A couple recent comments:
1) 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.

2) 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.
--------

pro - does it for money. Implies that there is some
(financial,reputation) responsibility for results

amateur - does it for no money (e.g. for the love of the activity, see
the Latin root of the word).

Proficiency, competency, or skill doesn't really enter into it.
Although, an unskilled professional had better be a good salesperson,
because otherwise, nobody is going to be willing to compensate them.

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

It's also true that a pro that has been in business (successfully) for a
number of years is likely to be competent. (or they'd starve).

An amateur can get away with being incompetent for years without ill effect.

In some fields (Engineering, in the United States), there are some legal
aspects to being "pro" aside from being compensated. To call oneself a
Professional Engineer, one must have a certain amount of experience (6
years, typically) at engineering, have passed a couple of fairly
rigorous tests, etc. so that you have a license. One could acquire the
experience while unpaid, and certainly one doesn't get paid for the
test, so one could be an amateur Professional Engineer.

On Mar 29, 10:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:

Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?
3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.

On Mar 30, 2:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.

when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

Can there even be such a thing as an amateur soldier?

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:25:13 -0700 (PDT), brent
wrote:

On Mar 30, 2:08*pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Mar 29, 10:08 pm, Jim Lux wrote:
Lord Rayleigh was an amateur: nobody was paying him to do his work.

Are you talking about the Professor of Physics at Cambridge?

3rd Baron John Strutt

During the time he managed his late father's barony from 1873 to 1879,
he did some research. The Theory of Sound was published in 1878.

Then, after he left the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge in 1884, he continued
his research at home.

For all I know, Cambridge didn't pay him either.. he was definitely a
"man of means" and sort of typifies the "gentleman amateur"

Antoine Lavoisier or Joeseph Fourier would be other examples. Both had
"jobs" that paid well and didn't require a lot of their time, so they
could spend their spare time and cash on science/engineering.


Thanks for that information Jim.

when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the persons
work. If they no longer enjoy it, and many never did from the start,
they chose the wrong field. Generally when a person becomes bored
with their work, or dissatisfied the quality of their work suffers.
With nearly 35 years of working I saw a lot of that.

If you are a professional who is bored out of their mind, quitting and
going back to college to pursue a different field certainly is an
option.

That is what I did after working over 26 years.
I originally enjoyed the work and had fun on the job. Did that make me
an amateur professional? I chose the line of work because I loved
doing it. OTOH there were those who figured I must not be doing my
work because I appeared to be having "too much fun". After changing
professions and jobs I ended up working for and with people who were
not so narrow minded and understood. When I retired it was as a
project manager with good people working for me and good bosses above
me.

I still loved the work, but I had reached the point where I was seeing
too many people working until they dropped at work, or retiring and
dropping within a month or two. OTOH I saw more than a few who didn't
know any thing other than work. I decided I wanted to go play.

I also love retirement (does that make me an amateur retiree?) , but
it could pay better.

Can there even be such a thing as an amateur soldier?

Sure...they don't last too long though.


73

Roger (K8RI)

Roger wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:25:13 -0700 (PDT), brent
wrote:


when amateurs get bored out of their mind of the activity in question
they can take a break from it. Professionals cannot. They must
soldier on until they get interested in their livelihood again.

I believe that the "quitting (or resting) is not an option" is what
makes professionals so much better than amateurs in almost all cases.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the persons
work. If they no longer enjoy it, and many never did from the start,
they chose the wrong field. Generally when a person becomes bored
with their work, or dissatisfied the quality of their work suffers.
With nearly 35 years of working I saw a lot of that.

I agree with Roger here. However, there is, for lack of a better word, a
forced rigor or discipline that comes from having to make a living at
something. A professional who is "making a living at it" has to meet
some minimum standard, or they'll be forced to choose another activity
in order to keep body and soul together.

An amateur is under no such restriction. So the "spread" in
ability/quality/whatever metric is greater on the bottom tail of the
distribution for amateurs.

One sees this very markedly in professions such as acting or modeling.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!
John Ferrell W8CCW

On 3/30/2010 3:03 PM, Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
John writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun. Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

73, Eddi ._._.

Hello, all, and I think a wee bit of clarification is needed he

Profession (n): One who engages in a pursuit or activity professionally.

Profession (adj, sense 1c): Characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a profession.

(Both definitions taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Now, in light of the above couldn't an amateur (not a dilettante, mind
you) radio person practice his/her craft "professionally?" Sincerely,
and 73s from N4GGO,

On 3/31/2010 7:09 AM, J.B. Wood wrote:
On 3/30/2010 3:03 PM, Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
John
writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun. Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

73, Eddi ._._.

Hello, all, and I think a wee bit of clarification is needed he

Profession (n): One who engages in a pursuit or activity professionally.

Profession (adj, sense 1c): Characterized by or conforming to the
technical or ethical standards of a profession.

(Both definitions taken from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

Now, in light of the above couldn't an amateur (not a dilettante, mind
you) radio person practice his/her craft "professionally?" Sincerely,
and 73s from N4GGO,

Hello, all, and back to the rear of the class for grammar/spelling. The
two above terms should have read "professional" vice "profession".
Sincerely,

Edmund H. Ramm wrote:
In John Ferrell writes:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:08:49 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

A couple recent comments:
1) An amateur is a person who is
An amateur is one who does it for fun!

I do it for satisfaction and sense of accomplishment, certainly not
for fun.

Isn't deriving satisfaction and sense of accomplishment part of fun? It
is for me, anyway. I suppose one can do it and get paid, being
professional, and still have fun. So maybe I should clarify and say
"who does it for *only* fun".




Further the status of amateur doesn't imply the right of doing
it less consciencious than a professional.

I don't know about that. Aside from regulatory requirements, as an
amateur one can do it however well or poorly one wishes, according to
one's own standards.

As a professional, the implication is that if you don't do a good job,
you won't get paid. Mind you, more than one person has paid another to
do a job and had a poor result. So, in the individual instances,
professional is no guarantee of quality. However, in the long run, an
incompetent professional will starve. And, if it's an activity for
which professional licensing is required (Engineer, Doctor, Lawyer,
Accountant, etc.), there's more requirements.



73, Eddi ._._.