Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Merlin3rd wrote: The hobby is almost dead anyway,nothing is going to save it. No one cares about Ham radio.Most people under 30 have never heard of it and don't care. All they want is their cell phones, Ipods,etc. The FCC can't save it by changing anything. perhaps not but others think otherwise OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
get help
On 1 Jul 2006 21:04:41 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:
OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years get help |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
get help
Lloyd wrote: On 1 Jul 2006 21:04:41 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years get help for what teling the simple that "hey Stpids" plan would kill off the ARS in single renewal cylce? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
"an_old_friend" wrote in
ups.com: Merlin3rd wrote: The hobby is almost dead anyway,nothing is going to save it. No one cares about Ham radio.Most people under 30 have never heard of it and don't care. All they want is their cell phones, Ipods,etc. The FCC can't save it by changing anything. perhaps not but others think otherwise OTOH the "proposal" of mr Slow Code aka Hey Stupid would finsh finsh the ARS in 10 ten years Just exactly what are you trying to babble out now? Having more qualified hams will kill the service? An amateur radio license isn't worth enough that you should have to work for it? License candidates are lazy and won't work to get a license? Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. sc |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:00:12 GMT, Hey Stupid wrote:
Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. Well ... It would probably reduce the total number of hams. But those who just want to buy a radio, plug it in and yell at people can still buy a CB set from RatShack. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC dothe right thing.
No, please tell us how requiring code tests and more difficult technical
testing creates a "more proficient" ham? When code testing was 13/20 WPM and the technical tests were much harder, we still had all the idiots on the bands. Those idiots are not more proficient. You are simply ignoring reality. Do you live in a cave or something? Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. sc |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
J. D. B. wrote: No, please tell us how requiring code tests and more difficult technical testing creates a "more proficient" ham? When code testing was 13/20 WPM and the technical tests were much harder, we still had all the idiots on the bands. Those idiots are not more proficient. You are simply ignoring reality. Do you live in a cave or something? I think he does UBL cave with the quipement reachto various websites and NG to (like his mentor UBL) try and disupt the world that has left him behind Please babble to us how requiring more proficient amateurs will kill ham radio. sc |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote: No, please tell us how requiring code tests and more difficult technical testing creates a "more proficient" ham? When code testing was 13/20 WPM and the technical tests were much harder, we still had all the idiots on the bands. Those idiots are not more proficient. You are simply ignoring reality. Do you live in a cave or something? The claim was "more proficient", not "generally nicer and better able to get along with people". There will always be idiots in insert any field but a ham who can't copy code at 1 wpm isn't more proficient (or as proficient) at communicating under any and all conditions as one who can. Someone who can do something is, by definition, more proficient at doing it than someone who can't. Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
Al Klein wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B." wrote: Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. no it does not most of the people that get license tody never take a code test therfore they are not made more profeincent at Morse code even you "facts" are well... ****ed |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing.
On 9 Jul 2006 11:23:11 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: Al Klein wrote: On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B." wrote: Requiring code tests and real technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code and with technical matters. no it does not most of the people that get license tody never take a code test therfore they are not made more profeincent at Morse code even you "facts" are well... ****ed No, it's your ability to understand the difference between "are licensed" and "get licensed" that is. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|