Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jul 2006 12:12:44 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

granted

now what is WRONG with that?

That's fine - for CB - that's what it's for. Ham radio is NOT CB.
(Or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be.)
no way cb going to do what you can do on 20m man

Any license
requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

then how do they get the lecnse?

They memorize the answers.
which is learning enough to pass the test


they learn enough to pass

If you call learning how to cheat "learning".
I never call following the rules cheating

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's
that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke. Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes
have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

why?

Why what? You said we should forget CW and concentrate on more modern
aspects of the hobby. A computer-radio interface is modern.
expect if you want something to work and be stable and movable you are
not going to build a modem


Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

why do you need to know that in order to operate?
to just get on the air..

Because if you try to run much over 100 baud on 20 you're just making
interference. the fact that you didn't know that shows that there are
things you need to learn before you start transmitting in "modern
modes".
wrong if I run more than few buads over 100 (or under for that matter)
nobody is going to be answer to since it is not one of the standard
speeds

the why is irelavant In this case I would venture to say you are wrong
I supect you could run 110 on 20m after all rules are normaly set a bit
on the conservsitive side you don't becuase people aren't looking for
that speed and therefore are unlikely to make a concent

if it were just and FCC it means maybe someone would be there to bust
you if it truel is pphysics does not not

what speeds you packet at on 20 requuires NO understanding merely
obeinece to the rules


Understand in the case you mention is NOT required only obeinace
understanding hopefully comes later

How do you begin to understand WHY you can't run more speed on 20 by
just operating?
you don't need to understand

you may choose to learn in which case more power to use, but you are
not required to learn this point

different folks come to different levels of understanding about
different subjects at different time

you're saying that not everyone is equal.
no I am not I am saying everyone will develope differently
we all equal in our rights before the law
then why treat everyone as
if everyone were equal?

the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned

The license is a permit to operate. Whether you ever learn anything
after you get it is totally irrelevant to the license.
a very grave difference and resaon why the ARS is in trouble this
difinate split in philosophy
but the point is what level is required to operate

that level is easierly obtained with little real understanding

indeed wether you learn anything after matters not to your stauts as a
license holder

And no more published answers.

NO can do the court have more or less so, along the long standing body
of the FCC not chaleanceing Bash et all years ago to close the
quiestion pools NOW would more or less require an act of Congress or a
change in ITU treaty lang.

Which part of any treaty says that the answers have to be published?
I made no such claim
I claimed that amending the treaty was one of the few means to Close
the question pools off
the pools are open becuase the FCC felt it could no longer support
legaly (or practicaly) keeping them closed.

an act of congress closing them or enacting an ITU requirement that be
closed is about the only to close them at this point

Quote it.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work, or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground. His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

never heard such a complaint ever

I see it a few times a day on some fora.
hang out with a better grade of ham then

I have not seen one such claim in 8 years

do you go out looking to be offended?

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago - but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers. "I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Funny all I heard of Ham radio for many years was the "wizards of 80M"
all code tested hams

And all I heard was hams talking about designing and building things
that everyone knew couldn't be done.
and you are one them "it can not be done" shame on you
I guess you don't remember when
440 MHz was considered much too high a frequency to be useful for
anything.
Indeed I don't since I we TV on UHF if not before I was born at least
before I paying much attantion to such details

but you are tlaking the past
After all, how useful was a frequency you couldn't transmit
on as far as you could read a billboard?

indeed I have never heard the sort of Vile lang I have heard from that
bunch on CB perhaps midwestern Cber are just different prehaps you are
just full of it

And perhaps you just don't know as much as you'd like to think you do.
prehaps I don't
but ulike you I don't claim to know everything or that one needs to try
and know everything

you coment about needing to be able to caluate path loss before trying
an EME qso for example
Let's start with English, shall we? Or do you think you really
communicate well with the mish-mash you use instead of a real
language?
obviously I do commucate wether you want to call it english or not
since we are comucating

with your proven hyperbole why some anyone believ what you type

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Really? My other hobby is model trains and I have never seen a rift in
model trains in 45 years.


Well that explains everything.

SC

"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right? CW does not keep people from using radios, it
keeps people from seeking a amateur radio license. You and the rest of
the crusty old and out-dated hams think that CW is kind of a filter or
the price of admission. It's an over-rated and over-priced ticket.

SNIP


And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.


SC

Slow Code wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote in
:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right? CW does not keep people from using radios, it
keeps people from seeking a amateur radio license. You and the rest of
the crusty old and out-dated hams think that CW is kind of a filter or
the price of admission. It's an over-rated and over-priced ticket.

SNIP


And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.
agreed they should spend their school days learning something more
important than that


SC

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:36:37 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.

Why learn arithmetic or math at all? Spelling and grammar seem to be
old-fashioned. Letz ghuct spel theengs thu wae thay soun. Maybe we
can even make ourselves understood once in a great while that way.

Digital modes are great - for someone who spells the words you
understand the way you were taught to spell them. CW seems to work no
matter what the accent or native tongue.

But people don't want to learn digital modes either - it's just one of
those things that sounds like a good argument until you actually look
at it. How many hams can actually read a waterfall display for
anything but PSK? And not that many can even do that.

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:36:37 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

And people shouldn't have to learn multiplication tables because we have
calculators now.

Why learn arithmetic or math at all? Spelling and grammar seem to be
old-fashioned. Letz ghuct spel theengs thu wae thay soun. Maybe we
can even make ourselves understood once in a great while that way.
indeed sir consist spelling is something that is barely more half again
as old as radio

Digital modes are great - for someone who spells the words you
understand the way you were taught to spell them. CW seems to work no
matter what the accent or native tongue.
funny thing that property how all the cw people claim they can't read
text the monet it is mispelled but they can read CW all the time no
matter the lang

But people don't want to learn digital modes either - it's just one of
those things that sounds like a good argument until you actually look
at it. How many hams can actually read a waterfall display for
anything but PSK? And not that many can even do that.
really then why I am racking EME qso's my station needs ground gain to
complete the contacts so I get only about 40 minute at moon rise and
moon set but I have bagged a QSO everytime I have tried (and near the
New Moon at that)

Al Klein wrote:

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

And what is wrong with that?


Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

How does "passing tests" going to eliminate the problem?

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's

How does memorizing answers to "technical questions" make you a better ham?

that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke.


Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes

At least we agree on something and nice to see you admit that everyone
is now saying this.

have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

Yup, it is a simple circuit. It's also readily available in books, the
Internet, etc., so how does memorizing the circuit to pass a test, make
you a better ham?

Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

"Rayleigh Fading" - that comes up in daily discussions on the radio.
Never heard anyone complaining about not being able to run 9600 baud on
HF - who the heck to you hang around with?

And no more published answers.

Why not? Memorizing answers has people learning just like reading a
book. Learning is learning.

Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff".

That's true, many of the things I had to learn for my test in the 1970s
was worthless in my opinion. But it was conceived by people who had the
same outdated opinion as you. Let's get people communicating and not
continue to figure out ways to make it so hard that new people do not
come into the service. Here's the choice for kids today. Learn code and
other crap to get a license to use a ham radio - or - get on the
Internet immediately where everyone is and communicate with them. Guess
what choice is being made Al - it's a no brainer and why our testing
should be a no brainer.

Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

So what? They will seek out the answers and learn on their own.

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work,

You know that's true and some will seek answers, others won't.
or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground.

I won't because those discussions never come up in our area. Where the
heck do you live that you have these discussions with so many people?
Arkansas or Mississippi?

His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

Something tells me he'll figure it out on his own, via another ham, the
Internet, etc. and he'll learn - learning without being forced is a
wonderful thing.

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago -

Yup, that's true, and all those strict technical tests back then did not
prevent this from occuring.

but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers.

No proof of that statement Al. Just something in your own mind.

"I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Is this a great country or what?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:35:37 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

So which is *really* the best gauge to model? Is it okay if you buy
kits, or aren't you a real rail hobbyist unless you make at least all
your cars from scratch? Or do you have to build your own engines from
scratch too? Etc., etc.

No Al, those are not arguments that take place with the model train
hobby. The best scale is what is best for you. Unlike ham radio, no one
tries to ram something down another hobbyist's throat. Same for buy vs.
build. Not a discussion. You do what you want to do and no one is
critical of the other. The way it should be in ham radio.

That's the way it *is* in ham radio if you look at it through the same
glasses you're looking at model railroading through. You want to use
different scales to weigh the same thing, then claim it weighs a
different amount? Sorry, but I don't play that game.

On 26 Jul 2006 04:39:18 -0700,
wrote:

No, stupid, you are making excuses for your lack of education.

Wrong, you illiterate retard.

The only moonbouncing you are doing is your three chins on your daddy's
ass as you give him a blowjob.

So much for "education".

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:51:19 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies. There are CBers who
are competent communications engineers, but the majority today - CB or
ham band - want to buy a radio and put it on the air.

And what is wrong with that?

What's wrong with ham radio being turned into CB? For one thing, we
already had a couple of citizen's bands - we didn't need a dozen more.

Any license requirement is just an annoyance they get around any way they can -
except by actually studying and learning enough to pass tests.

How does "passing tests" going to eliminate the problem?

For them? It's not. If they can't pass the test they don't get the
privilege. That's just the way life is. If you're not 75 inches
tall, we don't let you be 6'3". These days some people want to be
what they aren't, regardless of reality. Giving ham licenses to
anyone who wants one doesn't make hams of people who know nothing, it
makes the ham license worthless.

Take a close look at a General test from the 50s and one from today.
The difference isn't that the current one dropped old technical
questions and added equivalent questions about modern modes - it's

How does memorizing answers to "technical questions" make you a better ham?

I said it doesn't. I said that learning makes you more knowledgeable.

that the current test has dropped the technical requirement low enough
that it's a joke.

Everyone says that CW is old hat and modern modes

At least we agree on something and nice to see you admit that everyone
is now saying this.

That thing passing over your head was the point.

have replaced it. Okay - let's see a question asking for a PSK
interface schematic, including full isolation. That's just simple
audio and DC stuff.

Yup, it is a simple circuit. It's also readily available in books, the
Internet, etc., so how does memorizing the circuit to pass a test, make
you a better ham?

Understanding how it works makes you more knowledgeable. Evidently
you're one of those who needs things repeated a few times.

Let's have questions on Rayleigh fading and its
effect on maximum usable baud rate at various frequencies, so no one
complains about the FCC not giving us permission to run 9600 bps on
20. Modern stuff.

"Rayleigh Fading" - that comes up in daily discussions on the radio.
Never heard anyone complaining about not being able to run 9600 baud on
HF - who the heck to you hang around with?

You never listened to QSOs on 20? Or questions asked at ham club
meetings? Or in radio fora?

And no more published answers.

Why not? Memorizing answers has people learning just like reading a
book. Learning is learning.

Learning requires understanding. Memorizing isn't understanding. It
was proved over 100 years ago that rote memorization isn't even a
mediocre way of teaching.

Then let's see how many people talk about "modern" and how many yell
"too difficult - there's no reason to know all this stuff".

That's true, many of the things I had to learn for my test in the 1970s
was worthless in my opinion. But it was conceived by people who had the
same outdated opinion as you. Let's get people communicating and not
continue to figure out ways to make it so hard that new people do not
come into the service. Here's the choice for kids today. Learn code and
other crap to get a license to use a ham radio - or - get on the
Internet immediately where everyone is and communicate with them. Guess
what choice is being made Al - it's a no brainer and why our testing
should be a no brainer.

So let them get on radio immediately with no testing. The method has
been available since the 60s.

IT'S CALLED CB! You want HF? Get on 11 meters. You want UHF? Get
on 465. It's all there.

And leave ham radio to hams.

Which is
why, on SWL fora, you'll see people complaining that they listened all
day on 4.2 MHz and only heard noise. Or tried to get some foreign
broadcast station up above 15 MHz all night and couldn't.

So what? They will seek out the answers and learn on their own.

Or, as has happened over the past few decades, they won't. But now
that you said they will ... magic ... they will, eh?

It's the "why doesn't this work, and don't give me any of that
technical BS" syndrome. People don't want to know how things work,

You know that's true and some will seek answers, others won't.

So those who seek answers become hams - those who don't become CBers.
What's with the "everyone is equal even if the only way to achieve it
is to dumb the entire world down" crap?

or
why they don't work, but they're angry that they don't. And don't you
dare tell anyone it's his fault for trying to receive a 440 repeater
80 miles away with a 1/4 wave antenna 5 feet off the ground.

I won't because those discussions never come up in our area. Where the
heck do you live that you have these discussions with so many people?

In the real world.

His
friend, just 3 doors down, copies the repeater S9+ (with a dual 11
element beam 75 feet in the air and LMR600 coax). Now, without any
technical BS or monetary expenditure, what does he have to do to
receive it?

Something tells me he'll figure it out on his own, via another ham, the
Internet, etc. and he'll learn - learning without being forced is a
wonderful thing.

Demanding answers without putting in any effort seems to have
substituted for learning.

It's not that no one ever pulled that stuff 50 years ago -

Yup, that's true, and all those strict technical tests back then did not
prevent this from occuring.

but it was
so far in the minority that it was below the noise level. Today it's
the majority of newcomers.

No proof of that statement Al. Just something in your own mind.

About like everything you've said here.

"I have a right to use the public
airwaves, and I don't want to have to learn anything."

Is this a great country or what?

Yes, if you're in the bottom 10%, it must surely look that way. You
get to be in the top 10% merely because that's the way you want things
to be, and heaven help the rest of us if we don't give you your way.