RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 3rd 04, 06:57 PM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

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.

Tsk. PCTA extra Double Standard hanging out for all to see...! :-)

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.

Tsk, it's not even a "question" to the PCTA. Simply do as they
tell one to do and that, intrinsically, is "without error!" :-)

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.

PCTA extra Double Standard: It's okay to treat NCTAs like dirt,
smutz, river bottom slime, etc., because the PCTA think they
deserve it. Blow the sanctimonium for any arrogant elitist PCTA
behaving every which way but loose 'cause they be "okay." :-)

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.

Riiiight...all those who oppose nursie are "at fault!" [from the PCTA
extra Double Standard Handbook]

Gotta love the rationalizing carried out to absurdity by the PCTA.

Perhaps Len just wants all opposing opinions squelched.

No "perhaps," "sweetums" (a Kellie-ism).

It's impossible to squelch the PCTA...they don't have squelch
controls...but they have lots of knobs that get tweaked... :-)

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.

Wow! Time Machine Time!

That radio series starring Don Ameche and Frances Langford was
a bit BEFORE Jimmie's LIVE listening?

Is Jimmie's "other" hobby listening to CDs of OLD radio shows? :-)

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

Tsk. Sounds like another person needs their "psychological
credentials" checked for authenticity. :-)

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.

Tsk. In that case, under those rules, all the PCTA in here are
chin-deep in IMMATURITY. It's a given that their "imagination"
is limited to fantasies of maintaining the standards and practices
of the 1930s into this new millennium...

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.

The Holy Grail of the Church of St. Hiram.

What next? "The Amateur's Code" transformed to The Ark of the
Covenant?

Talk about blowing their own shofar...!

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

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

Most of the time my replies "seem to write themselves!" :-)

[guess who wrote that phrase? hee hee]

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

Oh, my, Jimmie KNOWS the future! :-)

Several in here have stated publicly, "be quiet and take the damn
test!" That's rather close to being told "shut up" to ordinary folk.

PCTA extra Double Standard does not recognize such things as
nasty. They can say it but no NCTA can. :-)

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.

And Jimmie and Mikey were THERE to prove it! [gotta love it]

Tsk. Jimmie and Mikey ought to look beyond the ARRL
phrases and ask the military what is actually used. One on-line
source is the USAF's free download "From Flares to Satellites,"
available at the USAF Communications Command website. An
informative small book.

I've mentioned that before in here. Matters not to Jimmie and
Mikey because they WERE THERE and KNOW? Riiiight...in
their dreams they were...

I've pointed out all sorts of references and sources of information
for quite a while in here on the REST of the radio world and what
is used there...but "that does not apply." The PCTA still think
that morsemanship is a required skill in the U.S. military and that
radiotelegraphers are "still needed!" Wrong, of course, but it
seems that the PCTA extras just don't believe it...it defies their
Belief System.

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.

Tsk. ERROR. WRONG. INCORRECT.

I've advocated TOUGHER written tests for U.S. amateur radio,
never total elimination of the written test. That's in Google.

I haven't mentioned that in the last few years because there's too
much ignorance of both theory and regulations on the part of those
self-righteous PCTA.

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!

I've never suggested that. I've bought and contributed three surplus
Western Union Model 19s to charity, a group that overhauled TTYs
for use by deaf people. That was before the solid-state TDDs
(Telecommunicaitons Devices for the Deaf) became more
commonplace, less expensive and (lately) having a subsidy by
various government plants to aid the deaf.

Are you now going to search through Google again looking for
something that says "I suggested that hams use teleprinters?"

Electronic terminals that can emulate teleprinters of any rate
have been around since 1975, almost 30 years. The IBM PC
has been around since 1981 (at least) and that is 23 years ago;
it can emulate a teleprinter very well just by using software for
that purpose.

-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 weren't "RTTY" machines...they were TTY machines. The R isn't
there unless it is connected to a radio transmitting apparatus.

Tsk. So, for at least 29 years there have been very SILENT electronic
terminals available which could be used in any residence...much like
personal computers are used today in about one household in ten in
the USA.

Tsk, tsk. For all the "poll information" from Jimmie, one would think
that hams "didn't use teleprinter mechanisms because of the noise."
That doesn't seem to be the case with several ham user groups
involved with actual RTTY.

-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.

Wow! "Big drawback!" Cheap paper on a roll is "so difficult to
get!" BS. ERROR. INCORRECT.

From Model 15 to Model 33 Teletype Corporation teleprinters, the
ribbons were standard typewriter ribbons one can get today at
Staples and Office Depot. For that matter anyone can buy paper
rolls at those places today.

I get the picture of Jimmie busy "recycling" paper pulp to make
the greyish notepads he uses to design tube equipment in the
1990s...to fit with the alleged "$100" cost of the "famous" Type 7.
The felt-tip ink marker used to make "front panel markings" on
that Type 7 are an "expense item!" :-)

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.

Wow! "The world of radio" open to anyone who can pass a morse
test! Wow! [bwahahahahahhahahahahhoohoohoohoohoo]

Myself and others were operating HF transmitters 51 years without
one single morse test and NO requirements for an amateur license!

Sunnuvagun!

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.

WRONG. ERROR. INCORRECT.

Heathkit had a "radio clock" which tuned to WWV on HF. To jog
your memory (since it wasn't an item of ham lore), that is mentioned
on the NIST website under the history of radio clocks.

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....

Tsk. You think (imagine) conjectures, therefor it "is?"

Tsk, tsk. Read the FCC's own Report & Order on why hams got
only five "channels" and not a whole band (to play in). It's on
public view. Do you need tips on how to get there on the 'web?

Has the internet replaced amateur radio?

Note the lack of answers...

Tsk, you demand IMMEDIATE answers to YOUR questions! :-)

Poor baby...stamping your little feet and having a tantrum?

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.

So...you define "radio" as ONLY the way hams do it?

Tsk. That shoots down all of broadcasting, all satellite services
(including relay of any radio service desiring to rent transponder
space), radiosondes, two-way radio used by public safety officials,
and the entirety of the U.S. military!

Offhand, I'd say your denigration of all radio that is NOT on the
ham model is a bit off-center.

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.

Of course...it is to preserve and protect the sanctity of the morse
code in radio. [nobody else cares to...]

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.

You forgot to add "...and therefore Len should be barred forever from
saying anything about anybody under penalty of law!" [do not remove
that tag]

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).

That's COLONEL Armstrong to the "drudges" who never served. :-)

Two-way FM radio was pioneered by Link and Motorola with Dan
Noble as the star of doing that. Ol' Ed A. was only into broad-
casting on FM.

By gosh, you've done a one-upmanship on Armstrong's "actual
pioneering" stuff. I've only used, operated, maintained SSB on HF
51 years ago...not near as good as someone touring a museum,
huh? :-)

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

Riiiight...and all AM broadcasting adopted the Fessenden system
of modulation putting one microphone in series with the antenna
lead! Riiiight. WRONG. ERROR. INCORRECT. NOBODY
followed that example...for rather obvious technical reasons that
anyone who has "credentials" in technology SHOULD HAVE
KNOWN. Ptui.

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....

Tsk. Cellular telephones did NOT begin with digital modulation.

ERROR. INCORRECT. WRONG.

Besides, why should amateur radio in the U.S. follow ANY other
radio service?

Isn't U.S. amateur radio all about preserving the glory and majesty
of morse code communications below 30 MHz?

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.

Riiight. About like old Reggie F. got all broadcasters to do AM
with a microphone in the antenna lead. :-)

DRM has been test-broadcasting on HF for over three years. The
only hold-up is standardization on a A digital system since there
is another standard vying for that. Both have been successful.

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.

Riiiiight. I should look to the "model" of ham kluges of tube
boxes "designed" in the 1990s...

But that's not what it's about.

What it's "about" in here is a bunch of PCTA extras wanting to
beat up NCTAs about the morse code test. :-)

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

Also assumes that about me.

Are either or both of you non-white females? Girlie men? :-)

No problem, "sweetums," your posting I'm replying to is FULL
of assumptions (all invalid) that YOU made. :-)

"Do as Len says, not as Len does"

Riiiight...exercise freedom and independence, do what everyone
wants to do under minimal regulations.

The PCTA can take up collections to build an artifact museum
for the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. I've nothing against
that. :-)

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, "sweetums," you've got your ASSumption in a sling
again.

I'm on record as saying anyone can USE morse code all they want
but the TEST should go.

...and I'm NOT against the use of marking pens to do such
professional marking on the "front panels" (boxes) of 1990s
tube kluges. Do what you want.

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

Think of Jim Fixx and what happened to him... :-(

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

Exactly

I agree with that...because that is why U.S. amateur radio is
the last radio service to require a morse code test for a license
having below-30-MHz privileges. :-)

God bless those olde-tyme hamme morsemen...they've insured
that future generations will be held to THEIR mighty macho
morse standards!

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

Like telling people to shut up...

"Shut up, just take the damn test!" (from others to me...)

Hello? Is your grace irritated at not being revered and respected?

:-)