I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

I'm afraid we can expect more and more of this as time goes on.


SC

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

Radio Buff wrote:

I'm afraid we can expect more and more of this as time goes on.


SC

GOAT

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Radio Buff wrote:

I'm afraid we can expect more and more of this as time goes on.


SC

GOAT


It's actually a good thing when folks come over from "the Dark Side". When
new to Hamdom it's almost certain they'll slip up and occasionally use their
old "jargon". When they correct themselves it's also a good thing, since it
means they are aware of their faux pas and are working at improving their
operating procedure and language.

Harold
KD5SAK

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

kd5sak wrote:
"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Radio Buff wrote:

I'm afraid we can expect more and more of this as time goes on.


SC
GOAT


It's actually a good thing when folks come over from "the Dark Side". When
new to Hamdom it's almost certain they'll slip up and occasionally use their
old "jargon". When they correct themselves it's also a good thing, since it
means they are aware of their faux pas and are working at improving their
operating procedure and language.

newsgroups trimmed...

I don't care how people talk, as long as it is in civil fashion. (with
one exception)

But it strikes me odd that people who would *speak* such terms as
"73's", "QSL", and others, not to mention my all time favorite, "HI
HI", do not have much of an argument when they complain about a person
referring to S-units as "pounds".......


For cryin out loud, if its funny , LAUGH, don't say HI HI!


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA - ;^)

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

I read the title and thought "awesome!"

I agree with KD5SAK. This guy is trying to fit in. This is how ham
radio works for most new licensees, and it doesn't matter if there's a
CW test or not, if the exams are multiple choice or not. They want to
pick up the mannerisms and operating practices of HAMS just as, when
they were on CB, they used the mannerisms and operating practices of
CB'ers.

Get on the air and operate and be a good example for the newly
licensed. If they give you a signal report of "nine pounds" give them
a "5 by 9"

Eventually the CB jargon will get replaced by ham jargon. Eventually
the CB behavior will get replaced by ham behavior. Like building and
analyzing antennas! And talking about them on the antenna newsgroups!
And not going off topic! And being at fault for off topic posting even
though I knew I should resist but it's such a tempting topic, and...

73 (no 'S!)
Dan
N3OX

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
kd5sak wrote:
"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Radio Buff wrote:

For cryin out loud, if its funny , LAUGH, don't say HI HI!


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA - ;^)


Newbie that I am(Tech, early 2003 and General, mid 2005) , I agree. And as
far as Hi Hi goes, I always figured the early first users of the term
probably meant for it to be read Hee Hee rather than High High. Again, as a
newbie, I profess no great insight, I just express an opinon. I don't use
either the 73 or the Hi Hi in QSOs or EMails, it strikes me as an
affectation, but that may just be my newbie insecurity speaking.(g)

Harold
KD5SAK

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

kd5sak wrote:

SNIPPED

Newbie that I am(Tech, early 2003 and General, mid 2005) , I agree. And as
far as Hi Hi goes, I always figured the early first users of the term
probably meant for it to be read Hee Hee rather than High High. Again, as a
newbie, I profess no great insight, I just express an opinon. I don't use
either the 73 or the Hi Hi in QSOs or EMails, it strikes me as an
affectation, but that may just be my newbie insecurity speaking.(g)

Harold
KD5SAK



HI HI .... .. .... .. is, please forgive the reference to a hot topic,
laughter when operating MORSE CODE [there I said it!!].

73, ---.. ...--, is BEST REGARDS in the same ridiculed transmission.
mode.

If we are going to drop the talent for MORSE CODE we should be 100%
logical and stop using acronyms that have meaning that are rooted in
MORSE CODE such as:

QRL, QSO, CQ, QRM, QRN, QSB, QSY, QLF, QRS, 73, 88, HI, GD, GE, GM, TNX,
DX, etc.

We should delete reference to RST on our confirmation cards [NOT QSL
card]. We should delete GS and use DOLLARS.

Would someone start a petition to the ARRL that advocates that we should
clean up our act?

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Tue, 09 May 2006 09:20:33 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

do not have much of an argument when they complain about a person
referring to S-units as "pounds".......


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Couldn't agree more. Everybody knows S-units are metric. :-)

Bill, W6WRT

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

Dave wrote:
kd5sak wrote:

SNIPPED


Newbie that I am(Tech, early 2003 and General, mid 2005) , I agree.
And as far as Hi Hi goes, I always figured the early first users of
the term probably meant for it to be read Hee Hee rather than High
High. Again, as a newbie, I profess no great insight, I just express
an opinon. I don't use either the 73 or the Hi Hi in QSOs or EMails,
it strikes me as an affectation, but that may just be my newbie
insecurity speaking.(g)

Harold
KD5SAK


HI HI .... .. .... .. is, please forgive the reference to a hot topic,
laughter when operating MORSE CODE [there I said it!!].

73, ---.. ...--, is BEST REGARDS in the same ridiculed transmission.
mode.

If we are going to drop the talent for MORSE CODE we should be 100%
logical and stop using acronyms that have meaning that are rooted in
MORSE CODE such as:

QRL, QSO, CQ, QRM, QRN, QSB, QSY, QLF, QRS, 73, 88, HI, GD, GE, GM, TNX,
DX, etc.

We should delete reference to RST on our confirmation cards [NOT QSL
card]. We should delete GS and use DOLLARS.

Would someone start a petition to the ARRL that advocates that we should
clean up our act?


I suppose there are many "affectations" like OM, or Old Man and FB, or
Fine Business. Just to add to the list.

All appear to be derived from CW operations.

I think they're great.

Nothing, especially jargon, is unchanging. I suspect some CB jargon
could bleed over. I must say that "nine pounds" won't be used by me,
however.

John
AB8WH

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

"kd5sak" wrote in
om:


"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Radio Buff wrote:

I'm afraid we can expect more and more of this as time goes on.


SC

GOAT


It's actually a good thing when folks come over from "the Dark Side".
When new to Hamdom it's almost certain they'll slip up and occasionally
use their old "jargon". When they correct themselves it's also a good
thing, since it means they are aware of their faux pas and are working
at improving their operating procedure and language.

Harold
KD5SAK


I chalked it up to a new op happy about working a new state. I remember
having the same feelings he had when I was first licensed. I worked all
states on CW before I ever made a voice contact because Novices weren't
allowed phone priviledges when I got licensed. It was a blast and helped
my code speed so I could upgrade to general with little effort.

My problem, a lot of new ops aren't leaving old CB operating practices
behind. That is what will destroy ham radio, The CB like behavior.

It must be human nature, when you get something for nothing, you don't
appreciate it as much, or try to take care of it the same as something you
had to work for. That's why dumbing down ham tests is bad. Having a
license doesn't mean anything.

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

"jawod" wrote in message ...
Dave wrote:
kd5sak wrote:

Nothing, especially jargon, is unchanging. I suspect some CB jargon could
bleed over. I must say that "nine pounds" won't be used by me, however.

John
AB8WH

Yes, again I agree. I never used such terms when I was a CBer, all those
years ago. I also didn't attempt the "L'il Abner" language distortions that
became prevalent on that "band". Even in those days communication was the
goal for me and my main hobby efforts involved antenna building. Even today,
though Ham transceiver technology has far outstripped any possible homebrew
efforts I might wish to try, I can still fiddle about with antennas and do.
Aside from mobile antennas, the only "storebought" antenna I have is a
Hustler 5BTV vertical. They're very popular among my local Ham club members,
probably because we have such good local soil condutivity and they serve
well ground mounted without radials.

Harold
KD5SAK

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

Radio Buff wrote:
It must be human nature, when you get something for nothing, you don't
appreciate it as much, or try to take care of it the same as something you
had to work for. That's why dumbing down ham tests is bad. Having a
license doesn't mean anything.

If we made getting a driver's license more difficult, would
people appreciate it more?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Radio Buff wrote:
It must be human nature, when you get something for nothing, you don't
appreciate it as much, or try to take care of it the same as something you
had to work for. That's why dumbing down ham tests is bad. Having a
license doesn't mean anything.

If we made getting a driver's license more difficult, would
people appreciate it more?
no we would have more unlicensed drivers (and uninsured ones)

Indeed I think the current promotes more of an "I earned so I can do
whatever i want attiutde" than any increased respect for the rules
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

Radio Buff wrote:
I'm afraid we can expect more and more of this as time goes on.


SC

"I got me???"

And you complain about other Ops?

Indeed.

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

Tom Ring wrote:
wrote:


Let's get a grip on reality here folks.
you got that right

few of these poster are even within dx contact of reality

tom
K0TAR

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On Tue, 09 May 2006 09:20:33 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

do not have much of an argument when they complain about a person
referring to S-units as "pounds".......


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Couldn't agree more. Everybody knows S-units are metric. :-)


Snort!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA - ;^)

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

Tom Ring wrote:
wrote:

Radio Buff wrote:

I'm afraid we can expect more and more of this as time goes on.


SC


"I got me???"

And you complain about other Ops?

Indeed.


Oh come now, it doesn't count, because he was already a ham! The other
guy was just a CBer that managed to pass a test!

--------------------------

Let's get a grip on reality here folks.

tom
K0TAR

Good point. My mistake.

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

Cecil Moore wrote in
. com:

Radio Buff wrote:
It must be human nature, when you get something for nothing, you don't
appreciate it as much, or try to take care of it the same as something
you had to work for. That's why dumbing down ham tests is bad. Having
a license doesn't mean anything.

If we made getting a driver's license more difficult, would
people appreciate it more?


Easier EE exams will produce better engineers?

SC

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but then the Op corrected himself.
 

Radio Buff wrote in
.net:

Cecil Moore wrote in
. com:

Radio Buff wrote:
It must be human nature, when you get something for nothing, you don't
appreciate it as much, or try to take care of it the same as something
you had to work for. That's why dumbing down ham tests is bad. Having
a license doesn't mean anything.

If we made getting a driver's license more difficult, would
people appreciate it more?


Easier EE exams will produce better engineers?

SC


Hee Hee Heeeeeee, I knew Cecil wouldn't answer.

sc

I got me a signal report of nine pounds on 20 meters, but thenthe Op corrected himself.
 

Slow Code wrote:
Radio Buff wrote

Cecil Moore wrote:
If we made getting a driver's license more difficult, would
people appreciate it more?

Easier EE exams will produce better engineers?

Hee Hee Heeeeeee, I knew Cecil wouldn't answer.

I didn't answer because he: 1. chose to change the subject and
2. refused to answer my question. So he didn't deserve an answer.

I wouldn't appreciate my EE degree any more if it had been harder
to obtain. I just might not have obtained it. But that is an
irrelevant diversion thus no answer from me.

If the goal is "better" amateur radio operators, let's make
obtaining a license so difficult that only two people can
obtain it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp