|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am "Opus-" wrote in message The major (in population) nation administrations have dropped their morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of morse code. How do you know? :-) Try reading the No-Code International website and researching the statements in there. Which statements? ALL of them. Those are true statements. How do you know for sure? I can read the English version of individual countries' radio regulations and check it out for myself. Indeed, all other US radio services operating below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy. Why is that so important? It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking Believer. :-) IOW, you can't explain it. It takes too much time and too much effort to bang it into your morse-conditioned brain. You are too confirmed a Believer. You CAN begin to realize YOURSELF by checking out electronics and radio history done by organizations OTHER than the ARRL. Try the privatized frequency coordinators of non-amateur US radio services. Try LISTENING to HF without turning a deaf ear to anything but morse beeping. Try going out on ships and private watercraft, see if there are morse rigs on them now. Try going into civil aircraft of now and see if there are any morse rigs in them. It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't worth having a license TEST for it. You're presuming your conclusion. The FCC already said that in 1990. shrug FCC grants amateur radio licenses in the USA. Not you. Especially since the FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio- telegraphy for years. Did they ever? Yes. Long ago there was a minimum time for "CW" that had to be logged in order to renew a license. So what? Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some special significance? It's not about 'special significance". Yes, it is. :-) See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements for 20 WPM code tests. What's wrong with vanity callsigns? VANITY. :-) See all the "gotta upgrade!" agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way over all other modes. Where? All I ever saw was encouragement. You NEVER see anything wrong with the ARRL. :-) And as far as "promoted way over other modes", the amount of space given to Morse Code in ARRL publications is not out of line with the mode's popularity. Prove your point. Read everything ever printed by the ARRL and then Poll every US radio amateur. Come back when you have some results. The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all" have some innate ability to learn morse code. There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the written tests. Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time, cannot understand that a federal court decision in the early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC. :-) A court cannot change the facts, Len. All that court decision did was to render an opinion on some patents. It changed the minds of the IEEE, the ACM, and many writers of computer history and a lot of later textbooks. :-) The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time. You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Is my statement correct, Len? Tsk, give us YOUR first-hand experience with that military aptitude test. No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-) So what? Is the statement correct or not? Tsk, tsk, tsk...you keep saying *I* am always "mistaken" or "incorrect." You should not try to change the subject so readily since YOU have NO experience with military aptitude tests. I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. And you didn't score near the top on the Morse Code aptitude, did you? I think that was the start of your anti-Morse crusade. You are MISTAKEN. You are in ERROR. But, you were NEVER in the military, were you? YOU never had to go through all those new recruit things, did you? The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train them. The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]" topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, The US Navy had higher requirements, Len. I wasn't speaking about the USN. But, YOU were NEVER in the USN, were you? Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun! But not the same requirements, Len. Did the Army consider one minute out of five to be a passing grade? Did the Army use multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank Morse Code tests? I never took the Field Radio course when I was in. My MOS and training was in Microwave Radio Relay. However, I *DID* learn *while*in* the military a number of things about other MOSs. I stand by my statement. You ought to lie down. Since you were never in any military you have NO direct experience with military communications. You have no standing. btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2. you just crapped. :-) "Crapped:" Colloquial term said to be derived from the dice game, also synonymous with ejecting too much feces. It means you told an unsupportable factoid out of your imagination. All you have for "proof" of that is what the ARRL has written. Not at all, Len. It's the reason why such testing was done. Why else? You have NO direct knowledge of such "testing" and NO experience in any military. Sigh. You just can't understand any radio history unless the ARRL spoon-feeds it to you... World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has *never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years ago] So what? Morse Code played an important role in both. How do you KNOW? Is that recorded history by ANY branch of the military? The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history. Who lobbied for those requirements, Len? ARRL, of course. :-) Where is that documented? Other than the ARRL's own words on it, it should be found in the FCC Reading Room or wherever the FCC keeps documents. Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should" comment about amateur radio regulations? :-) You are telling an untruth, Len. I have never stated anything like that. Maybe I have mistaken you for that Waffen SS guy who writes that **** all the time... :-) But, you say I will NEVER be a radio amateur. You can, of course, TELL THE FUTURE? Of course. You passed the high- rate amateur radio morse test that enables you to Do Anything! :-) Why "worse," ? Afraid you won't have any new coders to play with? :-) Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class. What Great Emotional Harm came to you as a result of the zoning change in your neighborhood, Len? The change you tried to stop? That hasn't a single thing to do with AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are busy, busy, busy trying to MANUFACTURE some kind of "unethical, immoral SIN" about neighbors together to preserve the zoning laws that were present when their HOMES were built? :-) Do you live in your radio? Do you live in your radio bands? You said that "some of us [yourself and others] live in the bands." Is that true or not? [DON'T say "I never said that." You did.] NONE of MY neighbors live in their radios or "on the bands." One of them *IS* a licensed radio amateur. Another one is a licensed Commercial radio operator. The other few hundred have varying occupations. All of us live in our homes, pay taxes, have incomes that support keeping our homes. We all expect our homes to be used as dwellings, for shelter, for security, for raising families, for having visitors, for enjoying LIFE itself. WE (the neighborhood association) are not SHEEP to meekly accept whatever orders and direction we are told. WE had ample opportunity to democratically object at a public meeting several times. Now, at the time, NONE in my neighborhood association were home builders. Yet, we could OBJECT freely and openly. YOU, with your absolute faith in amateur regulations of your youth, bought into the ideas of then and now RESIST change to bring the ARS regulations up to the NOW if not the future. You are like the sheep. Now, opening zoning laws to permit multi-family dwellings (legalspeak for 'apartments') we would DECREASE the monetary value of our HOMES for the future and DECREASE the area of our neighborhood in general for the future. That isn't "progress" for the future as you termed it. We didn't want to increase a single builder's fortune at the expense of ours for our future. That ONE builder got what he wanted, FAILED to get loans to permit construction, and had to sell his ownership to another construction corporation. THAT corporation took great pains to meet with our neighborhood organization and did NOT build apartments. Single-family dwellings were built in a Walled Community, 44 homes within a literal wall and with an entrance gate. The value of our homes has since increased both in value for resale but not for our real estate taxes. It was win-win in the end for us in our neighborhood. That is all recorded history in Los Angeles County. Sorry, but the ARRL has taken no interest in the matter. :-) YOU seem terribly upset by all of that. YOU do NOT live out here, about 3K miles away. You do NOT know the full circumstances of what happened out here. You were NOT here then or afterwards. But, you feel COMPELLED to go on and on and on about it. Why? I know why. You NEED to act the character assassin, to impossibly connect disparate dots in a vain effort to "prove" something BAD about me! Any other reason you have in trying to equate amateur radio regulations with regional urban zoning laws is INSANE. Yes, Len. You're not involved. Only if you and other PCTAs say so. :-) You're not a radio amateur and will probably never be one. You CAN know the future, ey? :-) You don't make, sell or buy any products for the amateur radio market, you don't write books or articles for radio amateurs, and there's no indication you'll do any of that in the future. We are all required to "report to you on what we expect to do in the future?" You have delusions of god-hood. All you do is write a few long, error-filled posts in a couple of Usenet newsgroups and spam ECFS. Now, now, you aren't being nice... Your boast about "going for Extra right out of the box" remains unfulfilled after almost 7 years. Six-plus. It's not like you NOT to be exact. :-) Okay, I changed my mind. Or do you ALLOW that? :-) I did not swear an oath before a magistrate in here long ago. It isn't binding in any way. :-) Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource - the radio spectrum. So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS. So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes all the public safety radio services, railroad radio service, business radio, paging services. So does cellular telephony. So does the US government and US military. Is there a point to all that? Tsk. YOU are not the ONLY user of the EM environment. :-) Amateurs get only a SMALL portion of the EM spectrum...be thankful for what you do have. Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the EM spectrum" kick you've done before. When did I say anything like that? Let's see your "proof", Len. You are GUILTY by INTENT, Jimmie Noserve, by THOUGHT, by IMPLICATION, by malice aforethought, premeditated. All to keep your precious code test for future amateurs...because that is YOUR personal desire. A personal desire unthinking of future radio hobbyists whom you've never met, whom you know nothing. You want to FORCE them to do YOUR wishes. As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
wrote: wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am "Opus-" wrote in message The major (in population) nation administrations have dropped their morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of morse code. How do you know? :-) Try reading the No-Code International website and researching the statements in there. Which statements? ALL of them. Please be more specific. Those are true statements. How do you know for sure? I can read the English version of individual countries' radio regulations and check it out for myself. Indeed, all other US radio services operating below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy. Why is that so important? It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking Believer. :-) IOW, you can't explain it. It takes too much time and too much effort to bang it into your morse-conditioned brain. You are too confirmed a Believer. That is not true. The problem is that you can't explain it. You CAN begin to realize YOURSELF by checking out electronics and radio history done by organizations OTHER than the ARRL. I've done that, Len. The ARRL is not a major source of "radio history" to me. Try the privatized frequency coordinators of non-amateur US radio services. Why? What do they have to do with amateur radio policy? Try LISTENING to HF without turning a deaf ear to anything but morse beeping. I've listened to HF since the mid 1960s, Len. Both the amateur bands and other services' bands. Lots of Morse Code and other modes on the amateur bands. What's your point? Try going out on ships and private watercraft, see if there are morse rigs on them now. Try going into civil aircraft of now and see if there are any morse rigs in them. Why? What does that have to do with amateur radio policy? It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't worth having a license TEST for it. You're presuming your conclusion. The FCC already said that in 1990. shrug Old stuff, Len. If it's so obvious, why hasn't FCC eliminated Element 1? Why didn't they just drop it in the summer of 2003? Could it be that FCC may be rethinking the issue? Or maybe they're just bogged down reading hundreds of pages of comments? FCC grants amateur radio licenses in the USA. Not you. You don't grant them either, Len. You're not involved. Especially since the FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio- telegraphy for years. Did they ever? Yes. Long ago When? there was a minimum time for "CW" that had to be logged in order to renew a license. So what? Why did you bring it up if it's "so what"? Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some special significance? It's not about 'special significance". Yes, it is. :-) See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements for 20 WPM code tests. What's wrong with vanity callsigns? VANITY. :-) You've demonstrated your high level of vanity here, Len... See all the "gotta upgrade!" agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way over all other modes. Where? All I ever saw was encouragement. You NEVER see anything wrong with the ARRL. :-) Another untruth. And as far as "promoted way over other modes", the amount of space given to Morse Code in ARRL publications is not out of line with the mode's popularity. Prove your point. Read everything ever printed by the ARRL and then Poll every US radio amateur. Come back when you have some results. The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all" have some innate ability to learn morse code. There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the written tests. Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time, cannot understand that a federal court decision in the early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC. :-) A court cannot change the facts, Len. All that court decision did was to render an opinion on some patents. It changed the minds of the IEEE, the ACM, and many writers of computer history and a lot of later textbooks. :-) But not everyone. The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time. You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Is my statement correct, Len? Tsk, give us YOUR first-hand experience with that military aptitude test. You're ducking the issue. It's not about me. It's about whether my statement is correct. I think you know it *is* correct, but won't admit it. No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-) So what? Is the statement correct or not? Tsk, tsk, tsk...you keep saying *I* am always "mistaken" or "incorrect." That's not true. You are *often* mistaken, or incorrect. Not "always". You should not try to change the subject so readily since YOU have NO experience with military aptitude tests. I stated: "The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time." Is that statement correct or not? I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. And you didn't score near the top on the Morse Code aptitude, did you? I think that was the start of your anti-Morse crusade. You are MISTAKEN. You are in ERROR. Did you score near the top? I think not. Are you on an anti-Morse crusade? That's pretty clear. But, you were NEVER in the military, were you? YOU never had to go through all those new recruit things, did you? It's not about me, Len. The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train them. The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]" topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, The US Navy had higher requirements, Len. I wasn't speaking about the USN. The subject was about *military* radio telegraphers. Is the US Navy not part of "the military"? But, YOU were NEVER in the USN, were you? It's not about me, Len. Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun! But not the same requirements, Len. Did the Army consider one minute out of five to be a passing grade? Did the Army use multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank Morse Code tests? I never took the Field Radio course when I was in. So you don't know. My MOS and training was in Microwave Radio Relay. *Not* "Radio Operator". However, I *DID* learn *while*in* the military a number of things about other MOSs. A civilian could learn the same things about other MOSs, couldn't they? I stand by my statement. You ought to lie down. Why? Is my statement incorrect? Since you were never in any military you have NO direct experience with military communications. You have no standing. By that logic, since you have never been a radio amateur, you have NO direct experience with amateur radio communications. You have no standing. btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2. you just crapped. :-) "Crapped:" Colloquial term said to be derived from the dice game, also synonymous with ejecting too much feces. It means you told an unsupportable factoid out of your imagination. How so? Why would the US military do Morse Code aptitude testing in wartime if they didn't need large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators for WW2? All you have for "proof" of that is what the ARRL has written. Not at all, Len. It's the reason why such testing was done. Why else? You have NO direct knowledge of such "testing" and NO experience in any military. Sigh. You just can't understand any radio history unless the ARRL spoon-feeds it to you... You're avoiding the issue, Len. It's not about me. It's about whether my statement is correct. I think you know it *is* correct, but won't admit it. World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has *never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years ago] So what? Morse Code played an important role in both. How do you KNOW? Is that recorded history by ANY branch of the military? Yes. The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history. Who lobbied for those requirements, Len? ARRL, of course. :-) Where is that documented? Other than the ARRL's own words on it, it should be found in the FCC Reading Room or wherever the FCC keeps documents. Be more specific, please. Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should" comment about amateur radio regulations? :-) You are telling an untruth, Len. I have never stated anything like that. Maybe I have mistaken you for that Waffen SS guy who writes that **** all the time... :-) "Waffen SS"? But, you say I will NEVER be a radio amateur. Probably never. You can, of course, TELL THE FUTURE? Of course. You passed the high- rate amateur radio morse test that enables you to Do Anything! :-) I've done lots of things that you have not, Len. Why "worse," ? Afraid you won't have any new coders to play with? :-) Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class. What Great Emotional Harm came to you as a result of the zoning change in your neighborhood, Len? The change you tried to stop? That hasn't a single thing to do with AMATEUR RADIO POLICY. Yes, it does. It's a clear analogy to how rules changes happen. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are busy, busy, busy trying to MANUFACTURE some kind of "unethical, immoral SIN" about neighbors together to preserve the zoning laws that were present when their HOMES were built? :-) Where have I written anything like that, Len? That's *your* guilt and shame coming out, not anything from me. You tried to stop a change in your neighborhood's zoning regulations because you thought it was a bad change. You think that was A Good And Right Thing To Do. Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize them. See the hypocrisy and double standard of your behavior? Do you live in your radio? Do you live in your radio bands? You said that "some of us [yourself and others] live in the bands." Where did I say that? Show me. You've claimed I wrote that, but you can't show us where or when I did. You are either mistaken or being deceptive. If I really wrote that, show us. Prove me wrong by quoting where I wrote the phrase you quoted. You quoted it with the " symbol, meaning a direct, verbatim quote. Is that true or not? I can't confirm what I didn't write. [DON'T say "I never said that." You did.] When? Show us. NONE of MY neighbors live in their radios or "on the bands." One of them *IS* a licensed radio amateur. Another one is a licensed Commercial radio operator. The other few hundred have varying occupations. All of us live in our homes, pay taxes, have incomes that support keeping our homes. We all expect our homes to be used as dwellings, for shelter, for security, for raising families, for having visitors, for enjoying LIFE itself. How does that have anything to do with resisting change to zoning laws? Or forcing change to amateur radio regs? WE (the neighborhood association) are not SHEEP to meekly accept whatever orders and direction we are told. Neither are radio amateurs "sheep" who have to accept what you propose. WE had ample opportunity to democratically object at a public meeting several times. But you lost. The change happened over your objections. In a true democracy, the majority opinion counts for something. Your neighborhood's majority was overridden, wasn't it? Do you think that was democracy in action? In the comments to the FCC, the majority of comments were to retain at least some Morse Code testing. Do you think *that* majority opinion should be overridden? Do you think that would be democracy in action? Now, at the time, NONE in my neighborhood association were home builders. Yet, we could OBJECT freely and openly. Because you were land owners and residents. That's the key factor - land ownership and residency, not whether you were builders or not. Did that objection stop the change? The analogy with amateur radio is equipment manufacturers vs. licensed radio amateurs. YOU, with your absolute faith in amateur regulations of your youth, bought into the ideas of then and now RESIST change to bring the ARS regulations up to the NOW if not the future. You are like the sheep. Yet another untruth, Len. I think you're really talking about yourself. With your absolute faith in the zoning regulations of your youth, bought into the ideas of then and now resisted change to bring the zoning regulations up to the present if not the future. You and your neighbors are like the sheep. Classic case of "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY). I think in your case, it was *literally* behind your back yard, wasn't it? Now, opening zoning laws to permit multi-family dwellings (legalspeak for 'apartments') we would DECREASE the monetary value of our HOMES for the future Whoa there! Who was it that wrote: "You can, of course, TELL THE FUTURE? Of course." why, it was you, Len! How do you know the proposed change would decrease the monetary value of your homes? And was the proposal for apartment houses? Single family residences with attached apartments? Townhomes? Condos? Mixed development? Or did you just not want anything other than the little boxes on the hillside of the 1960s? and DECREASE the area of our neighborhood in general for the future. How? The land would still be there. If you wanted the land to remain undeveloped, why didn't you buy it? The developer *owned* the land, didn't he? That isn't "progress" for the future as you termed it. We didn't want to increase a single builder's fortune at the expense of ours for our future. Here's that quote again: "You can, of course, TELL THE FUTURE? Of course." Seems to me that you view the *possible* loss of house value as Great Emotional Harm. That ONE builder got what he wanted, FAILED to get loans to permit construction, and had to sell his ownership to another construction corporation. THAT corporation took great pains to meet with our neighborhood organization and did NOT build apartments. Single-family dwellings were built in a Walled Community, 44 homes within a literal wall and with an entrance gate. Why a wall? Is the wall to keep the residents in? Or to keep outsiders out? The value of our homes has since increased both in value for resale but not for our real estate taxes. It was win-win in the end for us in our neighborhood. You don't know what would have happened if the first developer had built on the property. And the building of those new homes *did* "DECREASE the area of our neighborhood in general for the future." That is all recorded history in Los Angeles County. Sorry, but the ARRL has taken no interest in the matter. :-) The point is that you resisted a change you thought was bad. Yet you criticize radio amateurs for resisting a change they think is bad. YOU seem terribly upset by all of that. How? I'm not shouting and carrying on like you do. I'm not upset at all. You are. YOU do NOT live out here, about 3K miles away. Check a map. I think you have overstated the distance... So what? I might want to move out there to retire. One of your neighbors might be a relative of mine, too. I have a considerable number of relatives, Len, with a variety of last names. You are not a radio amateur. You are about as involved in Amateur Radio as I am in Los Angeles county real estate. You do NOT know the full circumstances of what happened out here. You were NOT here then or afterwards. How do you know for sure where I was in 1990? But, you feel COMPELLED to go on and on and on about it. Why? I know why. You NEED to act the character assassin, to impossibly connect disparate dots in a vain effort to "prove" something BAD about me! You tried to stop a change in your neighborhood's zoning regulations because you thought it was a bad change. You think that was A Good And Right Thing To Do. Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize them. Any other reason you have in trying to equate amateur radio regulations with regional urban zoning laws is INSANE. No, Len. It's an analogy. I think you don't like my real-estate analogy because of what it proves. Yes, Len. You're not involved. Only if you and other PCTAs say so. :-) You're not a radio amateur and will probably never be one. You CAN know the future, ey? :-) See the word "probably"? You don't make, sell or buy any products for the amateur radio market, you don't write books or articles for radio amateurs, and there's no indication you'll do any of that in the future. We are all required to "report to you on what we expect to do in the future?" You have delusions of god-hood. Another untruth All you do is write a few long, error-filled posts in a couple of Usenet newsgroups and spam ECFS. Now, now, you aren't being nice... Your boast about "going for Extra right out of the box" remains unfulfilled after almost 7 years. Six-plus. It's not like you NOT to be exact. :-) Okay, I changed my mind. Or do you ALLOW that? :-) I did not swear an oath before a magistrate in here long ago. It isn't binding in any way. :-) Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource - the radio spectrum. So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS. So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes all the public safety radio services, railroad radio service, business radio, paging services. So does cellular telephony. So does the US government and US military. Is there a point to all that? Tsk. YOU are not the ONLY user of the EM environment. :-) Amateurs get only a SMALL portion of the EM spectrum...be thankful for what you do have. We amateurs have what we have because we asked for it and defended it. You were not and are not involved. Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the EM spectrum" kick you've done before. When did I say anything like that? Let's see your "proof", Len. You are GUILTY by INTENT, Jimmie Noserve, by THOUGHT, by IMPLICATION, by malice aforethought, premeditated. Let's see your proof of any of that. All to keep your precious code test for future amateurs...because that is YOUR personal desire. Is personal desire a bad thing? It was your personal desire to keep your neighborhood unchanged. A personal desire unthinking of future residents whom you've never met, of whom you know nothing. You wanted to force them to do your wishes, meet your requirements, or live someplace else. A personal desire unthinking of future radio hobbyists whom you've never met, whom you know nothing. '*of* whom you know nothing' You want to FORCE them to do YOUR wishes. You tried to stop a change in your neighborhood's zoning regulations because you thought it was a bad change. You think that was A Good And Right Thing To Do. Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize them. See the analogy - and the problem? As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... Is that the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do"? Because that's what you're telling us, Len. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: on Sat, Nov 4 2006 5:08 am
wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am wrote: From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am "Opus-" wrote in message Jimmie Noserve rides again, trying to prove only HE is "correct" You are *often* mistaken, or incorrect. Not "always". No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. You are using your OWN subjective opinion as a "fact." In itself that is WRONG. You're avoiding the issue, Len. It's not about me. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. YES, your replies are about YOU. You MUST show YOUR statements are "correct" and your challengers' statements are "wrong." :-) You just can't get that monkey off your back... :-) World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has *never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years ago] So what? Morse Code played an important role in both. How do you KNOW? Is that recorded history by ANY branch of the military? Yes. Be more specific, please. Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize them. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. I criticize their OPINIONS because I do not think elimination of the amateur radio code test is "bad." Where did I say that? Show me. You've claimed I wrote that, but you can't show us where or when I did. You are either mistaken or being deceptive. Tsk, even if the EXACT QUOTE is presented to you, you will claim "no error" somehow. :-) You know, everyone knows what YOU wrote in here recently. Your ploy of misdirection is itself a misdirection. Stay on the subject. If I really wrote that, show us. Prove me wrong by quoting where I wrote the phrase you quoted. You quoted it with the " symbol, meaning a direct, verbatim quote. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. Google doesn't accept italics. As a result, double-quote marks are used for a variety of uses in writing here. Double-quote marks are NOT SOLELY descriptive of "quotations." Either ANSWER the amateur radio policy subject or quit the misdirection into punctuation use. I think you don't like my real-estate analogy because of what it proves. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. YOU are NOT INVOLVED with Los Angeles laws. YOU do NOT live here. YOU do NOT pay real estate taxes here. That "analogy" has NO BEARING on the subject of this newsgroup, NOTHING concerning amateur radio. You have delusions of god-hood. Another untruth You mean you think you ARE god?!? We amateurs have what we have because we asked for it and defended it. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. "You amateurs" bought into existing regulations. YOU did NOT make the law. If you think you "made" the law, be specific and present proof that you did do so. You were not and are not involved. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. Federal regulations are NOT closed to the public. US amateur radio is NOT a fraternal organization were ONLY "members" get to say anything. I know considerable about US amateur radio, know several radio amateurs personally, have written for an amateur radio periodical as both contributor and editor. A personal desire unthinking of future radio hobbyists whom you've never met, whom you know nothing. '*of* whom you know nothing' No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. I know several not yet licensed in amateur radio. US amateur radio is NOT a secret society. It is not a government-classified secret. Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize them. Yes. How is that "wrong?" As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... Is that the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do"? No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. Use your mighty web searching skills and FIND OUT for yourself. YOU can do it. You seem to be too LAZY to find out! Tsk, tsk, the mighty newsgroup morse warrior NOT DEDICATED ENOUGHT to find out! If you cannot search the 'net, get help from those who can. I will not help you since you "*often*" say I am "mistaken." PCTAs cannot tell the amateur extra morsemen gods of radio much of anything... :-) As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote:
From: on Sat, Nov 4 2006 5:08 am wrote: wrote: wrote: You are *often* mistaken, or incorrect. Not "always". No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. How is that possible, Len? Are you *always* mistaken or incorrect? That's what you seem to be saying. You are using your OWN subjective opinion as a "fact." What subjective opinion? I have commented on some of your mistakes here. Your errors are frequent enough that any rational person would conclude that you are often mistaken, or incorrect. In itself that is WRONG. How? Is it WRONG to express ideas that do not agree with your ideas? You're avoiding the issue, Len. It's not about me. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. YES, your replies are about YOU. They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me. World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has *never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years ago] So what? Morse Code played an important role in both. How do you KNOW? Is that recorded history by ANY branch of the military? Yes. Be more specific, please. Here's a first-person account: http://www.smecc.org/albert.htm Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize them. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. You do criticize them for opposing what they think is a bad change. That's a fact. I criticize their OPINIONS because I do not think elimination of the amateur radio code test is "bad." You criticize far more than OPINIONS, Len. That's a fact. Where did I say that? Show me. You've claimed I wrote that, but you can't show us where or when I did. You are either mistaken or being deceptive. Tsk, even if the EXACT QUOTE is presented to you, you will claim "no error" somehow. :-) Can you tell the future, Len? I think not. You know, everyone knows what YOU wrote in here recently. Just show the quote, Len. Your ploy of misdirection is itself a misdirection. Stay on the subject. You can't find the quote, can you, Len? You realize you misquoted me but won't admit it. If I really wrote that, show us. Prove me wrong by quoting where I wrote the phrase you quoted. You quoted it with the " symbol, meaning a direct, verbatim quote. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. How? You have not shown us the exact quote. Google doesn't accept italics. As a result, double-quote marks are used for a variety of uses in writing here. Double-quote marks are NOT SOLELY descriptive of "quotations." Then show us the exact quote. Either ANSWER the amateur radio policy subject or quit the misdirection into punctuation use. You're not the moderator, Len. Just show us the exact quote - if you can. I think you can not. I think you don't like my real-estate analogy because of what it proves. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. Really? Your behavior proves otherwise. YOU are NOT INVOLVED with Los Angeles laws. So what? Real estate laws are not that much different here. YOU do NOT live here. How do you know for sure? YOU do NOT pay real estate taxes here. Even if that's true, so what? That has no effect on the validity of the analogy. Do you think only those who pay real estate taxes can comment on real estate laws? That "analogy" has NO BEARING on the subject of this newsgroup, NOTHING concerning amateur radio. Yes, it does. Here's how it works: You opposed a change to the real estate zoning in your neighborhood because you thought it was a bad change. You wanted to keep the zoning as it was when you were young and had just moved into your house, more than 40 years ago. You don't like "outsiders" trying to change the zoning, or even *commenting* on it in a public forum. BUT, You are an outsider to amateur radio. You are not a radio amateur, have never been one, and will probably never be one. Your only involvement in amateur radio is your wordy, error- and insult-ridden postings to Usenet, and your lengthy comments to FCC. Yet you are trying to force changes in amateur radio regulations. And when radio amateurs, who *are* involved with amateur radio, oppose those changes, you criticize them. We amateurs have what we have because we asked for it and defended it. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. "You amateurs" bought into existing regulations. YOU did NOT make the law. If you think you "made" the law, be specific and present proof that you did do so. We amateurs have gotten the laws changed. Just like that real estate developer.... You were not and are not involved. No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. How? Did you get an amateur radio license? Set up a station? Federal regulations are NOT closed to the public. US amateur radio is NOT a fraternal organization were ONLY "members" get to say anything. Who said anything different? You've been spamming the FCC for years, but you haven't been very effective at it. And besides those windy comments and your postings to usenet, you just aren't involved in amateur radio, Len. I know considerable about US amateur radio, All of it second-hand. know several radio amateurs personally, So what? Doesn't mean you are involved. have written for an amateur radio periodical as both contributor and editor. And that ended almost a quarter century ago. Old stuff. A personal desire unthinking of future radio hobbyists whom you've never met, whom you know nothing. '*of* whom you know nothing' No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. You made the error, Len. I just pointed it out. I know several not yet licensed in amateur radio. So do I. US amateur radio is NOT a secret society. It is not a government-classified secret. Who said it was? All I said is that you're not involved. And you're not. Many radio amateurs are trying to stop a change in the amateur radio regulations because they think it is a bad change. Yet you criticize them. Yes. You just admitted that you criticize them personally - not just their opinions. How is that "wrong?" How is it wrong for someone to try to change zoning laws? As always to you, ByteBrothers famous phrase invoked... Is that the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do"? No. You are MISTAKEN. You made an ERROR. You are WRONG. How? All I did was ask a question. How can it be wrong to ask a question? Can't you answer that question? Use your mighty web searching skills and FIND OUT for yourself. YOU can do it. You seem to be too LAZY to find out! Tsk, tsk, the mighty newsgroup morse warrior NOT DEDICATED ENOUGHT to find out! "ENOUGHT"? If you cannot search the 'net, get help from those who can. I will not help you since you "*often*" say I am "mistaken." Nope. I say you are often mistaken. And you are. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
John Smith wrote:
wrote: ... They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me. ... I strongly disagree with the above. They are about you. They describe, and I feel quite accurately, the depth, width and breadth of you, your thinking and your abilities. Well, I disagree somewhat. My posts simply state my thoughts and observations on certain subjects. They do not "describe,....., the depth, width and breadth of you, your thinking and your abilities." There's more to me than what I post on Usenet. In fact, I try to post as little about myself here as possible. OTOH, they *do* say something about me, their writer. They don't say everything, but they do say something. So you do have a point - they *are* about me to some extent. I ask you, "If not, then why would you not structure your words differently?" I structure my words as best I can to convey the meanings intended. That does not mean my postings are flawless! NOTE: This message makes NO statement as to your words worth. It only points out the error in your statement. Good point. Thanks 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote in
ups.com: John Smith wrote: wrote: ... They are written *by* me, but they are not *about* me. ... I strongly disagree with the above. They are about you. They describe, and I feel quite accurately, the depth, width and breadth of you, your thinking and your abilities. Well, I disagree somewhat. My posts simply state my thoughts and observations on certain subjects. They do not "describe,....., the depth, width and breadth of you, your thinking and your abilities." There's more to me than what I post on Usenet. In fact, I try to post as little about myself here as possible. OTOH, they *do* say something about me, their writer. They don't say everything, but they do say something. So you do have a point - they *are* about me to some extent. I ask you, "If not, then why would you not structure your words differently?" I structure my words as best I can to convey the meanings intended. That does not mean my postings are flawless! NOTE: This message makes NO statement as to your words worth. It only points out the error in your statement. Good point. Thanks 73 de Jim, N2EY Anyone that enjoys CW and supports keeping the requirement is okay in my book. SC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com