RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 26th 04, 05:54 AM

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Corrupting it in the process. "Handle" used to simply mean "name", and it
wasn't even strictly a piece of ham jargon. cb folks changed its meaning
to "a
made-up name to avoid using call letters or other means of positive
identification".

Whatever! 60 years ago Clinton DeSoto wrote:

"Among radio amateurs there is a genuine brotherhood and informal
camaraderie. Everyone is called by his "handle" -- his first name
or nickname. The president of the Chicago Stock Exchange and the
mechanic in a Birmingham garage are just "Paul" and "Joe" when
they meet on the air."

I guess I'll continue to use the term 'handle" --- seems to have good
roots.

Etymologists into common American idioms can tell us all that the
term "handle" predates the first demonstrations of radio as a
communications medium. That is, prior to 1896. Its use was
widespread in the sun belt areas of the USA.

Of course, Len. That's what I wrote:

" "Handle" used to simply mean "name", and it wasn't even strictly a piece of
ham jargon. "

Tsk, tsk. Still have raw nerve endings at not being praised and
revered for "recycling" all those radio parts shown in the
single home page picture. :-)

The word "ham" is still not the best of "respectable" nicknames.
You would be in difficulty saying an actor is a ham. :-)

But, as the PA Raddio Kopps say (flashing their very important
badges), the word "handle" is an evil despicable nasty word
uttered by unspeakably bad "CBers" just to defame certain
amateur radio extras.

Where do you come up with that, Len?

In newsgroups, on the Internet, in personal communications with
PCTA masters-of-radio...just to name a few hundred sources. :-)

Meanings of words can change over time. cb folks changed the meaning of
"handle" when applied to identification of a person. Rather than simply
meaning
"name", they changed it to mean "a made-up name to avoid using call letters or
other means of positive identification".

Well, there we have it. The judgement from Nuremberg (or someplace).

Tsk. Trying to lay blame on the "cb folks."

Why do you have a problem with CB?

"Handles", on cb, were and are used in an attempt to *avoid positive
identification* by others, particularly the FCC.

Oh? You have personal experience with that? :-)

That's not something any radio amateur should do. It's a bad thing.

Tsk. Vile, contemptible, dastardly sort of bad thing? :-)

Run right out to the FCC with your reports on evil, wicked, mean
and nasty CBers not giving their proper, official call letters! :-)

The use of "handles" by cb folks for the purpose of evading positive detection
dates back years before FCC stopped issuing licenses and call letters for cb
users. In fact, one of the reasons (not the only one) FCC gave up on cb
licensing was that few cb users were using call signs.

Well, there we have it...again.

The "insiders" information on Why The FCC Does Things!

It's no wonder you get upset when someone calls Mikey Powell for
"Mikey." It's hard to suck up to the boss when you get razzed for
it?

So, what did YOU DO about making CB all right and amateur-
proper? Nothing? Tsk.

Class D Citizens Band has been in existance since 1958. That's
a long time. [I was working at Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation when
that happened...were you working anyplace?] Shirley, with all that
"insider" information on the Commission, you MUST have some
influence with them to correct
their actions, right?

cb folks started using the terms "personal" and "first personal" to mean
"name"
and "first name" in part because the meaning of "handle" had changed.

"Hi hi" and a "'73," copy your op-ed "599" OM. :-)

All of that is plain, simple fact. Hard for you to take, though. Too bad!

NOT "fact," Jimmie. Just your OPINION.

Try to understand you and your opinions are NOT the center of the
universe.

10-4, good buddy? What's *your* handle, Len? How many Bird watts does your
radidio dead key?

I don't have a "radidio." Explain what that is supposed to be.

"Ten" codes were devised by the nation's police forces, not by
CBers. You have a problem with the police forces? Tsk.

I have a NAME and use it, on or off any communications device.

My briefcase has a handle, my suitcases have handles, all our
doors at home have handles, many of the kitchen implements have
handles (knives, pans, pots, etc.), we have all sorts of drawers and
cabinets with handles. Even my despised (in the PCTA's view)
Icom R-70 has one handle!

Sunnuvagun! :-)

All you have is an amateur callsign and use it like a name. That's
not good for you in court when some police force makes you appear
there. You are federally authorized to transmit RF energy, but ONLY
in amateur radio bands and ONLY within their technical limits.

A Bird manufactured wattmeter is a good dummy load with a meter
(reasonably accurate) measuring the power dissipated in that load.
I first used one in commercial work sometimes in the 1960s. WREX-
TV had a huge one beside the video and aural transmitters when I
worked there in 1956 but the station didn't have to use it as a dummy
load to test the transmitters. What did you use in 1956?

Perhaps your love of "handles" is why you can't seem to call people by their
names...

Perhaps you are losing your sanity, going around imagining what
others think and do. Tsk. We already have one confirmed nutso
in this newsgroup. Another one (another PCTA) won't make much
difference.

Meanwhile, back to the "meaningful" discussions by the Architects
and Master Mariners (of the landlocked kind) into the WTC,
airliner handling, engineering safety, and navel maneuvers. All of
which have enormous impact on amateur radio policy matters. :-)

They have more impact and relevance than your oft-repeated stories of watching
teletypes at ADA 24/7, or your claim to fame of writing for a defunct
magazine.

What "oft-repeated stories of watching teletypes," Rev. Jim?

Army station ADA had teletype loops linking transmitters, receivers,
and the control. Only three loops and three separate circuits as
order wires (where all the commands are given, advisories noted).
That makes only three to "watch" (one can hear them start up from
their normal idle state). One had better "watch" those...or face
disciplinary action at a military station.

Oh, but you've never served your country in the military, have you?
No, you serve your country "in other ways." None of which have
been named. [you exist therefore that alone is "serving this
country?"]

Rev. Jim, don't take it so hard in trying to write your next sermon.
Not all of us can be as lucky as I and get exposed to REAL HF
communications done around the clock, every day of each year.
But, you never did ANY of that so you show your spite by insulting
those of us few who did real service. Tsk.

Now you want to toss snit on Ham Radio Magazine? Again?

Jim Fisk and Skip Tenney (editor in chief and publisher, respectively)
started HR as an independent amateur radio periodical. What they
started kept on going for 22 years. [Jim Fisk died suddenly of a
heart attack before the 22 years were completed] Communications
Technology, Inc., did not have the benefit of a budget umbrella and
life preserver from any membership organization...they did it by
themselves. Their reputation as a source of technical information
for radio amateurs was recognized around the world. Still is.

Did you write articles for HR? No, you didn't. Were you on the HR
masthead (the column next to the TOC showing the names of the
staff)? No, you were not. You did neither. I did both.

I don't "claim any fame" from what was minimum-wage work for HR.
It was FUN work in a field I was, and still am, in...that of radio and
electronics. In fact, I don't claim ANY "fame" in anything. I've done
my career well in a work that I chose because it was interesting to
me, still do my hobbies in that for the same reason.

What I've said I've done was actually done. There's even
"documented" proof available that I did. :-) I don't hang in a news-
group every day as you do, speaking out on all kinds of subjects
that: (1) Don't concern amateur radio in any way; (2) Are not from
your work experience; (3) Are presented as "facts" because they
are personal preferences and opinions instead of facts. You've
done all three of those in one message. :-) Good job...but way
out of place.