In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"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?

Because the concept of a repeater is one of the most
basic concepts of amateur radio VFH/UHF communication.
The folks involved are licensed hams - if they don't understand
the basic concept of a repeater, something is very very wrong.

Repeaters are not new technology, nor are they very "high tech"
or difficult to understand. There are plenty of questions on repeaters
in the Tech and higher written tests.

Nothing they were doing violated any aspect
of Part 97.

Not a strict violation. But neither do they project a positive
image of the technical knowledge of hams.

Are you proud of the example they set, Bill?

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 do. Amateur radio is not about seeing how little one can know.

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.

I would not think it was something to brag about.

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 do. Lots of them.

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.

There are accepted practices of operation in amateur radio. They're not
arbitrary. They represent good practice.

There's a mindset that proclaims "it's just a hobby". This mindset is often
really saying "I'm not serious about this, I don't want to have to think about
what I'm doing, or consider other people's standards, traditions, methods or
enjoyment"

I don't buy that mindset for one second.

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.

As defined by the standards and practices of amateur radio.

Of course, there are some who don't like the idea of amateur radio having
"standards and practices", let alone having to learn them or use them. These
are often the folks mentioned above who say "it's only a hobby"..

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.

And that's part of the problem.

They iolated NO operating
practices. Ib fact, please tell us what operating practices
they violated as you see it.

OK, here goes:


["KC8--- this is KC8***, come back".]

"Over" is better practice than "come back". More understandable.

["KC8*** this is KC8--- . I have a copy on you. What's yer twenty?"]

"I hear you" is better practice (simpler and clearer) than "I have a copy on
you". "Where are you" is better practice (simpler and clearer) than "What's
your twenty"

["I'm up here on the hill but you're scratchy. You must be overmodulatin
or somthing".
"Well I'm copyin' you pretty good considering the distance between us".]

Expressing ignorance of the characteristics of FM and repeaters is not a way of
supporting the basis and purposes outlined in Part 97.

["Yeah, 4-Roger. It's pretty amazin' that these little hand held radios
will talk this far from each other".]

There is no reason to say "Yeah, 4-Roger" when a simple "OK" or "Roger" will
do. Again, expressing ignorance of the characteristics of FM and repeaters is
not a way of supporting the basis and purposes outlined in Part 97.

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

Liddy is as liddy does.

???????

It means there is no reason to consider such operations acceptable.

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 think such "honeydew" stuff is 100% acceptable if done in accordance with
established operating procedures.

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.

It's about our opinions of what amateur radio is supposed to be. Sloppy
operating and aping the antics of cb are not what amateur radio is about.

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.

Who?

I'm
not worried. I pointed out what kind of hams we're now turning out.

There are lots of new hams who learn the right way and do a good job on the
air. The above are more the exception than the rule, around here. And I have
found that they will often if not usually pick up the right ways after some
exposure.

For example, I once worked a newbie who told me on the first go-around that his
"personal" was Walter. I replied that my name was Jim. Did not call attention
to his poor operating practice, just demonstrated the correct way. It wasn't
long before he was using "name" all the time.

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.

Ugly with a capital UGH.

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.

Around here it is common to say "This is N2EY for a radio check, anyone hear
me?". Such a call has a very specific purpose: I want a quick signal report,
not a prolonged QSO. Often such a call on a repeater will result in a quick
exchange of info that lasts only 20-30 seconds. Often the replies will include
folks who went to the input to see if they could hear you there, and report on
the direct signal rather than the repeat.

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.

Most newcomers I have encountered want to do it the right way and are
receptive. A few aren't.

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.

I wouldn't

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.

How many times?

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.

Except in an emergency.

73 de Jim, N2EY