wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.

What "formalism" do you mean, Len?

1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL
for use in "official" message relay by amateurs.

What's wrong with it?

There's no requirement to buy the forms in order to use the standard
message format. Once someone has handled enough messages, the format
becomes second nature.

Using a standard message format for written messages is easier, faster
and more accurate. That's why it has been used for so long.

Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

It's not play-acting, Len. It's for-real.

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'

Yep, that's a pretty dumb practice. Note that it's a *voice* thing.
It's been considered a poor voice operating practice for decades. I
simply don't do it.

Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal
to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic
shorthand where inflection and tonality of real
laughter is not possible]

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Of course you are not a Morse Code operator, Len, so your ignorance may
be understandable.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

I would call them "inaccurate" reports. And again, they're poor
operating practice.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well.

I agree!

A *few* Q signals have a place on voice, where the Q signal saves a lot
of verbiage. But most are simply poor operating practice.

For example, some voice operators will say "QSL" to mean "Roger" -
which means "I heard and understood everything you said". "QSL" is
three syllables, while "Roger" is only two. If both mean the same
thing, why say the longer one?

Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

Jargon does not make something "professional".

Jargon has a use where it conveys a special-purpose meaning in a few
words. For example, referring to an amateur band by meters instead of
megahertz saves time and space, as in "I was on 80 the other night and
the Gs were all over the place".

Most human activities develop their own jargon - amateur radio is no
different. The jargon used on the amateur bands is not an attempt to
sound "professional".

Once again, the problem you cite is a voice thing.

5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a
flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any)
under discussion. Most of the time such voice
contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's
ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom.

Another voice-only problem. And what does it have to do with
"formalism?"

6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names
in non-radio conversation, communication, and image
displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL
radio station or radio broadcaster.

I think you're jealous, Len, because *you* don't have an amateur radio
callsign.

Referring to a person by their callsign instead of their name is good
amateur practice. Callsigns are unique, short, and easily understood,
while names often are not.

Amateur radio stations are REAL radio stations, Len. That's not an
opinion - it's a legal fact, defined so by the FCC.

Did you ever hear of the "8JK" antenna, Len? Or the "G5RV"?

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)."

What's wrong with that? It's certainly a fact.

Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

How? The license for both station and operator are federally issued.

btw, I've never heard an amateur using Morse Code use that "federally
authorized....." verbiage. Another voice thing.

8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real
activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow
a national service to the country.

Amateur Radio often performs public service - at the local, state,
regional and national level. It's not "just a hobby", Len.

And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur
radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of
radio activity of all) into that "national service"
akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an
important "resource" that would always "save the day
when all other infrastructure communications services
'failed'."

What *are* you going on about, Len? The word "service" has several
meanings.

Nobody says that amateur radio will *always* save the day. But there
are times when amateur radio steps in and provides needed communication
when other means have failed.

Like the communications failure in Tennessee a week or so back. I can
provide a link, if you need one.

btw, one of the reasons for that problem in Tennessee was that the
professionals installed vital telephone equipment in a basement - which
flooded.

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.

Who assumes that, Len? And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

Emergency communications is one aspect of amateur radio. It's an
important aspect, but not the only one.

Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous
amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions
written, the amateur radio service is still an
avocational radio activity done for personal
pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation.

But that's not all it is. Public service is part of amateur radio, too.


Just read Part 97.

Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.

Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service,
what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services?

Quite a bit, Len. More than you'd like to admit.

You know NOTHING of military radio.

That's not true, Len.

You never served, never
worked with the military.

How do you know for sure?

I did both as a soldier and as a civilian.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology.

That's not true, Len.

I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.


You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services,

That's not true, Len.

never had one.

How do you know for sure?

I did.

That's nice, Len.

You know NOTHING of Aircraft Radio Service, protocal or
procedures, or of actual air-air or air-ground comms.

That's not true, Len.

I've done that, both air-air and air-ground.

But you've never been a licensed pilot, Len.

You know NOTHING of Maritime Radio Service, what goes on
and what is used.

That's not true, Len.

I've used it on the water, both in
harbors and inland waterways.

That's nice. What does any of that have to do with "formalism" or
amateur radio?

You MIGHT know something of Citizens Band Radio Service.

I've listened to it. Quite a mess.

CBers out-number amateurs by at least 4:1, could be twice
that.

How do you know for sure, Len? CB use does not require a license.

I've been doing that since 1959.

Do you think Amateur Radio should become more like cb, Len?

Do you think your experience in cb somehow makes you qualified to tell
experienced radio amateurs how Amateur Radio should be run?

You MIGHT know something about Personal Communications
Radio Services other than CB (R-C is not strictly a
communications mode, it is tele-command)...such as a
cellular telephone. No "call letters," "Q" codes, or
radiotelegraphy are used with cell phones. One in three
Americans has one. Do you have one. I do.

The number is probably closer to one in two Americans, Len. Maybe even
more - in many families, there is one or even no wired phone, but
everyone in the family has their own cell phone.

However, the cellphone is completely unlike Amateur Radio. The user has
very little control over the radio part of a cellphone. S/he can turn
the cellphone on and off, and that's about the level of absolute
control.

All cell phone radio functions are actually controlled by the cellphone
network/system. The user *requests* various functions, such as
intitiating a call, but the system decides how to handle the request -
even whether to handle it.

Cell phones are actually just the end device in an enormous
communications network - almost all of which does *not* use radio!

Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND
they are pros in front of their ham rigs.

Not true, Len. We're amateurs

Don't you forget it.

I'm proud of it.

And a license to use a good chunk of that spectrum has been available
without a Morse Code test for more than 15 years. But you have not
taken advanatage of it.

I have USED my COMMERCIAL radio operator license to operate
on FAR MORE EM SPECTRUM than is allocated to amateurs.

So why are you here, lecturing to amateurs?

LEGAL operation.

Maybe.

In most cases of such work NO license was required
by the contracting government agency. [the FCC regulates only
CIVIL radio services in the USA, NOT the government's use]

When did YOU "legally" operate below 500 KHz? Have you EVER
operated on frequencies in the microwave region? [other than
causing 2.4 GHz EMI from your microwave oven] Have you
transmitted ANY RF energy as high as 25 GHz? I have
transmitted RF from below LF to 25 GHz. I have done that
since 1953...53 years ago.

So what, Len? Why do you live in the past?

What would you have me "take advantage of" in "good chunks"
of the EM spectrum? "Work DX at 10 GHz?!?" :-) :-) :-)

It's up to you, Len.

I've once "worked" 250,000 miles (approximately) "DX" with
a far-away station above 2 GHz but below 10 GHz.

But not with your own station.

What have
YOU done above 3/4 meters? READ about it?

Oh, yes, now you are going to "reply" with the standard
ruler-spank that I did not do that with "my own"
equipment. :-)

You didn't, Len. You got to push a button on a system that was the
result of many people's work - and paid for by the taxpayers.

If someone makes a telephone call that goes through a geosynchronous
satellite, they've used microwave communications over a path longer
than 50,000 miles.

Well, now YOU have a quandry. To use that stock "reply"
of yours you MUST define that the "taxpayer SUBSIDIZES"
anything of the government or contracted work by the
government.

The taxpayers pay for it, yes. The government subsidizes it, because
the market cannot support it.

In your "logic" then, I really DO "own" that
equipment!

Nope. The part of your taxes that went to pay for it were tiny. Perhaps
one small part was paid for by your taxes - if that much.

But, if you say I don't then you have to take back your
INSULT to all military servicemen and servicewomen that
they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer."

I never wrote that they "receive a SUBSIDY from the taxpayer.", Len.

You are mistaken, and misquoting.

I will NOT
"own that equipment" if you take that insult back.

You don't own that equipment, Len. It's that simple.

YOU don't think your remark was an "insult."

I've asked both you and Brian Burke to explain why the word "subsidize"
is an insult. So far, you have not explained.

I even posted the defintion, straight from Webster's. Perhaps you
should look it up.

You've tried
to rationalize your way out of that three ways from Sunday
since.

I've said that no insult was intended. You have not explained what the
insult is.

Well then, I "do" "own" that equipment and did get
experience using "my own" equipment!

Try to bring it home, Len....

It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.

Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?

Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

As for youth:

I recall you writing that you've always had a problem with that - shall
I produce the exact quote?

I also recall that you wanted to *ban* anyone under the age of 14 from
amateur radio. You went so far as to recommend that to FCC.

As for simplicity:

You sure do seem to make simple things complicated.

YOU are NOT young,
Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

I'm a lot younger than you, Len. In body, mind, and spirit.

YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did
was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized
by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering."

How do you know for sure, Len?

And what does that have to do with "formalism"?

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship.

Where do I imply that, Len? I passed the Amateur Extra license exams in
1970, at the age of 16. There were more than a few Extras younger than
me, back then.

The written testing for the Extra Class license has always been more
than the Morse Code testing. In 1970, earning that license required
passing four written tests (Novice, General/Tech, Advanced, Extra) but
only two Morse Code tests (13 and 20 wpm).

btw - what exactly is "morsemanship"? You keep using that word, but
never say what it means.

Seems to me, Len, that you've taken a simple question and turned you
answer into a personal attack on me, for no reason at all. Typical.

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:
Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use
a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional"
radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70
years ago.
What "formalism" do you mean, Len?
1. The "official" 'Radiogram' form sold by the ARRL
for use in "official" message relay by amateurs.

What's wrong with it?

There's no requirement to buy the forms in order to use the standard
message format. Once someone has handled enough messages, the format
becomes second nature.

Using a standard message format for written messages is easier, faster
and more accurate. That's why it has been used for so long.

The format used helps to ensure accuracy, specifies handling
instructions, tells when and from whom the message originated and
specifies precedence. Why would Leonard have a problem with that?


Obvious play-acting AS IF the amateur relay was
by "official" means a la Western Union or similar
REAL telegraphic message. :-)

It's not play-acting, Len. It's for-real.

It surely is. It may be a telegraphic message, voice message or digital
mode message. Did you note Len's use of "REAL" and the smiley used to
indicate that he is just joking?

2. The monotonic HI HI HI on voice to denote a 'laugh.'

Yep, that's a pretty dumb practice. Note that it's a *voice* thing.
It's been considered a poor voice operating practice for decades. I
simply don't do it.

I seldom hear it. Len is living in the past.


Done with little or no inflection and hardly normal
to genuine laughter. [jargon from telegraphic
shorthand where inflection and tonality of real
laughter is not possible]

Skilled Morse Code operators know that a lot of meaning can be conveyed
by how the code is sent. A skilled Morse Code operator can make "HI HI"
in Morse Code sound like a laugh.

Beats the heck out of "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA".

Of course you are not a Morse Code operator, Len, so your ignorance may
be understandable.

I'm convinced.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

3. Gratuitous signal level and readability "reports"
to other stations AS IF they were solidly received
when they are not.

I would call them "inaccurate" reports. And again, they're poor
operating practice.

When and if our Leonard ever obtains an amateur radio license, he is
free to take accurate measurement and provide them in dbm to stations he
works. He is free to reject any report they provide him.

What does that have to do with "formalism"?

4. Carrying over many, many "Q" code three-letter
shorthands from telegraphy on voice where the plain
words would have worked just as well.

I agree!

A *few* Q signals have a place on voice, where the Q signal saves a lot
of verbiage. But most are simply poor operating practice.

For example, some voice operators will say "QSL" to mean "Roger" -
which means "I heard and understood everything you said". "QSL" is
three syllables, while "Roger" is only two. If both mean the same
thing, why say the longer one?

Jargon use
has the appearance of being a "professional" service
but it is just jargon, a juxtaposition of short-hand
used in different modes.

Jargon does not make something "professional".

Jargon has a use where it conveys a special-purpose meaning in a few
words. For example, referring to an amateur band by meters instead of
megahertz saves time and space, as in "I was on 80 the other night and
the Gs were all over the place".

Most human activities develop their own jargon - amateur radio is no
different. The jargon used on the amateur bands is not an attempt to
sound "professional".

Once again, the problem you cite is a voice thing.

Yes and one which Len is free to adopt or not adopt should he ever
obtain an amateur radio license.

5. The seeming inability to express anything but in a
flat monotone on voice, despite the subject (if any)
under discussion. Most of the time such voice
contacts seem devoid of the transmitting operator's
ability to convey any emotion beyond boredom.

Another voice-only problem. And what does it have to do with
"formalism?"

I think he's making a case for the elimination of voice modes in amateur
radio.

6. The over-use of call signs instead of legal names
in non-radio conversation, communication, and image
displays...AS IF the license grantee were a REAL
radio station or radio broadcaster.

I think you're jealous, Len, because *you* don't have an amateur radio
callsign.

Len is big on terms like "overly-proud" and "over-use". They mean
anything more frequent than his standards permit. I may use my callsign
at any time.

Referring to a person by their callsign instead of their name is good
amateur practice. Callsigns are unique, short, and easily understood,
while names often are not.

Amateur radio stations are REAL radio stations, Len. That's not an
opinion - it's a legal fact, defined so by the FCC.

I have a REAL amateur radio license. It has my REAL callsign printed on
it. I keep it in my REAL radio station.

Did you ever hear of the "8JK" antenna, Len? Or the "G5RV"?

Nobody calls 'em by the name of their developer.

7. The non-radio self-definition of a licensee as being
"federally authorized radio station (or operator or
both)."

What's wrong with that? It's certainly a fact.

Elevation of self-importance beyond what the
amateur radio license GRANT is about.

How? The license for both station and operator are federally issued.

"Overly-proud", "over-use of callsigns", "elevation of self-importance".

Leonard Anderson doesn't get to specify how much self-importance is too
much.

btw, I've never heard an amateur using Morse Code use that "federally
authorized....." verbiage. Another voice thing.

Me neither.

8. The non-acceptance of the word "hobby" for the real
activity of radio amateurs AS IF they were somehow
a national service to the country.

Amateur Radio often performs public service - at the local, state,
regional and national level. It's not "just a hobby", Len.

Where in Part 97 of the FCC regs is the word "hobby" ever used?

Have you noticed how far afield Len is going? This isn't about the use
of morse or about removing the morse test. It is about amateur radio
itself.

And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

9. The falsity of redefining the word "service" (amateur
radio service, were 'service' means a type and kind of
radio activity of all) into that "national service"
akin to anything from a para-military occupation to an
important "resource" that would always "save the day
when all other infrastructure communications services
'failed'."

What *are* you going on about, Len? The word "service" has several
meanings.

Nobody says that amateur radio will *always* save the day. But there
are times when amateur radio steps in and provides needed communication
when other means have failed.

Like the communications failure in Tennessee a week or so back. I can
provide a link, if you need one.

If you do, I can almost guarantee that the profile will be fulfilled in
short order.

btw, one of the reasons for that problem in Tennessee was that the
professionals installed vital telephone equipment in a basement - which
flooded.

10. The falsity of assuming that amateur radio is
PRIMARILY an "emergency" communications resource.

Who assumes that, Len? And what does it have to do with "formalism?"

Len is never one to stand on formality.

Emergency communications is one aspect of amateur radio. It's an
important aspect, but not the only one.

Regardless of the pomposity of many self-righteous
amateurs and thousands of words and redefinitions
written, the amateur radio service is still an
avocational radio activity done for personal
pleasure WITHOUT pecuniary compensation.

But that's not all it is. Public service is part of amateur radio, too.

Len isn't talking about public service or its lack. Len wants to talk
about pomposity and self-righteousness. We are in amateur radio. Len
is an outsider. He is galled.


Just read Part 97.

Amateur radio is among the least formal radio services I know.
Besides listening-only to radio broadcasting service,
what DO you "know" about OTHER radio services?

Quite a bit, Len. More than you'd like to admit.

You know NOTHING of military radio.

That's not true, Len.

You never served, never
worked with the military.

How do you know for sure?

I did both as a soldier and as a civilian.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.

....and he is galled.

You know NOTHING about any form of broadcasting from the
transmitting end or even studio/location procedures and
technology.

That's not true, Len.

I've been involved with broadcasting at the
station end since 1956.

I got started in broadcast radio in 1967. I was quite a big younger
than you when I did so.

But you've never ever been a radio amateur, Len.


You know NOTHING of Public Land Mobile Radio Services,

That's not true, Len.

never had one.

How do you know for sure?

I did.

That's nice, Len.

He's still playing that "mine is bigger than yours" game. He is galled.


It has exciting possibilities...except for the
rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new
things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple
technological environment.
Do you have a problem with youth, Len? Or simplicity?
Other than NOT ENOUGH of either, NO.

As for youth:

I recall you writing that you've always had a problem with that - shall
I produce the exact quote?

I also recall that you wanted to *ban* anyone under the age of 14 from
amateur radio. You went so far as to recommend that to FCC.

As for simplicity:

You sure do seem to make simple things complicated.

YOU are NOT young,
Face it. You've hit the
halfway mark and are downhill all the way since.
YOU are MIDDLE-AGED, growing older.

I'm a lot younger than you, Len. In body, mind, and spirit.

YOU never "pioneered radio" in your life. All you did
was try to fit in to the present...and then rationalized
by implication that you somehow did some "pioneering."

How do you know for sure, Len?

And what does that have to do with "formalism"?

You imply that you are "superior" because of achieving
an amateur extra class license largely through a test
for morsemanship.

Where do I imply that, Len? I passed the Amateur Extra license exams in
1970, at the age of 16. There were more than a few Extras younger than
me, back then.

The written testing for the Extra Class license has always been more
than the Morse Code testing. In 1970, earning that license required
passing four written tests (Novice, General/Tech, Advanced, Extra) but
only two Morse Code tests (13 and 20 wpm).

btw - what exactly is "morsemanship"? You keep using that word, but
never say what it means.

Seems to me, Len, that you've taken a simple question and turned you
answer into a personal attack on me, for no reason at all. Typical.

Len's use of the term "largely through a test for morsemanship" is a
blatant falsehood. As you point out, there were four written exams to
be passed in going from the Novice to Amateur Extra. You became an
Extra by passing all of the available amateur radio exams. Len bragged,
more than a few years ago, that he was going for an "Extra right out of
the box". He hasn't yet walked that walk. The talk was cheap.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio
as a communications medium. The technology of early
radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed.
On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it

possible to communicate.
Yet some pioneers (like Reginald Fessenden) were using voice
communication as early as 1900, and had practical lomg-distance
radiotelephony by 1906.

"PRACTICAL?!?" What is "PRACTICAL" about inserting a
single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
lead-in to 'brute force' modulate a CW carrier?!?

It was not only PRACTICAL, Len, it was the ONLY way known at the time.
I don't think they used "the antenna lead-in", old boy. They probably
used the feedline. Think of it as more of a "lead-out". You should get
the lead out.

You have never 'ridden gain' in broadcasting at an audio
control board to make "PRACTICAL" audio broadcasting...

....that you know of.

I have, Len. What of it?


...yet
you DEFINE "practicality" in such things as inserting
a single carbon microphone in series with the antenna
for broadcasting.

Tell us what other way was known when it took place, Len. What would
have been practical in 1900?

For a double-degreed education in things electrical you
just displayed a surprising amount of ILL logic and
definite misunderstanding of the real definition of
"practical."

Practicality had to be defined by the time in which something took
place. Otherwise you're left playing a game of "what if the U.S. had
the atomic bomb in 1917?"

AM broadcasting was a reality by 1920.

Superfluous minutae.

....is your specialty, Len, but I spell it "minutia".

YOU have NEVER been IN broadcasting.

I have, Len. What of it?

Your amateur radio
license does NOT permit broadcasting.

I know that. That's why I don't use it for broadcasting.
Did you know that most people in broadcasting don't have any kind of
license?

I have been IN
broadcasting, still have the license (now lifetime).

That's what I should have written earlier. I have been IN broadcasting,
Len. Are you still in broadcasting? I'm not.

NO, repeat NO amplitude-modulation broadcaster uses
your so-called "practical" means of modulating a CW
carrier. NONE. Had Fessenden's EXPERIMENT been at all
practical, others would have used that technique. NONE
did.

Do you think there's any chance that other, more efficient techniques
were developed?


Morse code was then already
mature and a new branch of communications was open
to use by downsized landline telegraphers.

While some radio operators came from the ranks of landline telegraph
operators, most did not, as it was predominantly young men who
pioneered radio in the early part of the 20th century.

PR bull**** you fantasize.

Feel free to post anything at all which documents your version.

You were NOT among the
"pioneers of radio" and you have NO demographics to
prove the ages, let alone a poll or listing showing
that. All you have is some bowdlerized, very edited
versions of radio history from the ARRL.

That's your story and you're sticking with it.

Here's a plain and simple fact: Landline telegraphy
was already changing from manual to teleprinter by
the year 1900. That changeover continued until the
middle of the 1900s until ALL the landline telegraph
circuits were either shut down or replaced by
electromechanical teleprinters.

I'm sure the guys in a landline telegraph newsgroup would be fascinated
by your account.


The Morse Code
used on landlines was "American" Morse, while that used on radio after
1906 was predominantly "International" or "Continental" Morse.

Superfluous minutae.

That's how I like to think of your ADA tales of better than a
half-century back, except I use "minutia"

Manual telegraphy consisted of
closing and opening a circuit. That has never changed.

Superfluous minutia.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of different versions
of on-off telegraphy which have been developed, NONE of
them modeled on either "International" or "Continental"
AMERICAN morse code or any English-language
representation.

Superfluous minutia.


Jim has more patience with you than I can muster.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm


But you have never been "IN" amateur radio, Len.

Tsk, that old ploy once again...

That old ploy represents an accurate statement of fact.

Now, now, calm down, Jimmie.

Why don't you calm down, Lennie?


Amateur radio "differs" from other radio services
only in man-made regulations and the fantasies of
its licensees.

Fantasies? It has never really been about a morse test with you, has
it, Lennie?


If Miccolis' logic is "correct" in who is able to
talk about, govern, regulate, etc. amateur radio,
then the very first amateur licensee and the very
first radio regulating agency have been ILLEGAL from
the start.

That'd be fine if you hadn't drawn a false picture. You've talked.
You've commented. The FCC *must* accept your input. They are not bound
to agree with you at all.

If you write here, it is the equivalent of your standing on a street
corner addressing a crowd. No one in the crowd is required to listen,
to approve or to refrain from jeering or shouting you down. The crowd
has as much right to speak its mind as you.

Id est, the unlicensed would NOT have
been IN amateur radio, therefore they could not do
anything. You see the fallacy of your argument?
[you wouldn't admit it if it came up and bit your
butt]

You stated it. It was base upon a false premise. It came up and bit
*your* butt.

Your "IN" argument in reference to amateur radio is
therefore not only incorrect, it is nonsense.

*Ding!*

I'm sorry, Mister Anderson. That is incorrect. Thanks for playing and
please accept our consolation prize.

You wish to quibble word definitions in order to
score message points and thereby show your alleged
superiority? Id est, one must be "IN" amateur radio
in order to "do" something about it. Nonsense.

In amateur radio, dear Leonard, rank beginners are your superiors. You
are not involved.

In regulations that is also fallacious. None at the
FCC need be licensed "IN" the amateur radio service
in order to REGULATE it or any US civil radio service.
NONE. Not the Commissioners, not any of the staff.
Tsk, tsk, you do not negatively criticize the FCC yet
they are NOT "IN" US amateur radio. Why is that?

The FCC regulates. You do not. If anyone working for the FCC wants to
participate in amateur radio, he or she must pass the same exams that
any other candidate for an amateur radio license must pass.

Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens
may freely express their desires to the government of
the United States. [the formal wording is "petition
the government for the redress of their grievances"]
That includes ALL laws, legislation thereof, regulations
and rules imposed by the government.

You've done so. Now what?

Yet YOU wish to exclude the nearly 299 million citizens
who are NOT amateur radio licensees (your definition of
being "IN" amateur radio is being granted that license)
from doing anything at all except obeyance of YOUR
desires and ONLY those of other amateur licensees.
That is dictatorial, totalitarianism, and general
bull**** 'territory' thinking that is akin to some
neighborhood street gang.

You aren't 299 million citizens, Len. You've commented to the FCC,
where your input must be accepted. You've commented here where there is
nothing forcing anyone to accept, support or agree with your views.
Now what?

You do not "own" amateur radio nor do you have ANY
qualifications to "rule" on it.

You don't own it. You don't regulate it. You don't participate in it.
Now what?

You've NEVER been IN
any government regulating agency, indeed never been
IN government, yet you wish to exclude millions just
on YOUR "definition" of who can say what and to whom.

You aren't millions.

I'm convinced, Len.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.
Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis. If you need more
material, you can crib from Robert X. Cringely and/or
dozens of others.

Is that where you obtained yours?

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like. You know
everything, yes? Of course you do...you are a code-
tested amateur extra.

You wrote one and submitted it here for free? I don't think the reviews
are going to be good on this one, Len. It has some gaping holes and
some factual errors.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently." The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

No kidding? The only thing is, they didn't drop very fast until the
past five or six years.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

Why the smiley? Was that a joke?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

No smiley here?

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.

That's not correct. The 1981 PC had limited capabilities compared to
the XT available not too long afterward. Both had limited capabilities
in terms of processor speed, memory and storage compared to the PC's of
the early 1990's.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market. Try to keep
your time frame focussed.

Were there things that the IBM couldn't do at that point, Len?
If not, why were so many folks designing, building and selling systems
to allow those early PC's to network with minicomputers?

And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

There's a big difference between designing or building and using
minicomputers. I've never designed or built any minicomputer but I have
plenty of experience in using and working as systems manager on Wang VS
systems. Now what?

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC? Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts? Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

Now what?

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web")...

Would you like additional time to rethink your statement?

...nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

Does everyone who is technically minded need a university degree at any
time, Len?

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy." They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

That's odd. Our regional jail uses plenty of PC's. I don't know any
nannies but I know plenty of housewives who use PCs. I didn't see
anything incorrect in Jim's statement. Where are you going with yours?

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

If you aren't, did you crib from him without giving credit? :-)

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe? Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?

Relax, Len. It was probably due to his having had prior experiences
with you.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch? No? I have. Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me. Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

I'll bet it took you years to solder the parts on those mother boards.
How long did it take you to assemble that hard drive?

Awwwww! I'll bet you meant that you assembled the motherboard into a
case, screwed in the power supply, slid in a drive or two, perhaps added
a CD or DVD burner, plugged in a couple of PCI boards, attached the
monitor, keyboard and mouse and called it a day.

You are not a member of the IEEE, a Professional Association.
I am a Life Member of the IEEE.

Yessir. I know about the IEEE Code of Ethics, too. What has all this
talk of the IEEE to do with amateur radio? Does anyone need an IEEE
member to assemble a computer or use it?

Are you or have you ever
been a voting member of the ACM (Association for Computing
Machinery)? I have. [got the stupid T-shirt "Dragon in a
Member" slogan on the front...but it was free...shrug]

That's great, Len. It looks as if you've found your niche.

Why are you always telling me what to like, not like,
enjoy, not enjoy, what to post, what not to post?

I say, if it is computers you like, it is with computers you should
stick. Have a blast, Leonard. You can take 'em apart and put 'em back
together again. You can impress those with less knowledge than yourself.


What is wrong with live and let live?

You've been allowed to live.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm
wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:

The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976,
30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago).
The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago.

Basically true, but that's not the whole story by any means.

I wrote a chronological synopsis.

You left out important information and included a few mistakes. The
information you left out disproves your conclusions.

If you need a "whole story" then WRITE one and get it
published. You are the self-styled knowitall "expert"

I've never claimed to be an expert, Len. I do know some things that you
do not know. That seems to really bother you.
who tells everyone else what to write correctly and
not correctly, what to like and not like.

I point out some of your mistakes. That's how things go in a newsgroup.

You can have any opinion you want, Len. You can believe the earth is
flat, the moon made of green cheese, that "acceptable" has the letter
"i" in it, or that the IBM PC was introduced in 1980. If you express
such "opinions", it's possible someone else will point out your
mistakes. Your opinion does not make something a fact.

You know everything, yes?

Oh no, I don't know nearly everything. But I do know some things that
you do not know. That seems to really bother you.

you are a code-tested amateur extra.

There's no other kind. You aren't even a Novice, though.


Until rather recently, personal computers were rather expensive.

Define "recently."

In the context of the PC, about the past 7 years.

The prices for complete personal
computer systems, components have been constantly
dropping since the beginning of 1982.

Of course. But until about 7 years ago, most complete systems were well
over $1000.

Five years ago a complete PC sold for $500 plus tax
at Lowes near Gig Harbor, Washington. Hewlett-Packard
brand no less! :-)

That's relatively recently, Len.

Did it include a monitor? Printer? Supplies for the printer?

Complete PCs - and laptop portables - can be purchased
today at Fry's on the west coast for $500; go to
www.outpost.com to see their mail-order products.

That's my point, Len. The prices *now* are far below what they were
even 8 years ago.

The
IBM PC (introduced in August 1981) cost over $1500 in its basic
configuration - which works out to about $3500 in 2006 dollars for a
machine with very limited capabilities.

The IBM representative showing off their PC at Rocketdyne
in early 1982 was NOT taking orders in "2006 dollars."
The Treasury Departement would have arrested both reps
and IBM Corporation had they done so.

Ever hear of something called "inflation", Len? How about "inflation
adjusted"?

You know, how the value of money declines in an inflationary economy?

"2006 dollars" is a valid way of describing that.

"Limited capabilities?" Only by today's standard.

No, by any reasonable standard. Heck, the original IBM PC was
considered obsolete long before 1990.

In the
early 1980s the first IBM PCs were the EQUAL in power of
any 16-bit minicomputer then on the market.

And by the late 1990s they had been eclipsed by much more powerful PCs.

Try to keep
your time frame focussed. And cite your hands-on
experience with either designing, building, or using
minicomputers for a comparison. Feel free to indulge
everyone on your 64-bit mainframe computer expertise.

The point is that those early machines were expensive and limited in
their capabilities.

The original 1981 IBM PC did not include a hard drive, color display,
network interface, modem or mouse as standard equipment. The software
available for it was limited and expensive.

As recently as 10 years ago, a complete PC system with reasonable
performance cost over $2000 - and its depreciation curve was very
steep.

You did not do any "dumpster diving" for parts to build
your own PC?

It's not about me, Len. It's about what computers used to cost, and
what they could do.

Why not? Can't you build a functional IBM
PC clone for just $100 in parts?

Actually, Len, I'm quite good at assembling PCs. For a lot less than
$100. In many cases, for no money at all.

My specialty is collecting older machines and utilizing the best parts
from them to assemble a "new" one. Usually I get them before they reach
the dumpster, but sometimes I have to reach in and pick something out.

It's amazing what computer hardware individuals and businesses throw
away these days. 17" monitors that work perfectly. Pentium II class
machines complete with CD burners, NICs, modems, etc. Sometimes the OS
is still on the hard drive. Cables, keyboards, printers, and more. It
is not at all unusual for me to find working but discarded computers
that cost more than $2500 new.

Do you think you need
morse code skills to program computer code?

Who needs to "program computer code", Len? Why do you live in the past?

I know a few folks who have built whole new PC-compatible
computers for LESS than $250 in parts cost. Three years
ago.

But *you* haven't done it. I have.

It's also besides the point: Until rather recently (7 years ago,
approximately), PCs were quite expensive. Spending a couple of thousand
dollars is a different thing than spending a couple of hundred.

"The internet" was originally rather limited and not simple to access
for the non-technically minded. That's all changed now.

Neither the Internet ("world wide web") nor commands for
browsers accessing the Internet have changed in 15 years.

Not the point. What is the point is that there is much more content
available. And it's much easier and less expensive to access.

Define "technically minded." Did PC users need university
degrees to access the world wide web? I don't think so.

They did need some understanding of how to set up and use a PC. That
sort of thing used to be fairly unusual - not anymore.

On top of all this is the evolution of the PC from an expensive
techno-toy to an everyday tool in most workplaces, schools, and homes.
"Computer literacy" is now *expected* in most jobs.

Jailhouse guards, housewives, nannies don't need "computer
literacy."

Sure they do, Len.

They can all be amateur radio licensees, though.

If they pass the tests and earn the license. You haven't passed the
tests and you haven't earned the license.

The synergy of low cost, easy-to-use computers, easy and fast online
access, and a reasonably computer-literate public has only come
together within the past 10 years.

Yawn. Robert X. Cringely you are NOT. :-)

I don't claim to be.

Why are you trying to tell me what to believe and not
believe?

Because you got the facts wrong, Len.

Why do you think YOUR "computer history" is
"more accurate" than mine?

Because it is, Len. You got the dates wrong. You left out how much PCs
used to cost, and how little they used to be able to do.

If PCs have had an effect on the number of US radio amateurs, most of
that effect has happened in the past 8 years or less.

Have you built ANY personal
computer from scratch?

I've assembled several from components.

No?

Yes.

I have.

That's nice. Were they IBM-compatible PCs? Or were they simple systems
from 25-30 years ago?, and you're playing word games with "personal"
and "computer"

Two of them, in
fact. It was fun to do so for me.

That's nice, Len.

Why are you trying
to tell me what I "should" be having fun with?

I'm not - if you want to build computers, go ahead.

But if you want to discuss the effects of PCs on amateur radio, you're
going to see rebuttals to your mistaken assertions.

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Jim, N2EY

On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually". But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to
code only?

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here.

Part of that is the Nature of the Beast, the computer-
modem mode of communications. The 'Beast' got 'steroids'
with the ability to send 'anonymous' messages (they
think...traceability is possible but only through
systems administrators' access to the 'Net). When that
happened the early male adolescent behavior surfaced
with all its immaturity.

Having participated in computer-modem communications
locally and networked since December 1984, I've seen
quite a bit of that. It is clinically, also morbidly
fascinating to me. Since most of my early experiences
were on local BBSs there was the opportunity to meet
socially with those participants, get real clues to
the person instead of just seeing their words on a
screen. In most their words echoed their up-close
personnae. In perhaps a quarter of them their
fantasies and imaginations ruled their screen words,
their public, social interaction being nowhere near
that and they were relatively subdued, few having
'remarkable' lives. It could be said that their
computer-modem personnae represented their
imaginations given a pseudo-life, something to
fantasize about to relieve their everyday lives'
frustrations.

With the ability to be anonymous (through some 'Net
servers) those imaginations and frustrations can be
let out full force. The 'anonymous' ones become
aggressive, 'in-your-face' types, no longer mindful
of normal social, in-person behavior rules. This is
aided by the relative isolation of time and distance
of messaging. The aggressive ones need have no fear
of physical confrontation as a result of their words,
they can act 'tough' or abusive or insulting in
safety. Ergo, many found emotional 'relief' in the
filthy venting we've all seen in just this newsgroup.

It's a not-nice condition in some humans to have
their (usually suppressed) anger, frustration,
bigotry so close to the surface but it does exist
in them. It can turn to rage and action in rare
cases, thus the stories of violence that show up in
the news. Humans aren't perfect by a long shot.
Civilization requires a greater suppression of that
internal rage, anger, frustration for the common
good but some think internally that they are 'better'
than the common folk. Hence we get the overtones of
'superiority' through sub-groups in which their
capabilities are exaggerated in those groups' self-
righteous descriptions of themselves.

That isn't confined to amateur radio. It exists
all along the human experience.


For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.

Understandable from the viewpoint of younger people. I
think we've all had such experiences...mine were scarce
in regards to amateur radio in my hometown but there
were lots with other life experiences that were fun to
listen to and to respect.

They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

Being of a younger age, my growing-up days 'old
timers' were rather focussed on the experience of
World War II. "Radio" per se was seldom mentioned
as a part of that.

What is most interesting (to me) is finding out later
that some of them were exaggerating what they said
and a few were downright liars! :-)

If one survives long enough to become the same age
as those 'old timers' (in a relative chronological
way that is), it is easier to see where they are
coming from! Much easier...! :-)

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Well, if the afterlife allows such observation of
mortals, I'm of the opinion that those old 'old-timers'
are having a good time and laughing at the mortals'
shenanigans!

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

The loud ones stand out because they MUST stand out
and make everyone pay attention to them. Their EGO
demands it. They want to RULE, to control, to judge,
to be in-charge. In here those are confined to the
pro-coders or who USE their tested morsemanship
(however long ago that happened, if it ever did)
to show "how good" they are.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.

Not surprising to me. Those fixated on their alleged
superiority dispense with logic, go emotional, and
become one with the rabble, the filth-spewers. They
are NOT interested in anything but making themselves
look good to themselves on their own screens. They
have little recognition that the same 'message' they
sent is read by anyone else but the recipient...when
it may be read by thousands of others who never reply.

That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

I agree. Such misdirection is common on just about
every newsgroup, has precedence in the BBSs, even on
the old ARPANET just before it morphed into USENET.
Lacking the validity of anything but their own
experiences, they toss logic out the window and
consentrate on 'conquering' the message thread.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

You know that, I know that, and hundreds of thousands
of other humans know that. That's the reason that
all other radio services except amateur radio have
dispensed with on-off keying radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes. At least in the USA; I
don't have enough information about Canada's use of
communications modes to verify that.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Logic in such an argument is NOT desired by pro-coders.
They are fixated on the medium, not the message. They
got their rank-status-privileges mainly through their
morsemanship and their egos demand that Their desires
should be those of all.

Part of that fixation on radiotelegraphy in the USA is
a result of the tremendous amount of ham-oriented
publications of the ARRL. The ARRL emphasizes radio-
telegraphy as the ne-plus-ultra of amateur radio skills.
Since the ARRL has a virtual monopoly on amateur radio
publications here, has had that for at least seven
decades, they can and have managed to condition the
thinking of American amateur radio licensees in favor
of radiotelegraphy.

Those who've been conditioned will not understand that
they've been imprinted but insist it like some
'natural order of things.' Further, they tend to out-
rage and the very idea that they've been brainwashed!
Such outrage takes on a religious fervor at times.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Few can. In here I'd say that NONE can.

Your 'opponent' wasn't trying to argue logically. Klein
was obviously using emotion as an 'argument,' frustrated
at not being able to 'triumph' in a message exchange.

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid?

It is an emotional ATTACK ploy. It is common in nearly
all newsgroups. Those that do these sort of things can
get away with it, unworried about any direct physical
confrontation that might ensue.

Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate?

Yes.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post.

Of course...and to this reply. One can 'take that to the
bank.' :-)


They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS.

Well, the expressed bigotry against CB by hams is a very
old thing going back to 1958 when the FCC created "Class
C and D" CB service on an 11 meter frequency band de-
allocated from amateur radio use down here. Having to
work both with and for some old-time hams, I heard mostly
howls of outrage and indignation that the FCC 'dared' to
take away 'their' band and 'give' it to 'civilians.'
Worse yet, NO TEST, not the slightest requirement to
demonstrate morsemanship in order to use an HF band! :-)

I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here.

I have to agree with you. The vast majority of CB use
down here is on highways, mostly by truckers but a large
number of RV-driving vacationers are there, too. At
worst, some trucker might go into a long tale of some-
thing (that only a few consider funny) but I have yet
to hear outright personal insults on CB. I quit
using CB mobile in late 1999 after selling my '82
Camaro but a twice-a-year fire-up of CB at home doesn't
indicate anything different; this residence in southern
California is only a half mile from our Interstate 5,
a major highway north-south near the Pacific coast. Our
cell phone now works so well on major highways that we
don't have any consideration of installing any other
radio in our present car.


And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.

wrote:
From: Opus- on Wed, Oct 4 2006 6:58 pm

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

Jim, that statement is bound to ignite more flame war
stuff in here, heh heh heh heh...
maybe not maybe they will avoid the flame bait this once since you
saidf they would flame on
And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Well, that's how it goes. :-) Expect more of that
kind of comment. I dare say it will occur under
'moderation' as well.

When a pro-coder says "grow up," they really mean "think
like I think, appreciate only what I like, etc." They
use that little throw-away line in lieu of a personal
insult, a button-pushing phrase to get their 'opponent'
angry. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it is
just their stupid way of attempting retaliation.
that line storkies suddenly of a memory of a movie omen 3 the final
conflict where thron is talking about his his role as president of some
youth concil something like "....we tell them to grow meaning wiat till
you have grown old then you will think like we do"