RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/106696-what-arrls-thought-having-good-amateurs.html)

RadioGuy October 31st 06 06:42 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
In article .net,
says...
"Dr.Ace" wrote in
:


"Thats Right_ 20wpm" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.


Probably because he doesn't have an amateur radio license .
Ace - WH2T





Tnx, 73, good luck in the contest.

SC

You know you don't have a license.

RG

PS - I know who you are!

RadioGuy October 31st 06 07:04 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
In article t,
says...
wrote in
ps.com:


Slow Code wrote:

Improving your skills doesn't make you a better operator? Sheeesh.


Mike, skill. Singular. There is no skill test for any other mode.

You can still have your microphone, but you should have to pass a code
test before you're allowed to use it. I like 5 WPM for Tech, 13 for
General, and 20wpm for Extra, but then, I'm not lazy.

SC


You may not be lazy, but you're fully prepared to kill off amateur
radio with archaic requirements. I guess if you can't have the amateur
radio the way you want it, to hell with it all.



We have to dumb it down to keep it from dying?

SC

Why do you care? At the rate you drink your liver will give out before
they change anything.

RadioGuy October 31st 06 07:08 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
In article ,
says...
wrote in
oups.com:


Slow Code wrote:
wrote in

The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code
so poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This
was in order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from
eavesdropping on him.

BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with
cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat
Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW
that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes,
inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word
spacing.




He was pro-code but he wasn't trollish like me or WA8ULX were.


At least you admit you're nothing but a troll. A useless low life peice
of nothing troll.

I believe in CW, but I'm not as Ruthless as I sound.


Yes you are. You hate everyone who isn't like you. You are the biggest
bigot around.

I love to toss out
things and then listen to everyone gasp.


You love to try and **** off the world and you do a good job.

ROFL.


Don't you mean rolling on the floor drunk in your own filth!!

I know, I know, it's
sadistic...


Yup, I've heard you're into that know.

but it's fun, and maybe some will see and figure out the point of it.


Theres no point to what you do and if you think there is you are truely
ready for the sanitarium.


SC


RadioGuy October 31st 06 07:10 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
In article t,
says...

Wheeew! Thank god you expelled most of your gas in your last post you
didn't have a lot left over for this one.

No Len. Most RRAPers aren't pro-CW, but you think they're pro code
because they're willing to learn it for a license.

Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the
group anymore.

SC


Dee isn't a butt hole like you! You're miles away from the caliber of
person that Dee is.

RadioGuy October 31st 06 07:13 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
In article ,
says...

There you go again. Don't wonder who I am, go enjoy ham radio. :)

and tell people they need to learn code.

SC


I know who you are!!!!!

[email protected] October 31st 06 12:17 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!


Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.


49.5% according to your very own postings.


You are mistaken, Brian.


No, I'm not.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).


The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General


Welp, that's something we'll just have to live with. It's also the
reason I upgraded to General.

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.


And they can all use CWGet.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.


I would expect you to say something like that.


Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?


The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.


You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?


Who did you vote for last time?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.


Add to that those who rarely used code.


Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.


It means they don't like it and they have to struggle through it. It
means they are perfect candidates for CWGet.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!


And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,


You are mistaken.


Right.

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.


You're making that up.

and you're a "professional."


I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.


What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space?

Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.


How can you be sure?

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?


Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?


What's the point?


The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores
is only something that you can do?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?


Think about it.


I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?


Who sets up your field day station? Who pays for it?

The Morsemen


Who are they?


There used to be four of them...

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.


Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.


Yes, you. You!

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.


Where do stations come from now?

There's some bias in your approach.


None at all.


Hi, hi, hi! You're just making that up.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.


Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.


So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.


Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?


Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.


So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.


Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.


Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?


I don't enjoy morse code.

There's some bias in your approach.


None at all.


I think you're making that up.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.


Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.


Alternative scenario snipped.

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?


The problem is that there isn't 100% participation in field day. It
fails to meet the requirements of my scenario.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?


Jeez you're thick.


No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.


No, you vectored off when it was clear that the creation of the
Conditional Class license using the "buddy-system" of testing was the
original dumbing down of the ARS.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.


Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.


So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.


It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.


I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.


Then you strayed off the subject.

Try to stay on the subject.


I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.


If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.


That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.


Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.


The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.


Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.


Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.


Why should they? Is there any doubt?


There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.


It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.


It appears to be a violation of Part 97.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?


Are you anti-union?


No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?


Bandages are better.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.


If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?


Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?


You're making that up, right?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....


Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.


Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.


Part 95 requires no authorization, so he doesn't. And knowing his
background, he'd probably violate the Part 95 rules.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?


Nope, but knock yourself out.


I'll be awake and operating. CWGet won't be part of it.


Bless you.


One Hung Low October 31st 06 01:02 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

In article ,
says...
There you go again. Don't wonder who I am, go enjoy ham radio. :)

and tell people they need to learn code.

SC


RadioGuy wrote:

I know who you are!!!!!


Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the
beans. We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-)

[email protected] October 31st 06 08:03 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.


You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.


40% is more like it.


49.5% according to your very own postings.


You are mistaken, Brian.


No, I'm not.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).


The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.

Miccolis also insisted that ENIAC was "the first electronic
computer" because he got brainwashed by Moore School PR,
being in eastern PA. Funny thing, but the LAW was decided
in the early 1970s by a Federal Court trial and the Atanasof-
Berry Computer of 1939-1942 was declared "first."


btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.


And they can all use CWGet.


...and they can all toss their morse keys into the dumpster. :-)



btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?


Who did you vote for last time?


...and why in hell should WE care?



And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,


You are mistaken.


Right.


If'n Jimmie he say "mistaken" he be da Judge! He be da Law!

:-)

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.


I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.


Otherwise you're just making things up.


You're making that up.


Miccolis ought to move to L.A. and get in the make-up biz.
Lotsa money to be made here in the entertainment capitol
of show business. Especially around Halloween time...:-)


and you're a "professional."


I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.


What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space?


A quarter-million-mile distance was in all the newspapers
since the Apollo Program began. Perhaps he thinks only
astronomers read newspapers? :-)


Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.


How can you be sure?


Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)

Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)

That's all in the sense of "justice, fair play, common sense,
(etc.)" to "HELP" others. :-)



The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores
is only something that you can do?


He has declared himself Ultimate Authority, therefore 'judge.'


The Morsemen


Who are they?


There used to be four of them...


The "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse." :-)


I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.


Where do stations come from now?


The stork brings them from Japan? :-)


Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.


Blasphemy! Heresy! The Church of St. Hiram may begin
the Inquisition with you tied on the stake, Brian!

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....


Hmmm...interesting mental picture...350 thousand radio amateurs
on the few HF ham bands ALL busy 'contesting' in relatively the
same time period. That would result in the Ultimate QRM that
would cause meltdown of all the scores checkers... :-)


So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.


Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.


Las Vegas odds-makers are with your assessment... :-)



I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?


I don't enjoy morse code.


We can only, repeat ONLY, "see" what Miccolis sees. All else
is a 'mistake.'



Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.


So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.


By all those olde-tyme morsemen REFUSING to allow modernization
of the US amateur radio service in going to, and trying out NEW
modes, methods, and lobbying for UPDATING the ARS regulations.

BTW, Miccolis hasn't existed since AFTER the end of WW II, let
alone the creation of the FCC in 1934...but he is "knowledgeable"
by "experience" of all those old pioneers (in his heart he knows
he is 'right').

Miccolis hadn't learned to read yet when the amateur SSB boom
began...over two decades AFTER the commercial and military
radio world had begun using SSB for long-haul HF comms. He
has NO direct experience to the radio world of the 1950s
except in some juvenile way. He wasn't working for a living
among amateurs who were divided about the SSB issues nor was
he party to some of those amateurs' (of long standing then)
rather abject ignorance of basic modulation concepts. [John
Carson of AT&T had published the mathematical proof in 1915,
the basis of the 'phasing' concept...the rest of the radio
world accepted Carson's proof and those specializing in FM
adopted "Carson's Rule" on FM modulation index]

Miccolis never tuned up any SSB transmitter in the early 1950s
as I had to do, never QSYed one. Not on HF and sure as hell
not IN the military (he never served). Neither did he tune
up or QSY any RTTY of MUX TTY transmitter on HF in that time
frame. But...he "knows" all about it by reading about it in
QST and the ARRL Handbook.

Miccolis is a MORSEMAN. Those of the "CW gets through when
nothing else will" DUMBED-DOWN amateur persuasion. All they
can conceive is switching RF off and on using morse code.
Methods that were used in the very first 'radios' of the
Spark Tx and 'crystal detector' era. On-off keying of a CW
carrier. Wow, real "technical" and full of smarts to bang-
bang switch a carrier!

Did the ARRL *ever* lobby to improve regulations for the
'new' modes in the ARS? Hell, the DSSS and FHSS modes were
kept hamstrung by ARS regulations into the 1990s...when the
commercial and military radio services were already using
DSSS and FHSS...DSSS being the major player in the commercial
WLAN and 'wireless' market. RTTY is still struggling along
with OLD speed limits. PSK31 was innovated by a Brit (Peter
Martinez) and was trial-tested in Europe for five years
before it got any publicity in US ham magazines. Non-US
hams have been using PM for extremely-weak radio comms for
years, on bands below the lowest allocated US ham bands;
the ARRL is finally getting around to 'requesting help' for
frequencies as 'low' as a small sliver just above 500 KHz,
helped get an 'experimental net' going there in this new
millennium. Wow, really 'advanced technology' there,
"exploring 'long wave' comms" with "CW."

"CW gets through when nothing else will." One of the 1930s
era MYTHS, born when hams were trying out DSB AM in days
before WW II. "CW" does NOT 'get through' better than PM
or some of the other modes, but the DUMBED-DOWN morsemen
just can't understand that. They think that OOK CW is
"smart!" 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


Try to stay on the subject.


I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.


If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.


Brian, you KNOW Miccolis will NEVER do that. He runs off
at the keyboard into dozens of wild trips off the thread.
Mainly it is an attempt at MISDIRECTION so he won't have to
explain his own errors, mistakes, false assumptions, and
general ignorance of ALL radio, not the kind of radio that
was spoon-fed to him by ARRL publications.


First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.


Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.


[Yawn...like Philly is the Center of the USA? I can't remember
the floor of the FCC Field Office in the Federal Building in
Chicago, IL, as it was located in 1956...other than it was
upstairs...might have been the 3rd floor, but the location
wasn't important. Several being examined for Radiotelegraph
licenses were audible QRM in the same room when I took my
Radiotelephone written test (lots of Great Lakes shipping used
"CW" then) The Chicago FCC office didn't need "lots of room
for equipment"...one paper-tape code reproducer was good enough
and the jacks for various keys didn't take up much space. Tables
and chairs for examinees was standard government-issue stuff,
tables too high and chairs uncushioned to make all uncomfortable]

[The Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office of today is only slightly
better. Was never there for any test (didn't need to), only to
get a pile of paper for own business radio (non-amateur) cleared
away. By that time the FCC was busy, busy, busy with lots of
commercial radio and the new radio services and the rather
explosive growth of PLMRS that was opening the "high band"]


Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.


[Apparently Miccolis thinks ALL the FCC does is to regulate
amateur radio?!? He is blissfully UNaware of the fantastic
growth of ALL radio services in the last half century. He still
won't acknowledge the COLEM (who do privatized testing of non-
amateur radio operator licenses) nor of the privatized PLMRS
frequency coordinators nor of the fact of reduced paperwork and
licensing of the private maritime radio users (Long Beach is at
the heart of the maritime import-export top harbor and in the
center of dozens of large marinas). The FCC is concerned with
regulation of ALL US civil radio services, not just amateur.]


Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.


The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.


Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.


Miccolis did his misdirection thing, then attempted to impose
'lawn order' by saying HE was 'judge' over what was being
discussed. Gotta love it. He's been doing that for years...
and manages to get away with it. :-)

Then he gets caught and he bleats, "Show me where? Provide
the posting!" He has been "hurt" or maybe "insulted" when
folks disagree with him, poor guy.


Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.


Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.


Why should they? Is there any doubt?


There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.


"It's for newcomers' own good" is probably the morsemen's only
good-enough answer. Yawn...keep on with 1906 thinking in 2006,
morse code uber alles...blah, blah, blah...


Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.


It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.


It appears to be a violation of Part 97.


It's a grey area in LEGAL terms. The WORD RATE is not
specifically defined in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R., and only
"assumed." FCC's Definitions cite the old CCITT-ITU Telegram
regulation as to coding and bit and length spacings. That
referenced International Telegram Standard doesn't
specifically define WORD RATE either.

Apparently the FCC gave the VEC Council written permission
to do characters at the higher rate, keeping the 'word rate'
at 5 words per minute. A problem is that this specific
"permission" has NOT made it into the (radio regulation)
LAW document yet. That makes it the "grey area" in legal
terms since it can be argued both ways.

REAL attorneys can comment on whether or not I am "mistaken."
Miccolis hasn't been admitted to a Legal Bar Association
yet and is unqualified to comment on law. But, he WILL
comment on that AS IF he IS the law...("truth, justice,
and the American way" spoken by SuperHam)

Happy Halloween, Brian.




Slow Code November 1st 06 12:43 AM

I wish RadioGuy would stop humping my leg.
 
One Hung Low wrote in
. net:


RadioGuy wrote:

I know who you are!!!!!


Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the
beans. We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-)




RadioGuy is like a little hyperactive poodle. He runs around, barks, maybe
nips at your heels but not much because he scared of his shadow and he
craps everywhere, but he's basically harmless and answers to Papa Dog.

I just wish he'd stop humping my leg.

SC

Slow Code November 1st 06 12:45 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
RadioGay wrote in
:

In article ,
says...
wrote in
oups.com:


Slow Code wrote:
wrote in

The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send
code so poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him.
This was in order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from
eavesdropping on him.

BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up
with cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir.
"Banana Boat Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't
try to produce CW that meets the Morse Code specification for
dots, dashes, inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and
inter-word spacing.




He was pro-code but he wasn't trollish like me or WA8ULX were.


At least you admit you're nothing but a troll. A useless low life peice
of nothing troll.

I believe in CW, but I'm not as Ruthless as I sound.


Yes you are. You hate everyone who isn't like you. You are the biggest
bigot around.

I love to toss out
things and then listen to everyone gasp.


You love to try and **** off the world and you do a good job.

ROFL.


Don't you mean rolling on the floor drunk in your own filth!!

I know, I know, it's
sadistic...


Yup, I've heard you're into that know.

but it's fun, and maybe some will see and figure out the point of it.


Theres no point to what you do and if you think there is you are truely
ready for the sanitarium.



When you get a hard-on for someone you really get a hard-on.

I don't know who you think I am but I feel sorry for them.

SC

Slow Code November 1st 06 12:45 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
RadioGuy wrote in
:

In article .net,
says...
"Dr.Ace" wrote in
:


"Thats Right_ 20wpm" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.


Probably because he doesn't have an amateur radio license .
Ace - WH2T





Tnx, 73, good luck in the contest.

SC

You know you don't have a license.

RG

PS - I know who you are!



You haven't got a clue.

If RRAP were Wheel of Fortune, I'd tell you to buy a vowel.

SC

Slow Code November 1st 06 12:45 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
RadioGuy wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

There you go again. Don't wonder who I am, go enjoy ham radio. :)

and tell people they need to learn code.

SC


I know who you are!!!!!



You haven't got a clue. Now turn on your CB, maybe your no-code
friends are calling. When you get tired of crapping on the group
Learn CW.

SC

[email protected] November 1st 06 01:52 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.


You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.


40% is more like it.


49.5% according to your very own postings.


You are mistaken, Brian.


No, I'm not.


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).


The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

Miccolis also insisted that ENIAC was "the first electronic
computer" because he got brainwashed by Moore School PR,
being in eastern PA. Funny thing, but the LAW was decided
in the early 1970s by a Federal Court trial and the Atanasof-
Berry Computer of 1939-1942 was declared "first."


btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.


And they can all use CWGet.


...and they can all toss their morse keys into the dumpster. :-)


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?


Who did you vote for last time?


...and why in hell should WE care?


I just don't get it.

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,


You are mistaken.


Right.


If'n Jimmie he say "mistaken" he be da Judge! He be da Law!

:-)


I'm not buying it.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.


I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.


Otherwise you're just making things up.


You're making that up.


Miccolis ought to move to L.A. and get in the make-up biz.
Lotsa money to be made here in the entertainment capitol
of show business. Especially around Halloween time...:-)


God knows the "Professional" PCTAs can't Kiss and Make-Up.

and you're a "professional."


I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.


What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space?


A quarter-million-mile distance was in all the newspapers
since the Apollo Program began. Perhaps he thinks only
astronomers read newspapers? :-)


Only "Professional" Astronomers can write space articles in teh
newspapers.

Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.


How can you be sure?


Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)


It was obviously a typo. But Jim and Dave put on their stupid face
allatime.

Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)


Chimes against humanity!

That's all in the sense of "justice, fair play, common sense,
(etc.)" to "HELP" others. :-)


Jim is so helpful. I recall asking for the formula to calculate a coil
to match an end-fed half-wave antenna to 50 ohm coax. Then I got told
right off that I should have a different kind of antenna and then the
stomp fest began.

The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores
is only something that you can do?


He has declared himself Ultimate Authority, therefore 'judge.'


With these guys, its just a comedy of errors.

The Morsemen


Who are they?


There used to be four of them...


The "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse." :-)


There's only two now. A sign of the times.

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.


Where do stations come from now?


The stork brings them from Japan? :-)


I don't think the stork can pass a security background investigation.

Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.


Blasphemy! Heresy! The Church of St. Hiram may begin
the Inquisition with you tied on the stake, Brian!


Are they getting bored with Copernicus?

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....


Hmmm...interesting mental picture...350 thousand radio amateurs
on the few HF ham bands ALL busy 'contesting' in relatively the
same time period. That would result in the Ultimate QRM that
would cause meltdown of all the scores checkers... :-)


Log sheets full of faked QSOs.

So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.


Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.


Las Vegas odds-makers are with your assessment... :-)


He can post anon all he wants, but the damage is done under his name
and call sign. Ever wonder why you see someone "reply" without adding
anything? They're making sure it stays in the archives.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?


I don't enjoy morse code.


We can only, repeat ONLY, "see" what Miccolis sees. All else
is a 'mistake.'


But I really don't enjoy morse code.

Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.


So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.


By all those olde-tyme morsemen REFUSING to allow modernization
of the US amateur radio service in going to, and trying out NEW
modes, methods, and lobbying for UPDATING the ARS regulations.

BTW, Miccolis hasn't existed since AFTER the end of WW II, let
alone the creation of the FCC in 1934...but he is "knowledgeable"
by "experience" of all those old pioneers (in his heart he knows
he is 'right').


He feels a special kinship with them, and through that kinship he has
served in other ways.

Miccolis hadn't learned to read yet when the amateur SSB boom
began...over two decades AFTER the commercial and military
radio world had begun using SSB for long-haul HF comms.


An OSU Alum put SSB radios in airplanes. Oh, what was his name?

He
has NO direct experience to the radio world of the 1950s
except in some juvenile way. He wasn't working for a living
among amateurs who were divided about the SSB issues nor was
he party to some of those amateurs' (of long standing then)
rather abject ignorance of basic modulation concepts. [John
Carson of AT&T had published the mathematical proof in 1915,
the basis of the 'phasing' concept...the rest of the radio
world accepted Carson's proof and those specializing in FM
adopted "Carson's Rule" on FM modulation index]


He sure was a funny guy. I used to stay up late to watch him.

Miccolis never tuned up any SSB transmitter in the early 1950s
as I had to do, never QSYed one. Not on HF and sure as hell
not IN the military (he never served). Neither did he tune
up or QSY any RTTY of MUX TTY transmitter on HF in that time
frame. But...he "knows" all about it by reading about it in
QST and the ARRL Handbook.


He can tell you all about the contributions that the ARS made during WW
II, except that the ARS wasn't authorized during WW II.

Miccolis is a MORSEMAN. Those of the "CW gets through when
nothing else will" DUMBED-DOWN amateur persuasion. All they
can conceive is switching RF off and on using morse code.
Methods that were used in the very first 'radios' of the
Spark Tx and 'crystal detector' era. On-off keying of a CW
carrier. Wow, real "technical" and full of smarts to bang-
bang switch a carrier!

Did the ARRL *ever* lobby to improve regulations for the
'new' modes in the ARS? Hell, the DSSS and FHSS modes were
kept hamstrung by ARS regulations into the 1990s...when the
commercial and military radio services were already using
DSSS and FHSS...DSSS being the major player in the commercial
WLAN and 'wireless' market. RTTY is still struggling along
with OLD speed limits. PSK31 was innovated by a Brit (Peter
Martinez) and was trial-tested in Europe for five years
before it got any publicity in US ham magazines. Non-US
hams have been using PM for extremely-weak radio comms for
years, on bands below the lowest allocated US ham bands;
the ARRL is finally getting around to 'requesting help' for
frequencies as 'low' as a small sliver just above 500 KHz,
helped get an 'experimental net' going there in this new
millennium. Wow, really 'advanced technology' there,
"exploring 'long wave' comms" with "CW."


It's like Deja Vu all over again.

"CW gets through when nothing else will." One of the 1930s
era MYTHS, born when hams were trying out DSB AM in days
before WW II. "CW" does NOT 'get through' better than PM
or some of the other modes, but the DUMBED-DOWN morsemen
just can't understand that. They think that OOK CW is
"smart!" 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


Sam Morse desinged his code to be marked on a tape with a pen.

Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

If you choose to comment on something I say, then confine it to what I
said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.


Brian, you KNOW Miccolis will NEVER do that. He runs off
at the keyboard into dozens of wild trips off the thread.
Mainly it is an attempt at MISDIRECTION so he won't have to
explain his own errors, mistakes, false assumptions, and
general ignorance of ALL radio, not the kind of radio that
was spoon-fed to him by ARRL publications.


200 Meters and Down. The Bible of St. Hiram.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.


Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.


[Yawn...like Philly is the Center of the USA? I can't remember
the floor of the FCC Field Office in the Federal Building in
Chicago, IL, as it was located in 1956...other than it was
upstairs...might have been the 3rd floor, but the location
wasn't important. Several being examined for Radiotelegraph
licenses were audible QRM in the same room when I took my
Radiotelephone written test (lots of Great Lakes shipping used
"CW" then) The Chicago FCC office didn't need "lots of room
for equipment"...one paper-tape code reproducer was good enough
and the jacks for various keys didn't take up much space. Tables
and chairs for examinees was standard government-issue stuff,
tables too high and chairs uncushioned to make all uncomfortable]

[The Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office of today is only slightly
better. Was never there for any test (didn't need to), only to
get a pile of paper for own business radio (non-amateur) cleared
away. By that time the FCC was busy, busy, busy with lots of
commercial radio and the new radio services and the rather
explosive growth of PLMRS that was opening the "high band"]


I've never met anyone from tha FCC. I saw Riley at Dayton. Ed Hare,
too, but I don't confuse the ARRL for the FCC like lotsa hams do.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.


[Apparently Miccolis thinks ALL the FCC does is to regulate
amateur radio?!? He is blissfully UNaware of the fantastic
growth of ALL radio services in the last half century. He still
won't acknowledge the COLEM


There's a famous ARS VEC who is also COLEM. They had me take sumptin
that looked surprisingly like an Amateur Advanced exam, then I got a
GROL in the mail.

(who do privatized testing of non-
amateur radio operator licenses) nor of the privatized PLMRS
frequency coordinators nor of the fact of reduced paperwork and
licensing of the private maritime radio users (Long Beach is at
the heart of the maritime import-export top harbor and in the
center of dozens of large marinas). The FCC is concerned with
regulation of ALL US civil radio services, not just amateur.]


I don't think they realize that.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.


The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.


Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.


Miccolis did his misdirection thing, then attempted to impose
'lawn order' by saying HE was 'judge' over what was being
discussed. Gotta love it. He's been doing that for years...
and manages to get away with it. :-)


We're on to it....

Then he gets caught and he bleats, "Show me where? Provide
the posting!" He has been "hurt" or maybe "insulted" when
folks disagree with him, poor guy.


Only Jim can feel strongly about the ARS.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.


Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.


Why should they? Is there any doubt?


There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.


"It's for newcomers' own good" is probably the morsemen's only
good-enough answer.


That's exactly what they say. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

Ultimately, they've confused a "Learning Method" with a REGULATORY
requirement.

Yawn...keep on with 1906 thinking in 2006,
morse code uber alles...blah, blah, blah...


200 Meters and Down.

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.


It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.


It appears to be a violation of Part 97.


It's a grey area in LEGAL terms. The WORD RATE is not
specifically defined in Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R., and only
"assumed." FCC's Definitions cite the old CCITT-ITU Telegram
regulation as to coding and bit and length spacings. That
referenced International Telegram Standard doesn't
specifically define WORD RATE either.

Apparently the FCC gave the VEC Council written permission
to do characters at the higher rate, keeping the 'word rate'
at 5 words per minute. A problem is that this specific
"permission" has NOT made it into the (radio regulation)
LAW document yet. That makes it the "grey area" in legal
terms since it can be argued both ways.

REAL attorneys can comment on whether or not I am "mistaken."
Miccolis hasn't been admitted to a Legal Bar Association
yet and is unqualified to comment on law. But, he WILL
comment on that AS IF he IS the law...("truth, justice,
and the American way" spoken by SuperHam)


Booo.

It's important to deny access to prospective amateurs based upon
something so ill defined. "Keeps the riff-raff out."

Happy Halloween, Brian.



Happy, happy, Len. Rained cats and dogs all day, drizzled during the
trick or treat period.


[email protected] November 1st 06 02:07 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:


Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?


I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.


Always a kind word for our armed forced...


Armed forced?


Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.


You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.


Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.


Lackland. San Antonio.


Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.


I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?


I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.


Stories about the military.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.
Oracle uses a lot of code.


Is Oracle an Extra? What's his call?


Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.

Dave K8MN


Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle.


Dave Heil November 1st 06 04:27 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.
You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.
40% is more like it.
49.5% according to your very own postings.
You are mistaken, Brian.
No, I'm not.


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


No, Brian, they are not. It has been explained to you.

I just don't get it.


I'm aware of that.


Dave K8MN

Dave Heil November 1st 06 04:34 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?
I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.
Always a kind word for our armed forced...

Armed forced?


Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?


I didn't write it. You did.

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.


You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.


....but one had to at least be a high school graduate to enter the Air
Force. That didn't mean that everyone who entered the Air Force was
particularly bright or had prior experience in a field related to an Air
Force career field. Of those who *were* bright and experienced in a
field, there was no guarantee that they'd be placed in an AFSC related
to their experience. A member of my basic training flight had some
medical school. He became a Security Policeman. A fellow with
electronics skills was made a cook.

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.


Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.


I don't know anyone who experienced "grave disappointment" or anyone who
has written anything like that.

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.
Lackland. San Antonio.


Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.


I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.


I knew it without consulting Wikipedia. If I'd meant "Lackland", I'd
have written "Lackland".

Did you catch what Robesin's got?


I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.


Stories about the military.


So you're asking if I caught stories about the military?

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.
Oracle uses a lot of code.

Is Oracle an Extra? What's his call?


Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.


Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle.


Bill Gates never gave up on code either.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil November 1st 06 05:25 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.
You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.
40% is more like it.
49.5% according to your very own postings.
You are mistaken, Brian.

No, I'm not.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.


The LAW? There is more than one variety of "Technician". Jim provided
you fact. You've set out to distort it. You are a non-radio amateur
with unchangeable ideas.

Miccolis also insisted that ENIAC was "the first electronic
computer" because he got brainwashed by Moore School PR,
being in eastern PA. Funny thing, but the LAW was decided
in the early 1970s by a Federal Court trial and the Atanasof-
Berry Computer of 1939-1942 was declared "first."


The plain and simple fact is that Anderson was incorrect (again).

A quarter-million-mile distance was in all the newspapers
since the Apollo Program began. Perhaps he thinks only
astronomers read newspapers? :-)


I wouldn't want to get my Keplarian data from the newspapers.
The distance from the earth to the moon varies greatly.


Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

How can you be sure?


Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.


He's got you between Iraq and a hard place, Leonard. You'd have to have
some character other than the one you've displayed here for better than
a decade. That hasn't happened.

I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)


A headline story? It didn't make my paper.

Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)


I don't think it was that bad, Len. It was simply exhibited
carelessness and inaccuracy on your part.


The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores. Why is it that comparing scores
is only something that you can do?


He has declared himself Ultimate Authority, therefore 'judge.'


The sponsoring organization is the Ultimate Authority, Len. You've made
another factual error.


The Morsemen


Who are they?


There used to be four of them...


The "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse." :-)


Jim came up with a definition for "morsemen". I rather liked it.



I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?


I don't enjoy morse code.


We can only, repeat ONLY, "see" what Miccolis sees. All else
is a 'mistake.'


The idea was Brian's. I'm wondering why he'd suggest such a thing if he
doesn't enjoy using Morse Code?



Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.


By all those olde-tyme morsemen REFUSING to allow modernization
of the US amateur radio service in going to, and trying out NEW
modes, methods, and lobbying for UPDATING the ARS regulations.


Don't worry about it, old timer. After all, you aren't a part of
amateur radio.

BTW, Miccolis hasn't existed since AFTER the end of WW II, let
alone the creation of the FCC in 1934...but he is "knowledgeable"
by "experience" of all those old pioneers (in his heart he knows
he is 'right').


Did you mean that he has existed only after the end of World War II?
If you did, it wasn't what you wrote, PROFESSIONAL writer.

Miccolis hadn't learned to read yet when the amateur SSB boom
began...over two decades AFTER the commercial and military
radio world had begun using SSB for long-haul HF comms.


It'll likely even out, Len. He'll be here after you're gone.

He
has NO direct experience to the radio world of the 1950s
except in some juvenile way. He wasn't working for a living
among amateurs who were divided about the SSB issues nor was
he party to some of those amateurs' (of long standing then)
rather abject ignorance of basic modulation concepts.


I'm sure you have a point buried there somewhere. I'm damned if I can
find it.

[John
Carson of AT&T had published the mathematical proof in 1915,
the basis of the 'phasing' concept...the rest of the radio
world accepted Carson's proof and those specializing in FM
adopted "Carson's Rule" on FM modulation index]


Irrelevant.

Miccolis never tuned up any SSB transmitter in the early 1950s
as I had to do, never QSYed one.


He can excuse his unfortunate (from your standpoint) late birth by
tuning up a few after you've departed this mortal coil.

Not on HF and sure as hell
not IN the military (he never served).


Your sentence seems to be made up of a clause. Well, super soldier, you
have no way of knowing if he served in the military or not. I'm sure
that vast quantities of licensed radio amateurs have tuned up and QSY'd
SSB transmitters more times than you. Now what?

Neither did he tune
up or QSY any RTTY of MUX TTY transmitter on HF in that time
frame. But...he "knows" all about it by reading about it in
QST and the ARRL Handbook.


What does the time frame matter in this example, Len? Are you claiming
time-in-grade or something?

Miccolis is a MORSEMAN.


Under the definition he provided, he certainly is. You are not a
morseman. You are not a radio amateur. Better than a decade after you
first appointed yourself advocate for something-or-other in amateur
radio, you are still not a partcipant. Go figure!

Those of the "CW gets through when
nothing else will" DUMBED-DOWN amateur persuasion.


That's one of your factual errors and it seems to be a deliberate one.

All they
can conceive is switching RF off and on using morse code.


There's another of your factual errors.

Methods that were used in the very first 'radios' of the
Spark Tx and 'crystal detector' era.


You've offered up another non-sentence.

On-off keying of a CW
carrier.


You write a great many non-sentences.

Wow, real "technical" and full of smarts to bang-
bang switch a carrier!


If it is so easy, why haven't you been able to obtain an amateur radio
license, Len?

Did the ARRL *ever* lobby to improve regulations for the
'new' modes in the ARS?


Yes.

Hell, the DSSS and FHSS modes were
kept hamstrung by ARS regulations into the 1990s...when the
commercial and military radio services were already using
DSSS and FHSS...DSSS being the major player in the commercial
WLAN and 'wireless' market.


Did the ARRL hamstring the modes, Len?

RTTY is still struggling along
with OLD speed limits.


Yeah and amplitude modulation is still king of the medium wave broadcast
band.

PSK31 was innovated by a Brit (Peter
Martinez) and was trial-tested in Europe for five years
before it got any publicity in US ham magazines. Non-US
hams have been using PM for extremely-weak radio comms for
years, on bands below the lowest allocated US ham bands;
the ARRL is finally getting around to 'requesting help' for
frequencies as 'low' as a small sliver just above 500 KHz,
helped get an 'experimental net' going there in this new
millennium. Wow, really 'advanced technology' there,
"exploring 'long wave' comms" with "CW."


What's it to you, Len. How are you involved? Aren't you the
self-appointed advocate for something-or-other in amateur radio.
Maybe you should go advocate.


"CW gets through when nothing else will." One of the 1930s
era MYTHS, born when hams were trying out DSB AM in days
before WW II. "CW" does NOT 'get through' better than PM
or some of the other modes, but the DUMBED-DOWN morsemen
just can't understand that. They think that OOK CW is
"smart!" 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


Does CW outperform SSB or AM or FM under adverse circumstances, Len?

Try to stay on the subject.
I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said. If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.


Brian, you KNOW Miccolis will NEVER do that. He runs off
at the keyboard into dozens of wild trips off the thread.
Mainly it is an attempt at MISDIRECTION so he won't have to
explain his own errors, mistakes, false assumptions, and
general ignorance of ALL radio, not the kind of radio that
was spoon-fed to him by ARRL publications.


I'm really curious about when you might be expected to explain your
errors, mistakes, false assumptions and general ignorance, Len.


First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.
Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.


[Yawn...like Philly is the Center of the USA?


Philadelphia is a rather large city, Len. I don't recall Jim's having
written that it was the center of the United States. There isn't much
in the center of the United States. What does the center of the United
States have to do with the price of prime real estate in Philly?

I can't remember
the floor of the FCC Field Office in the Federal Building in
Chicago, IL, as it was located in 1956...other than it was
upstairs...might have been the 3rd floor, but the location
wasn't important.


Then why mention it? *Yawn*...like Chicago is the center of the United
States.

Several being examined for Radiotelegraph
licenses were audible QRM in the same room when I took my
Radiotelephone written test (lots of Great Lakes shipping used
"CW" then) The Chicago FCC office didn't need "lots of room
for equipment"...one paper-tape code reproducer was good enough
and the jacks for various keys didn't take up much space. Tables
and chairs for examinees was standard government-issue stuff,
tables too high and chairs uncushioned to make all uncomfortable]


Thanks for the swell description of the furniture.

[The Long Beach, CA, FCC Field Office of today is only slightly
better. Was never there for any test (didn't need to), only to
get a pile of paper for own business radio (non-amateur) cleared
away. By that time the FCC was busy, busy, busy with lots of
commercial radio and the new radio services and the rather
explosive growth of PLMRS that was opening the "high band"]


Irrelevant.


Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.


[Apparently Miccolis thinks ALL the FCC does is to regulate
amateur radio?!? He is blissfully UNaware of the fantastic
growth of ALL radio services in the last half century. He still
won't acknowledge the COLEM (who do privatized testing of non-
amateur radio operator licenses) nor of the privatized PLMRS
frequency coordinators nor of the fact of reduced paperwork and
licensing of the private maritime radio users (Long Beach is at
the heart of the maritime import-export top harbor and in the
center of dozens of large marinas).


Despite your diatribe, I don't believe that Jim is "UNaware", blissfully
or otherwise of the growth of other radio services.

The FCC is concerned with
regulation of ALL US civil radio services, not just amateur.]


That's a masterful restatement of the obvious.


Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.
The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.


According to the subject line, it is "What is the ARRL's thought on
having good amateurs".

Miccolis did his misdirection thing, then attempted to impose
'lawn order' by saying HE was 'judge' over what was being
discussed. Gotta love it. He's been doing that for years...
and manages to get away with it. :-)


If you could only see yourself as others see you, Leonard H. Anderson.

Then he gets caught and he bleats, "Show me where? Provide
the posting!" He has been "hurt" or maybe "insulted" when
folks disagree with him, poor guy.


You don't seem to be able to provide proof for many of your statements.
Brian Burke takes great liberties with the truth in quoting others.

Dave K8MN

[email protected] November 1st 06 11:01 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.


You are mistaken, Brian.


No, I'm not.


Yes, you are, Brian. You just won't admit it.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).


The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license.


When?

As of October 30, the number of current, unexpired FCC issued amateur
radio licenses was:

Novice: 24,155
Technician: 287,293
Technician Plus: 34,851
General: 131,966
Advanced: 70,602
Extra: 108,545

Total 657,412.

FCC still counts Technician Plus separately from Technician.

The current number of Technicians amounts to 43.7006017...% of the
total. That's not half. Some of them are code-tested, too.

They are all Technicians now.


That is an untruth.

FCC still counts Technician Plus separately from Technician. The number
of Technician Plus licenses is shrinking as Technician Pluses are
renewed as Technician, expire, or upgrade.

The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam.


Yet some Technicians have passed a Morse Code test, and have some HF
privileges.

Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


Which requires that they retain a document showing their qualification.
Like keeping a copy of their old Technician Plus license.

However, that's not the point. FCC still counts Technician Plus
separately from Technician. The number of Technician Plus licenses is
shrinking as Technician Pluses are renewed as Technician, expire, or
upgrade.

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General


Welp, that's something we'll just have to live with. It's also the
reason I upgraded to General.


Bully for you.

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.


And they can all use CWGet.


But they don't.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.


Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.


You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?


Who did you vote for last time?


Doesn't matter. The choice last time wasn't the same, anyway.

Which candidate do you think I should vote for?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.


Add to that those who rarely used code.


Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.


It means they don't like it and they have to struggle through it.


Not necessarily.

An amateur could "rarely" use Morse Code because they "rarely" get on
the air. Or because they use some other mode a lot more.

It
means they are perfect candidates for CWGet.


So?

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,


You are mistaken.


Right.


Glad to see you admit your mistake.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?


What's the point?


The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores.


What point is that?

W3RV and I actually participate in Field Day, and actually make the
scores we claim. The QSOs are real.

Why is it that comparing scores is only something that you can do?


You can compare scores all you want. How many points did you make in
last year's Field Day?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.


I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?


Who sets up your field day station? Who pays for it?


Depends on whether I'm operating solo, or as part of a group.

The Morsemen


Who are they?


There used to be four of them...

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.


Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.


Yes, you. You!


That's another untruth. Show where I said that - I don't think you can.

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.


Where do stations come from now?


Don't you know?

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.


Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.


So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.


Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.


Then your experiment won't happen.

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....


Offered by whom? Who would pay for those things and set them up? How
would you get 100% participation?

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.


So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.


Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.


You mean "Slow Code"? That's probably WA8ULX.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.


Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?


I don't enjoy morse code.


Then what is your point?

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?


The problem is that there isn't 100% participation in field day.


So?

It fails to meet the requirements of my scenario.


It's not about *your* impossible scenario.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick.


No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.


No, you vectored off when it was clear that the creation of the
Conditional Class license using the "buddy-system" of testing was the
original dumbing down of the ARS.


Another untruth by you.

Why was the creation of the Conditional a "dumbing down"? It had the
same test requirements as General.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.


Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.


So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.


Why was it a "dumbing down"?

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.


I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.


Then you strayed off the subject.


Another untruth.

Try to stay on the subject.


I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.


If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said.


Why? You're not the moderator.

Besides, you don't confine your comments to what someone else said. Why
should others confine their comments to what you said?

If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.


Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.


The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.


Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.


Why was that a "dumbing down"?

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.


Why should they? Is there any doubt?


There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.


The Morse Code test consists of 5 minutes of Morse Code. How many words
are in those tests?

At 5 wpm, there would be 25
At 13 wpm, there would be 65
At 15 wpm, there would be 75

(A word is 5 characters)


Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.


It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.


It appears to be a violation of Part 97.


Only to someone without common sense.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union?


No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?


Bandages are better.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?


Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?


You're making that up, right?


I'm asking a question.

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.


That's an untruth.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.


Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.


Part 95 requires no authorization, so he doesn't.


Incorrect. Part 95 authorizes everyone, as long as they meet the
requirements.

And knowing his
background, he'd probably violate the Part 95 rules.


Why?


[email protected] November 1st 06 11:57 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?
I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.
Always a kind word for our armed forced...
Armed forced?


Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?


I didn't write it. You did.


Correct. I made a typo. You chose to trip over it. You pretend to be
stupid and not understand. Too bad for you.

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.


You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.


...but one had to at least be a high school graduate to enter the Air
Force. That didn't mean that everyone who entered the Air Force was
particularly bright or had prior experience in a field related to an Air
Force career field. Of those who *were* bright and experienced in a
field, there was no guarantee that they'd be placed in an AFSC related
to their experience. A member of my basic training flight had some
medical school. He became a Security Policeman. A fellow with
electronics skills was made a cook.


They call that "Air Force needs..."

The AF needs SPs and Cooks, too, or didn't you know that?

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.


Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.


I don't know anyone who experienced "grave disappointment" or anyone who
has written anything like that.


I guess others know you better than you know yourself.

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.
Lackland. San Antonio.


Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.


I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.


I knew it without consulting Wikipedia. If I'd meant "Lackland", I'd
have written "Lackland".


Yet you place punctuation outside of parenthesis as if you were writing
code for a machine instead of writing language for a person. You need
to work on your interpersonal communications skills.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?


I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.


Stories about the military.


So you're asking if I caught stories about the military?


There's that stupid face again.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.
Oracle uses a lot of code.

Is Oracle an Extra? What's his call?


Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.


Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle.


Bill Gates never gave up on code either.

Dave K8MN


He punctuates correctly. See where it got him?


Dr.Ace November 1st 06 06:43 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"One Hung Low" wrote in message
. net...


Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the beans.
We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-)


The Magic 8 Ball say's "No Way" .
Ace - WH2T



[email protected] November 1st 06 11:43 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:



Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?


Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-)

Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective
attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that
have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT.

Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and
misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS
epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own
typographical errors...forever and ever... :-)

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.


You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.


That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered
as direct combat military branches by draftees worried
silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the
Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is.

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.


Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.


Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur
radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining
communications 24/7. Military personnel placement types
MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some
communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they
have for a communications specialty.

When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps
and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur
and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code
aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-)

Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on,
but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had
definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor
personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My
only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-)

What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his
personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to
the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war
hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-)

No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some
of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing)
from their original form. The official archives in
St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has
them for proof by anyone with access.


Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.


Lackland. San Antonio.


Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.


I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?


I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.


Stories about the military.


Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-)

Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds
of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as
a civilian. I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T"
receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or
Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG).

The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms
alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of
the Army in the later 1940s). "Getting the message through"
at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA
and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a
HOBBY.

There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special
Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale)
folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television)
Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even
"fight" for ratings. It is show biz.

MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS. It was
never essential to military communications despite the
civilian hoopla attached to it. From the 1990s onward,
MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US
government...and doing good at that...using military MARS
personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys
overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use
phone patches to talk direct to family and friends.

But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what
Heil actually did. He hasn't described it in anything but
vague generalities and intimations of work performed. To
use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one
hostile action" action. :-)

Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts."
Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to
his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than
the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio.
[he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ]


Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.


Oracle uses a lot of code.


Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred
to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE."

Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code."


Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.


Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle.


Very much so! :-) A few billion bucks here, a few billion
bucks there...might even add up to real money! (paraphrasing
Yogi Berra) [thanks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
for all their many chartitable contributions worldwide!]
I just don't think Bill Gates (or Paul Allen) much give a
**** for morse "code." :-)

I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and
use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't
"morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of
a million "words per second." [based on the average number
of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman
that can come close to that. :-)

My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that
1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit
words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50
KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the
3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV
box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in
plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an
incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts
DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box]

But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse
expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they
typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use.
Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief...

1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.




[email protected] November 1st 06 11:50 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 5:52 pm

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

No, I'm not.


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


Ooops. Without inserting the word "TEST" in "Code-free" will
automatically alert Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis to run off
again with his "helpful correction of mistakes." :-)

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


Tsk, Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis will HAVE to "reply" with
his "helpful correction of mistakes" a la the mighty macho
morseman style of "knowing what is best for amateur radio"
(as He sees it...).

Miccolis also insisted that ENIAC was "the first electronic
computer" because he got brainwashed by Moore School PR,
being in eastern PA. Funny thing, but the LAW was decided
in the early 1970s by a Federal Court trial and the Atanasof-
Berry Computer of 1939-1942 was declared "first."


btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

And they can all use CWGet.


...and they can all toss their morse keys into the dumpster. :-)


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


True enough...and the OTHER half had to take a morse code TEST
to get that AMATEUR license.

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?

Who did you vote for last time?


...and why in hell should WE care?


I just don't get it.


Miccolis must think the rest of us live in HIS reality
(or rather ego-geographic-center-of-the-universe). In
another week we Californians (about 30 million of us)
will be voting on a number of state and local issues.
"Weldon and Sestak" don't seem to be on that ballot.

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.

Right.


If'n Jimmie he say "mistaken" he be da Judge! He be da Law!

:-)


I'm not buying it.


Neither am I.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License


A mere 17 years ago there was no such thing as a "code-free"
(meaning No Morse Code TEST) amateur radio license.

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.

You're making that up.


Miccolis ought to move to L.A. and get in the make-up biz.
Lotsa money to be made here in the entertainment capitol
of show business. Especially around Halloween time...:-)


God knows the "Professional" PCTAs can't Kiss and Make-Up.


It must be a violation of their "professional" code of
ethics? :-)

Usually to those kind of folks I just tell them to
Kiss my ass. I've given that up on my MD's advice,
he say I might catch something dangerous... :-)

and you're a "professional."

I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.

What? Only astronomers get to calculate path loss in space?


A quarter-million-mile distance was in all the newspapers
since the Apollo Program began. Perhaps he thinks only
astronomers read newspapers? :-)


Only "Professional" Astronomers can write space articles in teh
newspapers.


Riiiight. :-)


Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

How can you be sure?


Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)


It was obviously a typo. But Jim and Dave put on their stupid face
allatime.


True enough. They don't have ONE consideration that I saw
my error and posted my own correction of it.

On every 'QWERTY' keyboard there is one key with an
(unshifted) apostrophe and a (shifted) double-quote.
In the shorthand version of dimensioning, a foot is
denoted by the suffix of an apostrophe while an inch
is denoted by the suffix of double quote. As an
example, my height can be written 5' 10" or, in longer
form, five feet ten inches. In rapid typing (I learned
touch-typing in middle school) it is possible to make
a mistake in too much pressure on the Shift key and
inadvertently type in the double-quote.

But...in the Grand Inquisitor manner of the might macho
morsemen, a type by an NCTA is a CAPITAL OFFENSE,
punishable by a lifetime of message comments about that
typo...and NEVER acknowledging that it was corrected!


Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)


Chimes against humanity!


HAR!!! :-) [Heil went to 'Ding Dong School'? :-)]

That's all in the sense of "justice, fair play, common sense,
(etc.)" to "HELP" others. :-)


Jim is so helpful. I recall asking for the formula to calculate a coil
to match an end-fed half-wave antenna to 50 ohm coax. Then I got told
right off that I should have a different kind of antenna and then the
stomp fest began.


I remember. Somewhere along that line, Reg Edwards' ready-to-
go small computer program was mentioned. Reg is a UK ham of
long time and has a bunch of small programs made just for many
particular amateur radio applications. If you still have a
need, I'll dig out his URL and post it here. Reg appears in
rec.radio.amateur.homebrew once in a while.


The Morsemen

Who are they?

There used to be four of them...


The "Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse." :-)


There's only two now. A sign of the times.


They can't see the signs!


Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.


Blasphemy! Heresy! The Church of St. Hiram may begin
the Inquisition with you tied on the stake, Brian!


Are they getting bored with Copernicus?


Could be...all the NCTA must appear as Galileo to them...


I don't enjoy morse code.


We can only, repeat ONLY, "see" what Miccolis sees. All else
is a 'mistake.'


But I really don't enjoy morse code.


According to Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis, anyone trying
morse code "WILL" like it! :-)

[at least he didn't go balls-out and say what he must have
meant..."anyone trying morse code SHALL like it" :-) ]


Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.


By all those olde-tyme morsemen REFUSING to allow modernization
of the US amateur radio service in going to, and trying out NEW
modes, methods, and lobbying for UPDATING the ARS regulations.

BTW, Miccolis hasn't existed since AFTER the end of WW II, let
alone the creation of the FCC in 1934...but he is "knowledgeable"
by "experience" of all those old pioneers (in his heart he knows
he is 'right').


He feels a special kinship with them, and through that kinship he has
served in other ways.


I get the impression he really, Really, REALLY want to BE
THERE doing that "pioneering."

But, he really, Really, REALLY wasn't there doing that...


Miccolis hadn't learned to read yet when the amateur SSB boom
began...over two decades AFTER the commercial and military
radio world had begun using SSB for long-haul HF comms.


An OSU Alum put SSB radios in airplanes. Oh, what was his name?


Art Collins? :-) Hmmm...I thought he went to ISU, not OSU.

USAF SAC was the igniter of the single-channel SSB use and
Collins Radio of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, got the contracts.

Never mind that RCA Corporation ALSO got the contracts and
supplied single-channel SSB on HF to the USAF. Collins had
the more-savvy-PR and started selling to the commercial world
and to amateurs. Collins Radio got started with Art making
transmitters to-order before WW II. RCA didn't go the full-
on route of marketing, probably too busy doing the bigger
thing with television.

He
has NO direct experience to the radio world of the 1950s
except in some juvenile way. He wasn't working for a living
among amateurs who were divided about the SSB issues nor was
he party to some of those amateurs' (of long standing then)
rather abject ignorance of basic modulation concepts. [John
Carson of AT&T had published the mathematical proof in 1915,
the basis of the 'phasing' concept...the rest of the radio
world accepted Carson's proof and those specializing in FM
adopted "Carson's Rule" on FM modulation index]


He sure was a funny guy. I used to stay up late to watch him.


Ahem. John Carson of AT&T wasn't the same as Johnny Carson
of NBC Tonight Show fame. :-) But I am a fan of both...

Miccolis never tuned up any SSB transmitter in the early 1950s
as I had to do, never QSYed one. Not on HF and sure as hell
not IN the military (he never served). Neither did he tune
up or QSY any RTTY of MUX TTY transmitter on HF in that time
frame. But...he "knows" all about it by reading about it in
QST and the ARRL Handbook.


He can tell you all about the contributions that the ARS made during WW
II, except that the ARS wasn't authorized during WW II.


...not to mention that Miccolis never ever served in any
military. :-(


"CW gets through when nothing else will." One of the 1930s
era MYTHS, born when hams were trying out DSB AM in days
before WW II. "CW" does NOT 'get through' better than PM
or some of the other modes, but the DUMBED-DOWN morsemen
just can't understand that. They think that OOK CW is
"smart!" 1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


Sam Morse desinged his code to be marked on a tape with a pen.


True enough and recorded history of 1844. On some history
website there is a digitized image of the famous "What hath
God wrought" message marked on tape. Smithsonian?

Alfred Vail, benefactor of Morse, came up with a CHANGE of
"morse code" from the original all-numbers scheme to the
representation of each English letter to a dot-dash combo.
About the same time Morse and the Vail railroad works
just couldn't make a reliable pen mechanism.

Radio was tried in 1895 by Marconi in Switzerland, using only
the presence of a radio signal. In 1896 Marconi sent simple
character groups in morse code for a public demonstration in
Italy. In the same year Aleksandr Popov in Russia. 1896 is
FIFTY-TWO YEARS AFTER the first Morse-Vail Telegraph System
debuted in Baltimore, MD. This 'morse code' thing was rather
mature by 1896.

The point about 'morse code' is that it was technologically
SIMPLE. An electrical circuit is either on or off. Early
radio was technologically SIMPLE. Transmitters' "RF output"
was either on or off. Morse code was used because the two
SIMPLE things were compatible. It is total bull**** to
imagine that morse code had some kind of "state-of-the-art"
magic at the beginning. It was technologically CONVENIENT,
established (in wireline comms), and mature (lots of
morse code operators after 52 years of use worldwide).



I've never met anyone from tha FCC. I saw Riley at Dayton. Ed Hare,
too, but I don't confuse the ARRL for the FCC like lotsa hams do.


You must mean the 'Dayton Hamvention?' :-) Gotta be EXACT
in everything in here lest the mighty macho morsemen try to
be "helpful" with their "mistake corrections"!

Sometimes I think the ARRL confuses itself with all those
"official" things it has. It's a clever descriptor for
whatever they are describing, gives it some glow of
'authority.'


[Apparently Miccolis thinks ALL the FCC does is to regulate
amateur radio?!? He is blissfully UNaware of the fantastic
growth of ALL radio services in the last half century. He still
won't acknowledge the COLEM


There's a famous ARS VEC who is also COLEM. They had me take sumptin
that looked surprisingly like an Amateur Advanced exam, then I got a
GROL in the mail.


You mean the 'W5YI Group?' :-)

Mighty macho morseman Miccolis probably thinks Fred is
a Golem, not a COLEM. :-)


(who do privatized testing of non-
amateur radio operator licenses) nor of the privatized PLMRS
frequency coordinators nor of the fact of reduced paperwork and
licensing of the private maritime radio users (Long Beach is at
the heart of the maritime import-export top harbor and in the
center of dozens of large marinas). The FCC is concerned with
regulation of ALL US civil radio services, not just amateur.]


I don't think they realize that.


...or they don't care to acknowledge it.



Then he gets caught and he bleats, "Show me where? Provide
the posting!" He has been "hurt" or maybe "insulted" when
folks disagree with him, poor guy.


Only Jim can feel strongly about the ARS.


Miccolis belongs to another ARS: Archaic Radiotelegraphy
Society.


There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.


"It's for newcomers' own good" is probably the morsemen's only
good-enough answer.


That's exactly what they say. "Thank you sir, may I have another?"


[ "What? You want 'more!?!" :-) ]

Ultimately, they've confused a "Learning Method" with a REGULATORY
requirement.


Sigh...ain't it da troot?


REAL attorneys can comment on whether or not I am "mistaken."
Miccolis hasn't been admitted to a Legal Bar Association
yet and is unqualified to comment on law. But, he WILL
comment on that AS IF he IS the law...("truth, justice,
and the American way" spoken by SuperHam)


Booo.

It's important to deny access to prospective amateurs based upon
something so ill defined. "Keeps the riff-raff out."


Yes, all must do as the Morsemen do, marching in ranks to
the morse drum-beat! All not with the Hive Mind are
"riff-raff," bottom-river-scum...etc., etc.

All must do 1906 thinking in the year 2006! :-(




[email protected] November 2nd 06 12:37 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.


No, I'm not.


Yes, you are, Brian. You just won't admit it.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).


The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license.


When?

As of October 30, the number of current, unexpired FCC issued amateur
radio licenses was:

Novice: 24,155
Technician: 287,293
Technician Plus: 34,851
General: 131,966
Advanced: 70,602
Extra: 108,545

Total 657,412.

FCC still counts Technician Plus separately from Technician.

The current number of Technicians amounts to 43.7006017...% of the
total. That's not half. Some of them are code-tested, too.

They are all Technicians now.


That is an untruth.

FCC still counts Technician Plus separately from Technician.


Of course they do. They used to be Tech Plusses, a distinctly
different class of license.

The number
of Technician Plus licenses is shrinking as Technician Pluses are
renewed as Technician, expire, or upgrade.


They're Technicians now, perhaps they just don't know it. They'll find
out soon enough

The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam.


Yet some Technicians have passed a Morse Code test, and have some HF
privileges.


So?

Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


Which requires that they retain a document showing their qualification.
Like keeping a copy of their old Technician Plus license.


Or a copy of a CSCE 1a.

However, that's not the point. FCC still counts Technician Plus
separately from Technician.


So? They were once a distinctly different license class. No more.

The number of Technician Plus licenses is
shrinking as Technician Pluses are renewed as Technician, expire, or
upgrade.


Oh, well.

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General


Welp, that's something we'll just have to live with. It's also the
reason I upgraded to General.


Bully for you.


Thank you.

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.


And they can all use CWGet.


But they don't.


And not too many are left that use CW at all.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?


Who did you vote for last time?


Doesn't matter. The choice last time wasn't the same, anyway.

Which candidate do you think I should vote for?


Which one do you think you should vote for?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.


Add to that those who rarely used code.


Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.


It means they don't like it and they have to struggle through it.


Not necessarily.


Yes, absolutely! ;^)

An amateur could "rarely" use Morse Code because they "rarely" get on
the air. Or because they use some other mode a lot more.


Are you among the Deignan's that call that survey "substantive?"

It
means they are perfect candidates for CWGet.


So?

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.


Right.


Glad to see you admit your mistake.


Like on CW, it's easy to get the wrong message even when you can spell
out the whole word in complete sentences.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

What's the point?


The same point that you and W3RV are making when you kick around SSB vs
CW in your field day and other scores.


What point is that?

W3RV and I actually participate in Field Day, and actually make the
scores we claim. The QSOs are real.


Did you standardize operating stations?

Why is it that comparing scores is only something that you can do?


You can compare scores all you want.


Do I dare?

How many points did you make in
last year's Field Day?


Those weren't the score I was going to compare.

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?


Who sets up your field day station? Who pays for it?


Depends on whether I'm operating solo, or as part of a group.


Both? Either?

The Morsemen

Who are they?


There used to be four of them...

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.


Yes, you. You!


That's another untruth. Show where I said that - I don't think you can.


This is what I said, including one typo: "So put all USA licensed
amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a morse code key and with
CWGet and total their scores."

I said nothing about standardizing stations. YOU brought it up.

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.


Where do stations come from now?


Don't you know?


Do you? You asked the question.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.


Many, many, many amateur just aren't interested in morse code, and
many, many, many amateurs just aren't interested in contests.


Then your experiment won't happen.


Of course it won't. It's hypothetical.

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....


Offered by whom? Who would pay for those things and set them up? How
would you get 100% participation?


Why do you ask?

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.


Sure he has. He's posted as himself and he's probably posting as
someone else.


You mean "Slow Code"? That's probably WA8ULX.


GrayJL?

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?


I don't enjoy morse code.


Then what is your point?


Put a morse code key and a copy of CWGet in front of every USA licensed
amateur, turn them loose in a CW contests, and total their scores.

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?


The problem is that there isn't 100% participation in field day.


So?

It fails to meet the requirements of my scenario.


It's not about *your* impossible scenario.


You allowed Roll/K3LT an impossible scenario...

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.


No, you vectored off when it was clear that the creation of the
Conditional Class license using the "buddy-system" of testing was the
original dumbing down of the ARS.


Another untruth by you.


You vectored off.

Why was the creation of the Conditional a "dumbing down"? It had the
same test requirements as General.


It wasn't performed in front of a steely-eyed FCC examiner after a 9
hour drive uphill both ways.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.


So there's a long, long tradition in the dumbing down of the amateur
radio service.


Why was it a "dumbing down"?


It was a change that allowed people who were unwilling to put forth an
effort to join the amateur service. Smaller effort means they won't
value their license and start misbehaving. It's an extension of the
riff-raff argument.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.


Then you strayed off the subject.


Another untruth.


OK, I'll let you slide this once. Don't let anyone tell you that I'm
not a nice guy.

Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.


If you choose to comment on somthing I say, then confine it to what I
said.


Why? You're not the moderator.

Besides, you don't confine your comments to what someone else said. Why
should others confine their comments to what you said?


Look, you come on here and try to change the parameters of my
"impossible" scenario, you want to tell me all about something I'm not
discussing, then you tell my I'm making stuff up and telling untruths.
I don't appreciate it. If you can't behave, you'll just have to put me
in your killfile.

If you stick with that simple concept, you'll do OK.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.

Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.


Nope. I twas the creation of the Conditional License.


Why was that a "dumbing down"?


It produced a reduction in effort, i.e., dumbing down.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?


There appears to be. The ARRL VEC and other VECs are giving el 1 exams
at 13-15WPM when Part 97 says 5WPM.


The Morse Code test consists of 5 minutes of Morse Code. How many words
are in those tests?

At 5 wpm, there would be 25
At 13 wpm, there would be 65
At 15 wpm, there would be 75

(A word is 5 characters)


Not all words are 5 characters, unless your working with random groups
of five.

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.


It appears to be a violation of Part 97.


Only to someone without common sense.


What would you say about someone who intentionally trips over a typo?

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union?

No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?

Bandages are better.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?


You're making that up, right?


I'm asking a question.

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?


You're making that up, right?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.


That's an untruth.


How can you be sure?

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.


Part 95 requires no authorization, so he doesn't.


Incorrect. Part 95 authorizes everyone, as long as they meet the
requirements.


99.9% of everyone don't know the requirements. How are they
authorized?

And knowing his
background, he'd probably violate the Part 95 rules.


Why?


He got his start in amateur radio OPERATION without a license.


Slow Code November 2nd 06 01:23 AM

I wish RadioGuy would stop humping my leg.
 


RadioGuy is like a little hyperactive poodle. He runs around, barks, maybe
nips at your heels but not much because he scared of his shadow and he
craps everywhere, but he's basically harmless and answers to Papa Dog.

I just wish he'd stop humping my leg.

SC


Slow Code November 2nd 06 01:24 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
"Dr.Ace" wrote in
:


"One Hung Low" wrote in message
. net...


Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the
beans. We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-)


The Magic 8 Ball say's "No Way" .
Ace - WH2T



8-Ball, is that what you use on CB?

SC

[email protected] November 2nd 06 01:27 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:


Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?


Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-)


Dipschitt trips all over a typo and can't punctuate his way out of a
wet paper bag.

Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective
attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that
have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT.


They must be very, very clever.

Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and
misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS
epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own
typographical errors...forever and ever... :-)


I'll point out his punctuation errors a few times and let it go. What
Heil is never going to forget is working out of band Frenchmen on 6
Meters. Perhaps when he passes, I start an amateur club memorializes
his DX expertise and Operating prowess. It may not be in the same
League as the Barry Goldwater station, but it'll be a start.

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.


You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.


That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered
as direct combat military branches by draftees worried
silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the
Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is.


Has Jim approved your use of 1973 as the end of the war, or was he
still tucking tail as late as 1975?

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.


Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.


Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur
radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining
communications 24/7. Military personnel placement types
MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some
communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they
have for a communications specialty.


Mmmmm. I would worry about someone not receiving standardized
training. Could you ever be sure they were getting the job done
unsupervised?

When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps
and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur
and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code
aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-)


Yeh, I was trained in meteorology which was in the "General" category,
my worst area. Somehow I managed dinstinguished grad in both the 3
level and mandatory 7 level schools.

Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on,
but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had
definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor
personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My
only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-)


Army needs...

What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his
personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to
the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war
hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-)


Other than being in country, Heil has made no claims of direct action
or heroism.

No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some
of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing)
from their original form. The official archives in
St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has
them for proof by anyone with access.


I'm good with what Heil has presented.

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.


Lackland. San Antonio.


Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.


I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?


I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.


Stories about the military.


Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-)


Naw. He's playing tag with Mark.

Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds
of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as
a civilian. I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T"
receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or
Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG).


There were a handful of billets that were DDA. Most of the unskilled
work was handled by folks getting kicked out for various
non-adaptability issues.

The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms
alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of
the Army in the later 1940s). "Getting the message through"
at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA
and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a
HOBBY.


I got to visit SAC's "Giant Talk" at Elkhorn, NE. That was so cool.
And the Navy broadcast stations on Guam. I used to receive their wx
rtty and fax transmissions when in the field with the 2nd ID/ROK. Fun
stuff. Later I had to rely on wx rtty only from Diego Garcia, and
WEFAX from the orbiters in Somalia.

There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special
Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale)
folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television)
Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even
"fight" for ratings. It is show biz.


Yeh, I watched them once or twice in the ROK, probably once during each
tour. I did listen to the radio, and enjoyed the "shadow" and other
old-tyme boradcast stuff they would put on autopilot overnight (worked
a lot and worked a lot of night shifts).

MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS. It was
never essential to military communications despite the
civilian hoopla attached to it.


Yeh, when I was a war planner, I used to hit up the message center
every morning about 6:30 AM, visit the control center, get an update on
wx data flowing from our deployed locations, problems, etc. I'd brief
the Colonel when he got in on the contingency locations, we'd go take
the wx briefing, then head into the CINCs briefing.

MARS had nothing to do with any comm we used.

From the 1990s onward,
MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US
government...and doing good at that...using military MARS
personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys
overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use
phone patches to talk direct to family and friends.


Or have some creep eavesdrop on husband/wife talk.

But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what
Heil actually did. He hasn't described it in anything but
vague generalities and intimations of work performed.


I don't even know if it was fixed or tactical, but that's alright.

To
use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one
hostile action" action. :-)


Coulda been. Don't know. He served and isn't claiming to be a hero.

Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts."
Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to
his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than
the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio.
[he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ]


The smugness is a bit hard to take.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.


Oracle uses a lot of code.


Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred
to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE."

Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code."


He needed an opening to show that he knows more than just amateur radio
and guitar.

Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.


Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle.


Very much so! :-) A few billion bucks here, a few billion
bucks there...might even add up to real money! (paraphrasing
Yogi Berra) [thanks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
for all their many chartitable contributions worldwide!]
I just don't think Bill Gates (or Paul Allen) much give a
**** for morse "code." :-)


I think I'll send Bill an email and invite him to become an amateur.

I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and
use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't
"morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of
a million "words per second." [based on the average number
of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman
that can come close to that. :-)


I'm surprised that Jim doesn't try to force Bill Gates to use morse
code as a programming language. Hell, it's digital, right???

My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that
1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit
words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50
KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the
3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV
box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in
plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an
incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts
DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box]

But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse
expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they
typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use.
Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief...

1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.



It will all be over with soon.


[email protected] November 2nd 06 03:11 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
From:
on Tues, Oct 31 2006 5:52 pm

Ultimately, they've confused a "Learning Method" with a REGULATORY
requirement.


Sigh...ain't it da troot?


Then I'm told that "I" don't have common sense.

It would be like marching at Arlington and calling out "Leff Right
Leff." Sheesh!


Dave Heil November 2nd 06 05:27 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:



Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?


Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-)

Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective
attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that
have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT.


"Minutiae", Len.

Do the terms "Mother Superior" or "Waffen SS Guy" hold any meaning for
you? Do you believe them to be attempts at personal humiliation?

Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and
misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS
epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own
typographical errors...forever and ever... :-)


Oh, I'll make an occasional typo, Len. When you misuse the same term
repeatedly, that isn't a typo. You do that often. Now if I were to
make frequent *factual errors*, we'd be in the same boat.

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.

You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.


That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered
as direct combat military branches by draftees worried
silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the
Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is.


I wasn't a draftee, Len. Nobody in the Air Force was a draftee. Nobody
in the Navy was a draftee. I enlisted for four years. The minimum Navy
hitch was for three. Draftees were non-volunteers who served two years.
Now what?

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.

Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.


Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur
radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining
communications 24/7.


Oddly enough, I was not in the "amateur radio contesting" AFSC, yet my
contesting skills were exactly the same skills I used in my Air Force
duties.

Military personnel placement types
MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some
communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they
have for a communications specialty.


Oh, they MIGHT, huh? I suppose those bypassed specialist exam scores
had nothing whatever to do with it.

When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps
and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur
and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code
aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-)


That's you.

Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on,
but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had
definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor
personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My
only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-)


....but you went through schooling. I was actually working within two
days of my arrival at my first assignment. That was about
seven-and-a-half weeks after I first entered the Air Force.

What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his
personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to
the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war
hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-)


Altered version, Leonard? What has been altered? Couple that with what
military personnel folks MIGHT do and you may have stumbled upon
something big. Have a talk with your new pal at your local recruiting
office or better yet, have Brian Burke contact those "Stolen Valor" folks.

No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some
of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing)
from their original form. The official archives in
St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has
them for proof by anyone with access.


Have you found people who are interested in seeing your proof, Len? I'm
not offering you any proof. I have no intention of providing you
digitized anything. Now what?


Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?
They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.
Lackland. San Antonio.
Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.

I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?
I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.

Stories about the military.


Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-)

Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds
of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as
a civilian.


That's great, Len. I'm sure that has provided you countless hours of
pleasant memories.

I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T"
receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or
Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG).


See, Leonard, you don't know everything after all. You're about to hose
it up in your typical fashion though. I never said that I never
received any specialty training after basic training. I wrote that I
never attended any military technical school.

The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms
alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of
the Army in the later 1940s).


That's all irrelevant, Len. Rest easy, old soldier. The Air Force's
long tradition was maintained.

"Getting the message through"
at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA
and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a
HOBBY.


I'm certain that you'll be upset to learn that the message didn't always
get through at any time of the day or night, watchword or no.

There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special
Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale)
folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television)
Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even
"fight" for ratings. It is show biz.


That's very interesting, Len. I had nothing to do with AFRS or AFRTS.

MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS.


No, Len, it isn't. MARS never was show biz. I never had a MARS
assignment. I've advised you of that a number of times.

It was
never essential to military communications despite the
civilian hoopla attached to it. From the 1990s onward,
MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US
government...and doing good at that...using military MARS
personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys
overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use
phone patches to talk direct to family and friends.


That's quite interesting, Len.

But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what
Heil actually did.


No, you don't actually know what I did.

He hasn't described it in anything but
vague generalities and intimations of work performed.


No, I haven't described it in detail.

To
use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one
hostile action" action. :-)


That'd be one more hostile action than you've experienced in the
military, Len. :-) :-) :-)

Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts."


I'm sure that it seems that way to a guy with few facts.

Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to
his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than
the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio.


My personal history runs 57 years, Leonard. That you know little of it
is of little importance to me.

[he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ]


Is this where you "resort to misdirective attempts at personal
humiliation about minutae [sic] that have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT"?


Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.
Oracle uses a lot of code.


Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred
to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE."


Huh? So what Brian really meant is COMPUTER code and that's what you
mean too?

Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code."


Did Brian write "code" or not?


I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and
use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't
"morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of
a million "words per second." [based on the average number
of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman
that can come close to that. :-)


Great, Len. Stick with it. Enjoy your niche. :-) :-)

My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that
1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit
words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50
KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the
3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV
box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in
plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an
incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts
DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box]


Fascinating, but totally irrelevant, Len.

But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse
expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they
typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use.
Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief...


"We must all" accept? Just how are you involved in amateur radio, Len?
You needn't accept anything. Just stay on the sidelines and snipe as
you've done for the past decade.

1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


I didn't think you were *that* old, Leonard.




Dave Heil November 2nd 06 05:44 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
From:
on Tues, Oct 31 2006 5:52 pm

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.
You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.
40% is more like it.
49.5% according to your very own postings.
You are mistaken, Brian.
No, I'm not.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


Ooops. Without inserting the word "TEST" in "Code-free" will
automatically alert Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis to run off
again with his "helpful correction of mistakes." :-)


Let's face fact: Brian was incorrect in his statement.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).
The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.
Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


Tsk, Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis will HAVE to "reply" with
his "helpful correction of mistakes" a la the mighty macho
morseman style of "knowing what is best for amateur radio"
(as He sees it...).


Jim has been a licensed radio amateur for decades. I'd accept his view
on how best to regulate amateur radio before I'd accept the word of
someone who had never obtained any class amateur radio license. Now what?


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


True enough...and the OTHER half had to take a morse code TEST
to get that AMATEUR license.


Repeating his false statement doesn't make Brian's claim true. Your
"true enough" doesn't make it true.



Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)

It was obviously a typo. But Jim and Dave put on their stupid face
allatime.


True enough. They don't have ONE consideration that I saw
my error and posted my own correction of it.

On every 'QWERTY' keyboard there is one key with an
(unshifted) apostrophe and a (shifted) double-quote.


Really, Len? Do you know why we have the QWERTY keyboard?

In the shorthand version of dimensioning, a foot is
denoted by the suffix of an apostrophe while an inch
is denoted by the suffix of double quote. As an
example, my height can be written 5' 10" or, in longer
form, five feet ten inches. In rapid typing (I learned
touch-typing in middle school) it is possible to make
a mistake in too much pressure on the Shift key and
inadvertently type in the double-quote.


You must have missed a few lessons during that touch-typing course.
You aren't supposed to rest your fingers on any of the keys. Your John
Kerry explanation doesn't wash. To type an apostrophe, your finger
shouldn't have been on the shift key at all.

But...in the Grand Inquisitor manner of the might macho
morsemen, a type by an NCTA is a CAPITAL OFFENSE...


No, Len, it was simply another error.

...punishable by a lifetime of message comments about that
typo...and NEVER acknowledging that it was corrected!


When you resort to a preposterous excuse for making a typo--one that is
absurd to anyone who knows anything about touch-typing--you'll likely
hear more about your error the more you try to explain it.


Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)

Chimes against humanity!


HAR!!! :-) [Heil went to 'Ding Dong School'? :-)]


Sure, I did, Len. I'm the right age. Miss Frances was a favorite of
mine. Now what?

Dave K8MN

Dee Flint November 2nd 06 11:22 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

But if we were able to have have 100% participation and every amateur
were offered a manual morse code key and a downloaded copy of CWGet....


The people who know Morse code would probably turn it down as they would not
want to operate a contest handicapped by using CWGet.

Dee, N8UZE



[email protected] November 2nd 06 11:48 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From:
on Tues, Oct 31 2006 5:52 pm

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.
You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.
40% is more like it.
49.5% according to your very own postings.
You are mistaken, Brian.
No, I'm not.
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


Ooops. Without inserting the word "TEST" in "Code-free" will
automatically alert Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis to run off
again with his "helpful correction of mistakes." :-)


Let's face fact: Brian was incorrect in his statement.


Brian was correct, and remains correct. Correct, correct, correct.

When a Novice renews his/her license, it is as a Novice.

When an Advanced renews his/her license, it is as an Advanced.

But when a Technician Plus renews his/her license, it is as a
Technician, NO PLUS. Should a Technician want to exercise privileges
previously available to the PLUS, they must produce documentation
granting those priveleges.


The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).
The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.
Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


Tsk, Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis will HAVE to "reply" with
his "helpful correction of mistakes" a la the mighty macho
morseman style of "knowing what is best for amateur radio"
(as He sees it...).


Jim has been a licensed radio amateur for decades. I'd accept his view
on how best to regulate amateur radio before I'd accept the word of
someone who had never obtained any class amateur radio license. Now what?


Your ignorance knows no bounds. You're already accepting the "word" of
someone who never obtained any class of radio license... the regulators
at the FCC. Get over it.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.


True enough...and the OTHER half had to take a morse code TEST
to get that AMATEUR license.


Repeating his false statement doesn't make Brian's claim true. Your
"true enough" doesn't make it true.


Correct. It is true regardless of your's or Len's comments. That's
the beauty about a truth.

Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)


It was obviously a typo. But Jim and Dave put on their stupid face
allatime.


True enough. They don't have ONE consideration that I saw
my error and posted my own correction of it.

On every 'QWERTY' keyboard there is one key with an
(unshifted) apostrophe and a (shifted) double-quote.


Really, Len? Do you know why we have the QWERTY keyboard?


To slow down the Morse Operators!!!

In the shorthand version of dimensioning, a foot is
denoted by the suffix of an apostrophe while an inch
is denoted by the suffix of double quote. As an
example, my height can be written 5' 10" or, in longer
form, five feet ten inches. In rapid typing (I learned
touch-typing in middle school) it is possible to make
a mistake in too much pressure on the Shift key and
inadvertently type in the double-quote.


You must have missed a few lessons during that touch-typing course.
You aren't supposed to rest your fingers on any of the keys. Your John
Kerry explanation doesn't wash. To type an apostrophe, your finger
shouldn't have been on the shift key at all.


They why has the QWERTY God placed a nub on each key where your index
fingers are supposed to rest?

But...in the Grand Inquisitor manner of the might macho
morsemen, a type by an NCTA is a CAPITAL OFFENSE...


No, Len, it was simply another error.


No, Dave, it was a simple typo.

...punishable by a lifetime of message comments about that
typo...and NEVER acknowledging that it was corrected!


When you resort to a preposterous excuse for making a typo--one that is
absurd to anyone who knows anything about touch-typing--you'll likely
hear more about your error the more you try to explain it.


I've operated TTY. I accept his answer.

Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)


Chimes against humanity!


HAR!!! :-) [Heil went to 'Ding Dong School'? :-)]


Sure, I did, Len. I'm the right age. Miss Frances was a favorite of
mine. Now what?

Dave K8MN


Now its back to 6M and those out of band Frenchmen. Best of Luck.


Dee Flint November 2nd 06 11:48 PM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:


[snip]


The Morse Code test consists of 5 minutes of Morse Code. How many words
are in those tests?

At 5 wpm, there would be 25
At 13 wpm, there would be 65
At 15 wpm, there would be 75

(A word is 5 characters)


Not all words are 5 characters, unless your working with random groups
of five.


Granted not all words are five characters long. However, in order to
develop the test, the "standard" word is defined as 5 characters even though
word lengths may vary. This is then used to determine the character count
in the test message.

For 5 minutes of Morse Code:
At 5wpm, the character count is 125 characters
At 13wpm, the character count is 325 characters
At 15wpm, the character count is 375 characters
At 20wpm, the character count is 500 characters

The number of characters, not words, copied is the basis on which the code
tests are graded if one uses the 1 minute solid copy option to pass. This
compensates for the fact that not all words are the same length. For the
5wpm test, that means only 25 characters in a row need to be correctly
copied. While all alphabetic characters count as one each, punctuation and
prosigns count as two each due to their length.

Dee, N8UZE



[email protected] November 3rd 06 12:00 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:


[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.
You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.
40% is more like it.
49.5% according to your very own postings.
You are mistaken, Brian.
No, I'm not.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).
The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.


The LAW? There is more than one variety of "Technician". Jim provided
you fact. You've set out to distort it. You are a non-radio amateur
with unchangeable ideas.


I am an amateur radio operator and I know what I'm talking about. All
former varieties of Technicians will be renewed as "Technician."
Period. If the former varieties with HF privs wish to exercise those
privs, THEY MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION THAT IS NOT ON THEIR LICENSE AS
RECEIVED FROM THE FCC.

All Novices renew as Novices, All Advanced renew as Advanced, and all
Tech Plusses renew as TECHNICIANS.

Thems the facts. If you don't like it, complain to the FCC, not me.
Maybe they'll change it for you to make me wrong and you right.


Slow Code November 3rd 06 12:55 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
Mark in the Dark' wrote in
:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:24:09 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"Dr.Ace" wrote in
T:


"One Hung Low" wrote in message
. net...


Would you care to share that with the rest of us? C'mon, spill the
beans. We're dying to know if "slow" even has a license. :-)

The Magic 8 Ball say's "No Way" .
Ace - WH2T



8-Ball, is that what you use on CB?

SC

take a chill pill steve



GO **** mark. Take a load off your mind. Maybe you'll feel like learning
CW then.

SC

[email protected] November 3rd 06 02:26 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.


That's not true.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.


40% is more like it.


49.5% according to your very own postings.


That's not true.

Technicians currently make up 43.7% of US amateurs (individuals who are
currently licensed). 43.7% isn't "half".

Not all of them are "code free" either. A considerable number are
Technician Pluses who renewed as Technicians, upgraded Novices, and
Technicians who passed Element 1.

You are mistaken, Brian.
No, I'm not.


You either do not realize or refuse to admit your mistake. But you are
still mistaken.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).


The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license.
. They are
all Technicians now.


That's not true.

There are still over 34,000 Technican Pluses in the FCC database.

The Technician Plus license is being phased out. That's not the same
thing as doing away with the license class. And with over 34,000
current Technician Pluses in the FCC database, it is simply not true
to say "They are all Technicians now".

The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam.


Now *that* is true - for the basic Technician license. A Technician who
passes Element 1 gets some HF privileges. A Technician who was once a
Novice or Tech Plus, or whose CSCE for Element 1 is new enough, can
upgrade to General without additional Morse Code testing.

Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.


That's true.

can't seem to understand the LAW.


That's not true.

No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.'


That's not true.

The LAW? There is more than one variety of "Technician". Jim provided
you fact. You've set out to distort it. You are a non-radio amateur
with unchangeable ideas.


I am an amateur radio operator


That's true.

and I know what I'm talking about.


In this case, that's not true. At least, not completely.

I'm an amateur radio operator, and I say you and Len are mistaken.

All
former varieties of Technicians will be renewed as "Technician."
Period.


That's true. However, they are not all the same.

If the former varieties with HF privs wish to exercise those
privs, THEY MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTATION THAT IS NOT ON THEIR LICENSE AS
RECEIVED FROM THE FCC.


There's no reason to shout.

All Novices renew as Novices, All Advanced renew as Advanced, and all
Tech Plusses renew as TECHNICIANS.


That's true.

However, all Technicians are not "code free".

Thems the facts.


Not all of them.

If you don't like it, complain to the FCC, not me.


It's not about liking it. It's about the fact that the statement

"Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license."

is simply not accurate.

You can shout and carry on, call names and get your buddy Len to do his
thing, but the error of your statement will still exist, Brian.


[email protected] November 3rd 06 07:19 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:


Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?


Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-)


Dipschitt trips all over a typo and can't punctuate his way out of a
wet paper bag.


Ah, but he "saved the day" at some small-time embassy when
he used morse to "synchronize his RTTYs!" :-)

Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective
attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that
have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT.


They must be very, very clever.


They ARE! They tell you so, right in here!

Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and
misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS
epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own
typographical errors...forever and ever... :-)


I'll point out his punctuation errors a few times and let it go. What
Heil is never going to forget is working out of band Frenchmen on 6
Meters. Perhaps when he passes, I start an amateur club memorializes
his DX expertise and Operating prowess. It may not be in the same
League as the Barry Goldwater station, but it'll be a start.


Maybe you could get some space for it in France? Or even
Algeria? :-)

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.

You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.


That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered
as direct combat military branches by draftees worried
silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the
Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is.


Has Jim approved your use of 1973 as the end of the war, or was he
still tucking tail as late as 1975?


He might still be looking for the "correct" answer somewhere
on the ARRL website...

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.

Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.


Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur
radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining
communications 24/7. Military personnel placement types
MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some
communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they
have for a communications specialty.


Mmmmm. I would worry about someone not receiving standardized
training. Could you ever be sure they were getting the job done
unsupervised?


Not really. Outside of MARS I can't see any military
comms facilities using ham gear. Maybe an old Hammarlund
SP-600 civilian HF receiver that the military bought a
lot of...


When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps
and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur
and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code
aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-)


Yeh, I was trained in meteorology which was in the "General" category,
my worst area. Somehow I managed dinstinguished grad in both the 3
level and mandatory 7 level schools.


"Level" terminology not understood. ?

Good on that, though. From what I've seen of WX stations,
it is NOT some high school science project stuff. :-)

Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on,
but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had
definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor
personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My
only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-)


Army needs...


Infantry, artillery, and armor are the "line" units involved
with direct hostile action...in case some civilian wanted to
know. They take the hits right off.

Thing was, the Army thought ALL personnel were "soldiers first,
specialists second." That's why we got to play sojer in da
woods after our regular specialist duty hours.


What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his
personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to
the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war
hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-)


Other than being in country, Heil has made no claims of direct action
or heroism.


As far as I'm concerned, he was just another REMF who, years
later, is playing everyone as if he were the big hero in "a
country at war!" [those REMFs are spotted miles away...]


No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some
of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing)
from their original form. The official archives in
St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has
them for proof by anyone with access.


I'm good with what Heil has presented.


I'm not. He was "in" the USAF but that's all I will accept.
That military time should have been good for his guvmint
pension accumulation time, though...probably his whole plan
for his future?


Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.

Lackland. San Antonio.

Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.

I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?

I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.

Stories about the military.


Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-)


Naw. He's playing tag with Mark.


Whatever. :-)


Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds
of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as
a civilian. I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T"
receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or
Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG).


There were a handful of billets that were DDA. Most of the unskilled
work was handled by folks getting kicked out for various
non-adaptability issues.


No doubt. Thing is, Heil could usually claim anydamnthing he
wanted knowing that few in public venues of now would have been
in the Air Force in Vietnam. Just like there are few amateurs
who were in the State Department. Given that kind of an
"audience," he can get away with all kinds of brags...and
saying lots of generalities without going into specifics.


The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms
alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of
the Army in the later 1940s). "Getting the message through"
at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA
and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a
HOBBY.


I got to visit SAC's "Giant Talk" at Elkhorn, NE. That was so cool.
And the Navy broadcast stations on Guam. I used to receive their wx
rtty and fax transmissions when in the field with the 2nd ID/ROK. Fun
stuff. Later I had to rely on wx rtty only from Diego Garcia, and
WEFAX from the orbiters in Somalia.


Hmmm...more "glamorous" kinds of comms than I was involved in. :-)

I would have liked to visit some of the old ACAN-DCS sites of
the 1950s-1960s but most of those closed down or got very
changed. Fort Deitrich in MD became a chem warfare center, no
longer the central point of WAR (Washington Army Radio). The
"Frisco" Army station was really more inland at Davis, CA, and
has long been closed down. I understand the AFRS-VOA big station
at Delano, CA, also went down. AFRTS used to have an adminstrative
Hq only about a mile and a half from my house in Sun Valley, CA,
but they moved that way east to an ex-USAF airfield; those
buildings haven't been leased out to anyone else yet and its been
like 8 years ago! [the dirt shadow of the old raised lettering
of the building complex is still visible from La Tuna Canyon
Boulevard] "My" old ADA site was taken over by USAF in 1963 and
they ran it until 1978, then everything given back to Japanese.

SAC ain't no more now and USAF has had a rather massive re-
organization of units and mission roles. One thing good is
that the old "oil burner routes" aren't there in civilian
aviation notices...the old SAC practice runs on "targets"
similar to USSR target locations. Be thankful that MAD worked!


There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special
Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale)
folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television)
Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even
"fight" for ratings. It is show biz.


Yeh, I watched them once or twice in the ROK, probably once during each
tour. I did listen to the radio, and enjoyed the "shadow" and other
old-tyme boradcast stuff they would put on autopilot overnight (worked
a lot and worked a lot of night shifts).


The "T" wasn't stuffed into 'AFRS' until after 1960? Now
there's an AFRTS station on each USN aircraft carrier! :-)
AFRTS can download from various comm sats and rebroadcast
now, if there still are some AFRTS terrestrial stations.
Back in the 1950s AFRS depended a lot on HF relay from live
USA broadcasts such as the baseball World Series. That would
come in to Japan at about 2 AM the 'same day' get taped and
then rebroadcast AS IF it were 'live' that afternoon.


MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS. It was
never essential to military communications despite the
civilian hoopla attached to it.


Yeh, when I was a war planner, I used to hit up the message center
every morning about 6:30 AM, visit the control center, get an update on
wx data flowing from our deployed locations, problems, etc. I'd brief
the Colonel when he got in on the contingency locations, we'd go take
the wx briefing, then head into the CINCs briefing.

MARS had nothing to do with any comm we used.


Same with me and ACAN-DCS. However, the Tokyo MARS station
got 3rd priority level for 1 KW RTTY using the FEC HQ aircraft
relay transmitter. Two-down and three-down NCOs at MARS used
to try and "pull rank" on the night shifts at ADA to 'demand'
time on it. :-) Kind of got to be fun for me when they did,
I just read off the standing orders on useage priority, the
ones signed by the light bird colonel who was then battalion
commander. :-) After a couple years frustration the Tokyo
MARS finally got their own teeny transmitter-receiver site at
their billet...but with a nice new tribander beam.

Regular message traffic was like thousands of TTYs per shift
in the 1950s...running 24/7 of course. Kind of dull after
the first few weeks on the job. Even in the big TTY relay
room at Control (220 TTY tape units) We just made sure all
the Txs were up and running, did the necessary QSYs, pulled
maintenance when scheduled, checked the radio relay systems
(landline backup) to make sure they worked if needed. On a
rare month one Tx might go down of old age and we would do
a frantic antenna connection changeover to bring up a spare
Tx. Once a month the lowest-level contingency plan (a single
30 W AN/GRC-9 Tx-Rs left over from WW II would be tried from
the transmitter site, manned by the only NCO there who could
do morse. Each time the Rx would be so swamped by extraneous
RF that the test net couldn't be heard. :-)


From the 1990s onward,
MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US
government...and doing good at that...using military MARS
personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys
overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use
phone patches to talk direct to family and friends.


Or have some creep eavesdrop on husband/wife talk.


DSN is a LOT harder to intercept. Has to be done at DSN
centers using their terminal equipment.


But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what
Heil actually did. He hasn't described it in anything but
vague generalities and intimations of work performed.


I don't even know if it was fixed or tactical, but that's alright.


He implies it was something like "under fire" but that isn't
the info I get from folks who worked HF comms there and not
much is written up in the Army Center for Military History
except NON-morse comms.


To
use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one
hostile action" action. :-)


Coulda been. Don't know. He served and isn't claiming to be a hero.


He was in "a country at war!" :-)


Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts."
Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to
his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than
the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio.
[he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ]


The smugness is a bit hard to take.


True. He sounds off like being Big and Important. :-)


Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Oracle uses a lot of code.


Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred
to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE."

Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code."


He needed an opening to show that he knows more than just amateur radio
and guitar.


Yeah, like he wouldn't know a NOP from a JMP instruction if
it bit him in the rump. :-(


Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.

Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle.


Very much so! :-) A few billion bucks here, a few billion
bucks there...might even add up to real money! (paraphrasing
Yogi Berra) [thanks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
for all their many chartitable contributions worldwide!]
I just don't think Bill Gates (or Paul Allen) much give a
**** for morse "code." :-)


I think I'll send Bill an email and invite him to become an amateur.


Excellent! He could probably use a laugh.


I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and
use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't
"morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of
a million "words per second." [based on the average number
of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman
that can come close to that. :-)


I'm surprised that Jim doesn't try to force Bill Gates to use morse
code as a programming language. Hell, it's digital, right???


Sheesh...the best Miccolis could do is crib the ENIAC museum
PR stuff. :-) Gates could BUY an ENIAC out of petty cash
funds. He could also buy out the whole ARRL if he desired;
any corporation doing less than $15 million per annum in
taxable income would be considered "very small" to him.


My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that
1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit
words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50
KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the
3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV
box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in
plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an
incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts
DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box]

But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse
expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they
typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use.
Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief...

1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


It will all be over with soon.


I'm getting pessimistic. The Living Morse Museum of Amateur
Radio on HF will continue too far into the future and the code
test with it. Maybe long enough to Rescue the Earth and Mankind
when alien beings from the stars invade us...'rescue' using
morse code! :-(

BTW, I still haven't heard of any amateur writing in here
saving lives using morse code on the ham bands. Wonder why?




[email protected] November 3rd 06 07:49 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From:
on Tues, Oct 31 2006 5:52 pm

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.
You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.
40% is more like it.
49.5% according to your very own postings.
You are mistaken, Brian.
No, I'm not.
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

Ooops. Without inserting the word "TEST" in "Code-free" will
automatically alert Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis to run off
again with his "helpful correction of mistakes." :-)


Let's face fact: Brian was incorrect in his statement.


Brian was correct, and remains correct. Correct, correct, correct.

When a Novice renews his/her license, it is as a Novice.

When an Advanced renews his/her license, it is as an Advanced.

But when a Technician Plus renews his/her license, it is as a
Technician, NO PLUS. Should a Technician want to exercise privileges
previously available to the PLUS, they must produce documentation
granting those priveleges.


Brian, der Waffen SS guy doesn't KNOW that...he is secure in his
extra super-special ignorance...

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).
The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.
Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

Tsk, Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis will HAVE to "reply" with
his "helpful correction of mistakes" a la the mighty macho
morseman style of "knowing what is best for amateur radio"
(as He sees it...).


Jim has been a licensed radio amateur for decades. I'd accept his view
on how best to regulate amateur radio before I'd accept the word of
someone who had never obtained any class amateur radio license. Now what?


Your ignorance knows no bounds. You're already accepting the "word" of
someone who never obtained any class of radio license... the regulators
at the FCC. Get over it.


Tsk, he doesn't understand THAT either...he is SO dumb.

The FCC giveth, the FCC taketh away.

NONE of the staff or commissioners at the FCC are required to hold
amateur radio licenses in order to REGULATE US amateur radio.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

True enough...and the OTHER half had to take a morse code TEST
to get that AMATEUR license.


Repeating his false statement doesn't make Brian's claim true. Your
"true enough" doesn't make it true.


Correct. It is true regardless of your's or Len's comments. That's
the beauty about a truth.


Heil NEEDS the morsemen's PCTA "truth." [Big Brother told him]

Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)


It was obviously a typo. But Jim and Dave put on their stupid face
allatime.

True enough. They don't have ONE consideration that I saw
my error and posted my own correction of it.

On every 'QWERTY' keyboard there is one key with an
(unshifted) apostrophe and a (shifted) double-quote.


Really, Len? Do you know why we have the QWERTY keyboard?


To slow down the Morse Operators!!!


Heil couldn't do 60 WPM on a morse key if his life depended on it.

In the shorthand version of dimensioning, a foot is
denoted by the suffix of an apostrophe while an inch
is denoted by the suffix of double quote. As an
example, my height can be written 5' 10" or, in longer
form, five feet ten inches. In rapid typing (I learned
touch-typing in middle school) it is possible to make
a mistake in too much pressure on the Shift key and
inadvertently type in the double-quote.


You must have missed a few lessons during that touch-typing course.
You aren't supposed to rest your fingers on any of the keys. Your John
Kerry explanation doesn't wash. To type an apostrophe, your finger
shouldn't have been on the shift key at all.


They why has the QWERTY God placed a nub on each key where your index
fingers are supposed to rest?


Der Waffen SS guy worships another religion...the Church of St.
Hiram.

But...in the Grand Inquisitor manner of the might macho
morsemen, a type by an NCTA is a CAPITAL OFFENSE...


No, Len, it was simply another error.


No, Dave, it was a simple typo.


Tsk, that's why the Waffen SS guy is called that. He wants a
summary firing squad for every NCTA that makes typos.

...punishable by a lifetime of message comments about that
typo...and NEVER acknowledging that it was corrected!


When you resort to a preposterous excuse for making a typo--one that is
absurd to anyone who knows anything about touch-typing--you'll likely
hear more about your error the more you try to explain it.


I've operated TTY. I accept his answer.

Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)


Chimes against humanity!

HAR!!! :-) [Heil went to 'Ding Dong School'? :-)]


Sure, I did, Len. I'm the right age. Miss Frances was a favorite of
mine. Now what?

Dave K8MN


Now its back to 6M and those out of band Frenchmen. Best of Luck.


Don't forget "downloading firmware" for his Orion. :-)

Der Waffen SS guy ate too many Ding-Dongs. Now HE is a "chime
against" ham humanity...




[email protected] November 4th 06 03:07 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From:
on Tues, Oct 31 2006 5:52 pm

wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 4:17 am

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
[ etc., etc., etc.... :-) ]

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.
You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.
40% is more like it.
49.5% according to your very own postings.
You are mistaken, Brian.
No, I'm not.
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

Ooops. Without inserting the word "TEST" in "Code-free" will
automatically alert Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis to run off
again with his "helpful correction of mistakes." :-)

Let's face fact: Brian was incorrect in his statement.


Brian was correct, and remains correct. Correct, correct, correct.

When a Novice renews his/her license, it is as a Novice.

When an Advanced renews his/her license, it is as an Advanced.

But when a Technician Plus renews his/her license, it is as a
Technician, NO PLUS. Should a Technician want to exercise privileges
previously available to the PLUS, they must produce documentation
granting those priveleges.


Brian, der Waffen SS guy doesn't KNOW that...


Sure he does. I just told it to him.

he is secure in his
extra super-special ignorance...


He frets over stuff and argues a lot.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).
The FCC did away with the Technician Plus class of license. They are
all Technicians now. The Technician license has no requirement for a
code exam. Should a Technician wish to use what were once Technician
Plus priveleges, they're on their own to show eligibility.
Miccolis can't seem to understand the LAW. No matter how
often it is explained to him, he falls back on the Speroni
'definition' of 'What Technicians Are.' Of course, AH0A
is a PCTA morseman of unchangeable ideas.
Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

Tsk, Mighty Macho Morseman Miccolis will HAVE to "reply" with
his "helpful correction of mistakes" a la the mighty macho
morseman style of "knowing what is best for amateur radio"
(as He sees it...).

Jim has been a licensed radio amateur for decades. I'd accept his view
on how best to regulate amateur radio before I'd accept the word of
someone who had never obtained any class amateur radio license. Now what?


Your ignorance knows no bounds. You're already accepting the "word" of
someone who never obtained any class of radio license... the regulators
at the FCC. Get over it.


Tsk, he doesn't understand THAT either...he is SO dumb.

The FCC giveth, the FCC taketh away.

NONE of the staff or commissioners at the FCC are required to hold
amateur radio licenses in order to REGULATE US amateur radio.


My personal opinion is that it's a conflict of interest for FCC staff
to hold amateur radio licenses.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
License.

True enough...and the OTHER half had to take a morse code TEST
to get that AMATEUR license.

Repeating his false statement doesn't make Brian's claim true. Your
"true enough" doesn't make it true.


Correct. It is true regardless of your's or Len's comments. That's
the beauty about a truth.


Heil NEEDS the morsemen's PCTA "truth." [Big Brother told him]


Yeh, I guess. I don't understand how a guy can work so hard to remain
ignorant.

Tsk. Miccolis is hell-bent on character-assassination lately.
I make a typo in a message and he makes it into a HEADLINE
STORY charging some kind of ineptitude! :-)


It was obviously a typo. But Jim and Dave put on their stupid face
allatime.

True enough. They don't have ONE consideration that I saw
my error and posted my own correction of it.

On every 'QWERTY' keyboard there is one key with an
(unshifted) apostrophe and a (shifted) double-quote.

Really, Len? Do you know why we have the QWERTY keyboard?


To slow down the Morse Operators!!!


Heil couldn't do 60 WPM on a morse key if his life depended on it.


Straight key? It's highly unlikely. Maybe with a keyboard and CWGet.

In the shorthand version of dimensioning, a foot is
denoted by the suffix of an apostrophe while an inch
is denoted by the suffix of double quote. As an
example, my height can be written 5' 10" or, in longer
form, five feet ten inches. In rapid typing (I learned
touch-typing in middle school) it is possible to make
a mistake in too much pressure on the Shift key and
inadvertently type in the double-quote.

You must have missed a few lessons during that touch-typing course.
You aren't supposed to rest your fingers on any of the keys. Your John
Kerry explanation doesn't wash. To type an apostrophe, your finger
shouldn't have been on the shift key at all.


They why has the QWERTY God placed a nub on each key where your index
fingers are supposed to rest?


Der Waffen SS guy worships another religion...the Church of St.
Hiram.


False Gods....

But...in the Grand Inquisitor manner of the might macho
morsemen, a type by an NCTA is a CAPITAL OFFENSE...

No, Len, it was simply another error.


No, Dave, it was a simple typo.


Tsk, that's why the Waffen SS guy is called that. He wants a
summary firing squad for every NCTA that makes typos.


That's so sad. Anyone else can read past a typo and still ket the
message. Dave trips over a typo and skins his knee key.

...punishable by a lifetime of message comments about that
typo...and NEVER acknowledging that it was corrected!

When you resort to a preposterous excuse for making a typo--one that is
absurd to anyone who knows anything about touch-typing--you'll likely
hear more about your error the more you try to explain it.


I've operated TTY. I accept his answer.

Not only that, his Waffen SS buddie has to chime in like it
is a capital offense! :-)

Tsk, Miccolis is now under Typo Alert Status, condition Red.
Each and every typo HE makes will be FEATURED INEPTITUDES of
his own! Regardless of his 'explanations' of his typos, he
will be charged with violations of all mankind! :-)


Chimes against humanity!

HAR!!! :-) [Heil went to 'Ding Dong School'? :-)]

Sure, I did, Len. I'm the right age. Miss Frances was a favorite of
mine. Now what?

Dave K8MN


Now its back to 6M and those out of band Frenchmen. Best of Luck.


Don't forget "downloading firmware" for his Orion. :-)


Wonder how offen he has to do dat?

Der Waffen SS guy ate too many Ding-Dongs. Now HE is a "chime
against" ham humanity...


Hamanity.


[email protected] November 4th 06 04:25 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?

Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-)


Dipschitt trips all over a typo and can't punctuate his way out of a
wet paper bag.


Ah, but he "saved the day" at some small-time embassy when
he used morse to "synchronize his RTTYs!" :-)


He said.

Lacking any valid response, they resort to misdirective
attempts at personal humiliation about minutae that
have NO direct bearing on the SUBJECT.


They must be very, very clever.


They ARE! They tell you so, right in here!


True enough, but I think they're wrong.

Since Heil is bound and determined to find typos and
misspellings, all we have to do is scrutinize HIS
epic prose in here and make him wallow in his own
typographical errors...forever and ever... :-)


I'll point out his punctuation errors a few times and let it go. What
Heil is never going to forget is working out of band Frenchmen on 6
Meters. Perhaps when he passes, I start an amateur club memorializes
his DX expertise and Operating prowess. It may not be in the same
League as the Barry Goldwater station, but it'll be a start.


Maybe you could get some space for it in France? Or even
Algeria? :-)


Fr. Guyana?

Our military isn't perfect. Many of those who enlist aren't all that
sharp. Most are shoved into a career field in which they have no
interest. Most aren't going to make the military a career.

You must be remembering the draft years when, even though the Air Force
didn't use the draft, the draft generated a significant interest in Air
Force service.

That and the USN. The USAF and USN weren't considered
as direct combat military branches by draftees worried
silly about harm to their precious bodies. Back in the
Vietnam War era 33 to 50 years ago, that is.


Has Jim approved your use of 1973 as the end of the war, or was he
still tucking tail as late as 1975?


He might still be looking for the "correct" answer somewhere
on the ARRL website...


I like 1973, no matter what Jim thinks or says. And until we get or
MIA's and POW's all back, I think it's still an open matter.

Some are
lucky enough to have skills obtained prior to military service. Some of
those are fortunate enough to serve in a field in which they have some
expertise or interest.

Some with grave disappointment that they couldn't be hams in particular
combat zones.

Funny thing, but the military doesn't consider amateur
radio "contesting" as a useful skill in maintaining
communications 24/7. Military personnel placement types
MIGHT give such recruits a nod in the direction of some
communications IF (and only IF) there is a directive they
have for a communications specialty.


Mmmmm. I would worry about someone not receiving standardized
training. Could you ever be sure they were getting the job done
unsupervised?


Not really. Outside of MARS I can't see any military
comms facilities using ham gear. Maybe an old Hammarlund
SP-600 civilian HF receiver that the military bought a
lot of...


The military thrives on standardization.

When I enlisted in the Army, I was assigned to Signal Corps
and Signal Basic Training WITHOUT being a licensed amateur
and hitting only the medium percentile in the morse code
aptitude test! Sunnuvagun! :-)


Yeh, I was trained in meteorology which was in the "General" category,
my worst area. Somehow I managed dinstinguished grad in both the 3
level and mandatory 7 level schools.


"Level" terminology not understood. ?


1, 3, 5, 7, 9 level

1 is a graduate of basic training. 9 is full performance level for a
careerist.

Good on that, though. From what I've seen of WX stations,
it is NOT some high school science project stuff. :-)


Military wx personnel are a lot more competent than what you're seing
on television. I don't know where those guys come from although most
of them have collitch degrees in meteorology. Our biggest challenge as
Airmen and NCO's was to retrain LTs and Capts in standardized methods.

Oh, yeah, in March 1952 there was a definite WAR going on,
but in northeast Asia, not southeast Asia. The Army had
definite needs for infantry, artillery, and armor
personnel replacements but I was picked for signal. My
only license then was an Illinois driver license. :-)


Army needs...


Infantry, artillery, and armor are the "line" units involved
with direct hostile action...in case some civilian wanted to
know. They take the hits right off.


The only homegrown WX that the Army has are the ARTYMET guys. They run
up PIBALs for wind speeds and directions for calculating trajectory.
The rest of the weather on Army installations and deployed are USAF.
That's how I ended up with 2ID.

Thing was, the Army thought ALL personnel were "soldiers first,
specialists second." That's why we got to play sojer in da
woods after our regular specialist duty hours.


You gotta believe me when I say that all us USAF guys were thrilled
with USA assignments...

I recall geting woke by the armory saying I had to come down and clean
my dirty weapon. I was between 12 hour midshifts when the call came
in, so I was lacking a sense of humor. I called them back and told
them my weapon was clean, read me the weapon number. Yep, it was my
weapon. So I put on my uniform and went down there. Gave em my weapon
card, and they handed be a filthy rifle, not just powder residue, but
sand and mud, too. I asked them not to hand out my weapon to anyone
but me from now on. Probably a direct duty MOS.

What we got there in Heil's (altered?) version of his
personal biographic factoids is strangely similar to
the undetailed, grandiose CLAIMS of the former "war
hero of the USMC," Major Dud (Robeson). :-)


Other than being in country, Heil has made no claims of direct action
or heroism.


As far as I'm concerned, he was just another REMF who, years
later, is playing everyone as if he were the big hero in "a
country at war!" [those REMFs are spotted miles away...]


He may have been a REMF, but I don't know.

No problem on proof for me. I've got my records and some
of them are digitized (PDF for universality in viewing)
from their original form. The official archives in
St. Louis (NARA Military Personnel Records Center) has
them for proof by anyone with access.


I'm good with what Heil has presented.


I'm not. He was "in" the USAF but that's all I will accept.
That military time should have been good for his guvmint
pension accumulation time, though...probably his whole plan
for his future?


Said he lives in a tar paper shack in WV. That doesn't sound like
bragging, and it's something I can believe.

FWIW, I think the state dept was merely a vehicle for dxpeditions, not
a significant grab for a fat pension.

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.

Lackland. San Antonio.

Yes, Lackland AFB is in San Antonio. Amarillo AFB was in Amarillo.
That's where I went through basic training. Amarillo. Amarillo.

I see. Wikipedia confirms Amarillo AFB as an inprocessing base.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?

I have no idea of what you mean, Brian.

Stories about the military.

Oh, my, here comes Major Dud Robeson the II. :-)


Naw. He's playing tag with Mark.


Whatever. :-)


I think all of Marks out-assholing Robesin has finally paid off.

Since 54 years ago I've been acquainted with (perhaps) hundreds
of military personnel both as one myself and (much longer) as
a civilian. I don't know of ANY military personnel who "DIDN'T"
receive any specialty training after their Basic Training (or
Boot Camp for USN and USMC and USCG).


There were a handful of billets that were DDA. Most of the unskilled
work was handled by folks getting kicked out for various
non-adaptability issues.


No doubt. Thing is, Heil could usually claim anydamnthing he
wanted knowing that few in public venues of now would have been
in the Air Force in Vietnam. Just like there are few amateurs
who were in the State Department. Given that kind of an
"audience," he can get away with all kinds of brags...and
saying lots of generalities without going into specifics.


My favorite is his brag about working out of band Frenchmen on 6M.
What an idiot.

The USAF signals people have a long tradition of keeping comms
alive and well 24/7 just as the Army did it (USAF came out of
the Army in the later 1940s). "Getting the message through"
at any time of the day or night is the watchword for both USA
and USAF signals. They don't do it the "amateur way" as a
HOBBY.


I got to visit SAC's "Giant Talk" at Elkhorn, NE. That was so cool.
And the Navy broadcast stations on Guam. I used to receive their wx
rtty and fax transmissions when in the field with the 2nd ID/ROK. Fun
stuff. Later I had to rely on wx rtty only from Diego Garcia, and
WEFAX from the orbiters in Somalia.


Hmmm...more "glamorous" kinds of comms than I was involved in. :-)


Constantly changing antenna lengths and orientation. We used a lot of
Alden 9315TR and TRT's. And WEFAX or HRPT strip imagery. We did have
a setup in a comm van for wx intercept that never really worked that
well, and tons more expensive than the Aldens.

Then we got a dedicated Tactical Automated Weather Distribution System
(TAWDS) that had a bank of HF transceivers, modems, and a Nye Viking
telegraph key. Nobody knew what the key was for.

As I was leaving the service, Harris Corp in Melbourn was building us a
tactical DMSP terminal. I made a fdew trips to Melbourne and Ft Gillem
to review its progress. Funny thing, I think the great big DMSP vans
were originally "tactical."

I would have liked to visit some of the old ACAN-DCS sites of
the 1950s-1960s but most of those closed down or got very
changed. Fort Deitrich in MD became a chem warfare center, no
longer the central point of WAR (Washington Army Radio). The
"Frisco" Army station was really more inland at Davis, CA, and
has long been closed down. I understand the AFRS-VOA big station
at Delano, CA, also went down. AFRTS used to have an adminstrative
Hq only about a mile and a half from my house in Sun Valley, CA,
but they moved that way east to an ex-USAF airfield; those
buildings haven't been leased out to anyone else yet and its been
like 8 years ago! [the dirt shadow of the old raised lettering
of the building complex is still visible from La Tuna Canyon
Boulevard] "My" old ADA site was taken over by USAF in 1963 and
they ran it until 1978, then everything given back to Japanese.


I arrived in ROK in 1979, and the switch at Fuchu was in use for wx
comms.

SAC ain't no more now and USAF has had a rather massive re-
organization of units and mission roles.


Reorganization was the only way to manage the 50+% drawdown. By
reorganizing the AF at the same time as the drawdown, it kept everyone
confused. We didn't notice if we were screwed up because we were
hemmoraging people, or if we were screwed up because the reorg plan was
bad.

Strategic Air Command is now called Strategic Command or StratCom for
short. They lost almost all of their tankers to Military Airlift
Command/MAC, renamed Air Mobility Command/AMC. Tactical Air Command
/TAC was renamed Air Combat Command/ACC. I guess they put all their
thought into the new name for ACC.

One thing good is
that the old "oil burner routes" aren't there in civilian
aviation notices...the old SAC practice runs on "targets"
similar to USSR target locations. Be thankful that MAD worked!


Almost nobody alive today knows about that.

There IS an exception: AFRS and (later) AFRTS. A Special
Services branch...entertainment (and, supposedly morale)
folks in uniform. Armed Forces Radio (and Television)
Service doesn't operate from combat zones, doesn't even
"fight" for ratings. It is show biz.


Yeh, I watched them once or twice in the ROK, probably once during each
tour. I did listen to the radio, and enjoyed the "shadow" and other
old-tyme boradcast stuff they would put on autopilot overnight (worked
a lot and worked a lot of night shifts).


The "T" wasn't stuffed into 'AFRS' until after 1960? Now
there's an AFRTS station on each USN aircraft carrier! :-)


They've got University of Maryland instructors on board, too.

AFRTS can download from various comm sats and rebroadcast
now, if there still are some AFRTS terrestrial stations.
Back in the 1950s AFRS depended a lot on HF relay from live
USA broadcasts such as the baseball World Series. That would
come in to Japan at about 2 AM the 'same day' get taped and
then rebroadcast AS IF it were 'live' that afternoon.


Yep, same deal with TV in the Pacific. I heard people complain that if
they read the Stars and Stripes, it would ruin the outcome of the game
that we be televised about a week after the fact.

MARS might be in the same category as AFRS-AFRTS. It was
never essential to military communications despite the
civilian hoopla attached to it.


Yeh, when I was a war planner, I used to hit up the message center
every morning about 6:30 AM, visit the control center, get an update on
wx data flowing from our deployed locations, problems, etc. I'd brief
the Colonel when he got in on the contingency locations, we'd go take
the wx briefing, then head into the CINCs briefing.

MARS had nothing to do with any comm we used.


Same with me and ACAN-DCS. However, the Tokyo MARS station
got 3rd priority level for 1 KW RTTY using the FEC HQ aircraft
relay transmitter. Two-down and three-down NCOs at MARS used
to try and "pull rank" on the night shifts at ADA to 'demand'
time on it. :-) Kind of got to be fun for me when they did,
I just read off the standing orders on useage priority, the
ones signed by the light bird colonel who was then battalion
commander. :-) After a couple years frustration the Tokyo
MARS finally got their own teeny transmitter-receiver site at
their billet...but with a nice new tribander beam.

Regular message traffic was like thousands of TTYs per shift
in the 1950s...running 24/7 of course. Kind of dull after
the first few weeks on the job. Even in the big TTY relay
room at Control (220 TTY tape units) We just made sure all
the Txs were up and running, did the necessary QSYs, pulled
maintenance when scheduled, checked the radio relay systems
(landline backup) to make sure they worked if needed. On a
rare month one Tx might go down of old age and we would do
a frantic antenna connection changeover to bring up a spare
Tx. Once a month the lowest-level contingency plan (a single
30 W AN/GRC-9 Tx-Rs left over from WW II would be tried from
the transmitter site, manned by the only NCO there who could
do morse. Each time the Rx would be so swamped by extraneous
RF that the test net couldn't be heard. :-)


From the 1990s onward,
MARS has taken on a communications role for most of the US
government...and doing good at that...using military MARS
personnel. With DSN connection to the Internet, the "boys
overseas" don't need to wait for surface mail or use
phone patches to talk direct to family and friends.


Or have some creep eavesdrop on husband/wife talk.


DSN is a LOT harder to intercept. Has to be done at DSN
centers using their terminal equipment.

But...in Heil's case WE don't really know in DETAIL what
Heil actually did. He hasn't described it in anything but
vague generalities and intimations of work performed.


I don't even know if it was fixed or tactical, but that's alright.


He implies it was something like "under fire" but that isn't
the info I get from folks who worked HF comms there and not
much is written up in the Army Center for Military History
except NON-morse comms.

To
use Major Dud Robeson's "description" Heil was "in one
hostile action" action. :-)


Coulda been. Don't know. He served and isn't claiming to be a hero.


He was in "a country at war!" :-)


I'm in a "country at war."

Heil sounds off real big, smug and arrogant with "facts."
Thing is, he just doesn't apply those facts factually to
his own (33 to 40 year prior personal history) other than
the usual claims of having "expertise" in amateur radio.
[he sounds like a verbose Blowcode in drag... :-) ]


The smugness is a bit hard to take.


True. He sounds off like being Big and Important. :-)


Sounds to me more like frustrated and little.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Oracle uses a lot of code.

Heil put on his stupid face again. :-( The "code" referred
to by you, by me, is COMPUTER (Instruction) "CODE."

Sigh...more MISDIRECTION into the general "code."


He needed an opening to show that he knows more than just amateur radio
and guitar.


Yeah, like he wouldn't know a NOP from a JMP instruction if
it bit him in the rump. :-(


Oracle is a business which didn't give up on code.

Bill Gates has an answer for your Oracle.

Very much so! :-) A few billion bucks here, a few billion
bucks there...might even add up to real money! (paraphrasing
Yogi Berra) [thanks to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
for all their many chartitable contributions worldwide!]
I just don't think Bill Gates (or Paul Allen) much give a
**** for morse "code." :-)


I think I'll send Bill an email and invite him to become an amateur.


Excellent! He could probably use a laugh.


Who knows, he just might send a buck or two to the frequency defense
fund.

I know and use a few high-level COMPUTER codes. I know and
use a few Assembler-level COMPUTER codes. Those just ain't
"morse code." :-) My little Apple ][+ can do a third of
a million "words per second." [based on the average number
of clock cycles per byte-word instruction Ain't NO morseman
that can come close to that. :-)


I'm surprised that Jim doesn't try to force Bill Gates to use morse
code as a programming language. Hell, it's digital, right???


Sheesh...the best Miccolis could do is crib the ENIAC museum
PR stuff. :-) Gates could BUY an ENIAC out of petty cash
funds. He could also buy out the whole ARRL if he desired;
any corporation doing less than $15 million per annum in
taxable income would be considered "very small" to him.


Church of Saint Bill Gates... has a certain ring to esn't it?

My current computer box is one helluva lot FASTER than that
1980-era Apple ][+ and goes faster per second with 32-bit
words. My dial-up connection to the Internet (usually 50
KBPS) does about 50,000 "words per minute" just with the
3 KHz bandwidth telephone line. The new set-top cable TV
box we just had installed this morning (has a DVR built-in
plus more cable service channels, all on digital) has an
incredibly high data rate. [our Samsung 27 inch DTV accepts
DTV direct from the new digital service set-top box]

But...we must all "respect and honor" the mighty morse
expertise of the PCTA amateur extras because they think they
typify the "state of the art" in communications mode use.
Greater than 20 "words per minute!" Good grief...

1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.


It will all be over with soon.


I'm getting pessimistic. The Living Morse Museum of Amateur
Radio on HF will continue too far into the future and the code
test with it. Maybe long enough to Rescue the Earth and Mankind
when alien beings from the stars invade us...'rescue' using
morse code! :-(

BTW, I still haven't heard of any amateur writing in here
saving lives using morse code on the ham bands. Wonder why?



The Society for Creative Radio Anachronism might have a gig on it.


Dave Heil November 4th 06 06:21 AM

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 31 2006 6:07 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
Must you put on your stupid face? Can't you take a typo?
Brian, it's the usual PCTA "answer" in debate. :-)
Dipschitt trips all over a typo and can't punctuate his way out of a
wet paper bag.

Ah, but he "saved the day" at some small-time embassy when
he used morse to "synchronize his RTTYs!" :-)


He said.


Sorry, Brian, your statement is as false as Len's. I *didn't* write any
such thing. Len purports to quote me. I've not written that I "saved
the day" or did I write "syncronize his RTTY's". Now we have Len
falsely claiming something and you backing him up.

It looks as if the Old Organ Grinder and his red-hatted monkey are back
in business.

Dave K8MN


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com