In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

So what, Len? Much of what you talk about doesn't come close to amateur
radio policy either.

That anyone should chide another on OT posting here in rrap is mildly
amusing. When that someone is part of the Lennie/Steve/Brian-William
troika in *their* ongoing whizzing contest is much more amusing.

Try a quartet. :-)

Naw, the three of them do enough.

I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-)

Hnarf!

Anyone can see you are.

Tsk, tsk. The "whizzing" is almost entirely one way, nursie
"whizzing" on anyone who disagrees (in the slightest) with
him. [that's all archived in Google, go live in the past and see
it...:-) ]


It's a plain, simple fact.

Tsk, wrong again. Error. Mistake.

Worse yet, you use "fact" interchangeably with Your Personal
Opinion. Not correct.


Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to
do with amateur radio policy of today?

Very very little.

Actually, quite a bit.

Wrong again. Quite wrong.

1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency.

No, that's not true. Radio was regulated by the US and by international treaty
before 1912. The regulations were very vague and loose, but they did exist.

Tsk. What agency had the official power of law in the United States
prior to 1912?

"Loose and vague" apply to your specious "arguments" there.

That's
about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very
tenuous one...if at all. :-)

Wrong again, Len!

No. Not "wrong" in the real world.

You need to sever your imaginary ties of emotion to a pet subject
of yours in order to examine the bigger picture.

There was NO REAL RELATION of the Titanic disaster event to U.S.
amateur radio policy, regulations, or laws. If you notice the
chronology, all that can be said is that the creation of the first U.S.
radio regulating agency and the Titanic sinking took place in the same
year, 1912.

Because of the Titanic disaster, the existing loose regulations were tightened
up and much more closely defined. Licenses were required of all transmitting
stations, new procedures set up, new treaties and agreements put in place.

That's an absurd mental elastomeric stress breaking point. :-)

I would suggest that anyone who really cares about the very early
history of radio to study Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave,
Technology and American Radio, 1900-1932." Princeton University
Press, 1985, softcover 561 pp. At the time of writing, Aitken was
a professor at Amherst College and the work was supported by the
National Science Foundation.

There was considerably more involved in the decision of the United
States to create its first radio regulating agency PRIOR to the
Titanic sinking. [agencies aren't created overnight by some
disaster even and the start of the first radio agency in the U.S.
began considerably before the infamous sinking]

And it was because of the Titanic disaster that amateurs were limited to "200
meters and down" and 1 kW input to their transmitters. Those limitations
caused
amateurs to organize themselves into groups like ARRL (1914), to push for
legislative protection, and to explore what could be done with those
supposedly
"useless" wavelengths.

Tsk. You aren't in line with the ARRL's own bio of its creation. :-)

The way the league wrote themselves up, they began as a local
club using their ham sets to what was essentially hacking on the
services of commercial telegraph providers. [see the details on the
league's web site and in other published works by them]

ARRL did not spring into national prominence until AFTER World
War 1, at least 8 years AFTER the Titanic sinking. Even so, the
league was very busy with competition from OTHER wannabe
national amateur organizations. Note: The Radio Club of America
began 5 years before the creation of the little New England club,
and "RCA" (as they call themselves) is still in existance.

Had there been no Titanic or similar disaster, it's very probable that the
loose state of radio regulatory affairs would have continued until the
outbreak of WW1.

Tsk. World War One (in Europe) began in 1914. The ARRL was
created in 1914. :-)

I could "connect the dots" like you so cavalierly like to do with dates
and say there is a "relationship" in the above...but I won't. Its just
a chronological coincidence.

And it's also very possible that without the Titanic disaster, amateur radio
would not exist today, or even after WW1.

Yes, yes, "The Old Man" Went To Washington To Save Ham Radio!
AFTER the end of World War 1. Six years AFTER the Titanic
sinking.

Rev. Jim is sermonizing from the league's version of the good book.

If Aitken's book is too scholarly (it actually reads well), then there
is the more readily available Thomas H. White's website:

http://earlyradiohistory.us/index.html

"White pages" cover the period 1897 to 1927 and are not biased to
amateur radio subjects. [that may be objectionable to PCTAs]

Perhaps that's why Len gets so worked up over mention of the Titanic.

Tsk. Here begins Rev. Jim's "fire and brimstone" demonizing. :-)

Noooooo. The Titanic sank in 1912. That is NINETY-TWO YEARS
AGO.

Or perhaps it's the fact that the rescue was effected by Morse Code used on
radio that gets Len so upset.

Tsk. Way back then (92 years ago) ANYONE using radio for
communications HAD TO use on-off keying of some kind.

92 years later, hardly anyone (except for a few amateurs, a minority)
use on-off keying communications modes.


Len laughed at the disaster when I wrote that hitting the iceberg head-on
would
have probably saved all aboard. And he refuses to show any respect for those
who perished.

Tsk. Sneaky implied pejorative. :-)

I don't claim to be a mariner at all despite having crossed the Atlantic
and Pacific twice by ship and gone sailing on a friend's 35-foot
something or other (forget the class of sailboat), all as a passenger.
I WILL laugh and laugh at the thought of "expert seamanship" involving
"hitting an iceberg (or anything else) head-on in order to save it"!

Ain't nobody going to get "respect" for stating such alleged "safety
measures" to stay afloat at sea as "going head-on into a berg."
Defies common sense. :-)

I don't show any "respect" for ANYONE stating that "hitting anything
head-on will save a ship."

Enormous good luck on ever passing any ship's masters exam,
sailor...


Yes, Len. You have that problem.

Heh heh heh. My only "problem" is taking your trolling bait, grabbing
the line, and then tying you all up with that line. You had best swim
head-on into the dock in order to stay above water. :-)


It sure seems to. You're obsessed by it.

Tsk. Persistence is not obsession.

I'm not in here every day. :-)

I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-)

That's a good thing!

Why is that "good?"

Are you in fear that your Eliteness in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society will be diminished? :-)


Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right out
of the box".

Did I do that in church? Laying down in the nave, forming a code key
with my body and taking absolute Vows? :-)

Tsk. I've seen what Being An Extra makes of some amateurs and
such is not for me.

I'm of the opinion that radio and electronics is terribly fascinating,
interesting, and makes an enjoyable field of both avocation and
occupation. To me. So much so that I made a major shift in my
formal education long ago, changing from illustration art to
electronics engineering. That despite a natural talent in
illustration and some prior work experience as an illustrator.
That was personally successful, not the "lackluster career" you
stated.

I do electronics hobby work in my home workshop to please me,
not some raddio kopps demanding a certain formal Way To Do
Things, nor worshipping the old traditional ways as they were
done long ago, trying to re-enact a past that was before I was
born. The future happens right after now and I keep looking forward
to new things, to enjoy them.

What person are you referring to, Len?

Whomever. :-)


Note how Len avoids the question about why the code test bothers him so much.

It doesn't "bother me." :-)

You've long since run out of valid arguments to retain the U.S. amateur
radio regulation requiring passing a code cognition test for operating
privileges in amateur bands below 30 MHz. You've resorted to the
usual PCTA demonizing of any NCTA who dares to talk back to a
member of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS).

As predicted, you've gotten all emotional and upset about being
(in the slightest) corrected on certain (actual) facts (not your
opinions although you use fact-opinion interchangeably).

You want to keep the ARS in your version of pure, pristine, and
prissy-literally and don't (now) hesitate to pejorate others and
make some mild perjerous remarks to "reinforce" your opinions
(which you call "facts").


Besides, it wouldn't matter what sort of homebrew rig I produced - Len would
have lots of disparaging things to say about it.

Tsk. You took your rig's photo. You put it on an AOL home page.

One photo. Doesn't go into much detail. Six and a half cabinet-less
chassis with lots of vacuum tubes. No schematics. No descriptions
in detail that you claim visitors are astounded about. :-)

What homebrew HF radio transceivers have *you* produced since the mid 1990s,
Len, using only your own time and resources?

No transceivers on HF. :-)

Tsk. Getting puerile with the "challenges" there, Jimmie.

As usual, you've wasted my time. But...I was sitting around waiting
for the big brown truck to show up as promised on the tracking info.
:-)

Tsk. Is it a new "world serious" game you want to play, complete
with recycled "body parts" (radio bodies, that is) and "scoring" of
how many HF transceivers everyone has "homebrewed?" :-)

Sorry, Jimmie, not a game I want to play. I'll just watch Boston
and St. Louis on live color television and cheer the Red Sox when
they win. They are all PROFESSIONAL players! :-)








Didn't have computerized package tracking in 1912. Didn't have UPS
FedEx, or DHL then, either and the USPS was just the "post office"
and they never guaranteed overnight delivery across the country in
1912.




Despite their virtual obsolescence, hollow state technology is quite
interesting, at least to me.

I find it very interesting, too. Very useful, too.

Random though mode on:

I have a 1987 Transciever. IC-745. Suits me just fine. All digital
(excluding the necessary analog bits)

Wow, even digital radios are getting old hat.

"Why", the Grinch said as a smile lit his face, "Maybe for everything,
everymode all has it's place."

I have a chunk of galena setting on the shelf in front of me - maybe
I'll make a cat's whisker detector and radio from it

Random thought mode off.......

Put a carbon mike in your antenna lead and you can do AM like
Reggie F. in his Big Broadcast of 1906! :-)

AM never really appealed to me. Takes a lot of energy for all you get
out of it. But I do like historical processes and equipment as a
diversion after working all day with much more modern techniques. Kinda fun.

I've done AM on 75 meters, and it's a lot of fun when the band isn't crowded.
Been in some really nice roundtables where the other folks know how to
develop
an idea and express their views.

Wow! "State of the Art!"

I suppose at one time it was!

Amaze your friends and neighbors by being able to talk without wires
for at least 10 miles! :-)

Hehe, AM is probably just about at the bottom of the heap (with
apologies to all the AM'ers out there)

It's another tool in the toolbox.

Have a Happy, your Grinchness...

You also, Lenover21.



I do have a question. I had called you Lennie once, and I think you
didn't particularly care for that. I've been calling you Lenover21, but
that sounds kind of formal if a screen name can be called formal.

Do you have a preference? Does simply "Len" work? Or "Leonard"?

Yes, Len - what would you prefer to be called? I call you "Len" and you
answer
with insults, so should I call you "Leonard" or "Mr. Anderson"?