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

[email protected] · September 22nd 06, 03:42 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
From: on Thurs, Sep 21 2006 3:47 am
wrote:
From: on Mon, Sep 18 2006 4:31 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 17 2006 6:18 am
wrote:

You are ashamed to state what you work on except for the
most vague way...such as being in the "transport industry."
Bus drivers are in the "transport industry." Larry
Roll, the soma-cum-loud "graduate" in "Human
Resources" (personnel department work) was a bus
driver!

Are you a bus driver, Jimmy?

Is there something wrong with being a bus driver, Len?

You didn't answer the question.

You don't answer all of my questions, Len. Why should I answer all of
yours?

Two bus drivers have been in here; one left and one died.

Both are missed.

IIRC, one of Larry Roll's duties was transporting senior citizens and
disabled people who couldn't drive. His work made it possible for them
to have much more mobility and independence.

That's the point - if someone is a procodetest person, anything they do
is insulted by you.

Incorrect.

Well, *almost* anything they do or say is insulted by you.

Then why did you criticize their work? Why is it even an issue?

I can't criticize your work. You never say what it is.

You're beginning to catch on, Len!

Besides, what does his behavior have to do with yours?

What does your behavior have to do with Nursie?

Who is "Nursie", Len?

No. You dislike my comments and opinions, label them
FALSELY as "faulty" when you are NOT the supreme critic.

I call 'em as I see 'em, Len. You write things that are simply not
true, then get mad when someone points out your errors.

IOW, rather than discuss the issue itself in a civil manner, you'll
attack their work, gender, ethnicity, education, and anything else you
can find out about them. Even if they don't do the same to you.

That's faulty logic on your part.

No, it's an accurate observation of how you behave when confronted by
someone who disagrees with you.

What about your self-righteous stance on eliminating the Morse Code
test?

Nothing "self-righteous" about it.

Sure there is.

Elimination of the code
test is a LOGICAL thing for the FCC to do.

Not really.

1. The FCC is under NO mandate by international radio
regulations to keep the amateur radio license code
test. It is the FCC's option to keep or eliminate.

IOW, the FCC can eliminate - or increase - Morse Code testing in almost
any way they choose.

That's not a reason to change it.

2. The FCC has not required all US radio amateurs to
operate manual radiotelegraphy for years over and
above any other allocated mode.

For more than 50 years, the FCC has not required amateurs to operate
using any particular mode, band, or technology. In fact, the FCC has
not required amateurs to operate at all in order to retain their
licenses.

That's not a reason to change the license tests.

Yet, there are NO
manual skill tests for operating any other allocated
modes.

That's because the other modes use skills almost all operators have.

Again, that's not a reason to change the license tests.

All allocated modes are optional to use.

So are all allocated bands, and technologies. There is no requirement
that amateurs any particular band, mode, or technology. Yet the testing
for a license includes many questions on things which are totally
optional.

For example, a prospective radio amateur who wishes to operate low
power Morse Code on 7010 kHz must pass written tests that include
questions on solid state electronics, band limits other than 40 meters,
RF exposure, VHF/UHF, FM, SSB, data modes, and a long list of other
subjects which have nothing to do with the intended operation.

3. NO other US radio service uses manual radiotelegraphy
for regular communications, therefore there is NO
"pool of trained (telegraphy) operators" necessary
for any national need.

However, manual radiotelegraphy in the form of Morse Code is used
extensively in the Amateur Radio service. Having at least a basic skill
level in Morse Code is part of being a qualified Amateur Radio
operator.

An Amateur Radio license is for operating an Amateur Radio station in
accordance with the rules and regulations for Amateur Radio - not other
radio services. It therefore makes sense that the requirements for an
Amateur Radio license should reflect what radio amateurs actually do.

Those are all supremely LOGICAL statements, all true.
Nothing "self-righteous" about them.

They are not adequate reasons to change the license test requirements,
though.

On the other hand, the truly self-righteous are the olde-
tyme radio amateurs who slavishly follow the dictates of
the ARRL (a minority group NOT "representing" all amateurs)
and their own emotions ("I had to take a code test so
everyone else must"...forever).

The ARRL has proposed the elimination of the Morse Code test for the
General class license, so that it would only be retained for the
Amateur Extra class license.

Yet you go all Godwin when someone criticizes you, Len.

I go with God, not some "godwin."

Now *that's* self-righteous of you, Len!

But, we have to wonder if you are really an American, Jimmy.

I am. Always have been.

You want YOUR way all the time (very imperial, royal,
dictatorial).

Gee, Len, you want *your* way all the time - even in things that do not
affect you at all (like the license tests for an Amateur Radio
license).

You've never served your country in the
military or in the government and seem to think having the
personal HOBBY of amateur radio is a "service to the nation."

How many times are you going to beat that dead horse, Len?

Do you think that only those who have served our country in way you
approve of should have the right to express their opinions?

K8MN served our country in both the military and in government service
IIRC. Yet you behave towards him the same as you behave towards me.

I see. Having a different opinion is un-American...to you.

You've never served the United States of America as any
military service member, are NOT in the government, yet
you defend your HOBBY of amateur radio as "being a service
to the nation?"

Apparently you think that advocacy of eliminating the code
test is "un-American?!?"

I think it's not in the best interests of Amateur Radio - or the USA.

YMMV.

According to a note on Kees Talen's (K5BCQ?) HBR page, you
"lent it to your brother" then disassembled it in 1976.

Nope.

Read the "note" again. It was not disassembled in 1976.

Tsk on me, bad sentence structure. :-)

No, Len, you made a mistake. Either you didn't understand what was
written, or you intentionally mistated. You do that a lot.

Yes, compared to all the other examples there, your
"really good receiver" (built over three decades ago)
certainly looked cheap. Not "inexpensive," cheap.

In what way, Len? Are you more concerned with looks than performance?

You have posted NO "performance" figures for that 32-year-old
version of an HBR.

You didn't answer the questions.

The receiver in question is not a version of W6TC's HBR designs. It was
a design of my own, the second in a series of three receivers using the
same basic concepts.

That it "works good" is highly subjective and not quantifiable.

Of course it's quantifiable. It was a better receiver than anything
else available to me at the time. Much better than what it replaced.

You've NEVER assembled an Elecraft? You buy it ready-
made? Have another ham assemble it for you?

I assembled my K2 in 2001. Still have it, still works.

Try reading what I actually wrote, Len.

Try WRITING things which are more definite. Try making
replies as actual, firm stances on things instead of just
"answering" with other questions.

Try reading what was actually written, Len.

You do nothing.

That's simply not the case. I just won't tell you about my work.

You are "proud" of doing nothing.

I'm proud of what I do - and it isn't 'nothing'.

Why do you keep beating the dead horse of wanting to know my work?

Go get laid. It will take your mind off cross-dressing.
As I said, I'm not homophobic and don't care whether it
is with a boyfriend or girlfriend.