Dear Group:

Words often communicate different things to different people - perhaps
because of their background. I would never describe a licensed radio
amateur as a "ham" unless his/her behavior justified that tag.

Obviously, each reader has a different background and thus their reaction to
the use of "ham" is expected to be different. Let us not reject outright
the interpretation of others just because their interpretation is different.

73, Mac N8TT
--
J. McLaughlin; Michigan, USA
Home:

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Group:

Words often communicate different things to different people - perhaps
because of their background. I would never describe a licensed radio
amateur as a "ham" unless his/her behavior justified that tag.

I have commercial licenses, have quite a bit of education, experience
and make my living in various aspects of radio, should I be offended
when referred to as an 'amateur'?

Obviously, each reader has a different background and thus their reaction to
the use of "ham" is expected to be different.

Context is a clue but comprehension is the responsibility of the reader.
If offense is taken but not intended whose problem should that be?

Let us not reject outright
the interpretation of others just because their interpretation is different.

That goes for the writer as well as the reader.

My advice: Start with context and comprehension, because there are more
worthy things to get upset about.

Of all the groups I interact with the radio crowd is the last I'd ever
thought would get all Politically Correct.

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Dear Group:

Words often communicate different things to different people - perhaps
because of their background. I would never describe a licensed radio
amateur as a "ham" unless his/her behavior justified that tag.

Obviously, each reader has a different background and thus their reaction to
the use of "ham" is expected to be different. Let us not reject outright
the interpretation of others just because their interpretation is different.

People get way too wrapped around the axle in in what they want
themselves called.

You see it all the time, as in say with developmentally challenged
people. For a while, we were supposed to call tehm "special" before that
it was "slow learner", at one point it was "retarded".

There is even a list of names that correlate to different IQ levels and
abilities, such as moron, imbecile, and other similar things.

But at the moment, it's developmentally challenged.

And those who would deride such folks will pick up the new term, and
eventually it will become bad to call people developmentally challenged.

Now as for the Amateur in Amateur radio, there is the idea of Amateur as
"devotee" or "admirer" and then there are others.

It's interesting that some folks would choose a descriptive term that
includes the synonyms:

Dilletante
Dabbler
Tyro

I especially like the Dabbler, that suggests desultory habits of work
and lack of persistence

or Tyro that implies inexperience often combined with audacity with
resulting crudeness or blundering.

All synonyms for Amateur. All right there in Merriam Webster's

But I don't give a good rat's patoot. Call me a Ham, call me an Amateur
radio operator. I'm comfortable with what I do, and don't need a name to
define it.

Others might be a tad more sensitive.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

Let us not reject outright
the interpretation of others just because their interpretation is different.

Fine. My interpretation of Amateur is a person who cannot do things in a
professional manner, a person who is interested in something, but for
lack of intelligence, skill, persistence, or talent, will never become
proficient in what they are interested in.

Therefore, everyone has to accept my definition of Amateur radio
operators as unskilled incompetents, eh? Especially since that very
thing can be found in the dictionary, not an interpretation, but as
synonymous with the word.

Now that would be sad, wouldn't it?

Names - Bah Humbug!


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:

Let us not reject outright
the interpretation of others just because their interpretation is
different.

Fine. My interpretation of Amateur is a person who cannot do things in a
professional manner, a person who is interested in something, but for
lack of intelligence, skill, persistence, or talent, will never become
proficient in what they are interested in.

Therefore, everyone has to accept my definition of Amateur radio
operators as unskilled incompetents, eh? Especially since that very
thing can be found in the dictionary, not an interpretation, but as
synonymous with the word.

Now that would be sad, wouldn't it?

Names - Bah Humbug!


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

This is especially apropos during the winter Olympics, where amateur
athletes are competing. They look proficient to me. But then, I'm just
an amateur myself. A ham, even.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Michael Coslo wrote:


Fine. My interpretation of Amateur is a person who cannot do
things in a professional manner, a person who is interested in
something, but for lack of intelligence, skill, persistence, or
talent, will never become proficient in what they are interested
in.

You are entitled to your extremely judgemental interpretation but it
is not necessarily correct!

An amateur is a person who is not a professional, a professional is
someone who is paid for their skill(s). Nowhere does it say that
either is competent or incompetent. Many amateurs are vastly more
skilled than professionals operating in the same area.

Only this week NASA were impressed and enquiring of a UK hobbyist
how he obtained such incredible pictures of the earth from 21 miles
up when it cost them millions of dollars to to the what he had done
for about $750.

(He'd put a common digital camera with some electronics and a simple
radio beacon as the payload to a helium balloon which burst at 21
miles up and which then came down by parachute and he was able to
locate it by radio DF. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/8587749.stm . Now
that is an amateur - hardly fits your idea of amateur does it :-)


Charlie.


--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Sales @ radiowymsey
http://shop.ebay.co.uk/gnome7763/m.html?

M0WYM wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:


Fine. My interpretation of Amateur is a person who cannot do
things in a professional manner, a person who is interested in
something, but for lack of intelligence, skill, persistence, or
talent, will never become proficient in what they are interested
in.

You are entitled to your extremely judgemental interpretation but it is
not necessarily correct!

An amateur is a person who is not a professional, a professional is
someone who is paid for their skill(s). Nowhere does it say that
either is competent or incompetent. Many amateurs are vastly more
skilled than professionals operating in the same area.

Incapable of recognizing sarcasm, or just looking for an argument?

I was replying to our good D. Stussy, who indeed has a problem with the
word amateur, and seems to have issues with the obese.

I am an amateur radio operator in the classic definition, that of one
who loves the activity, not in the much more recent corruption of the
word - that of non-professional or shoddy.

Most very strange in a world where I can perform most activities much
better than th eso called professionals.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -