In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:
Jimmie chastise nursie? Har!
The castisement is a very gentle slap on the wrist with a wet noodle.
"Naughty boy, Steve, mustn't say such bad words!" will sum it up.

What would Len have us do, Mike?

Now that is a little more complicated, Jim. While it would seem
apparent that Lenover21 would like us to treat Steve in a manner similar
to Brian or his own reactions to Steve, I don't think it is that simple.

Agreed.

If we did, than he would be deprived of the opportunity to respond to
us in criticism of our own reactions toward Steve's postings. Although
I am not 100 percent sure (though for statistical purposes am, within
accepted errors) I do not think he would enjoy that

Agree again, but the question remains unanswered.

It seems to me that the only thing which would please Len would be for us to
change to NCTA opinions and respond to Steve the same way he does. In other
words, it's OK to behave like Len if and only if you agree with all of his
opinions.

It is hard to control what Jim posts.

Not for me!

hehe

The idea that others are somehow responsible for how Steve posts is faulty.
Brian has admitted to intentionally insulting Steve even when Steve did not
insult Brian. "Do as Biran says, not as Brian does"....

It would be a lot easier if you were the moderator.

I'm not the "moderator" in here. This is an open forum.

But Len wants to be the moderator. He seems to want to squelch all
opposition to his opinions.

Problem is, a few do NOT want that...they want a cozy little chat
room filled only with their own kine. They are the ones polluting.

Len projects his own actions unto others.

In my 7 years of reading rrap, I have seen only *one* case where
someone literally told someone else to "shut up". That was when Len
told K8MN to

"shut up, you little USMC feldwebel"

October 2003, I think.

(If there are more, I missed them - some posters here are so verbose
it's just not practical to read everything they write).

Perhaps Len just wants all opposing opinions squelched.

I couldn't agree more!

Then why do you support and condone their actions by saying
nothing against their egregious conduct?

That is simply incorrect. I have and still do disagree with what Steve
sometimes posts, and I have noted it to him. Jim has also, on more
occasions than me. We do not support or condone their actions.

What the issue is is that I (and presumably Jim) do not go after people
in the manner that you want us to. It isn't my style, and I won't change
it to suit you.

Nor will I.

Perhaps that is the real issue with Len. I think you hit on it some
posts back, Mike. The Len/Brian/Steve troika must get some kind of
return for all the name calling and insults.

Have you ever seen an old married couple where the Husband and wife
spend a lot of time bickering at each other? Yet they have been married
for years and years.

Its what works for them!

There was an old radio series called "The Bickersons" which was just that.

Whether such inteeraction "works" is debatable. I say it's dysfunctional and
destructive. It usually exists because the people involved cannot imagine
anything else.

But that's obviously not
enough for Len, so he tries to get a similar setup going with you. It
would probably make him happy if you started calling him names,
insulting him personally, etc., because then he could return it in
kind and then some.

Won't work.

But instead you just keep on being mild-mannered Mike, not backing
down but not returning in kind, either. You won't play his game or get
down to his level.

Nor will I. Heck, I can't remember all the names Len has invented for
me to avoid calling me "Jim" or "N2EY". Let's see....there's "Jimmie"
(note the feminized ending), "Jimmie Who", "Rev. Jim", "negative j",
"Miccolis", etc.

Apparently "Mother Superior" now too! 8^)

Same old nonsense.

What purpose does all that serve?

For all its sound and fury, it signifies nothing.

I say it signifies immaturity and lack of imagination on the part of the
name-caller.

Since the PCTA first had their hobby-orgasm over a code key.

I like Morse Code. In fact I probably *love* Morse Code. But the above
is just not correct.

And I wouldn't mind being able to better perform Morse code, but don't
lose any sleep over it. So that puts us at distinctly different points
of the spectrum. Yet we are both PCTA.

Because we see the value of the code and the code test.

Go figure! So much for massive generalizations! 8^)

It's a cornerstone of Len's thinking.

They think that all radio communications revolves around morse
code and morsemanship.

Wrong again!

Respectfully so!

It hasn't been so for decades, but
they are Believers and will not listen to reason.

Note the equation of "reason" with "agree with Len".

But I'm PCTA and aren't anywhere close to that.

Me neither.

Yet you've bought into the morsemanship-is-all ethos and condone
the polluters.

Not true at all.

Please don't try to use political spin on what you've posted. You
aren't in the political pro leagues yet...they've had centuries to
perfect spin and are good at it.

hehe, political spin usually takes more than a one sentence paragraph.

That's why Len's posts are so long...

hehe, I must be your straight man today, Jim!

Sometimes all one has to do is write the plain, simple truth, Mike..

Governments (and all newsgroupies) should obey Them (the
PCTA that is) simply because the PCTA are.

that would be bad if these folk are oppressing you. But as the
(probably) most prolific poster here, how can that be?

Tsk. You fail to understand simple sarcasm, Coslo.

Sarcasm doesn't work well in print.

No one is "oppressing" me.

BINGO! You post as you se fit.

Yet Len tells others here to shut up - literally, as in the
"feldwebel" post, and in other ways as well.

So who is oppressing whom? If any of us told Len to shut up, he'd go ballistic,
complain to ISPs, etc.

I'm simply persistent and confrontational on the issue of keeping a
morse code test for any radio license in this new millennium.

Without ever telling us why.

And in the end, accomplish very little. That test is likely to go away
in spite of your antagonism

PCTA clearly wish to oppress those against the code test (evident
from their public statements) by intimidation,

How are a bunch of radio geeks going to intimidate me?

personal insults,

That one is a null. Plenty of that to go around on all sides.

or
whatever means they can use...which includes considerable fantasy
and wild imaginations on their parts.

Also a null. Plenty of that to go around on all sides.

Exactly.

I simply point out the "error of their ways" (a metaphor) and
illustrate
how mythical their fraternal-order rules are...rules kept long, long
after their validity has expired.

And of course your method doesn't work very well for changing anyone's
mind. But it works perfectly if you want to engage in some nose tweaking
for the sheer joy of irritating someone.

Which says it all, really.

hmmm, might be onto something here...........

I think so!

If the PCTA feel it so necessary to make all ham radio newcomers
learn morse to get a license, they should petition the FCC to rename
the ARS to what suits them - Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society.

Does knowing Morse code eliminate other forms of communication,
including modern ones? Old technology and new technology can coexist
with each other.

watta concept

Irrelevant reasons.

Says who?

The morse code test continues on in U.S. amateur radio regulations,
absolutely required for any authorized amateur radio transmissions
below 30 MHz.

So what?

No morse code test passing-for-authorization is required of any small
boat owner, pilot, land mobile radio operator, broadcaster, etc.,etc.,
etc. operating below 30 MHz.

No test at all is needed

Those are other radio services, not amateur radio.

No morse code test passing-for-authorization is required for any
military personnel operating military radios below 30 MHz.

I suspect no test is needed, beyond training to operate the equipment.
Could be wrong.

Amateur radio is different from those other services. For example,
we're allowed to design/build/repair/align and operate our stations
without any certification or other "type approval" rules. We aren't
limited to predefined channels or spot frequencies, except on 60
meters. We have a large selection of modes and techniques available,
with very few regulations hindering them.

A half century ago there was NO requirement that military personnel
had to test for morsemanship to operate high-power HF transmitters
using then-state-of-the-art communications techniques. All us
signmalmen "got the message through" (familiar phrase of the Army
Signal Corps).

Here we see a typical example of Len-distortion.

He's obviously talking about his time at ADA.

Now - did the US Army not use any morse code after 1952?
How about the US Navy? COast Guard? Air Force? Marines?

Of course they did.

Citizens Band Radio Service operating below 30 MHz became legal
in 1958 in the USA, absolutely no morsemanship test involved. Not
only that, CB became licenseless a few years later. [1958 is 46 years
ago, back when nearly all radios still used vacuum tubes]

More distortions.

27 MHz cb was and is limited to low power using only approved
equipment on a set of channels all close in frequency. No transmitter
adjustments at all except channel selection. No homebrewing allowed,
no modifications to equipment allowed. And the license requirement was
dropped in the 1970s, almost 20 years after the 27 MHz channels were
authorized.

Most important of all, cb is hardly the example amateur radio should
follow.

No test at all is required for Citizen' band radio.

Perhaps Len wants *all* amateur radio tests eliminated.

I am beginning to suspect that may be the case..

Me too. Make amateur radio just like cb. No legal homebrewing, no tests, no
Morse code at all.

A half century ago, teleprinters were operating at continuous through-
put of 60 WPM. A decade later that was 100 WPM and FSK band-
width was decreased by half of that at 60 WPM. When solid-state
electronics became more prevalent, teleprinter started to become
known as "data" with sustained rates of 300 WPM, then 1200 WPM,
then 4800, 9600, and finally, 56K WPM...whether by wire or radio.

"Teleprinters" (which we hams call "RTTY machines") were large, heavy,
noisy and very expensive. Most hams could not afford to buy them and
their related equipment new. Some hams had machines through surplus
and MARS channels, but until the PC era, RTTY modes were pretty much a
limited specialty in ham radio.

We had some RTTY stuff at the Penn ham club station. None of it bought new. I
got pretty good at using it.

Do you think Len ever bought a new teleprinter for hobby use with his
own money?

snort!

but that's what he suggests we hams do!

Here's some more points:

-Those RTTY machines were noisy as heck. Unless a ham had a shack with pretty
good sound isolation, everyone in the house could hear the machine banging
away. But when operating CW, all that's needed is to put on headphones and
nobody else is bothered by the sound. (The sound was beautiful to us hams, but
nearby classrooms didn't appreciate it).

-Those RTTY machines required paper and ribbons to operate. While not
expensive, it was an expense item. You couldn't put just any paper in them.

A half century ago, television in the USA was beginning to standardize
on color video transmission, then adding stereophonic audio (some time
after audio-only FM stereophonic transmission was standard). In time
analog video-audio gave way to improved picture-and-sound digital TV
with more information in the same EM bandwidth. International
satellite
relay of communications was an accomplished fact four decades ago
and now all the "equatorial" comm sat orbital spots are filled. No
dependence on the vagaries of the ionosphere to do international
communications.

And no use of HF. All of amateur VHF/UHF has been available without a
code test since 1991.

And for a 5 wpm code test even longer.

GPSS has been with the world (along with GLONASS) for two decades
and with civilian users for over a decade, yielding precise terrestrial
location determination AND precise time...all over radio. Radio clocks
are available at consumer electronics stores for under $30 that update
themselves automatically to precise time from several LF broadcast
services. No need to tie into wire services or listen on HF for
precise
time...the little inexpensive radio clocks offer one-second-per-day
accuracy, along with calendar information without operator assistance.

No use of HF either.

Should WWV be shut down?

All those people with the ill named "atomic clocks" might be disappointed!

What you're really seeing is a list of reasons why *HF* isn't needed
anymore....

The Internet went public in 1991, 13 years ago, and spread like wild-
fire to all parts of the world. Millions upon millions use the
Internet
daily, geographic boundaries seldom a limit, with no disturbance from
the ionosphere affecting HF. It is mass communications worldwide.

And it's not radio.

Has the internet replaced amateur radio?

Note the lack of answers...

Cellular telephony, enabled through radio, has become a standard
means of communications for Americans. So much so that one in
three Americans has a cellular telephone subscription...about 100
million using those tiny, low-microwave-radio-range, portable radios
to access the telephone infrastructure.

Not on HF either.

And of course they are so much more reliable than olde tyme Hamme radio!

Of course! But consider the billions spent to build the enormous
infrastructure. And note that the whole cellular system is based on the idea
that radio only carries the signal the short distance from the customer to the
nearest cell site, not radio the whole way.

All that while, during a veritable many-quantum-level-jumps in
technology, U.S. amateur radio "qualifications" (test regulations)
have required the morsemanship ability test to authorize operation
below 30 MHz by amateurs. That is still required.

That's a good thing.

Because amateur radio has different goals, purposes and resources.

Can you say that U.S. amateur radio regulations (and testing) is
behind the times?

Nope.

It most certainly is.

Not at all.

Has been for a long time.

Hams still use Morse Code. Extensively. Therefore, a Morse Code test
is appropriate.

No, i can't. Unless you are saying you want no testing at all for HF
access, your argument is only half formed. If you ARE saying you want no
testing for the Amateur Radio service, Well, I *most* respectfully
disagree!

Bingo.

Note that Len never says what he wants something to be, only what it should not
be. Except for his never-retracted demand that FCC enact an age requirement of
14 years for any class of ham license.

That age-requirement thing is important because Len provided absolutely no
evidence of any problems caused in the ARS by the licensing of younger people.
Not *one* example. Not *one* statistic, enforcement case, or other example. But
he somehow knows that such a requirement is needed, even though it has never
been part of US regulations.

I guess history must be bad, huh?

For U.S. amateur radio in comparison to the rest of the radio
world, it IS "bad."

What is bad about history? What is bad about doing what someone likes
to do?

To use one of Cecil's phrases: "What is wrong with live and let live?"

"Bad" in that it lags far beyond the state of the radio art...supported
only by the radio designers and manufacturers using developments
from the rest of radio to modernize amateur transceivers so that they
can best "work" on-off keyed carriers a la the 1920s.

Ah - so it's not just the Morse Code *test* which Len thinks is bad,
but Morse Code *use* by hams!

I never did understand that argument anyhow. SSB is what, nearly a
century old? FM? WAY too much hangup on how we modulate our signals.

SSB in theory dates to 1915; in practice on radio to the mid 1920s (LF) and
very early 1930s (HF). Practical FM dates to the 1930s (btw, I saw the actual
pioneering FM equipment developed, built and used by Major Armstrong).

And of course Reginald A Fessenden was using AM in 1900, and achieved 2 way
transatlantic AM voice operation in 1906.

Here's a question. Digital is more "up to date" than say SSB. Should
digital voice be mandated, and SSB phased out ASAP?

Why not? It's what cell phones use....

But wait! Unless we are willing to accept apparently unacceptable audio
quality, we have to use a signal that is wider than a SSB signal. And
the digital units that I have seen have a little quirk of having to
receive the beginning of a transmission in order to decode the signal.
So much for listening for a CQ. If you don't hear the beginning, you
don't hear anything!!!!!

Does any other service "call CQ" anymore? Or operate on random frequencies
instead of predetermined channels?

But it's closer to the state of the art, it *must* be better. not

"State of the art" is a term invented to sell things. Nothing more. It is used
when A wants B to buy what A has to sell, to replace whatever B has that works.

State of radio art would not pe permitted in the ARS.

By whom would it be prohibited?

You do know don't ya?

No - really.

If somebody wants to try out something new, they can do it as a ham, with very
few exceptions (like encryption). Hams are already using digital voice on HF.

If Len or somebody like him really wanted to do "state of radio art" on ham
radio, all they'd need would be a license and maybe an STA.

But that's not what it's about.

There's only a few PCTA extras in here. But, they are resolute
and quite uncivil in condemnation of all those who do not love,
honor and obey morsemanship. All readers have seen that.

I'm PCTA and an Extra. I respectfully disagree with that statement.

That is a given. You must support your klan.
I do hope you use fitted sheets.

Here we go with the insults....

Oh dear!

Note that Len assumes you are a white male, Mike...

Also assumes that about me.

At least the NCTA and interested others don't call anyone names! ;^)

Poor PCTA...they think the slightest negativism on their mythical
championship of morsemanhood is a "personal insult."

I think the person who wrote "shut up, you little USMC feldwebel" kind
of disproves that...

hmmm, then why do you think that I should condemn Steve so badly? He is
doing nothing that you do not do.

Null.

"Do as Len says, not as Len does"

PCTA simply refuses to acknowledge that the world has advanced
and that amateur radio can no longer by "qualified" by radiotelegraphy
skill demonstrations. PCTA wound far too easily.

Respectfully disagree. You make the statement, please provide the proof.

"The world has advanced" means "you should not use or enjoy Morse Code
any more".

Or SSB or RTTY or anything else not "in the now".

Correct. Not "state of the art".

I'm curious just why people would think that using a computer is "High
Tech" or why using a little walkie-talkie that only works for part of
the time is "High Tech". It's not high tech, its technology that is
reduced to practice.

I disagree! "High Tech" is just another sales phrase.

Morse code is an old comm method. So what?

Len doesn't like it. Therefore, he says it must go away. Not just the test, the
code itself.

I guess people who like sailboats, stick-shift cars, horseback riding,
bicycles and a bunch of other pursuits should listen up too...

Heck, I run for fun and fitness. Very old fashioned. Guess that should not be
allowed either.

Ever read Orwell's "1984", Mike? One of the minor themes in that book was that
the mindset of "newer is better" needed to be implanted in everyone's head
early one. "Ending is better than mending" was a constant theme. Even
children's games had to be made more complex, and requiring lots of specialized
equipment, to keep consumption high. The same mindset opposes simplicity in all
things.

For most folks, that rule-by-intimidation isn't comfortable, isn't
open, certainly isn't conducive (in any way) to discussion...the
intimidation consists mostly of diss and cuss at non-morse folks,
zero discussion.

hmmm, I don't see it that way at all. Well, everyone is entitled to
their opinion.

NOT in here, according to the little clique of PCTA "regulars."

Coming from the author of the "feldwebel post", that's almost surreal.

ALL must do as they had to do...or be silent. "They rule."

Funny - I only recall one person telling another to shut up here...

Proven wrong every time you post. I find it hard to understand why you
keep saying that sort of thing, when it obviously isn't the case.

The shrinks call it "projection", Mike.

Say something often enough, and at least you will believe it!! 8^)

Exactly

They try to enforce their rule by any means possible, usually that of
the personal insult against anyone differing from their exhalted
opinion. Tsk.

Anyone that would be intimidated by *that* should probably avoid
Netnews! 8^)

Not conducive to a hobby activity. More conducive to a dictatorship.

Like telling people to shut up...

Not been my experience as a Ham. You see bad, and declare that all is
bad. I see bad, and continue looking until I find the good. It is there.
You *can* turn it around. You probably think I'm being condescending
again, huh?

Nope - just honest.

Well said, Mike.

Thanks, I'll probably receive another dose tho'.... 8^)

Of course!

73 de Jim, N2EY