"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Exactly what is wrong with the above dialog between the two
parties involved?

Now before answering, consider this:

1. Both parties ID'd as required by law.
2. Neither party used any type of clandestine or
secret code.
3. Both parties appear to have understood each other.

They certainly understood each other.

OK

Neither understood the concept of a repeater.

So what? Does that bother anyone?

It should.

Why? Nothing they were doing violated any aspect
of Part 97. If the lack of knowledge on the part of others
isn't creating illegal operation, then I don't care if they
forgot everything they had to learn, memorize or guess
to pass the tests to become a ham. I guess it would
really bother you too to know that I couldn't send/recieve
at 13wpm today if my life depended on it...even though
I once passed the 13 wpm test.

Now, to what I understand: I understand that both of these
ops have brought their bad habits from CB radio with them.

What bad habits. I don't see any at all.

I find your statement rather sad and pathetic.

I find your unwillingness to accept anything but "the official
way to speak on the repeater according to you" to be
pathetic too. It;s not at all different than setting up a
"ham radio politically correct" speech requirement.

You may
not like their conversation, but there is NO aspect
of Part 97 that requires any specific use of only
"ham" approved lingo...or did I skip that chapter somehow.

I did not state anything about Part 97. Poor practice is poor practice.

They violated NOTHING as to poor practice eccept
as defined by you.

Neither has
bothered to listen to other hams.

For what reason must they do so?

Must? There is no "must". There is "should". I don't subscribe to the
"get a license; buy a radio; rip the plastic bag off; mash the PTT and
talk" school.

Neither did rhe two you gave as examples. They did
everything legally required. They iolated NO operating
practices. Ib fact, please tell us what operating practices
they violated as you see it.

What about their
use of the repeater as you dicribed is wrong?

Liddy is as liddy does.

???????

These two were joined by a new YL op
the other day. She was a "do you want me to
pick up bread and milk?" type.

One of my best ham buddies is a long time Extra and his wife
chats with him on almost every homebound commute. In
some cases she gives him a "honey do" list of things to get
from the market on the way home. What's wrong with
that (i.e. what's wrong with "pick up bread & milk."

Apparently nothing....in your view.

True...but what do YOU consider there to be wrong in
such an on-the-air exchange? Would I be correct in
thinking you believe that asking hubby to pick-up bread
and milk is bad operating or, should be illegal?

I'll be very surprised if any of the three will be active on the
ham bands in five years.

I'll presume that should make you very pleased then.

No, what would please me is for them to operate properly and to know
what a repeater does.

Operate properly according to you and make you,
the self appointed knowledge police happy? You'd
better be prepared for lot of stress if what other people
legally do or don't do is that uposetting to you.

Who cares about how we dialog with each other
as long as the parties involved are operating within the
law as per Part 97 rules and regs?

I do.

Based on what authority?

Sheesh, Bill. I don't need authority in order to care. You asked a
question. I provided an honest answer.

Fair enough.

You are free to worry your
poor self about whatever you want, but thankfully you
have no authority to enforce your own standards of how
to speak on the air on anyone but yourself.

My poor self? You're starting to sound like Leonard H. Anderson. I'm
not worried. I pointed out what kind of hams we're now turning out. If
you believe that what I've described is acceptable, feel free to
exchange "four-roger's", "good numbers" and "first personals" to your
heart's delight.

I do on occasion.

We've even got a new op who can be heard moving between the several
local repeaters for a goodly part of each day saying, "This is KC8***
radio check".

And that violates what in Part 97?

Stupidity isn't covered by Part 97.

Yawn.

He'll sometimes pull this stunt on top of an ongoing
QSO.

That then IS a violation. I'd fully support the area hams
directing him as to the rules to NOT QRM an existing QSO.

We're all thankful for your support.

If all you are going to do is bitch about what he does, he'll
probably not stop.

He has been informed on a number of occasions about how to make it
clear that he is seeking a contact and how not to QRM an existing
contact but he persists.

If, that is as you say, then report him to the FCC.

It'll happen.

Which is exactly the right thing to do.

When he does enter a QSO, he normally asks the
individuals he contacts if they have any radios they'd like to part
with.

And that violates what Part 97 rule?

I don't recall mentioning a Part 97 infraction. Do you often greet
folks on 2m with, "Do you have any radios you'd like to part with"?

If it bothers you so much, don't respond to his call
when you hear him.

He has now asked me about six times.

Maybe he has Alzheimers.

Could be though I don't know of many people in their mid-twenties who
suffer from it.

Then just answer his question with a NO.

This fellow is annoying and
others--old timers and recent licensees--are beginning to avoid him.

Which is perfectly OK.

Aren't you going to ask "By whose authority"?

Not at all. No one, not you, me or anyone has any
obligation to answer him when he calls. Since there's no
mandated response to a call of CQ or XXX monitoring
in Part 97, then you could say that the FCC by default
authorizes everyone to ignore anyone they want.

There is another new ham in the area who was previously a CBer. He
was
licensed only this past May. He quickly became adjusted to how things
are done on the ham bands. He asks questions about antennas, modes
other than FM, bands other than 2m and about operating practices. He
aroused interest in his grandson, who is now licensed. I'm betting
that
these two will stick.

Fine with me.

Glad it meets with your approval.

I neither approve nor disapprove it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK