RadioBanter - View Single Post - Another D-H* NCVEC proposal

August 21st 04, 01:38 AM

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Hans, you saying, "*MY* Amateur Radio Service," just smacks of "Old
Flatulencism."

Hans is a radio amateur.

True enough.

His use
of the possessive is common and
proper English. Just as someone
will speak of "my church", "my
school" or "my community" even
though the speaker does not own
them.

I read it differently.
Hans emphasized "*MY*" as in ownership.

You are mistaken.

Like when taking command of a Flight, you preface
the event with the phrase, "By *MY* Command!"

We do not agree.

"LHA" is not a radio amateur, and
so cannot say it is "his" amateur
radio.

Len is an American. It is as much his as it
could
be anyone elses.

Amateur radio is international.
Len is not part of it.

(Sorry Hans, I CAN"T say O.F. or the Semi-Moral Minority will
cane me. Hi, hi!)

You can write whatever you wish. But
then you must allow others the same
freedom. This seems to be a problem
for you.

Jim, you just end up looking bad when you alter
the quote of other peoples posts.

To whom do you refer?

Where is there any alteration of a posting?

I'd advise
against doing that in the future.

Doing what?

They may have no interest in
building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers.

Is that a problem?

Actually, it may be a problem if they do.

How can it be a problem if a new radio amateur
has an interest in building NE602 receivers or
CW memory keyers? Or not?

As such, the Technician
exam is too complex material for a person with such intentions.

What is your solution?
Is the Technician test
so difficult that it
represents a barrier to
the entry of new hams?
Is it full of questions on
NE602 receivers and
memory keyers?

Hans and I are in agreement on a new license
class.

That does not answer the
questions posed.

On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is
lunacy.

Not lunacy. Simply not
a good idea, in our opinion.

OK, not lunacy. Just impossible to work
properly.
A paper drill where everyone signs off but does
nothing. Except at the Dayton Hamvention Dinner
where someone get an award for signing off the
most paperwork.

Perhaps you are against mentoring.

So in the end, I agree to not have such a license class. But
remember, Jim says that we need more license classes. Apparently it
doesn't matter how he gets them.

To which "Jim" do you refer?
We have read posts here recently
from AA2QA, N2EY, and at least
one other "Jim".

Jimmy Who.

We know of no such person.

You seem to share Lenover21's difficulty
in referring to people by their names,
screen names, or amateur radio
callsigns.

Those who post using this screen name
wish to be anonymous. You respect the
anonymity of "Leo" and others. Why
not respect ours?

The only one we recall who
has recently written about the
number of license classes is
the "Jim" with the callsign N2EY.
He proposed three license classes.

That would be you.

We suggest you guess again.

So it cannot be "Jim/N2EY" to
whom you refer.

Says you, Who.

Says logic. There are now six
classes of license. Jim/N2EY
proposed a system of three
classes of license. Six is more
than three.

Is there another "Jim" who "wants
more license classes"?

How many?

How high?

We will take that as a "no".