an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:


Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many
kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out
with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional
level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than
the ABILITY for personal communications.

That's fine for you. I'm sure that you'll understand that radio
amateurs don't feel bound by what is important to you.



Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at
52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated.
It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to
normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a
radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at
both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy
is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier
radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for
all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is
AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have
given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications.

The fantasy seems to be yours alone. You like to use terms like
"fantasy" and "artificiality" and "last stand" when you write of morse
code. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It
bothers you. I can live with your being bothered.


right that is of course why the Views of the advocates of Morse Code
are being ignored by the FCC, ITU, IARU, and many of the nations on the
planet


The views are being ignored? That's preposterous. Morse code isn't
being done away with.


...[the
largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the
keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control,
not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding]
Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of
antiquity.

Fine, let Detroit modernize those keyless fob transmitters. Start a
campaign.


again your ability to understand english shows it sad state

It would probably be better if you left it to others to critique
another's use or understanding of the language.


Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a
commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field
office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF,
microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF,
VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from
a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for
regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics
since 1947, something on-going.

Your past professional work does not, in and of itself, qualify you for
an amateur radio license. Your paragraph of professional achievements
is irrelevant to obtaining an amateur ticket.


again with tangential matter

Did you find anything in my statement to be unfactual? What was the
purpose for Len's outlining his "PROFESSIONAL" experience yet again? Was
his material tangential?

I don't really NEED an amateur
license to fulfill my Life's Ambition.

There you go.


Indeed Neither do I my Life Ambition are not based on a requirement for
a Ham License

What is your singular Life Ambition, Colonel? I've had many ambitions
in my life. I achieved most of them. Did you obtain an amateur radio
license? You must have had an ambition to do so. Has Len stated an
ambition to obtain an amateur radio license? Has he done so?

But then you don't get the point or is it simplier than that? just a
case of Binary thinking Ham radio is his lifes ambition so that means
he will not pursue it

Sure, I get the point--the fable of the fox and the grapes. Our wily
old fox can't reach the grapes, so he tells others that the grapes are
probably sour. Len has stated at various times that he has had a
decades-long interest in amateur radio *and* that he has no interest in
obtaining an amateur radio license. He is interested enough to post
here for nearly ten years. One could easily gather that he has enough
interest in amateur radio for that to take place.

But other licensees
DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations
(contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says).

Was that a deliberate distortion on your part or have you just become
forgetful?


No a simple turth many of the Licensees esp arround DO indeed demand
such before allowing comment

Len has been making comments here for nearly a decade. You are
confusing "allowing comment" with "giving credence to views" and that's
the "turth".

Maybe I "should"
get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-)

It looks as if you've been busy making up your mind on whether to do so
for nearly the past six years. I'm betting on inertia. Have a nice
lunch and catch a nap, OT.


what is the hurry?

Actuarial tables.

Dave K8MN