"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

And your notes of Carl's history with ham radio seem at most,
perfuntory.
They have nothing to do with the fact that Carl posted his comments to
this
thread. Unless you believe that Carl must be exactly equal with you
before
you consider any importance to his comments.

As you are, so is Carl in my age group. Carl sat on a Tech ticket for
2 1/2 decades until the requirements were lowered.


So?


Carl crowed about
the large numbers of highly technical people being kept out of ham radio
by "high speed" morse tests. Extra Class Carl spends his time chasing
DX on HF SSB with a commercial rig. Carl is as cranky as anyone here.
He's just cranky with a view opposite mine. I offer his sermon as
proof.


You mounted your view on the allegation that Carl has not been licensed in
the same manner as you ( your whining about his being a Tech for so long
and his alledged comments about CW).


Does one have to be in ham
radio exactly as long as you, be as old as you, have been on HF SSB and
CW
as much as you, before you think they're "worthy?"

Why no, Kim. Then again, I didn't write anything like that. Perhaps you
just had a feeling...


Then, why the opening remarks then and now, with this post, about how long
Carl was a Tech and his alledged comments on CW? Why enter that into your
remarks at all, Dave, if not to cast attention to that? If you are casting
attention to that, then why?


Perhaps you like your terms,
better. It's always interesting to note how you quickly change to
name-calling ("Squiggy", "Big Mouth Carl") when you see things you don't
like.

Did you bother to read what Carl wrote about me?


And, I think many times here you have poked at me for defending something
I've said because of what or how someone else said it. Which makes you a
hypocrite for now defending your actions because of the actions of someone
else.


Is this another chapter in your book?

No chapter in my book is devoted to Carl. If you'd like a copy, I can
sell you one at a pre-publication discount.


I've read the book, seen the movie. Both were unworthy of my partaking in
your offer.


Go to your library and get a
book on communication--somewhere in there you'll see part where it says
that
resorting to name-calling doesn't provide substantiation nor
clarification
for thoughts, only provides that the person has nothing more important
to do
but resort to infantile pouting.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of going to the library. I'll attempt
to filter out your additions and paraphrasing.


Glad to see you got my point, no matter how you may resent it.


The requirements have been adjusted (lowered if you like) to accommodate
current trends and shift focus from older technology to newer.

"Adjusted" is so cute and newspeak. We're still using the older
technology in question, you might recall.


Then, changed if you like that better. Dave, the "requirements" for living
have changed since the pioneer days. Things change constantly, if they
intend to keep up. The requirements for ham radio have changed here in the
United States and now, indeed, the world. What about that is so difficult
for you to grasp.

I note your folding my remarks up into your neat little package of, "if one
does argues against CW testing in any way, they must certainly be against
the use of CW." Use your claimed intelligence. Find a damned post where I
have ever said anything against its use. I am only and simply against it
being a testing element.


The standards have not been lowered at all.

So the requirements have been lowered but the standards haven't?


No, Dave. We all still have to abide by the same R&R as we always have.
Those standards have not been lowered at all. What standards do you do ham
radio by? You cannot be using your book for that, because someone else
definitely supercedes you on that.


Dave Heil said:
There have always been newcomers in amateur radio. Old timers always
die and newcomers always arrive. Newcomers may be the future (a great
many newcomers have gray hair) but we're the present, not the past.
The
future has not yet arrived. Even you don't know what the future
holds,
as much as you'd like to see yourself as a visionary.


In your stumbling around, above, your forgot to leave a point.

Not at all, Kim. You just neglected to digest it. Most new hams aren't
new people. They aren't young. Many are quite old. A great many "old
timers" have decades left in them. They aren't going away. They are
not only the past, but the present of amateur radio.


I think you just stumbled again.

There's a difference between encouraging only those with whom you
agree, and encouraging *everyone*. When you say that "standards" have
been lowered, you send a message you may not be meaning to send.

I wrote that standards were lowered because that is, in fact what took
place (again). I did not place blame on newcomers. They didn't lower
the standard. I did not place a qualifier on the welcoming of
newcomers. Do you ever read the words I've written before replying to
them?


I don't think the standards have been lowered at all. Your attempt to
defend the "lowered standards" statement has fallen on deaf ears IMHO.


Your messages come across as attempts to insult, berate, and demean,
Dave.

Good. I intended to insult, berate and demean Carl. I wrote no such
thing about newcomers. You didn't read what I wrote or you could not
have come to such a conclusion.

You are very political in your approach with people here.

No kidding. Clue us in as to what you do here.


I have agreed with and offended both sides of the fence here, Dave, and in
my life. I don't let politics of something determine how I will be affected
by them.


If someone does
not act and think just as you, you assert superiority.

What are you attempting to achieve in writing the sentence above? Are
you attempting to assert superiority?


No, and sorry you took it that way. I am pointing out to you how others
perceive your nature. And, no, it's not just me.


You are quite dislikable, whether you realize it or not.

I'm sure that it appears that way to someone like you, Kim. In your
view, Carl can tell others to engage in reflection and tell them to
change their ways. If similar words are directed to Carl, you find the
person "dislikable". Go hug a tree, Kim. Take a whale to lunch.

And you do seem to approach life from the comfort zone...

...whatever that means.

Dave K8MN


I think you know what it means, Dave.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to