RadioBanter - View Single Post - Putting ARRL back "mainstream" with hometown hams

May 15th 05, 01:43 PM

wrote:
From: on Thurs,May 12 2005 3:26 pm
wrote:

N2EY wrote:

But note that the hamdata.com numbers include licenses
that are expired but in the grace period. They also
include club and other non-operator licenses. The numbers I
post here twice a month include only current, unexpired
licenses held by individuals.

I think the totals I post are a more accurate snapshot of the
license situation than the numbers on hamdata.com, because the
inclusion of expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses skews the
totals considerably.

I don't think so.

That's fine.

Many others don't think so.

How many? Who are they?

Now PROVE you are the ONLY ACCURATE voice of
what goes on in this "amateur community."

Why, Len? I don't claim to be the only accurate voice. Just more
accurate than you.

The FCC doesn't appear to think as you do, Jimmie.

Sure they do.

If a licensee is in their grace period and then
renews their license before that period is up,
it just resets the FCC data. The licensed amateur
still retains his/her license after renewal.

That's right. Also irrelevant.

I've pointed out that the numbers I post are of currently-licensed
individuals. You fail to mention that the numbers
on hamdata.com include clubs and other non-individual licenses
(over 9,000 of them) and expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses.

It should be noted that the peak of U.S. amateur
radio license numbers was on 2 Jul 03 with a total
of 737,938 then (number of club calls not known).
The Hamdata statistics are derived automatically
by downloading the publicly-available FCC database
(massive in size) and sorting for classes.

How massive?

You have to ask?!? :-)

I don't have to. I just did. Don't you know?

MANY megabytes, Jimmie.

How many?

Who claimed that would happen? I sure didn't.

Tsk, tsk. My posting was NOT directed to you. :-)

Just answer the question, please.

Of course Technician
Pluses who renew as Technicians keep their HF privileges, and
Technicians who pass Element 1 get them, even though their
licenses don't change class.

So an unknown number of "Technicians" can legally operate on
some HF
amateur bands. Also, any amateur with a Technician Plus or
Novice
license, current, grace period, or expired, can get a General or
Extra
without any further code testing.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie Noserve is still trying to foist
off his OWN concept of "the real amateur community"
where the Technician classes are "not real hams"
(REAL hams work DX on HF with CW?).

That's simply not true, Len.

You're just making up bull****. Typical jackass behavior for you.

;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)

I've repeatedly said that "radio amateur" means anyone licensed
in the Amateur Radio Service. License class, band and mode don't
matter. VHF/UHF is as much "real amateur radio" as HF.

What's your point in all this, Len? You give a lot of numbers but
never seem to say why they matter.

"Sweetums,"

I'm not your sweetums, Len.

I don't INTERPRET raw data.

That's true. You MISINTERPRET raw data...

I just quote
it from the public database downloaded by one website
from the FCC.

So you accept hamdata.com without question...

I HAVE said "why it matters."

Where?

You don't want to listen.

Sure I do. But I don't wade through the mountains of posts you
make here.

Tell us again "why it matters", Len. You've got plenty of time
and no shortage of verbiage to spout.

You don't want to believe anything contrary to your
immaculate concept of "real ham radio."

Just tell us why it matters.

Why does that bother you so much, Jimmie? Do you suspect
I gored your sacred cow or something? Has your "honor"
been sullied? Are you "appealing a court ruling" in
here? Must be. You take things SO seriously!

I don't take you seriously at all, Len. But I do point out
the holes in your arguments, and your factual/logical mistakes,
which seems to enrage you no end..

And why does all this concern you so much?

I dunno, Jimmie, YOU are going to TELL me WHY "I am so
concerned" because you KNOW everything. :-)

Maybe I might want to get a ham license someday?

Nope. We can rule that right out.

Or
maybe I just like to get to the TRUTH of matters
without all the smoke and mirrors of some fanatics
who take their HOBBY as a Life Calling?

Nope. Truth is one thing you avoid....

You're not a radio
amateur, and it appears that you'll never become one either -

Tsk, tsk. Jimmie boy, YOU don't CONTROL anything or
anybody.

Sure I do. I don't control everything or everybody, though.

I'm a PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics. Have been for
53 years. I'm a HOBBYIST in radio-electronics too,
have been for about 57 years.

So what? You're not a radio amateur, never been one, and it appears
that you'll never become one either. That's the TRUTH.

your "out of the box" claim of almost 5-1/2 years ago
notwithstanding.

Poor baby. Poor Brother Jimmie, monk at the Church of
Saint Hiram, having doubts about his LIFE CALLING in
the AMATEUR ORDER. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Why no, Len, it's not about me at all.

A HOBBY is NOT a Life Calling, Jimmie. It doesn't
require LIFELONG DEVOTION and Absolute Adherence to
the VOWS taken when one entered the Order.

I never made a SACRED VOW in HERE on anything,
"Sweetums."

No, you didn't. I never claimed you did.

You are trying to MANUFACTURE that
condition.

Nope - I'm simply pointing out what you claimed you would do,
but haven't done yet.

Nice misdirection on what HAD been a
discussion of public database numbers versus Bro.
Jimmie's concept of U.S. ham radio (as seen from
the insides of his mind's monastery).

I've taken ONE VOW absolute. In my marriage
ceremony. I wear only ONE ring, a wedding ring.
I've taken ANOTHER VOW absolute...that of defending
the U.S. Constitution when I was inducted into the
U.S. Army. I still hold to BOTH those vows.
NO problem to me. Those are absolute.

So what?

Seems to me you're telling us that we should only believe you
on those two things where you made a "vow absolute". And you're saying
that the rest of what you say isn't reliable at all.

You apparently think some newsgroup content is
EQUIVALENT to such an absolute VOW to be held
forever.

Nope. I'm simply pointing out what you claimed you would do,
but haven't done yet. And will probably never do.

That TRUTH appears to bother you a lot.