace period.

Note also that despite huge numbers of actual expirations there have not been
big decreases in license totals.

Will any of the proposed rules changes make a difference in these trends?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl

February 19th 04, 01:53 AM

"N2EY" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>, "Bill
Sohl"
> > writes:
>
> >> >Also, take a look at the upcoming expirations in the next
> >> >6 months...some pretty hefty numbers of hams with
> >> >expirations coming up.
> >>
> >> All that means is that the dates when today's hams got their licenses
are
> >> not
> >> evenly distributed. Renewal dates are driven by things like rules
changes
> >> and vanity gates.
> >
> >True, but if the non-renewal rate is the same then I predict a total drop
of
> >all hams by something on the order of 10K by year's end.
>
> Perhaps. But where are your numbers, Bill? How many licenses were due to
expire
> in, say, 2003, vs. how many were renewed? (IOW, what % were renewed?)
>
> I did some quick figuring and found that for 2003, for every 11 license
> renewed, 1 was renewed in the grace period.
> >
> >> >I expect at least a 10K overall
> >> >reduction of licensed hams by end of 2004 based on
> >> >SK, lack of interest, etc. based on past renewal rates.
> >> >
> >> Another WAG, Bill?
> >
> >SWAG!
>
> How about some numbers to back it up?

The reduction in total licenses has been about 3K since
the high point some months back. As for going into any
real number crunching, I ask what for? You must have
more spare time than I do. My prediction is just that...
a prediction based on what I think has been the renewal
situation and the greater number of expirations that
Speroni shows will happen this year.

> >> Note that even if a license is due to expire in, say, June
> >> 2004, there is a 27 month window during which it can be renewed. How do
we
> >> capture all of that?
> >
> >True, but...
> >Look at Speroni's grace period renewals for the last few
> >years. No big numbers there.
>
> For every 11 renewals there was 1 in the grace period.
>
> Note also that despite huge numbers of actual expirations there have not
been
> big decreases in license totals.
>
> Will any of the proposed rules changes make a difference in these trends?

If someone is SK, I doubt it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK