Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

NoMoreSpam wrote:

terry wrote:

On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with
just 3
question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree???


Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the
contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very
divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO.

Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?)
attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur
well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to
join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude!

Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments
would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an
outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark
transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit
shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have
contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL.

QSLs via the Internet these days I presume?

Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time!

Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger
newcomers and new modes of communication/trends.

No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying?

RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders
so you will fit in.

As far as a moron you should best look at yourself. You would fit the
bill of an uneducated piece of trash.

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

On Feb 25, 7:35 am, Billy Smith wrote:
NoMoreSpam wrote:
terry wrote:

On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with
just 3
question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree???

Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the
contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very
divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO.

Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?)
attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur
well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to
join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude!

Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments
would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an
outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark
transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit
shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have
contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL.

QSLs via the Internet these days I presume?

Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time!

Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger
newcomers and new modes of communication/trends.

No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying?

RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders
so you will fit in.

As far as a moron you should best look at yourself. You would fit the
bill of an uneducated piece of trash.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I`ve been a Ham since 1975 and seen this kind of talk before. You 2
are the ones destroying Ham Radio. Yes ham radio is alive but not
well. The numbers are dropping and the age of us Hams are getting
older. Soon if we don`t attract younger people in it will be a dying
hobby. Code is important yes but not totally necessary. There are
other ways of encouraging young people to become hams. Code can be
part of it as well as the computer end. Why not be like the Boy Scouts
have HAm Radio clubs in schools from grades 1 and up and in churches
or the YMCA/YWCA with volunteers.

Rather than bash each others heads and stoop so low as calling each
other names why not put your heads together and think of positive ways
to bring new people into the fold !

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

ORALFIXATION6996 wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:35 am, Billy Smith wrote:
NoMoreSpam wrote:
terry wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
I think it would have been sufficient to punctuate your sentence with
just 3
question marks. Four question marks seems a bit excessive, agree???
Nah. The number of question marks is immaterial and avoids the
contentious and intolerant (rant?) of the OP. Such comments very
divisive to the the Amateur Radio hobby; IMHO.
Might one not think such an intolerant (possibly also an elitist?)
attitude by a serving (already licensed) radio amateur does not augur
well for the future of the hobby. Not sure as a newcomer I'd want to
join a group with members who have that 'unkind' attitude!
Previously noticing some other intolerant (even vituperative) comments
would not be surprised they may tend to give outsiders a view of an
outdated, closed knit clan/society. Old codgers still using spark
transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit
shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have
contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL.
QSLs via the Internet these days I presume?
Total four (4) question marks; used one at a time!
Rather than portray Amateur Radio as open, welcoming to younger
newcomers and new modes of communication/trends.
No wonder the hobby is, in the opinion of some, dying?
RIGHT, don't be an "elitist." Be a moron like the rest of the no-coders
so you will fit in.
As far as a moron you should best look at yourself. You would fit the
bill of an uneducated piece of trash.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I`ve been a Ham since 1975 and seen this kind of talk before. You 2
are the ones destroying Ham Radio. Yes ham radio is alive but not
well. The numbers are dropping and the age of us Hams are getting
older. Soon if we don`t attract younger people in it will be a dying
hobby. Code is important yes but not totally necessary. There are
other ways of encouraging young people to become hams. Code can be
part of it as well as the computer end. Why not be like the Boy Scouts
have HAm Radio clubs in schools from grades 1 and up and in churches
or the YMCA/YWCA with volunteers.

Rather than bash each others heads and stoop so low as calling each
other names why not put your heads together and think of positive ways
to bring new people into the fold !


I hesitate to put an oar in because I'm one of the brand new Hams. We
managed to get two dozen people to a one weekend tech class that were
mostly drawn from the membership of Community Emergency Response Teams.
I think that the service can be alive and well if it continues to
adapt itself to public need rather than to individual preferences no
matter how strong.

Having said that I will now admit that I was somewhat disappointed by
the ease with which I passed the exam. I had a novice license back
around 1973. At that time you had to pass the general theory to get a
technician class license. Obviously that is no longer true.

Now at the risk of being dangerously on topic let me ask the question I
came here to ask in a new thread.
--
Tom Horne, KB3OPR

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

"Thomas Horne" wrote:

I hesitate to put an oar in because I'm one of the brand new Hams.

Congrats and welcome back!


I think that the service can be alive and well if it continues to adapt
itself to public need rather than to individual preferences no matter how
strong.

Personally, I think the service needs to stop focusing on raw numbers of
licensed hams, and instead on the *quality* of those hams licensed. I would
rather have 5 hams licensed who are interested in antenna theory, emergency
communications, etc., rather than 10 hams who are interested in using ham
radio as a cheap cell phone.


Having said that I will now admit that I was somewhat disappointed by the
ease with which I passed the exam. I had a novice license back around
1973. At that time you had to pass the general theory to get a technician
class license. Obviously that is no longer true.

The current structure of the theory examinations is a joke. They really do
nothing to ensure the applicant has a through knowledge of the topical
material. For example, you could have failed each and every question on
rules and regulations, and yet still obtained your license, simply because
you know math well. This is not, IMO, a good thing. We are, however,
unlikely to see this change for the positive, and highly likely to see the
theory examinations weakened further as we move to a "simply mail in your
605, no exam needed" ham radio of the future.

73
kh6hz

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

KH6HZ wrote:

...
Personally, I think the service needs to stop focusing on raw numbers of
licensed hams, and instead on the *quality* of those hams licensed. I would
rather have 5 hams licensed who are interested in antenna theory, emergency
communications, etc., rather than 10 hams who are interested in using ham
radio as a cheap cell phone.

Give me quantity. Antenna "theory" has not changed in 50 years, it is a
given--a "known" in its present state. We need mind to come up with
new ideas, apply newly discovered physics and give us something new to
work with.

The current structure of the theory examinations is a joke. They really do
nothing to ensure the applicant has a through knowledge of the topical
material. For example, you could have failed each and every question on
rules and regulations, and yet still obtained your license, simply because
you know math well. This is not, IMO, a good thing. We are, however,
unlikely to see this change for the positive, and highly likely to see the
theory examinations weakened further as we move to a "simply mail in your
605, no exam needed" ham radio of the future.

73
kh6hz

What do they need to know to grab their rig, coax and antenna off ebay
and begin in the amateur bands, oh yeah, and know band limits and modes.

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

Several things come to mind he

Quantity vs quality we hear a lot about. The former is good for
publishers and equipment manufacturers and the latter is good for
interesting QSO's.

Someone mentioned the importance of ham radio as a service to the
community. What makes ham radio so special that it has to be a service
to anyone other than those who enjoy it? All such justifications are
pure nonsense these days.

It is also frequently said that ham radio is an "old man's hobby". So
what! There are plenty of hobbies for children. I for one enjoy
getting away from teeny boppers.

I get a great deal of pleasure out of talking to people my age and
exchanging experiences and how we got here. I have nothing in common
with children. I would be delighted to elmer them but competing with
computers, cell phones, drugs and teenage girls is beyond the call of duty.

I welcome them into the community but to go trolling for them is a waste
of energy.

People complain about the crowded bands, QRM, rude behavior and yet
whine about declining numbers.

Won't it be nice what all that open space on 75 is filled with CB level
hams?

JACK K9ACT since 1955

p.s. check out the POW for what "old men" can do :)

--
PHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://schmidling.com/pow.htm

Now that CW is gone there will be more ham to non-ham conflicts.
 

Hallo you ll'
Again a nice discussion and a lot of aspects
CWing or not or another information code
From historical point of vieuw CW is the oldest and in my opinion the
reliablest
and CW was a boarder between HF and VHF
caused by brain damage i can concentrate on the recieving dittery dah dit
of the morsecode
and so became the morsecode a boarder betweem different kinds of
radioamateurs
practice cw was a license the use unmanageable power
practice cw became the roots of the QRPers
CWers became a elitegroup of amateurs however they did nt understand the
basic goal
after cw proof they rapidly forgot the code and have boasting on DX
and when they met an antenneaproblem they let solve their problem by the
techinical VHFers
SO be a "better " amateur however what is better contacting or
understanding
55 and 73 de ruud PA0RAB



"Stefan Wolfe" schreef in bericht
...

"terry" wrote in message
ps.com...

Old codgers still using spark
transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit
shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have
contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL.

Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by
constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil
and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna
and ground and a battery powered relay.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

just another stalking thread
 

On Mar 5, 6:21�am, "R.A Abrahams" wrote:
Hallo you ll'
Again a nice discussion *and a lot of aspects
CWing or not *or another information code
From historical point of vieuw *CW is the oldest and in my opinion the
reliablest
and CW was a boarder *between HF and VHF
caused by brain damage i can concentrate *on the recieving dittery dah dit
of the morsecode
*and so became the morsecode a boarder betweem *different kinds of
radioamateurs
practice cw was a license the use unmanageable power
practice cw *became the roots of the QRPers
CWers became a elitegroup of amateurs however they did nt understand the
basic goal
after cw proof they rapidly forgot the code and have *boasting on DX
and *when they met an antenneaproblem they let solve their problem by the
techinical VHFers
SO be a "better " amateur *however what is better contacting or
understanding
55 and 73 de ruud PA0RAB

"Stefan Wolfe" schreef in om...





"terry" wrote in message
ups.com...

Old codgers still using spark
transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit
shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have
contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL.

Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by
constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil
and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna
and ground and a battery powered relay.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

just another stalking thread
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

... _ .._. .._ _ _ .._ _ _ _ ._ ._. _ _._ .._ . . ._.
 

On Mar 8, 2:24 pm, "an old friend" wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:21?am, "R.A Abrahams" wrote:





Hallo you ll'
Again a nice discussion ?and a lot of aspects
CWing or not ?or another information code
From historical point of vieuw ?CW is the oldest and in my opinion the
reliablest
and CW was a boarder ?between HF and VHF
caused by brain damage i can concentrate ?on the recieving dittery dah dit
of the morsecode
?and so became the morsecode a boarder betweem ?different kinds of
radioamateurs
practice cw was a license the use unmanageable power
practice cw ?became the roots of the QRPers
CWers became a elitegroup of amateurs however they did nt understand the
basic goal
after cw proof they rapidly forgot the code and have ?boasting on DX
and ?when they met an antenneaproblem they let solve their problem by the
techinical VHFers
SO be a "better " amateur ?however what is better contacting or
understanding
55 and 73 de ruud PA0RAB

"Stefan Wolfe" schreef in om...

"terry" wrote in message
ups.com...

Old codgers still using spark
transmitters and coherer receivers, pounding away in their dimly lit
shacks late at night and boasting about how many countries they have
contacted for 500 milliseconds per contact; and please QSL.

Can you imagine that? People could communicate around the world simply by
constructing a simple transmitter salvaged from a Model T ignition coil
and a receiver contructed of metal filings in a glass tube between antenna
and ground and a battery powered relay.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

just another stalking thread

.... _ .._. .._

... _ .._. .._ _ _ .._ _ _ _ ._ ._. _ _._ .._ . . ._.
 

On 9 Mar 2007 05:26:08 -0800, Andy the Perv Timberlake Secwet Woger wrote:

Subject: ... _ .._. .._ _ _ .._ _ _ _ ._ ._. _ _._ .._ . . ._.
STFU MUT MARQUEER?

Vass is "MUT," mein dumkoff?