|
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Icom Radios all look like oversized Palm Pilots Kenwood HF Radios - What where they thinking? TS-480? - Yuck! I would not want that thing on my desk. TS-2000 - Deaf, poor selectivity, and ugly. Ok. The Yaesu FT-2000 is nice looking, but according to EHam.net reviews there are issues with the AGC popping, and the 3 kHz roofing filter actually being wider than the 6 kHz roofing filter. I'm holding out for future fixes on this one. Yaesu FT-950 -mildly ugly Yaesu FT-897D - really ugly Yaesu FT-857D - compact and ugly Yaesu FT-817ND - Looks like it has warts on it's face Yaseu FT-450 - Pretty ugly TenTecOrion II and Omni VII - Oversized Palm Pilots. Now the Kenwood TS-940 was a good looking radio. The Drake TR-7 was nice looking. The Yaesu FT-980 was sharp looking. The Yaesu FT-1000d was nice looking The TenTec Omni VI was nice looking. The same thing happened to component stereo systems. In the 1970s and 1980s they were gorgeous, but now they are ugly black metal boxes. What happened to the radio equipment that you could display proudly for everyone to see instead of something so ugly even the owner does not want to look at it? |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
"Middle Aged Ham" wrote in message ... Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Icom Radios all look like oversized Palm Pilots Kenwood HF Radios - What where they thinking? TS-480? - Yuck! I would not want that thing on my desk. TS-2000 - Deaf, poor selectivity, and ugly. Ok. The Yaesu FT-2000 is nice looking, but according to EHam.net reviews there are issues with the AGC popping, and the 3 kHz roofing filter actually being wider than the 6 kHz roofing filter. I'm holding out for future fixes on this one. Yaesu FT-950 -mildly ugly Yaesu FT-897D - really ugly Yaesu FT-857D - compact and ugly Yaesu FT-817ND - Looks like it has warts on it's face Yaseu FT-450 - Pretty ugly TenTecOrion II and Omni VII - Oversized Palm Pilots. Now the Kenwood TS-940 was a good looking radio. The Drake TR-7 was nice looking. The Yaesu FT-980 was sharp looking. The Yaesu FT-1000d was nice looking The TenTec Omni VI was nice looking. The same thing happened to component stereo systems. In the 1970s and 1980s they were gorgeous, but now they are ugly black metal boxes. What happened to the radio equipment that you could display proudly for everyone to see instead of something so ugly even the owner does not want to look at it? ------------- Anime happened. That's what. Ed, NM2K |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
On May 23, 1:02*pm, Middle Aged Ham Middle-Timer.
wrote: * Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? *HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! It's very possible to be a thing of beauty and be butt ugly. I personally am not a big fan of the TR-7, FT-980, FT-1000D, other "black" radios. I actually like the HW-100, R-390A, etc., but I've always claimed green to be my favorite color :-). Having a big metal panel up front with knobs etc. is good. But my favorite of all, by a very large margin, are the Heathkit Mohawk and Marauder. Huge chrome knobs, big green panel. You think "huge chrome knobs" will get filtered out by any anti-porn filters? :-). Tim. |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Tim Shoppa wrote:
I actually like the HW-100, R-390A, etc., but I've always claimed green to be my favorite color :-). Having a big metal panel up front with knobs etc. is good. But my favorite of all, by a very large margin, are the Heathkit Mohawk and Marauder. Huge chrome knobs, big green panel. You think "huge chrome knobs" will get filtered out by any anti-porn filters? :-). But their whole line at that point had big chrome knobs. There was that VHF AM transceiver, I can't remember if it was only 2meters or included 6 meters, that had a tuneable reciver and tuneable transmitter. I remember one article decades later that basically said "this is a thing of beauty, it's also completely useless at this point" right before he described how to convert it to FM. I seem to recall, but can't remember their names, that there was even a mobile pair for HF, though I'm sure it was AM. There was also a six meter phasing SSB rig in that chrome era. Even their first transistorized portable shorwave receiver, circa 1961, I think was part of the chrome wave. Heath tended to redo their line every so many years, the technical specs not changing that much while the external looks did. The chrome SSB design was the same basic design for the SB line that followed. Michael VE2BVW |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
Was it the 'Gonsett Twins'?
Dean -- W4IHK I seem to recall, but can't remember their names, that there was even a mobile pair for HF, though I'm sure it was AM. Michael VE2BVW |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Dean Craft wrote:
Was it the 'Gonsett Twins'? Dean -- W4IHK No, all of that was about the chrome-knobbed Heathkits. I was thinking of the Heathkit "Commanche" mobile receiver, and the matching "Cheyenne" transmitter, both of which were AM. Michael VE2BVW I seem to recall, but can't remember their names, that there was even a mobile pair for HF, though I'm sure it was AM. Michael VE2BVW |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
I thought the 1990s Japanese radios looked a lot like Yamaha stereo
receivers. I like my IC-7700. Excellent performance, appearance, functionality, and build quality. |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
|
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
Totally agree with you. Another important point (for me
at least) is rigs of the past were repairable. No longer the case IMO. Thats why my main rig is a Kenwood TS-830S, and my stereo rack is full of 1970's silver face Pioneer equipment. And yes, it all works! Steve |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Perhaps you are not aware of the common phrase, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." Ed K7AAT |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
"Ed_G" wrote in
. 192.196: Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Perhaps you are not aware of the common phrase, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." Ed K7AAT Actually as long as the gear does a good job of being a radio, who cares what it looks like? Did you buy it to look at or use? What aare you doing trying to impress others or have fun? :-D -- Panzer |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Middle Aged Ham wrote: Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? Good question, but I agree. All black, lots of knobs & buttons, and you have to read the manual (thick, does it have mistakes & bugs?) before you can use it. I used to have a TS-520. I knew how to use it without reading the manual (just from basic principles), and readout which is too "busy". HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, I always thougth the Colins S line (etc) to be the absolute tops in esthetics. Old Halicrafters (SX-99, 101, 96, 100, etc., my next second best). but now most of them are butt ugly! Yeah, and I'd rather look at the Mona Lisa. Icom Radios all look like oversized Palm Pilots Kenwood HF Radios - What where they thinking? TS-480? - Yuck! I would not want that thing on my desk. TS-2000 - Deaf, poor selectivity, and ugly. Technology evolution has all geared to _specification_ features and not good common sense. Who needs 200 frequecy memories? What fraction of all hams really "watch TV" on the spectrum analyzer readout on the blowout rigs. How many of those knobs go "beep" when you push them? More below... Ok. The Yaesu FT-2000 is nice looking, but according to EHam.net reviews there are issues with the AGC popping, and the 3 kHz roofing filter actually being wider than the 6 kHz roofing filter. I'm holding out for future fixes on this one. Yaesu FT-950 -mildly ugly Yaesu FT-897D - really ugly Yaesu FT-857D - compact and ugly Yaesu FT-817ND - Looks like it has warts on it's face Yaseu FT-450 - Pretty ugly TenTecOrion II and Omni VII - Oversized Palm Pilots. Now the Kenwood TS-940 was a good looking radio. The Drake TR-7 was nice looking. The Yaesu FT-980 was sharp looking. The Yaesu FT-1000d was nice looking The TenTec Omni VI was nice looking. The same thing happened to component stereo systems. In the 1970s and 1980s they were gorgeous, but now they are ugly black metal boxes. If you think about all the sci-fi movies, high tech military movies, its the same thing. Overdone details. What happened to the radio equipment that you could display proudly for everyone to see instead of something so ugly even the owner does not want to look at it? You've got a tough life ahead of you: try to find those old boat anchors and try to restore one (xcvr) or two (xmtr-rcvr), and use it. Me, I'm building my own homebrew all tube gear, out of junk box parts. Looks like hell (nobody would give me 50 cents for it) but I love it and can fix it myself (and its worth a million bucks to me). |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
Middle Aged Ham wrote:
Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Radios will always go into different phases of how they "look. And it's all in the eyes of the beerholder anyhow. I just love the look of my IC-761. 50 or so pounds of real man's radio with a BIG freaking knob on it. Booyeah! I also do like the looks of the TS-480. I own one, and it looks and performs just fine. What's your idea of a good looking radio, or do you just post about what you don't like? OTOH, I know I'm spouting heresy here, but I don't like the way Collins radios, or HRO's or the old Johnson's look. The neat thing is if we don't like the way radio's look, we don't have to buy those ones. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
"Middle Aged Ham" wrote in
message ... Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Because amateur radio operators who call themselves "hams" are ugly. |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
... (D. Stussy) wrote in : "Middle Aged Ham" wrote in message ... Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Because amateur radio operators who call themselves "hams" are ugly. You have a problem with the term "ham" in this context? Please elaborate. It is well known that "ham" is a derrogatory term meaning unprofessional (cf. "Mickey Mouse"). It comes from the definition of the word (as a verb) which means to excessively overexaggerate. Obviously, I'm not referring to the other meanings: Cuts of meat, or the given name of one of Noah's sons. Granted that literally, amateur operators must serve without compensation for their services (and thus not reach "professional" status - i.e. paid), the derrogatory meaning doesn't source from that part of the definition. One dictionary (Random House) went further and listed an origin: "Short for 'hamfatter' - from 'The Hamfat Man', a negro minstrel song celebrating an awkward man." Awkward in the 18th Century and earlier is a nice way of what today we would call retarded. The definition came through the years to us today via theater, where "ham" was first applied to unprofessional and unconvincing actors on account of their exaggeration of expression - i.e. "they can't act." So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). -- You asked. |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
D. Stussy wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). I are a Ham! Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal. Allow a similar case. Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal, I'd be proud to be called one I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham. It isn't a bad actor It isn't a Piece of pork. It is a licensed radio amateur. While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur" demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely different things, although apparently not to some. How about a new reference name for the service So what do *you* want to be called? As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
... D. Stussy wrote: So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). I are a Ham! Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal. Allow a similar case. Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal, I'd be proud to be called one That is the adoption of a mascot. Not quite the same thing. I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham. It isn't a bad actor It isn't a Piece of pork. Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? It is a licensed radio amateur. While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur" demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely different things, although apparently not to some. Amateur doesn't have the bad connotation (or as bad) as ham does. How about a new reference name for the service So what do *you* want to be called? As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Your choice - as long as you recognize the other meanings.... |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
"D. Stussy" wrote in message ... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... D. Stussy wrote: So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). I are a Ham! Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal. Allow a similar case. Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal, I'd be proud to be called one That is the adoption of a mascot. Not quite the same thing. I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham. It isn't a bad actor It isn't a Piece of pork. Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? It is a licensed radio amateur. While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur" demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely different things, although apparently not to some. Amateur doesn't have the bad connotation (or as bad) as ham does. How about a new reference name for the service So what do *you* want to be called? As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Your choice - as long as you recognize the other meanings.... ------------ I'd just as soon not be known at all. I love obscurity. I like to keep it that way in the neighborhood too. My antennas are mostly clandestine in appearance. Besides, I don't base my self esteem upon what others think of me. At least not when I'm taking my meds. Ed, NM2K |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
|
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
D. Stussy wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... D. Stussy wrote: So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). I are a Ham! Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal. Allow a similar case. Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal, I'd be proud to be called one That is the adoption of a mascot. Not quite the same thing. I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham. It isn't a bad actor It isn't a Piece of pork. Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? Lots of people are overweight. something like 60 percent of Americans are. Interesting logic BTW. We're called Hams, not Pigs. And I'd rather have an overweight Ham sitting beside me than a condescending one. It is a licensed radio amateur. While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur" demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely different things, although apparently not to some. Amateur doesn't have the bad connotation (or as bad) as ham does. Respectfully disagree. I've seen postings and have had many hams tell me they consider the term amateur condescending. Even seen at least one QST mail that said that. How about a new reference name for the service So what do *you* want to be called? As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Your choice - as long as you recognize the other meanings.... Yup. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
Bert Hyman wrote:
In "D. Stussy" wrote: Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby. Maybe not. Could be similar to the Hamsexy stuff. Some folks just have insecurities that they have to feed, so they spend their time trying to make their brethern look bad. Didn't see the Hamsexy folk at Dayton this year. Ya know, they looked just like any other Hams there, I was expecting kewl folk, but no, they were just like the rest of us.... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
On May 29, 6:01 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). -- You asked. Where DO you get your information from? Try this on for size before you make a rant like this again. http://www.arrl.org/whyham.html Jeff |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, wrote:
On May 29, 6:01 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote: So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). -- You asked. Where DO you get your information from? Try this on for size before you make a rant like this again. http://www.arrl.org/whyham.html I wouldn't take that as definitive. All the times I've seen people try to define where the term came from have never come up with anything absolute. It's too far back in time. and nobody recorded the origins at the time. The point is it doesn't matter, since it was so long ago that the name ceases to have a connection to it. It's used because it has been used. Michael VE2BVW |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
wrote in message
... On May 29, 6:01 pm, "D. Stussy" wrote: So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not). Where DO you get your information from? Jeff, my citation was included. Random House Dictionary; a 1960's version. Since you know me personally, come over sometime and I'll show it to you. |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
Try this on for size before you make a rant like this again.
http://www.arrl.org/whyham.html PS: Substitute "retard" for "ham" and the line "X is jamming you" still has the same meaning. Not coincidence.... |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
Jiggly wrote:
The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition) Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of nice people and good operators that way. That reminds me..... For years we've been force fed about how we have to eat right, not smoke, etc. How the obese ans smokers and heavy drinkers were going to be a healthcare disaster. Apparently that stuff takes an average of 4 years off our life. People who live the proper life will live around 4 years longer on average. But the kicker is this: When they got the stats on relative life expectancy, they found the causes of death. Those obese and smoking and hard drinkin' jerks tended to have a quick end, while the righteous proper folk tended to have long debilitating ends. My Mother-in-law didn't smoke, didn't drink, and spent the lat 8 years of her life as an dementia patient in a nursing home. I cringe every time I think of that happening to me. The problem with lengthening our lives is that any gains we make are at the wrong end. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radiosugly?)
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Michael Coslo wrote: Jiggly wrote: The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition) Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of nice people and good operators that way. That reminds me..... For years we've been force fed about how we have to eat right, not smoke, etc. How the obese ans smokers and heavy drinkers were going to be a healthcare disaster. Apparently that stuff takes an average of 4 years off our life. People who live the proper life will live around 4 years longer on average. But the kicker is this: When they got the stats on relative life expectancy, they found the causes of death. Those obese and smoking and hard drinkin' jerks tended to have a quick end, while the righteous proper folk tended to have long debilitating ends. My Mother-in-law didn't smoke, didn't drink, and spent the lat 8 years of her life as an dementia patient in a nursing home. I cringe every time I think of that happening to me. The problem with lengthening our lives is that any gains we make are at the wrong end. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Some thoughts on the wisdom above: all those articles citing studies involving statistics benefit not you, but i) the newspaper reporter making his wages for doing this, ii) the medical school professor getting the grants to do the work (including pay his/her salary [i.e. the school gets its staff for free]), and iii) the bean-counter actuaries who work with the insurance companies figuring out what premiums to charge you based on any factors that significantly affect the mortality curves. No doctor can plug into you any "voltmeter" (or cholesterol meter, or weight meter, etc), and tell you because of X, YOU're going to live N more days. You can calculate satellite orbits, miles of gas left in your car's gas tank, and minutes of light left in a flashlight with considerable accuracy, but in a biological animal, you can't make those kinds of predictions unless you're talking about death being caused by bleeding at high rates or you're in the middle of suffering a hearth attack or the likes of that. Now, enjoy the rest of your life as best you can (ice cream, booze, don't smoke tobacco around me, etc) and consider that if you agonize too much over things, then those visits to the psychiatrists will cut into your entertainment budget AND you will be more unhappy. 73 |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
Look around you and you will find that it's pretty much true of the entire
population not just hams. Dee "Jiggly" wrote in message ... The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition) Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of nice people and good operators that way. On 02 Jun 2008 13:44:56 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote: In "D. Stussy" wrote: Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby. Good luck. |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
"Jiggly" wrote in message ... The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition) Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of nice people and good operators that way. On 02 Jun 2008 13:44:56 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote: In "D. Stussy" wrote: Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby. Good luck. Doing some further web surfing: Depending on what site you visit (here's the one I used: http://www.nclnet.org/news/2007/obes...y_06192007.htm) Approximately 66% of Americans are overweight to obese Approximately half of that group (or 33%) of Americans are obese to morbidly obese. So it is not unique to hams. I think we see it more in hams simply because the average age is higher and the bad habits that lead to overweight and obesity have had more time to do their work. Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the mirror nude, you are overweight. Dee |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. .. "Jiggly" wrote in message ... The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition) Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of nice people and good operators that way. On 02 Jun 2008 13:44:56 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote: In "D. Stussy" wrote: Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby. Good luck. Doing some further web surfing: Depending on what site you visit (here's the one I used: http://www.nclnet.org/news/2007/obes...y_06192007.htm) Approximately 66% of Americans are overweight to obese Approximately half of that group (or 33%) of Americans are obese to morbidly obese. So it is not unique to hams. I think we see it more in hams simply because the average age is higher and the bad habits that lead to overweight and obesity have had more time to do their work. Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the mirror nude, you are overweight. That doesn't mean that there's not a higher percentage among amateur radio operators than the general population. |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
D. Stussy wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the mirror nude, you are overweight. That doesn't mean that there's not a higher percentage among amateur radio operators than the general population. Citations on that? - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
... D. Stussy wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in message Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the mirror nude, you are overweight. That doesn't mean that there's not a higher percentage among amateur radio operators than the general population. Citations on that? Attend any of our local frequency coordinators meetings and look for yourself. I exclude the swap meets because there are many non-amateur-radio-licensed individuals that attend in addition to licenseholders. |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
D. Stussy wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... D. Stussy wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in message Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the mirror nude, you are overweight. That doesn't mean that there's not a higher percentage among amateur radio operators than the general population. Citations on that? Attend any of our local frequency coordinators meetings and look for yourself. I exclude the swap meets because there are many non-amateur-radio-licensed individuals that attend in addition to licenseholders. I noticed the same thing going to church. There were a lot of Hams at that church. I see a lot of Hams walking around downtown too. I didn't know that so many people were Hams! - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
"D. Stussy" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "Jiggly" wrote in message ... The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition) Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of nice people and good operators that way. On 02 Jun 2008 13:44:56 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote: In "D. Stussy" wrote: Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my geographic area), are you certain? It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby. Good luck. Doing some further web surfing: Depending on what site you visit (here's the one I used: http://www.nclnet.org/news/2007/obes...y_06192007.htm) Approximately 66% of Americans are overweight to obese Approximately half of that group (or 33%) of Americans are obese to morbidly obese. So it is not unique to hams. I think we see it more in hams simply because the average age is higher and the bad habits that lead to overweight and obesity have had more time to do their work. Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the mirror nude, you are overweight. That doesn't mean that there's not a higher percentage among amateur radio operators than the general population. Well without doing a proper statistical study, there's no way to be sure. Just looking at people in the stores around here, it looks like the average population is about the same as the hams (accounting for the age bracket bias). Of the people that I personally know that are over 50, I could count the one's that are not overweight on the fingers of one hand. Dee, N8UZE |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... D. Stussy wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... D. Stussy wrote: "Dee Flint" wrote in message Too many people deceive themselves too with "I'm just big boned" and all those arguments. Well the healthy BMI has sufficient range to accommodate the big boned. If you can't see your collar bone when you look in the mirror nude, you are overweight. That doesn't mean that there's not a higher percentage among amateur radio operators than the general population. Citations on that? Attend any of our local frequency coordinators meetings and look for yourself. I exclude the swap meets because there are many non-amateur-radio-licensed individuals that attend in addition to licenseholders. I noticed the same thing going to church. There were a lot of Hams at that church. I see a lot of Hams walking around downtown too. I didn't know that so many people were Hams! - 73 de Mike N3LI - Yes I see them everywhere too: grocery store, Wal-Mart, Target, the mall. Michigan has one of the highest rates of obesity and overweight in the country. Dee, N8UZE |
What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?
On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:00:50 -0700, "D. Stussy"
wrote: "Middle Aged Ham" wrote in message ... Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly! Because amateur radio operators who call themselves "hams" are ugly. I've said for some time Hamfest should be called "Ham and Ugly Fest". I'm not sure which has more ugly people. A Hamfest or a CB Jamboree. The IQ is higher at the hamfest, but so is the nerd factor. Also hamfest are more likely to have the old guy walking around with the oxygen tank and plastic tube up his nose. When I was young the girls thought I was nice looking and my radio was ugly. Now my radio is nice looking, and I ain't what I use to be. |
Overweight hams ( What are almost all the new ham radios ugly?)
"A" wrote in message x.com... On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Michael Coslo wrote: Jiggly wrote: The hobby has lots of people who are morbidly obese. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbid_obesity for definition) Sadly, many of them die from weight-related causes. We lose a lot of nice people and good operators that way. That reminds me..... For years we've been force fed about how we have to eat right, not smoke, etc. How the obese ans smokers and heavy drinkers were going to be a healthcare disaster. Apparently that stuff takes an average of 4 years off our life. People who live the proper life will live around 4 years longer on average. But the kicker is this: When they got the stats on relative life expectancy, they found the causes of death. Those obese and smoking and hard drinkin' jerks tended to have a quick end, while the righteous proper folk tended to have long debilitating ends. My Mother-in-law didn't smoke, didn't drink, and spent the lat 8 years of her life as an dementia patient in a nursing home. I cringe every time I think of that happening to me. The problem with lengthening our lives is that any gains we make are at the wrong end. - 73 de Mike N3LI - Some thoughts on the wisdom above: all those articles citing studies involving statistics benefit not you, but i) the newspaper reporter making his wages for doing this, ii) the medical school professor getting the grants to do the work (including pay his/her salary [i.e. the school gets its staff for free]), and iii) the bean-counter actuaries who work with the insurance companies figuring out what premiums to charge you based on any factors that significantly affect the mortality curves. No doctor can plug into you any "voltmeter" (or cholesterol meter, or weight meter, etc), and tell you because of X, YOU're going to live N more days. You can calculate satellite orbits, miles of gas left in your car's gas tank, and minutes of light left in a flashlight with considerable accuracy, but in a biological animal, you can't make those kinds of predictions unless you're talking about death being caused by bleeding at high rates or you're in the middle of suffering a hearth attack or the likes of that. Now, enjoy the rest of your life as best you can (ice cream, booze, don't smoke tobacco around me, etc) and consider that if you agonize too much over things, then those visits to the psychiatrists will cut into your entertainment budget AND you will be more unhappy. 73 -------------- I've seen a lot of fit, slim, healthy and trim folks pass on in my 62 year life. And not from car accidents, falling, electrocution, car crashes or plane crashes. It seems that the active folks are actually worriers, more so than we portly folks. One thing I do know for sure is that after smoking for 35 years, quitting was a mistake. The damage was already done to my body. The weight that I gained after quitting has brought on myriad problems that I did not have before, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, diabetic neuropathy, etc. Had I just kept on smoking, chances are I would have been much better off. If you don't smoke, don't start. If you do smoke at a good clip, think twice before quitting. Had I to do quitting again with what I know now, no way would I have done so. This is my seventh year having quit smoking. Now I have this cotton picking seven year record to maintain and improve upon. And over one hundred pounds of blubber to tote that I didn't have before I quit smoking. I don't care what the doctors say. Being slim and smoking is lots better than being a non smoker, but fat. Now we need to arrange some lynching parties for the *******s that began taxing cigarettes at a ridiculous rate. Ed Cregger |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com