On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:36:26 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right?

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

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. 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.

And no more published answers.

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". 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.

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?

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."

Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:36:26 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, you and the rest of the old farts want CW to keep ham radio from
becoming like CB - right?

Wrong. I want ham radio to stop being what it's been for the last
couple of decades - CB on different frequencies.
then give it up along with your hang ups about cb if you please
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?
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 learn enough to pass clearly not more than that in many case I
grant you

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

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

the license is a permit to learn not proof you have learned
you convince of the need and I will support you

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. It took us No Code what 4 or decades to
acheeve the changes we needd in order to bring off No Code


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". 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.

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


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

I have never heard any realy bad behavoi r from any ham that hasn't had
his license renewed at least twice (which leaves out ALL No code techs
BTW)

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

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.)

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.

they learn enough to pass

If you call learning how to cheat "learning".

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.

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".

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?

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

you're saying that not everyone is equal. 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.

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?
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.

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. I guess you don't remember when
440 MHz was considered much too high a frequency to be useful for
anything. 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.
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?

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

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 07:51:19 -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.

Al Klein wrote:

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.

CB is dead. Turning it into CB is a meaningless statement. Your
knowledge of CB is going back way too far when it was chaos. Again, you
do not know what you are talking about as you are making references that
are very old and very outdated - just like CW and code testing.


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.

Why not give a license to anyone who wants one? It's just not that big
of deal anymore. We are not dealing with lethal voltages like we did
with all the tube crap used years ago.



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's true, learning does make you more knowledgeable. People can learn
on their own, learn what interests them, learn what they need to know.
Not what you or I THINK they need to know.



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.

No, I got the point o.k. You admit CW is old hat.



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.

What if I don't care to know how it works? Most women and many men have
no idea how a car engine, transmission and car computer works, but they
still get a license to drive. By your standards I guess people need to
know how their television, AM and FM radio, etc. works before they are
allowed to purchase such an item....hmmmm?


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

Yup, I have listened to and have many QSOs on all ham bands. And most of
the crap you profess to be discussed is simply not generally discussed.



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.

Yes and no, depends what it trying to be learned. Memorization can be
learning. People learn what they WANT and NEED to learn. No one ever
truly learns by having something forced on them. "A man convinced
against his will is still of the same opinion."




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.

Same old tired CB argument again....yawn.....Yes, you can get on CB,
Family Radio, GMRS and guess what, you can operate a radio and
communicate without a test and the world does not come to an end.

And leave ham radio to hams.

If you get a ham license, no matter how simple the test or no test, you
are a ham and you can use the appropriate bands for your license class.
Let's get more people into the service and hobby, let them explore and
learn what they want - not what you want them to learn.



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

Oh but yes they do. Some more than others. Your statement is baseless
and simply an opinion. So is mine. A gratuitous statement can be
refuted by an equally gratuitous statement.



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?

No, those with a ham license are hams. Those without a ham license are
not hams. It's just that simple. Yup, dumb it down and bring them all in.


In the real world.


O.K. then, it's Mississippi.


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

I guess. This is the opinion of many old fart gate keeper hams, "I had
to pass a test to get a ham license and it was hard. So everyone else
needs to have to do what I did or it's dumbing down the license."

Yes it might be dumbing down the license. But because you had to do it,
doesn't mean it's right for the world today. Things are changing. Times
are changing. If you cannot deal with change, then just give up on life
because change is inevitable.


About like everything you've said here.

See my rule of logic about gratuitous statements as noted above.



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.

Yes, wouldn't a classless society be nice? Everyone treated equally?
Probably will never happen as it did not work for Russia and the Eastern
Bloc, but do we really need to have haves and have nots when it comes to
a hobby and a public service? I don't think so.

J. D. B. wrote:
Al Klein wrote:


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

Oh but yes they do. Some more than others. Your statement is baseless
and simply an opinion. So is mine. A gratuitous statement can be
refuted by an equally gratuitous statement.

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

I guess. This is the opinion of many old fart gate keeper hams, "I had
to pass a test to get a ham license and it was hard. So everyone else
needs to have to do what I did or it's dumbing down the license."
and maybe the test took was harder than it had any real reason to be

if that was the case I am sorry but that is no reason to keep making or
rather go back to making the SAME mistake

an old freind wrote:
J. D. B. wrote:
Al Klein wrote:


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

Oh but yes they do. Some more than others. Your statement is baseless
and simply an opinion. So is mine. A gratuitous statement can be
refuted by an equally gratuitous statement.

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

I guess. This is the opinion of many old fart gate keeper hams, "I had
to pass a test to get a ham license and it was hard. So everyone else
needs to have to do what I did or it's dumbing down the license."

and maybe the test took was harder than it had any real reason to be

BWHAHAHAHAHA You couldn't read or comprehend it even so, retard. "Test
took" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

if that was the case I am sorry

You sure are a sorry sack of ****, Markie.

Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote:
may the lord bless and grant you pecae from the mental illness that
traps you