wrote:
Jim Hampton wrote:
What you do not seem to realize is that the folks that actually learned
something (before the multiple guess answers came out), just might have a
few skills.

What you do not seem to realize is that young folks actually learned
stuff, too. You just fail to appreciate their knowledge, and see them
as thoughtless.

These are usually folks that have a genuine interest in how things work, not
how to turn a knob or push a button or keys.

Indeed. Often those people are young in years.

This isn't to say that folks
that simply wish to talk are not welcome; they certainly are.

Then you may begin acting as if they were.

Although I do not possess a college degree, I am a certified electronics
technician. I have repaired two-way radios (business and trunking radios).
I have done a lot of electrical control and power wiring. I have not worked
in high voltage, but have done a fair amount of 277/480 3 phase work. I've
climbed atop silos and repaired bag houses. Welded, soldered, cut, run
milling machines, surface grinders, lathes, and more. If a saws-all can't
do the job readily, the oxy-acetylene tourch will handle it well for me
(hmmmm ... wonder how that would solder pl-259s? LOL). Done EMC compliance
studies along with UL compliance. Come to think of it, ozone compliance.
Can you spell exponential decay? Come to think of it, I've programmed
slc-500s, Texas Instruments PLCs, Modicon PLCs, and more (including data
highways and ethernet). Even written a program to generate ladders from
simply inputting I/O assignments and letting the program know what I want to
have happen. Under 15 minutes to properly program 3 cells. Another 5
minutes to debug because someone wired a switch backwards (normally closed
rather than normally open).

The military would describe you as a person who could chew gum and walk
at the same time.

And a whole lot more, I bet.

Mutual admiration society?

The trouble is that skills aren't as valued as they once were.

The -right- skills are always valued.

Particularly if they aren't "state of the art", whatever that means.

It can mean "useful in the modern world."

Whether it be
Morse Code or how to put up an antenna in a less-than-perfect location,
or even make your own bread, many people look down upon "basic" or
"old" skills as a sort of poor relation to "high tech". As in "not
worth their time or effort".

McDonalds wouldn't be serving up very many "basic" cheeseburgers if
they served them up with sarcasm and redicule. Which is how your
cronies serve up "basic" information.

The nice thing about amateur radio is that it encompasses a whole spectrum
of individuals, unlike most trade magazines.

Amateur radio is not a trade.

To me, advertising in an
amateur publication such as QST would make a lot of sense, especially if you
are trying to locate a number of different skills (rather than a number of
ads in different magazines or newspapers).

Agree 100%. There's a long history of such ads, too.

Especially since I'll not renew my membership in the ARRL nor receive
QST due to the mishandling of Carl's run for ARRL office. I never did
think that the ARRL had my interests at heart, and that was the final
straw.

As to Morse, it can be fun. If we had difficulty with it back when (for me,
1962), we learned to overcome that difficulty (not a bad thing to learn, in
my humble opinion). Come to think of it, as much grief as it gave me (when
memorizing dots and dashes), once I learned it by sound, I enjoyed it and by
1967 had perfect copy at 40 words per minute in the U.S. Navy.

I'm always amazed at how people who earned three hots, a cot, and a
paycheck for learning Morse Code demand that the rest of us donate our
time and money to do the same. I think it's some kind of entitlement
mentality. The government is supposed to keep a steady stream of Morse
Coders in front of you so you'll have someone to communicate with.

More than
40? I don't know; that was the fastest test they had back then. I would
have had difficulty much beyond that as we were banging away with manual
typewriters then. I might have (possibly) made 50 at most.

Oh, my! Think how fast you could have gone with an IBM Selectric and
fanfold paper.

Disclaimer -
that would be perfect typewritten copy filling close to a whole page of
paper. A few errors would have allowed me considerably faster copy. Then.
(LOL)

It took a bit of doing for me to learn Morse Code.

Ditto.

First I acquired a
straight key and built an oscillator so I could practice sending. But
they also tested receiving back in 1967, so I had to build a receiver,
find the 80 meter ham band, find some hams sending fairly slowly, and
then figure out what they were sending. I guess being 12-13 years old
and not having anybody tell me I was too young helped...

Do you mean that you didn't bootleg like W3RV?

---

You may enjoy this article, too: I sure did.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ml?sid=1394604

73 de Jim, N2EY

I enjoy all sorts of things. Morse Code is not among them. Sarcasm
and redicule served with "basic" information is not my favorite thing,
either.