| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
October 28th 06, 10:58 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
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. I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. 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.. |
|
#3
October 28th 06, 11:16 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
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? I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Not just the code tests but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests. 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? You lost. |
|
#4
October 28th 06, 11:44 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
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 do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Just 25 years? I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license where hams get an upgrade from their buddy. 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. 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. W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him these days. Fair is fair, yes? You lost. Welp, now that I have your attention again, how many aliases have you posted under on RRAP? |
|
#5
October 29th 06, 05:16 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
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 do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Nope. 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. 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. They replaced their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers. 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 W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him these days. Where do you get that idea? Fair is fair, yes? You're not fair at all. |
|
#6
October 29th 06, 05:56 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
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. Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free license. 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. 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 do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Nope. 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. 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. They replaced their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers. Good thing there wasn't a union. 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? W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him these days. Where do you get that idea? 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? |
|
#7
October 30th 06, 12:33 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
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! 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. 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. Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here? 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. 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"! 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? 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? 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. Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way. Do you? Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well. Now here's a *real* challenge: The ARRL November CW Sweepstakes is this coming weekend. I'm going to operate in it, using my homebrew 100 watt station and antenna. No CWGet here. How about we compare your score with mine a week from now? Or how about this one: Field Day 2007 Entry class 1B-1 (one transmitter, one operator). The challenge is to assemble, transport, set up, operate, and take down a complete FD station - singlehanded, no outside help - and make the highest score. Field Day location must not be owned by the participant and must not be a licensed amateur station location. Field Day location must be located in a place under FCC jurisdiction. All equipment used must be legitimately owned by the operator. All FCC regulations and ARRL rules that apply to Field Day must be complied with by all involved. Results report must be submitted to ARRL before the deadline. Highest official score wins. I've done better than 3000 points under such conditions. Can you? 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? 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. 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. 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. They replaced their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers. Good thing there wasn't a union. Why? 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. 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.... 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? |
|
#8
October 28th 06, 11:47 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
|
|
#9
October 29th 06, 12:03 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
wrote in message oups.com... 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? I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to". The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out the riff-raff" argument. No, it isn't. The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but steadily reduced for more than 25 years now. Not just the code tests but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests. 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? You lost. Besides that, Jim, I'm the one who taught the class where my OM upgraded to Extra! Dee, N8UZE |
|
#10
October 29th 06, 02:43 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.amateur.misc
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
Dee Flint wrote: Besides that, Jim, I'm the one who taught the class where my OM upgraded to Extra! Dee, N8UZE That must mean that he can't play Tower Monkey for you. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| hey BB did steve do somethign specail toy uo laely? | Policy | |||
| More News of Radio Amateurs' Work in the Andamans | Shortwave | |||
| Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Broadcasting | |||
| Amateurs Handle Emergency Comms in Wake of Hurricane Ivan | Shortwave | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
