RadioBanter - View Single Post - If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?

[email protected] · September 14th 06, 11:36 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 14 2006 4:31 am
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon, Sep 11 2006 9:45 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil on Mon, Sep 11 2006 2:46 pm
wrote:
From: Dave Heil 940 on Sun, Sep 10 2006 3:26 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 10 2006 7:55 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 7 2006 6:53 pm
wrote:

YOU are not of the FCC, not an official thereof...
Sometimes there's no other recourse but to use a 2x4
to bang on the heads of 1x2s. :-)

Ah yes - threats of physical violence. Shows how superior your
arguments aren't, Len.

Bad sentence structure, Jimmy Noserve. :-)

Tsk. Sissy-prissy horrifications about "threats of physical
violence?" :-) About some WORD PLAY?!? Poor baby...

You've tried those kinds of threats of violence here before, Len.
Really brave of you, considering I'm a couple of thousand miles away.

Such threats, even with smileys, are the mark of someone who can't make
their point verbally.

Fearless Leader wannabes ought to look around inside the
newsgroup for REAL "threats of violence." Go make your
horrified revelations about "threats of violence" to
that other radio amateur "Not Cocksucker Lloyd." He wants
to KILL Mark. Stated that in message(s).

What does that have to do with me? I do not know who "Lloyd" is, where
s/he is, or what the disagreement between "Lloyd" and "Mark" is. He has
not threatened to "use a 2x4 to bang on the heads of 1x2s."

In fact I don't read much of rrap at all anymore. Too much noise and
too little signal. You replied to my posting so I read what you wrote.
Now you're all upset, shouting and carrying on like an overtired
two-year-old because I disagree with you and point out your mistakes.

But...you only target the no-code-test advocates for your
whining no-violence "complaints." You say you "can't control
them (other morsemen)."

The only person I can "control" is myself, Len.

For some reason you assign group blame - if one Morse Code test
advocate does something you dislike, you hold *all* Morse Code test
advocates responsible. That's just plain illogical, Len. It makes no
sense at all. Yet you keep on doing it - why?

H Y P O C R I T E

You can't be talking about me when you use that word, Len.

Everyone can, by now, see your Game, Jimmy.

Actually I have several games. I like chess, Scrabble, Monopoly and
Yahtzee. Also amateur radio contesting, which is a game of sorts.

Tsk, tsk. All I'm doing is advocating the elimination
of the morse code test for US amateur radio licensing...for
the benefit of anyone who might want to enjoy the HOBBY of
amateur radio.

No, that's not all you're doing here, Len.

You, sure as hell isn't frozen, are NOT promoting anything
but visions of your own 'expertise' (doubtful beyond
morsemanship) and a RETROGRADE holding-back of the hobby of
US amateur radio...a freezing of time to the standards and
practices of ham radio of the 1930s.

That's simply not the case, Len.

And that sort of thing sounds odd coming from someone who wanted to
freeze their neighborhood to the standards and practices of zoning in
the 1960s.

Lowering the requirement may do more harm than benefit.

You mean ELIMINATION OF THE CODE TEST FOR AN AMATEUR LICENSE.

Not just that. Lowering the written test requirements as well. Also the
imposition of age requirements for an amateur radio license. Such
changes *may* do more harm than benefit. That's a plain and simple
fact.

YES, that would do "harm" to all the 20 WPM tested US amateur
extra class who got their status, rank, title, and privileges
through testing for morsemanship.
It would strip their
BRAGGING RIGHTS in amateur radio.

How?

Boo hoo. Psychological
shock to their self-righteous, self-described "expertise"
wherein they are "better" than lesser mortals (see Fred
Hambrecht's outright "we are better than you" statement).

Perhaps you should read what Fred actually wrote and try to understand
what he is actually promoting.

You should also read my reply to him.

btw, I am not in control of what Fred posts here.

Benefit? Absolutely NONE for the smug, arrogant morsemen
sitting around preening and posturing they "are better!"
(through morsemanship skills).

Gee, Len, you spend much of your verbiage here telling us how superior
*you* are.

When have I described myself as being "better"? Exact quotes, not your
misinterpretations, please.

LOTS OF BENEFIT to the FUTURE of amateur radio...an amateur
radio that is NOT ego-centric to morsemen and morsemanship.
That future has already begun...the love and appreciation of
morsemanship as the epitome of amateur radio skill is
dwindling in US amateur radio...has been dwindling for years.

Why do you care, Len?

Amateur morsemen are "leaders" in amateur radio only through
antiquated regulations (law) and the stubborn, obstinate
refusal of the (no longer) mighty "representative of US
amateur radio" (the ARRL) to lobby for a PROGRESSIVE future.

No, that's not the case at all, Len.

You really seem to be jealous of those who have a skill set that you
don't have.

Older Amateur morsemen lobbied for, and got, US amateur
regulations that perpetuate the IMAGE of morsemanship as
this epitome of amateur skill. Now they cry 'wrong' and
'foul' as the sky threatens to fall on their self-righteous
self-depiction, egotistical vision of themselves.

Yes, it WILL be 'harmful' to a minority group. Tsk, tsk.
Their mighty EGOS might be deflated. Boo hoo.

What harm would come to you if houses with apartments were built in
your neighborhood, Len?

Some of your statements are wrong, Len. In fact many of the statements
you make here are wrong.

ONLY by self-righteous amateur morsemen standards.

By any objective standards. For example, the ARRL has, in the past, had
more than 25% of US licensed radio amateurs as members.

You commented to the FCC. Happy now?

No. The FCC has taken NO VISIBLE ACTION on the NPRM of
last year.

Actually, they have.

"ACTUALLY" THE FCC HAS TAKEN NO VISIBLE ACTION ON THE NPRM.

Actually, they have. You just missed it.

What IS it that makes it so hard for you to understand that?
Is it the psychological fear you must have inside that your
self-righteous, self-described, egotistical rank, status,
titles, and privileges will DIMINISH?

It's the fact that FCC made an announcement about when they would put
out the R&O. The announcement boiled down to 'not any time soon'.

FCC said, back in the early summer, they weren't going to make an
announcement any time soon.

That is an official Federal Communications Commission statement?

It was in a statement by an FCC official. You missed it - I didn't.

Strange...it wasn't on the FCC website, did not appear in the
Federal Register. Neither was it on the national newscasts
or in major newspapers.

Try looking a little harder - no, smarter.

"Visible action" would be a Report and Order on a DECISION
in regard to the NPRM. NONE HAS BEEN MADE AS OF THE FEDERAL
REGISTER AS OF THURSDAY, 14 SEPTEMBER 2006.

That's not the only visible action, Len.

There had been speculation of an R&O in
time for Dayton, but FCC said no to that.

"Speculation" is NOT ACTION. "Speculation" is what the
ARRL states when THEY DON'T KNOW.

This info did not come to me via ARRL, Len.

But you weren't a radio amateur then - or now.

But, YOU are NOT a regulator of US amateur radio, then,
now, future, or anyplace but your warped imagination.

Neither are you, Len. You're just on the sidelines yelling.

Go to Ebay and buy a clue: YOU do NOT 'decide'
who GETS INTO amateur radio over and above any
other citizen.

And neither do you, Len. I've had my say with the FCC - that really
seems to bother you.

A radio HOBBY requiring federal
licensing is NOT a "clubhouse" or "fraternity"
(or sorority) where YOU can "rule" over others.

It's a radio *service*, Len. And like it or not, I'm part of it and
you're not.

OH! You must mean FEDERALLY LICENSED "amateur" radio!

That's what the term "amateur radio" means. You're not a part of it.

Do you REALLY understand the definition of "amateur?"

Yes.

Do you really understand the definition of "amateur radio"?

No, you don't. Just like all those other amateurs who
mis-use the word "service" AS IF they were a 'service to
the country' by taking up the HOBBY of amateur radio.

Are you saying that amateur radio does not perform any service to the
country? If so, you are very wrong.

You think TOO much of yourself and your rank-status-title
as an AMATEUR extra class radio licensee.

Says who?

The training and experience you received in military service were
subsidized by the taxpayers. So was any work on "government funded"
projects.

Do you want YOUR tax money refunded on account of that?

That disturbs you? If disturbed, you can always file a
complaint with the General Accounting Office of the US
government on it. How about the Attorney General? You
can even go to CBS television network and get on "60
Minutes" to complain to the viewers how that is an oh-
such-a-heinous "crime" against them! :-)

The fact remains that the training and experience you received in
military service were
subsidized by the taxpayers. So was any work on "government funded"
projects.

Where did I say government subsidy was a bad thing? That's your beef.

WE do NOT know WHERE or WHAT the-amateur-formerly-known-
as 'N2EY' works, does, or how much he (or she) is
"subsidized" by any government.

Who is "we", Len? I know where I work and what I do, as do some of the
folks who read rrap.

I have held the amateur radio callsign N2EY since 1977 and my license
is up to date. Nothing "formerly" about it.

That individual NEVER
served in the US military, has NEVER taken an oath to
put his LIFE on the line in the defense of his country.
Make all the noise you want about "subsidies," Jimmy,
but EVERY soldier, sailor, airman, or marine has THEIR
LIFE on the line when they serve in the military. NO
EXCEPTIONS. Ain't no "subsidy" that gives back life.

The fact remains that the training and experience you received in
military service were
subsidized by the taxpayers. So was any work on "government funded"
projects.

There are plenty of people who are not in the military who put their
lives on the line, too. For example, firemen, law enforcement officers,
emergency response people, many health care workers are at risk of
death in their line of work.

They *all* deserve respect for what they do.

The "training" I got in the US Army was minimal. The
"experience" was great (I thought it remarkable because
of the eye-opening into the Big World of HF comms
instead of the hobby of amateur radio). But, you fail
to understand that each and every soldier in the US
Army is, as the phrase was repeated to us, "A soldier
FIRST and a specialist second."

The fact remains that the training and experience you received in
military service were
subsidized by the taxpayers. So was any work on "government funded"
projects.

Did you think (without asking) that ALL my civilian work
was on "government contracts?"

No. But I know some of it was.

WRONG. Now hear this:
AT NO TIME IN MY WORKING LIFE BEFORE OR AFTER MILITARY
SERVICE DID I EVER WORK FOR ANYTHING BUT A CIVILIAN
COMPANY, BUSINESS, OR CORPORATION. During that time I
have NEVER received any "subsidy" from any government.
NEVER have I worked for any government agency, been
a civilian employee, OR SOUGHT any job/task/position
with any branch of the government.

Yet you worked on projects that were funded by the government, right?
If so, you were subsidized by the taxpayers.

Farmers and agribusiness corporations receive DIRECT
subsidies from the US government. Take your crying
to THEM, not me.

Your subsidies were indirect but they were still subsidies. If your
employer was paid by the govt. for work you did, then your paycheck
came from the taxpayers.

When you dismount from your high hobby horse you can
- if you have the courage - tell what YOU do for a
living?

Why should I tell you, Len? I already know how you will react.

Besides doing (as one of your Comments on an
NPRM said) "transportation industry" work.

Is transportation unimportant, Len? Is the transportation industry not
a worthwhile career?

You haven't got the GUTS to explain, do you?

It's not about guts, Len.

Think about this: "K8MN" was a civilian employee of
the US Department of State (they call it "The Foreign
Service"), long enough to receive a nice pension on
retirement, ALL paid for by the US taxpayer. ALL.
Even for BEING DX.

Hans Brakob

K0HB

spent most of his life in the USN, rising
to topmost enlisted rank, got his "thirty" honorably.
[he made his DD-214 visible to all]

Bill Sohl

K2UNK

served honorably in the USN also. Like Hans,
Bill was a sailor first, a specialist second.

Phil Kane

K2ASP

served as a commissioned officer in the
US military as a missle launcher. He also served the
government of Israel.

Phil also worked for the FCC.

Now all four mentioned received monetary compensation
from a government for their military service and gained
experience (and a variety of training) IN that REAL
military service. Would you say THEY were "subsidized
by the taxpayer?"

Yes - they were all subsidized by the taxpayers.

Is that a bad thing to you?

[no, you would exclude them because
they got amateur licenses and are not your newsgroup
'enemy']

Yet three of the four are no-code-test advocates...

And you're not a part of amateur radio, Len.

Which means WHAT, Jimmy Noserve? That YOU "regulate" who
is allowed to GET IN? That amateur radio licensees have
'more rights' than the rest of us US citizens?

All it means is that you aren't a participant. You're all talk and no
action. All hat and no cattle. All theory and no practice.

"Amateur" means
"without pecuniary interest." Non-professional. The
definition is semantically equivalent to a HOBBY, an
avocation.

Being licensed is part of the definition. No amateur radio license
means not a part of amateur radio.

Tsk. You will quibble semantics forever just to appear
YOU are "right." :-)

No. Because I *am* right.

Do you have professional qualifications as a master of
etymology, English as she are spoke, or have earned
actual money from the sale of work to publications?

I've earned money from the sale of work to publications, Len.

Hint: I've sold work (that's the name for authored
articles in the publishing biz) to more than just Ham
Radio magazine. [but you really don't want to know
that except to make denigrations of it...:-) ]

Selling something does not make one "right".

It was a very good film, by the same folks who gave us "Chicken Run"
and the "Wallace and Gromit" short films.

They revived and brought to new levels the old technology of clay
animation. While "Were-Rabbit" used some CGI, almost all of the
animation used the old methods.

Quick, Jimmy...go to Chicago so you can appear as a
guest replacement for Roger Ebert on "Ebert and Roeper!"
There's still a chance for you to get famous. If you
are clever, you can slip in some biased PR for morse
code and reach MILLIONS in the audience! :-)

[that would be one helluva lot better than what the
ARRL has done so far...]

I guess Aardman shouldn't have used the 'technology of the 1930s', huh?

You're not wrong *all* the time, Len. Just some of the time. You just
don't like having your errors pointed out and corrected.

Sweetums, you MANUFACTURE "errors" (that aren't really
errors per se, only some semantic quibbles and bits
that only satisfy your image hunger). Bone apetite,
doggy boy.

Your errors are of all kinds, Len. You make them, not me.

For an alleged professional writer you sure don't proofread or check
facts very well.

You demonstrate intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you.

So, call the ACLU and file Civil Rights suits.

That would fit you better than Men's Wearhouse could. :-)

Try to understand, Jimmy, TRY...YOUR opinions about
major political issues (as in elimination/retention
of the morse code test) are NOT intrinsically
"right." Neither are those who DISAGREE with you
automatically "wrong." Really. In reality.

That's true.

However, your intolerance of disagreement with your opinions is
demonstrated in practically everything you post here.

YOU are NOT "judge" over "rightness" despite umpteen
years as a federally licensed amateur radio operator
complete with rank, status, title, and privilege
achieved mainly through morsemanship.

I'm a judge of what's true and what isn't, Len.

Now, I am SURE you think it is "intolerant" of me to
disagree with your god-given authority of "rightness"
and "wrongness" about morsemanship.

It's your uncivil and childish behavior that's intolerant, Len.

I have NO
tolerance for BIGOTRY. I have NO tolerance for any
who posture and preen, think so highly of their
accomplishments that they say they are "better" than
mortals through morsemanship in an amateur radio
hobby. I have little tolerance for smug, arrogant
claims of radio "superiority" based on meeting 1930s
standards and practices in a HOBBY activity.

Jimmy, I really don't have much tolerance for you
as a person. You've made fun of my military service
(that I did long ago), manufactured great mountains of
out-of-context mentions as "errors" and thought of
yourself as the mighty military maven, all without
serving your country one day in any military branch.

Where did I make fun of anyone's military service, Len? Show us.

I know that *you* made fun of a Coast Guard radio operator's military
service, though, in the classic "sphincters" post.

Yet, there you sit in front of your computer, "unable
to control" another amateur extra morseman who bluffs
his way trying to appear the Last Action Hero, all
without providing a single bit of proof of 18 years
of his alleged "military career."

What someone else posts here is their business, Len.

You made some weak-
sister postings to him some time ago, yet you feel
compelled to spend hours composing "corrections"
(read Lectures from the ARRL good book) of OTHERS.

You mean how I point out your mistakes? That's straight from me, Len,
not the ARRL or anybody else.

Now do try and behave a bit more civilly.

You should work on your Morse Code skills - and your people skills.