| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#71
September 5th 06, 01:21 AM
posted to alt.radio.scanner,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.scanner,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
slow code:kook on parade
an old friend wrote: Slow Code wrote: " wrote in oups.com: From: "an old friend" on Sun, Sep 3 2006 2:41 pm slow code:kook on parade Morse has no value in todays society... And I agree "slow code:kook on parade" |
|
#72
September 5th 06, 01:30 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: wrote: From: an old friend on Sun, Sep 3 2006 10:09 am ARRL was first a very small group of local New Englanders, formed 5 years after the first (and still surviving) national organization, the Radio Club of America. But it didn't stay that way for long. By the time of the 1917 shutdown - just three years after ARRL was founded - it was a national organization. One of the cofounders, Charles H. Stewart, 3ZS, lived right here in Radnor, PA. Hardly "local" in those days. Heck, Jim, you're going to ruin one of Leonard's rants. I'm just pointing out some plain, simple facts. Stewart, as I recall, succeeded HPM. You are confusing Charles H. Stewart with Kenneth B. Warner. It was KBW who succeeded HPM. KBW was a major part of ARRL from the early days until his death in the late 1940s. IMHO he was as important in the 1930s and 40s as Maxim was in the teens and 20s. KBW is just not as well known. There were lots of "national club" competitors in the 1920s but those eventually dropped out. Name some. RCA still exists but is not much concerned with amateur radio. It is a very small organization whose main activities seem to be honorary and historical. Why are those guys always living in the past? ;-o Well, there you have it. Prior to the Internet going public in 1991, the only major presence for US amateur radio in DC was the legal firm on retainer from the ARRL. There was nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Nor from contacting FCC directly. ARRL kept promoting themselves as "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions. Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly, and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS. Len is suspicious of the League's elections of Directors too. Len is suspicious of a number of things in which he isn't involved. Have you forgotten the profile already? That changed dramatically once the FCC got their website going and ramped up to take Comments electronically. The ARRL had to retain a second firm in DC for lobbying. All ECFS did was to make it easier to petition and comment. Correct. It also saved a stamp. In the case of a number of Len's comments, it saved him lots of stamps. It should be remembered that, back in 1998, Len couldn't get ECFS to work for him and had to mail his comments to FCC. Meanwhile, thousands of us whom he denigrates had no problem filing comments online, even then. The evidence is an observation of the number and kind of Comments on 98-143 "restructuring" versus Comments on all those Petitions and last year's NPRM concerning code testing elimination. The pro-code-test advocates' Comments were straight out of the League hymn book about morsemanship with a few adding in nebulous advantages for "homeland security" necessities! [those Petitions began after 11 Sep 01] ?? You know--the ARRL hymnal. It's filled with songs rallying government to the ARRL. Len's sense of the surreal is working overtime. Ah - now I understand. The fact is that the majority of individuals who commented supported the retention of at least some Morse Code testing. The majority also supported elimination of the Morse Code test for the General Class license. However, the most likely outcome is that FCC will just drop Element 1 completely. The surprising thing is that it has taken so long. What is more telling about the League's stubbornness on their pro-code-test stance is that the IARU took a firm stand on changing the ITU-R amateur radio regulations compulsory (by administrations) morse testing for any license having below-30-MHz privileges...the IARU wanted it OPTIONAL by all administrations (at their discretion) a good year BEFORE WRC-03. The ARRL wanted to keep the compulsory regulation. Not true! Not true at all, Len. The fact is that way back in 2000 or 2001, the ARRL BoD changed their policy wrt S25.5. They decided to neither support nor oppose changes to ITU-R S25.5. Given the strong support from many other member countries to change S25.5, the ARRL's no-opinion policy pretty much guaranteed there would be majority support to change S25.5. After WRC-03 the League took a neutral stance, neither for nor against code testing in the USA. It's still a "ARRL versus the World" situation. Wrong again, Len! In ARRL's petition to FCC, they proposed eliminating the Morse Code test for General but retaining it for Extra. Len isn't going to let facts stand in his way. His mind is made up. Like concrete: all mixed up and firmly set. The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test eliminated for General. The majority of individuals commenting on the NPRM wanted the test retained for Extra. The two majorities are not composed of all the same individuals, but they *are* majorities. Thank you, Rick! You spoke volumes of reality in this new millennium. And you're still just as stupid as you were before you read it. Now, now, "Slow," you are starting to sound like one of those inbred bigoted morsemen in here. You can't discuss anything reasonable-like, only cuss at those who disagree with you. :-) yet I do wonder if he isn't Robeson somedays but I am pretty sure he is just another bitter old that bought into "incetive Licesning) the brain child of the ARRL It should be abundantly clear that "Incentive Licensing" was never about "advancing" in amateur radio beyond getting TITLE, RAND, and STATUS. "RAND"? Do you mean Remington Rand, Ayn Rand, or the South African monetary unit? It is obviously a reference to the Rand Corporation--all very hush hush. I disagree! Remington Rand wasn't part of Len's CV. Ayn Rand promoted her philosophy of Objectivism, which demanded strict adherence to reality, not the surreal. Also, a core value of Objectivism was the value of the individual and individual accomplishment. Not something Len likes to acknowledge, unless it's *his* personal value and accomplishment. OTOH, Len's value system places a high value on being a "professional" (meaning being paid for something) and how much material wealth a person has amassed (so they can pay CASH for things like Japanese-made general-coverage receivers). So it must be the South African rand... It is abundantly clear that Len's mind is made up. He KNOWS what incentive licensing was about. Facts notwithstanding. That was VERY important to the controlling coterie of the League, folks who wanted to be "better" than others...in a hobby activity. Nope. That's not what it was about at all, Len. Do try to get your history straight. The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to *return* to a system something like that which existed before February 1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned earlier. btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL. Of course Len does not know where it actually came from... What "incentive licensing" DID create was just the opposite of "good fellowship" among amateurs, that of CLASS DISTINCTION and a "pecking order" based largely on morsemanship. How so? Did you forget about the written tests? Don't ruin his rant, Jim. He needs to massage a few facts to make things fit with his conclusion. Massage or mangle? Fact is, ARRL proposed in 1963 that there be *no* additional code testing for full privileges - just an additional written test. The morsemen won it. Never mind that radio technology was already far advanced from the 1930s' style of amateur radio and that morse code was falling by the wayside in every other radio service, the League still (stubbornly) held to the belief that all amateurs "should" be able to be morse skilled...even four decades after the 1930s. How many other radio services used Morse Code in 1966, Len? Let's see...there were the military, particularly the US Navy and Coast Guard, the maritime services, various government agencies, some press services, and of course amateur radio. Was there a shortage of trained radiotelegraphers during the Vietnam War? The League lobbied for and got the "vanity license" system so that olde-tymers could get their 1x2 and 2x1 super-special guru-status callsigns. Even more status symbolism. Should accomplishment not be rewarded? Len shouldn't confuse the Vanity Callsign System with the earlier FCC decisions, beginning in 1968 to award 1x2 calls to those who held the Extra and had been licensed for a certan number of years. Actually, there were forms of "vanity" callsigns long before 1968. In fact, if you search qrz.com, you may still be able to find amateurs with 1x2 callsigns who are not Extras. That was later modified to include any Extra Class licensee without a minimum number of years licensed. There was no periodic fee charged for those callsign changes. That's how I got N2EY in 1977. I simply asked FCC for a 1x2 when I moved to New York State, and it was sequentially issued. I'd been an Extra for seven years by then. That it chafes Len, is tough. All sorts of things chafe Len. Combining "vanity" calls and "incentive licensing" there was a perfect setup for all who managed to get both to crow and holler they WERE BETTER than all others. Good fellowship went out the window...rank, status, title RULED. Perhaps in Len's mind, it did. btw, Len, did you ever manage to get your Extra out of the box? It's been more than six and a half years now... Len still hasn't opened the box to obtain any amateur radio license. He's been carping in this newsgroup for a decade or so and inertia rulez. Further, you are ten kinds of short on ability to threaten. Your threats and "orders" become recycled electrons doing nothing but dissipating a tiny bit of heat. yawn amasing how they keep resorting to threats and orders That's all they have left in this new millennium, Mark. Some of them, such as Blow Code and Hambrecht still think they are "better than others" in all aspects, not just morsemanship. Well, maybe they are, Len. Or maybe they aren't. Why does it bother you so much? Do you have a need to look down on everyone? There are those doing something in which Len is not a participant. Some of those who are participants are perceived by Len to have rank, status and privilege. In amateur radio, Len would have to begin as all did--at the bottom. He'd have no rank, status or privilege for quite some time. There'd be those who would think they were "better" than him. There are others who'd actually BE better than him. The thought chafes him. Len isn't an instant anything in amateur radio. He isn't yet a neophyte. Actually there's a bit more to it than that. If you recall, Len once set out to get an amateur license, and reportedly got up to 7 or 8 wpm before he gave up on learning Morse Code. You see, learning Morse Code was "hard work" for Len back then. He's apparently one of those folks who does "book learnin'" rather easily - let him read something and he'll lecture you on it endlessly. Some of what he says will actually be right, too. But learning Morse Code to the 13 wpm level needed for a General license turned out to be not so easy for Len, so he has held a grudge about it for decades. Now you may wonder why, if Len could do 7 or 8 wpm at one point, he didn't just get a Novice license, and improve his Morse Code skills by operating, as most of us did. The answer should be obvious: No way would Len allow himself to be classified as a "Novice". That license did not carry the appropriate title or status for him. They LIKE that. So much so that they are in great personal fear of losing that very precious rank, status, title, and privilege that MIGHT happen if the code test is eliminated. How will any currently licensed amateur lose anything if the Morse Code test is eliminated? They will LOSE their "better than you" rationalization. How? If they really are better than you, they'll still be better without the test. And vice-versa. Precisely. They'll also have much more experience in amateur radio than Leonard H. Anderson. Those who are proficient in the use of Morse, will always be a leg up on Leonard. So what? People have all kinds of skills, experience, etc. I'm sure there are things where Len has more experience/knowledge/skill than I, and things where I have more experience/knowledge/skill than he. The former doesn't bother me, but the latter seems to bother him no end. Internally the sky will have fallen on their self-perceptions. Personally, I think radio and electronics is totally fascinating. Me too. Amateur radio particularly. Seconded. How it must burn to have professed a decades-long interest in something only to remain an outsider. An outsider by choice. There has been a US amateur radio license with no Morse Code test for the past 15-1/2 years. All other classes of US amateur radio license have required only a 5 wpm code test since 2000. So much so that I made a career choice of it while studying for an entirely different sort of work. Funded by the taxpayers, too. ...and you'll note that Len is back to talking careers. Think of the South African rand. That's one of the wonderful things about amateur radio. One can work in something quite far afield from radio and still have a rich and rewarding experience in amateur radio. One of my local friends works at a funeral home. One works as a jail guard. One is a retired teacher. All find much enjoyment in amateur radio. Exactly. Amateur radio is "radio for its own sake". Professional work, not some amateur dabbling, yet I liked to make electronic things in my home workshop. Does being paid for something make someone automatically "better", Len? It apparently does, unless it something made through dabbling in his home workshop. In case you've forgotten, Len did some writing for the now-defunct amateur radio magazine "ham radio". He got paid for those articles, of course. None of his articles were actual projects, though. Things other than work-related tasks. It is FUN, personally rewarding, not "work." But not rewarding enough for you to get an amateur radio license, it seems. ...and learning morse would apparently be "work" for Leonard. "hard work", actually. That's why he gave up on it. Or have you gotten that Extra out of its box, as you told us you were going to do, way back on January 19, 2000? He talks the talk, but has trouble with the walk. I got into Big Time HF comms 53 1/2 years ago and have seen what modes DO work well and on a 24/7 basis on long-haul circuits that HAD to be kept working. Using equipment supplied and paid for by others. With a team of several hundred people trained to do the job. It is always Big Time in the Len recounting. At least he has dropped the claim that HE worked 24/7. My personal experience with PROFESSIONAL long haul circuits that HAD to be kept working is that they don't always. When a healthy solar flare comes along, you might as well mail 'em a letter. Looks like a deep seated insecurity on Len's part, though. That doesn't make you more qualified to judge what amateurs do - self-funded and largely self-trained. Years later some KID is trying to "moralize" me into "working on morsemanship?" Is youth somehow wrong, Len? You surely remember what he has said about CHILDREN in the past. Oh yes - something about his difficulty including them in what he sees as an adult activity. Also, he proposed a minimum age requirement for an amateur license even though he had absolutely no evidence of problems caused by the licensing of young people. Then there's his accusating the ARRL and some VEs of "fraud" in licensing some young children. He (or she) can go shove it somewhere...until he (or she) can prove they've done more than I in radio communications...which they have NOT done yet in here. I see. What if someone older than you, with more radio experience, told you that you should work on your morse code skills? How would you react? How about if someone younger than Len, but with more experience in radio told him? See the profile...it wouldn't matter. Once, a very long time ago, I thought that becoming a "ham" was a cool deal. That was before the commsats, before technology had fully gotten with the semi- conductor era, before the wonderful way we can get over most of the world via PCs and the Internet. What about your posting of January 19, 2000? In addition to that, what about the fact that he is paying for internet service and that invariably, that internet circuit goes through wires somewhere? The cellular telephone is a wonderful thing too, but it isn't a substitute for amateur radio. It'd be pricey too. Why IS it that some have to be a grand champion of the 1930s over seven decades later? What are THEY trying to prove? I could care less about 1930s technology and the "radio standards" of then. I live in the NOW. Then why do you tell us so much about your past? If he didn't, he couldn't regale us with tales of his days in Big Time HF radio! btw, if you are *not* interested in becoming a ham, why are you so vocal about the requirements? Didn't you know, Jim? Len's made himself an ADVOCATE for something-or-other. Keeping real estate zoning regulations as they were 40+ years ago? If some dumb**** wants to moralize about "working" and "investing" he (or she) can go get some flagellation and suffer themselves for their own "cause." I'm not about to join him (or her) in such moralistic self- abuse/mis-use. You sure seem to spend a lot of effort arguing about it, though. Why? His life is otherwise empty, depsite the comfortable income, two mortgage-free homes and the like. Maybe Len can take a part-time job as bag boy at Ralph's. No, Ralph's requires that everything be Pretty Good. Including the ketchup. If these self-styled emperors want to flap their new clothes in my direction, I'll just keep on pointing out that they are NAKED (and ugly). Perhaps they are simply holding up a mirror..... Len often acts ugly. I prefer not to think of him as naked. Please don't go there... Gee, Len, it's been more than three years since the ITU treaty changed. Some countries have eliminated Morse Code testing, some haven't, and at least one (Canada) has worked out a unique solution to the debate. Meanwhile the USA rules on the subject haven't changed since 2000. Are you frustrated because your will has not become law...yet? Whether Len is ever a radio amateur or not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Nor I. Besides, it's just not going to happen. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#73
September 5th 06, 01:59 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote: From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 5:10 pm wrote: Jim, welcome back. I guess Coslo's BBS was a little too quiet? billy beeper Ahem...Coslo's attempt at an amateur radio "forum" hasn't had a new posting since 20 Feb 06. Seven months of quiet. Or maybe all the new posts got tangled with his "to the edge of space" balloon experiment and floated off? :-) "To Infinity And Beyond!!!" |
|
#74
September 5th 06, 02:13 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: ARRL kept promoting themselves as "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions. Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly, and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS. Len is suspicious of the League's elections of Directors too. Len is suspicious of a number of things in which he isn't involved. Interesting how Carl was barred from running for section office. Professional talent need not apply - we only want amateurs. |
|
#76
September 5th 06, 10:09 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote:
wrote: wrote: From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:49 pm (whole bunch of Len's errors and insults snipped in the interest of time and space) The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to *return* to a system something like that which existed before February 1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned earlier. If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-) Actually, there were six classes of amateur radio licenses in the USA from 1951 until the mid-1970s. They were Novice, Technician, General, Conditional, Advanced and Extra. Was the Conditional actually a class of license or a method of taking the exam? FCC considered it a different class of license until it was phased out. What priveleges did it convey? Same *operating* privileges as General. However, over its history, the Conditional had some unique characteristics. First off, you could only get a Conditional if you lived more than a certain distance from an FCC exam point, or were disabled enough to be physically unable to travel to an exam session. The Conditional distance changed a few times over the history of that license, and the amount of CONUS that was "Conditional territory" changed dramatically. Second, until the mid-1950s, if a Conditional moved closer to an exam point than the Conditional distance, they had 90 days to show up at an FCC exam session and re-test for the General. Third, the Conditional did not convey any test-element credit for higher class licenses. If a non-disabled Conditional wanted an Advanced or Extra, they had to get to an exam point, and would have to retake the General code and theory before being allowed to try the other exam elements. Why do some OF's state that they had a General when, in fact, they held the Conditional license? I don't know - ask *them*. Was there shame associated with the Conditional license? Not that I know of. Why should anyone be ashamed of any class of license? In the mid-1970s the Conditional was phased out. When a Conditional was renewed or modified, the FCC changed the license class to General. Hmmmm? Almost interesting. The number of amateur radio license classes in the USA remained at 5 until the Technician Plus lucense was created in the early 1990s. False. No, true. The Technician Plus class was created in the early 1990s - about 1993. 1993 is the early 1990s. The Technician-without-code-test went into effect February 14, 1991. The Technician with 5wpm code ran concurrently with the Technician license without code. That lasted for about two years, then we got the "Plus" as a marker for the code accomplished. That's right. From February 1991 to about mid-1993, both flavors of Technician were simply "Technician". It was left to the licensee to keep documentation. But then the strangest thing happened. It went back to "Technician" and you have to keep track of your code "accomplishment" yourself. Doesn't sound like the FCC values the code "accomplishment" all that much. Maybe not. However, note that: - The FCC did create the Tech Plus license class - The FCC could have reduced the code test requirement for all license classes to 5 wpm long before 2000, but they didn't. FCC even went through the additional complexity of medical waivers for a decade before reducing the code test requirement - Despite all their pronouncements about code testing in the various NPRMs and R&Os, FCC has not yet changed the rules about code testing from those imposed in 2000. It's been more than three years since the treaty changed, yet they won't even say when they will make a decision. If FCC doesn't value the Element 1 accomplishment, why have they retained it for so long? Maybe changes to Part 97 are not a high priority to FCC. Those are the plain and simple facts, Len. Those are almost the plain and simple facts, Jim. Are you taking stage magician lessons? You've FAILED. How is it a failure for someone to state the facts? Simple. Your "facts" failed. I corrected them, but you need not thank me. My facts were correct - the "early 1990s" did not mean Fenruary 14, 1991. btw, the 1951 restructuring that gave us the license classes with names rather than letters was not primarily driven by ARRL. Sweetums, do NOT go into your smokescreening by diversion routine again. That's SO transparent. You don't really know what caused the 1951 restructuring, do you, Len? I didn't think so. (rest of Len's errors snipped for sake of time and space). Are you going to tell us again? You don't seem to know, either |
|
#77
September 5th 06, 05:12 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
|
|
#78
September 5th 06, 05:15 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
|
|
#79
September 5th 06, 05:20 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote:
wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 18:13:27 -0700, wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: ARRL kept promoting themselves as "representative" allegedly for the amateur to the FCC but suspiciously more like a "filter" of amateurs' opinions. Why are you suspicious, Len? Anyone could petition the FCC directly, and many did, long before the Internet and ECFS. Len is suspicious of the League's elections of Directors too. Len is suspicious of a number of things in which he isn't involved. Interesting how Carl was barred from running for section office. Professional talent need not apply - we only want amateurs. and yet no problem for the ARRL's marketing director to hop over to Yeasu He is forever tainted... Wow, Goobers united! I don't think Yaesu/Vertex Standard has a policy which precludes the hiring of those who worked at the League. The League's policy doesn't preclude the candidacy of those who *previously* worked in professional communications or the manufacture and marketing of amateur radio equipment. They deal with those who work in such fields *currently*, at the time of the election. K7BV never held an elected position at ARRL. Sheesh! Dave K8MN |
|
#80
September 5th 06, 05:26 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote:
wrote: wrote: From: on Sun, Sep 3 2006 1:49 pm (whole bunch of Len's errors and insults snipped in the interest of time and space) The fact is that the "incentive licensing" changes were an attempt to *return* to a system something like that which existed before February 1953. The complexity of the final result was due in large part to it being pieced together from the numerous non-ARRL proposals mentioned earlier. If that is true (and it is not) then there were FIVE classes of amateur radio licenses prior to "incentive licensing." :-) Actually, there were six classes of amateur radio licenses in the USA from 1951 until the mid-1970s. They were Novice, Technician, General, Conditional, Advanced and Extra. Was the Conditional actually a class of license or a method of taking the exam? What priveleges did it convey? Why do some OF's state that they had a General when, in fact, they held the Conditional license? Was there shame associated with the Conditional license? Yes, the Conditional was a class of license. It conveyed the same privileges as the General Class ticket. One who held the Conditional was required to take the General Class exam before the FCC within a certain period of relocating to an area where he was within so many miles of an FCC testing point. Shame? In the mid-1970s the Conditional was phased out. When a Conditional was renewed or modified, the FCC changed the license class to General. Hmmmm? Almost interesting. Are you bored? Dave K8MN |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life. | Antenna | |||
| If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? | General | |||
| If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? | Shortwave | |||
| If you had to die to save someone's life, would that person send CW? | Antenna | |||
| Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Antenna | |||
Linear Mode
