On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 21:10:21 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:58:37 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"mdd" wrote in message
...
Just so everyone knows, They both support the removal of the code
requirement, but SOMEONE has to play devils advocate.



If you're refering to me supporting the removal of the code element,
then
you are mistaken. I have NEVER supported the removal of the code element
in
the amateur testing, except for VHF/UHF ONLY license.

Dan/W4NTI


What would be so different where you would support it for VHF/UHF???


Because it is a un-necessary as a entry level license with RESTRICTIONS to
VHF/UHF only. In otherwords NO HF AT ALL. Which is exactly what the
ORIGINAL TECHNICIAL license offered. No ten meter stuff, which came later.

What? I dont understand jibberish!

Why the difference between HF and VHF ? Because HF requires more operator
ability to properly operate in the crowded invironment there. And to
fullfill why ham radio even exists. To help provide a trained group of
radio operators and electronic personnel in the event of national emergency.

The only reason its crowded like you state is because your VFO is
stuck in one spot. Have you ever turned the thing to see what else was
going on in the world around you? Amateur radio is a hobby, Not a
national emergency group of people.

If one is able to do CW. He is a more capable operator. And CW on HF does
indeed work best for simple and cheap long haul commo.

Dan/W4NTI

It doesnt make you a more capable operator, it just make you capable
of doing another mode. Big Deal!

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:46:44 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

Why the difference between HF and VHF ?
Because HF requires more operator ability
to properly operate in the crowded
invironment there. (snip)


Nonsense. If HF really "requires" more operator ability, why are those
without that ability (those newly licensed to classes with those privileges)
routinely allowed on those frequencies? Like everything else in Ham radio,
any unique skills for actual HF operation is learned after the license exams
through practice. If the rules allowed, absolutely anybody, regardless of
license class, could do the same.


(snip) And to fullfill why ham radio even exists.
To help provide a trained group of radio
operators and electronic personnel in the event
of national emergency. (snip)


Rewriting why Amateur Radio exists, Dan? I saw nothing about preparing for
a "national emergency" in the rules. Regardless, exactly how are you, with
your license class, better prepared for a "national emergency" than I am
with my license class? The only significant difference between the two
license classes is code and the frequencies we operate on (and my radio
equipment is capable of covering those frequencies).


If one is able to do CW. He is a more capable
operator. (snip)


In your own mind. If that were actually true, it would remain true
throughout radio. Are you a "more capable" operator then military radio
personnel who have no CW requirement? Are you a "more capable" operator than
commercial radio operators who also have no CW requirement? Of course not.
Beyond CW, there is nothing inherent about CW that would make one more
capable.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Bruce might learn something from Dwight if he would open his mind up
and listen. I like your site Dwight. It shows what Amateur Radio is
about and what Bruce isn't capable of.

kf6foz

Well, I don't know this Bruce but he sounds like an old "General Class"
that I would probably not only like but would consider a knowledgeable ham.

The rest of you sound like no-coders (formally CBer's) who "Know" what is
best these days for ham radio. Just listen to these questions on this node
from all these Geniuses! They don't know where to put their "autotuners" in
the line, They don't know where to "BUY" a windom (LMAO), they can't figure
out how to tune the plate and grid on their rig, and it goes on and on.

Now there is nothing wrong with these questions but there is something very
wrong with giving these folks HF privileges!!!!!! Now everyone has to go
through this phase, but not with a general or advanced or extra class
ticket!!!!! That is what the Novice band is for. For you to learn my
friend.

I am an extra class boys and I definitely had to accomplish 20wpm code to
get that ticket. As I recall, the exam I took was not something a 7 year
old girl could have passed either

Now you boys need to come around folks like Bruce with you hat in your hand,
not with that "screw you old man" attitude. Who do you think will answer
your questions and Elmer you into being operators? You think the no-coders
actually have the knowledge? ROTFLMAO!

Mitch
AE4YW
--
"Come by and sit a spell with me at www.volstate.net/~mitch/ "


"Old School" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:46:44 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

Why the difference between HF and VHF ?
Because HF requires more operator ability
to properly operate in the crowded
invironment there. (snip)


Nonsense. If HF really "requires" more operator ability, why are those
without that ability (those newly licensed to classes with those
privileges)
routinely allowed on those frequencies? Like everything else in Ham
radio,
any unique skills for actual HF operation is learned after the license
exams
through practice. If the rules allowed, absolutely anybody, regardless of
license class, could do the same.


(snip) And to fullfill why ham radio even exists.
To help provide a trained group of radio
operators and electronic personnel in the event
of national emergency. (snip)


Rewriting why Amateur Radio exists, Dan? I saw nothing about preparing
for
a "national emergency" in the rules. Regardless, exactly how are you,
with
your license class, better prepared for a "national emergency" than I am
with my license class? The only significant difference between the two
license classes is code and the frequencies we operate on (and my radio
equipment is capable of covering those frequencies).


If one is able to do CW. He is a more capable
operator. (snip)


In your own mind. If that were actually true, it would remain true
throughout radio. Are you a "more capable" operator then military radio
personnel who have no CW requirement? Are you a "more capable" operator
than
commercial radio operators who also have no CW requirement? Of course
not.
Beyond CW, there is nothing inherent about CW that would make one more
capable.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Bruce might learn something from Dwight if he would open his mind up
and listen. I like your site Dwight. It shows what Amateur Radio is
about and what Bruce isn't capable of.

kf6foz

Bruce isn't an Elmer. In fact, if you read his posts, he only answers
questions with name calling and insults. He brought the "screw you old man"
attitude upon himself with his own attitude.

Guy P. Distaffen

KB0SWS

"Mitch Dickson" wrote in message
...
Well, I don't know this Bruce but he sounds like an old "General Class"
that I would probably not only like but would consider a knowledgeable
ham.

snip

Now you boys need to come around folks like Bruce with you hat in your
hand,
not with that "screw you old man" attitude. Who do you think will answer
your questions and Elmer you into being operators? You think the
no-coders
actually have the knowledge? ROTFLMAO!

Mitch
AE4YW

On 02 Feb 2004 18:04:33 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

I could have got it as
well if I wasnt doing other things and Amateur Radio was an interest
at the time.

Just as I thought another Cheap Cop out. Just admit it your just to stupid to
learn it all you want is FREE WELFARE HANDOUT.

What I want is for you to learn. Do you know where to put periods "."
and commas ",". Or is your anger catching up with you? I still
recommend that you get some help.....

"Old School" wrote in message
...

It doesnt make you a more capable operator, it just make you capable
of doing another mode. Big Deal!

Which makes one a more capable operator. Gotcha !

Dan/W4NTI

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:27:56 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
.. .

It doesnt make you a more capable operator, it just make you capable
of doing another mode. Big Deal!

Which makes one a more capable operator. Gotcha !

Dan/W4NTI

Got what? Being capable of doing another mode doesn't make you a more
capable operator than a tech! By your definition, if a tech operated a
CB, All the UHF/VHF rigs, A GMRS Rig, FRS Rig, A Business Band Rig,
that would make him a more capable operator? If you say no, then your
full of it, because I know you dont have all of that from post dated
back over several months ago.

"Old School" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 23:27:56 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote:


"Old School" wrote in message
.. .

It doesnt make you a more capable operator, it just make you capable
of doing another mode. Big Deal!

Which makes one a more capable operator. Gotcha !

Dan/W4NTI

Got what? Being capable of doing another mode doesn't make you a more
capable operator than a tech! By your definition, if a tech operated a
CB, All the UHF/VHF rigs, A GMRS Rig, FRS Rig, A Business Band Rig,
that would make him a more capable operator? If you say no, then your
full of it, because I know you dont have all of that from post dated
back over several months ago.

Sure it does. The more modes you can do, the more capable you are.
Don't have all of what? UHF/VHF GMRS FRS are all operating on FM and
channalized. Business band rig is the same. ALL THE SAME MODE AND METHOD
of operation. And I used to be a 2 way technician. I've done it all.
Not to mention working on, repairing, and installing of anything from mobile
to full flegged repeater systems, including linking, etc in the
commercial/government invironment.

CB is familiar to me also. But only from a tech point of view. I have
never operated on CB other than to radio check a radio I had fixed.

Have a good day.

Dan/W4NTI