RadioBanter - View Single Post - Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?

Dave Heil · October 5th 06, 04:40 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:
Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.
What "formalism" do you mean, Len?
1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL
for use in "official" message relay by amateurs.

What's wrong with it?

There's no requirement to buy the forms in order to use the standard
message format. Once someone has handled enough messages, the format
becomes second nature.

Using a standard message format for written messages is easier, faster
and more accurate. That's why it has been used for so long.

The format used helps to ensure accuracy, specifies handling
instructions, tells when and from whom the message originated and
specifies precedence. Why would Leonard have a problem with that?

Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

It's not play-acting, Len. It's for-real.

It surely is. It may be a telegraphic message, voice message or digital
mode message. Did you note Len's use of "REAL" and the smiley used to
indicate that he is just joking?

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'

Yep, that's a pretty dumb practice. Note that it's a *voice* thing.
It's been considered a poor voice operating practice for decades. I
simply don't do it.

I seldom hear it. Len is living in the past.

Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal
to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic
shorthand where inflection and tonality of real
laughter is not possible]

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Of course you are not a Morse Code operator, Len, so your ignorance may
be understandable.

I'm convinced.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

I would call them "inaccurate" reports. And again, they're poor
operating practice.

When and if our Leonard ever obtains an amateur radio license, he is
free to take accurate measurement and provide them in dbm to stations he
works. He is free to reject any report they provide him.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well.

I agree!

A *few* Q signals have a place on voice, where the Q signal saves a lot
of verbiage. But most are simply poor operating practice.

For example, some voice operators will say "QSL" to mean "Roger" -
which means "I heard and understood everything you said". "QSL" is
three syllables, while "Roger" is only two. If both mean the same
thing, why say the longer one?

Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

Jargon does not make something "professional".

Jargon has a use where it conveys a special-purpose meaning in a few
words. For example, referring to an amateur band by meters instead of
megahertz saves time and space, as in "I was on 80 the other night and
the Gs were all over the place".

Most human activities develop their own jargon - amateur radio is no
different. The jargon used on the amateur bands is not an attempt to
sound "professional".

Once again, the problem you cite is a voice thing.

Yes and one which Len is free to adopt or not adopt should he ever
obtain an amateur radio license.

5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a
flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any)
under discussion. Most of the time such voice
contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's
ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom.

Another voice-only problem. And what does it have to do with
"formalism?"

I think he's making a case for the elimination of voice modes in amateur
radio.

6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names
in non-radio conversation, communication, and image
displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL
radio station or radio broadcaster.

I think you're jealous, Len, because *you* don't have an amateur radio
callsign.

Len is big on terms like "overly-proud" and "over-use". They mean
anything more frequent than his standards permit. I may use my callsign
at any time.

Referring to a person by their callsign instead of their name is good
amateur practice. Callsigns are unique, short, and easily understood,
while names often are not.

Amateur radio stations are REAL radio stations, Len. That's not an
opinion - it's a legal fact, defined so by the FCC.

I have a REAL amateur radio license. It has my REAL callsign printed on
it. I keep it in my REAL radio station.

Did you ever hear of the "8JK" antenna, Len? Or the "G5RV"?

Nobody calls 'em by the name of their developer.

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)."

What's wrong with that? It's certainly a fact.

Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

How? The license for both station and operator are federally issued.

"Overly-proud", "over-use of callsigns", "elevation of self-importance".

Leonard Anderson doesn't get to specify how much self-importance is too
much.

btw, I've never heard an amateur using Morse Code use that "federally
authorized....." verbiage. Another voice thing.

Me neither.

8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real
activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow
a national service to the country.

Amateur Radio often performs public service - at the local, state,
regional and national level. It's not "just a hobby", Len.

Where in Part 97 of the FCC regs is the word "hobby" ever used?

Have you noticed how far afield Len is going? This isn't about the use
of morse or about removing the morse test. It is about amateur radio
itself.

And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur
radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of
radio activity of all) into that "national service"
akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an
important "resource" that would always "save the day
when all other infrastructure communications services
'failed'."

What *are* you going on about, Len? The word "service" has several
meanings.

Nobody says that amateur radio will *always* save the day. But there
are times when amateur radio steps in and provides needed communication
when other means have failed.

Like the communications failure in Tennessee a week or so back. I can
provide a link, if you need one.

If you do, I can almost guarantee that the profile will be fulfilled in
short order.

btw, one of the reasons for that problem in Tennessee was that the
professionals installed vital telephone equipment in a basement - which
flooded.

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.

Who assumes that, Len? And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

Len is never one to stand on formality.

Emergency communications is one aspect of amateur radio. It's an
important aspect, but not the only one.

Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous
amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions
written, the amateur radio service is still an
avocational radio activity done for personal
pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation.

But that's not all it is. Public service is part of amateur radio, too.

Len isn't talking about public service or its lack. Len wants to talk
about pomposity and self-righteousness. We are in amateur radio. Len
is an outsider. He is galled.

Just read Part 97.

Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.
Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service,
what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services?

Quite a bit, Len. More than you'd like to admit.

You know NOTHING of military radio.

That's not true, Len.

You never served, never
worked with the military.

How do you know for sure?

I did both as a soldier and as a civilian.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

....and he is galled.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology.

That's not true, Len.

I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

I got started in broadcast radio in 1967. I was quite a big younger
than you when I did so.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services,

That's not true, Len.

never had one.

How do you know for sure?

I did.

That's nice, Len.

He's still playing that "mine is bigger than yours" game. He is galled.

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.
Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?
Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

As for youth:

I recall you writing that you've always had a problem with that - shall
I produce the exact quote?

I also recall that you wanted to *ban* anyone under the age of 14 from
amateur radio. You went so far as to recommend that to FCC.

As for simplicity:

You sure do seem to make simple things complicated.

YOU are NOT young,
Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

I'm a lot younger than you, Len. In body, mind, and spirit.

YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did
was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized
by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering."

How do you know for sure, Len?

And what does that have to do with "formalism"?

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship.

Where do I imply that, Len? I passed the Amateur Extra license exams in
1970, at the age of 16. There were more than a few Extras younger than
me, back then.

The written testing for the Extra Class license has always been more
than the Morse Code testing. In 1970, earning that license required
passing four written tests (Novice, General/Tech, Advanced, Extra) but
only two Morse Code tests (13 and 20 wpm).

btw - what exactly is "morsemanship"? You keep using that word, but
never say what it means.

Seems to me, Len, that you've taken a simple question and turned you
answer into a personal attack on me, for no reason at all. Typical.

Len's use of the term "largely through a test for morsemanship" is a
blatant falsehood. As you point out, there were four written exams to
be passed in going from the Novice to Amateur Extra. You became an
Extra by passing all of the available amateur radio exams. Len bragged,
more than a few years ago, that he was going for an "Extra right out of
the box". He hasn't yet walked that walk. The talk was cheap.

Dave K8MN