|
"JEP" wrote in message om... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"JEP" wrote in message om... Check the figures yourself then check how many are really active. And just "how" do you propose anyone can "check how many are really active?" Yes you can but NRA and AARP rags on the stand. AAA no. I quoted no data, I made an observation. Your observation was absent any clarification that it was only YOUR observation, unsubstantiated by any true facts. Get you head out the sand and look around. See all of your old buddies just hanging around the club meeting doing nothing? is field day as well attended as it was in the 60's? Are new folks welcomed? Is help provided? If so then consider yourself lucky. One aspect of almost all hobbies" is the cost to play which often results in an older cross-section of participants. The same is true for antique cars, model railroading, etc. Add to that the available "free time" which most older folks, especially retirees, have. "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message om... Just my point. I don't want to belong to ARRL just as I don't care to belong to AARP, NRA, AAA, Skinheads, etc. Can you "just buy" the magazines of AARP, NRA, AAA, etc. without joining? I am always amazed at people that want the "benefits" of an organization's efforts, in this case the publication, but don't want to support the organization by joining. I see the same thing at times in the antique car hobby. People that bitch about the club rules at a car show, or otherwise want technical help from club officials but won't part with the few bucks it takes to join. I just want to read their magazine when it has something that interests me. I wouldn't buy it every month as most of the time it has useless drivel about some clowntest or whether someone died or some such crap. ARRL and QST have a short time left as the active Ham population lessens. Is it lessening? News to me. If they took a real survey as to how many real active ham there are they would find the number far less than they think. I'm not talking about members, I'm talking about HAMS that really use a radio to transmit a signal. Doesnt matter what band. How many transmit a signal at least once a week? Most don't. Please provide your survey data. Look at your local HAM clubs, talk to the members(if you can wake them up). Most show up and act disgusted with the club, Ham radio, life in general. New folks are never there. Ya I know about your Skywarn in Flint, MI. Great service! Could be run on CB, NEXTEL, GMRS. Could be but isn't...there in lies the difference. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... "JEP" wrote in message om... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion. What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician "+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked. 73 es HNY de Bert WA2SI |
SNIP again.
Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite frequency. I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from 160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle), and a QRP station I use for backpack/travel use.) How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods (weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and well-prepared are you? Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here. Carl - wk3c The bites don't seem to drying up at all. I found a few nibbles yet. The Extras on the no code board have to 5wpm Extras. Couldn't be real Extras that had at least one exam in front of a FCC examiner. Passed at least one test at a real FCC examination site. Actually learned radio theory. The radios I own are not your concern. I will say I own enough to operate all bands and modes. Can stay active as long as some kind of power is still available.Also have had a Ham ticket long enough to know exactly what the ARRL has really done with the incentive crap from the 60's. Remember, it was Maxim not the ARRL thst got the frequencies back after WW 1. Maxim was a mover and shaker, unlike the deadheads in there now---The Good Ole Boy Club! You guys keep nibbling because you are afraid to admit you are wrong. |
I misplaced my can of 'Thread Be Gone', does someone know where I can get a
replacement? JEP wrote: SNIP again. Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite frequency. I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from 160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle), and a QRP station I use for backpack/travel use.) How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods (weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and well-prepared are you? Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here. Carl - wk3c The bites don't seem to drying up at all. I found a few nibbles yet. The Extras on the no code board have to 5wpm Extras. Couldn't be real Extras that had at least one exam in front of a FCC examiner. Passed at least one test at a real FCC examination site. Actually learned radio theory. The radios I own are not your concern. I will say I own enough to operate all bands and modes. Can stay active as long as some kind of power is still available.Also have had a Ham ticket long enough to know exactly what the ARRL has really done with the incentive crap from the 60's. Remember, it was Maxim not the ARRL thst got the frequencies back after WW 1. Maxim was a mover and shaker, unlike the deadheads in there now---The Good Ole Boy Club! You guys keep nibbling because you are afraid to admit you are wrong. |
N8KDV wrote:
I need to find a can of 'Thread Be Gone'... What reader are you using? You can make this disappear in an instant! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... "JEP" wrote in message om... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion. What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician "+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked. Fair enough. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion. What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician "+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked. 73 es HNY de Bert WA2SI Yep, the dumbing down of America. The masses can't pass the test so we will make the test easier. Notice how they skirt the issue of having passed any test in front of a FCC examiner. The VEC program is another farce. Why not put the little piece of paper in a corn flakes box. At least you would have breakfast. |
Just like you should! I'm amazed by the number of hams that seem to thing that the ARRL has to agree with all their personal opinions. I wonder how many of those type are married! 8^) I wouldn't say they should have to agree 100% but logic would dictate that at least about 1/2 of all or so should be in agreement. I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL. Prove it. Prove it without circumstantial or coincidental evidence. Ryan KC8PMX -- "The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson. If he hears any more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he'll have no choice but to make him a priest." |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message e.com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned vehicles. Who knows more? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Your observation
was absent any clarification that it was only YOUR observation, unsubstantiated by any true facts. Get you head out the sand and look around. See all of your old buddies just hanging around the club meeting doing nothing? is field day as well attended as it was in the 60's? Are new folks welcomed? Is help provided? If so then consider yourself lucky. One aspect of almost all hobbies" is the cost to play which often results in an older cross-section of participants. The same is true for antique cars, model railroading, etc. Add to that the available "free time" which most older folks, especially retirees, have. My observation is as substantiated as yours. You can't prove anything. Regarding cost to play, Ham radio only costs what you want it to cost. I have put together a station for under $100 US. Not new and certainly not the station I really wanted but it did work and I did QSO many other stations. Cost is not a factor. Free time is what you want of it. At 20 I had time if I wanted to take it and at 50 I can still find time for the important things or what is important at this time. Regarding costs, ther lays part of the problem. In the 60's I always wanted that Drake '4' line. Couldn't afford it. Settled on a used equipment and homebrewed many accy's. Todays out of the box operator couldn't solder a connection if their life depended on it. Can't trouble shoot a broken receiver or transmitter. Can't draw a circiut for a simple crystal controlled transmitter, can't figure the length of a half wave dipole, can't scrounge parts, etc..... |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion. What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for Technician "+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked. Fair enough. Indeed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups
end up being worthless tripe. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message thlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message e.com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned vehicles. Who knows more? Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is no reason for states to test on manual gearbox autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing intervention needed from the state. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
Just like you should! I'm amazed by the number of hams that seem to thing that the ARRL has to agree with all their personal opinions. I wonder how many of those type are married! 8^) I wouldn't say they should have to agree 100% but logic would dictate that at least about 1/2 of all or so should be in agreement. I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL. Prove it. Prove it without circumstantial or coincidental evidence. Well, the first thing would be getting back on the air after WW1. Some might disagree on the particulars, but ARRL had a big part in it. I read that in "200 Meters and Down". But remember I said I wonder. Wasn't really claiming anything. 8^) Ryan KC8PMX -- "The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson. If he hears any more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he'll have no choice but to make him a priest." I love the quotes, Ryan!!! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message arthlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message gle.com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned vehicles. Who knows more? Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is no reason for states to test on manual gearbox autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing intervention needed from the state. My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up. Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. one of two answers: 1. It's a goofed up rule 2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code. Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all, and there are plenty of goofed up rules. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up. Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - In Michigan, you will fail your driving exam if you can't parallel park and do a 3 point turn. They are mandatory test elements. You can fail one but not both. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? Oh, I don't know, Bill…let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater…right through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna…that ought to be good enough, right? After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to remove said offensive task…would certainly be concerned and cognizant of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass that 35 multiple-guess…er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him "ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not CW. ;-) The analogy is a joke. Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.) HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the above scenario may be playing out as you read these words…and that's no joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them…"slackers.") BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. Cheers, Bill K2UNK 73 de Bert WA2SI |
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - Put a friggin asterisk next to their call, like Jim said. * = code lover. Voluntarily added, for the CW fans. No biggie. -whatever- |
Steveo wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: Be an example of what you think a ham ought to be. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Should a ham be like N8WWM!? http://tinyurl.com/q3xp No comment, Dee D? I'm in Ohio too. ;) (replying from rec.radio.cb, where n8wwm hangs out) |
Steveo wrote in message ...
Because most topics that are cross posted to this many groups end up being worthless tripe. Look here is Steveo trolling ham groups again why am I not surprised. |
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message arthlink.net... "JEP" wrote in message gle.com... SNIP YES! No code is killing ham radio. See you on channel 22 good buddy. And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim that: "No Code is killing ham radio?" Odds are you haven't a single rational example. Cheers, Bill K2UNK May I, Bill? While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it is fostering a bad mindset. If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However, there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add. IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned vehicles. Who knows more? Does it make any difference at all. The point is that there is no reason for states to test on manual gearbox autos because 95% of new vehicles are automatic. Those that want to will learn to drive a manual without any licensing intervention needed from the state. My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up. Apparently the state DOES see a continuing need for PP or TPT... but does NOT see any public purpose, safety issue, or licensing ommision by not testing for manual gearboxes. Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^) The point is that there is ZERO harm if a new ham never passes a code test and then decides to get on the air and jump into a code QSO to learn while doing. The state apparently thinks the same is true for manual gearbox driving and many other aspects of driving which aren't tested at all. I can and do drive an extended cab PU-truck pulling a 5000 lb trailer, combined length about 40 feet. To the best of my knowledge, no state tests anyone for that combination of skills. All that is needed is a regular driver's license. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message v.net... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? The anology is a joke. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Had there been any relavent safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. This is your analogy, Bill, not ours. I don't think the analogy fits, I think people should be required to test on standard, or at least not be allowed to drive a standard unless tested for it. Which standard, should there be separate licenses for 3 speed column, 4 speed, 5 speed, 6 speed, which shift pattern? Apparently there is insufficient state concern to worry about passing a license test with automatic and then getting behind the wheel of a manual gearbox vehicle. It's been that way for decades now with no ill results. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added priviliges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. Use does not justify the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table rate. one of two answers: 1. It's a goofed up rule 2. It's a good way to get Tech's to practice Morse code. Why wouldn't it be a good way to get anone on HF to practice also if there's no code test at all? That's the point, there is no rational justification for a CW mode skill test. The FCC has addressed and dismissed every known pro-code argument...as has the ITU also since Code is gone now as a mandatory treaty requirment. Either is probably irrelevant because most tech's that aren't planning on upgrading probably aren't all that interested in Morse code at all, and there are plenty of goofed up rules. ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote:
ITU treaty is goofed up too? Cheers, Bill K2UNK What about that BPL thing, I know their using it in Manasass, anyone hear how good or bad it is to HF comms? Updates? |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message m... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message om... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has: 1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar." Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos. Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the "privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess" correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS. Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop, mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all? The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as an international treaty element. The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry into, the ARS. So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW? Oh, I don't know, Bill.let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater.right through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna.that ought to be good enough, right? And none of this would have happened if only he had known code? Give me a break. Answer the question asked...The question is, for those that need clarity: IF someone became a General or Extra with NO code skills, and then decided to learn code on-the-air, what's the harm, danger, etc? After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to remove said offensive task.would certainly be concerned and cognizant of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass that 35 multiple-guess.er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him "ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not CW. ;-) The analogy is a joke. Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.) HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the above scenario may be playing out as you read these words.and that's no joke. The potential for harm, physical or otherwise is NOT tied to anyone's knowledge of code. THAT is the point. There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing. Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call them."slackers.") The "effort" has nothing to do with code testing. The goal of ending code testing is based solely on the lack of any continued need for code skills to be mandated for any HF access. There was, in the past, a rational reason or set of reasons for code knowledge. Those days are gone. It is that simple. BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred Watts mentioned above. Again, this dialog isn't about the validity or not of current writtens. My point(s) here are focused only on code testing. PERIOD! Had there been any relevant safety aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it. You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!" Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the only FCC we have. Indeed, had the FCC seriously errored in their past decion(s) regarding need or non-need for code skills testing, then I'm amazed you and others haven't filed court action to stop the FCC. 2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements we *want* to meet.) I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained. Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?! So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW on the only two all-CW only bands. That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a safe environment before venturing onto the highway. If new ham goes OnTheAir to learn code, does that trouble you? What part of amateur spectrum is considered highway vs non-highway? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Steveo ) wrote:
Hey Dee D. you see how he operates he is a troll and not only that he is an illegal freebander and HF bootlegger. Ask him about his Collins S-Line he operates without a license and why it is set up to transmit all over the spectrum he will go quiet real fast. Wrong again, do you need it beat in to you with a clue by four? You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent he has a real problem with anger first thing you know he is threatening to beat someone LOL. But the part about his bootleg Collins HF station is true he brags about it many times on rec.radio.cb ask him you know you hear about these pirating radio spectrum outlaws in the FCC reports but I bet you never met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. |
|
Steveo ) wrote:
Wrong again, do you need it beat in to you with a clue by four? You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent? A clue by four is violent? Leave Dee alone already, leghumper. Look at the thread you busted in on her so you started it dickwad. |
|
Steveo ) wrote:
You see Dee D. how Steveo gets violent? A clue by four is violent? Leave Dee alone already, leghumper. Look at the thread you busted in on her so you started it dickwad. No, I've replied to Dee before, without your moderation. What made you decide to chime in with your worthless tripe this time? Because your a TROLLLLLL Steveo and Dee D. needs to know it she was clearly puzzled by you throwing N8WWMs name into the mix for no good reason other than to cause trouble and lets face it you need to be moderated, asslick. |
|
No No Not George wrote:
met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky. http://www.steve-park.com/ Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good! -- ___________________________ Truckers get the best $20 whores |
In article et,
"Bill Sohl" wrote: snip Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the newsgroup header this off topic for the group. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Steveo wrote:
wrote: No No Not George wrote: met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky. http://www.steve-park.com/ Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good! No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where I live. No problems here. Take off an 's', and your driver sucks. But hey, I'm just sayin. -- ___________________________ Truckers get the best $20 whores |
wrote:
No No Not George wrote: met one well here he is his name is Steve Parks. Youv'e been bamboozled, Sparky. http://www.steve-park.com/ Bamboozled by a NA$CAR fan. That can't be good! No, he's right. Mine has an s at the end. I gave my name up freely to these jackass's a long time ago, along with where I live. No problems here. |
Telamon wrote:
In article et, "Bill Sohl" wrote: snip Please delete rec.radio.shortwave from the newsgroup header this off topic for the group. Please delete rec.radio.cb too, thank you. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com