AaronJ wrote:
If as you say the "service" is that performed by the Government for the
citizens, then how does your sentence make any real sense?

Don't you know what it means when someone puts a
common word in parentheses?

Once again, from Webster's: "service - an administrative
division, as of a government". There is no service
required by the members of the Amateur Radio Service.
The "service" is a benefit that the federal government
performs for those citizens who meet the qualifications,
not vice versa.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Maybe we could have combination questions, ones that require several
pieces of knowledge to get right.

The maximum SSB peak envelope power you are permitted to have on your
linear amplifier on 14.060MHz is:

a) 1KW
b) 2KW
c) 0KW
d) 250w

answer is c, because that frequency is outside the phone subband.

Back in 1976 when I took the general written, they had a question like

You have a linear amp transmitting single sideband phone. The plate
voltage is 1KV. What is the max peak plate current you can have on the
output tubes?

At the time, the rules defined the max RF power you were allowed to
transmit as the product of the voltage and amperage supplied to the
output tubes. And single side band phone had a special rule on max
power, called "peak envelope power" of 2KW. As measured by a typical
analog ammeter with a bouncing needle. Which had a certain amount of
error that was consistent with the usual ammeters hams had back then
that had to be factored in (I've forgotten what it was, something like
0.7 or just 0.5?). So that's three things you had to know to answer
this one question. So the answer would be 1 amp or maybe 1.4 amps of
current from the 1KV power supply.

KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

Not proven at all, Len. In fact, when you argue with Mike,
you are arguing with a nocodetest person.

Lennie's had the proverbial "hard on" for me since he showed up on USENET
back in the mid 90's. I can only conclude his obsession with me is due to
the fact that I have a ham radio license while, alas, he does not.

No, that's not it, Mike.

The problem Len has with you isn't your license, or lack of it. It's
the fact that
you dared to disagree with him, and/or correct one or more of his
mistakes
here. Once someone does either or both of those things, Len's reaction
is
100% predictable. In fact, there's a handy profile that pretty much
sums it all up:

"No matter what employment, education, life experience or
government/military
service a person has, if that person disagrees with any of Len's
views, or
corrects any of Len's mistakes, he/she will be the target of Len's
insults,
ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs,
excessive
emoticons and general infantile behavior."

What you did was to disagree with Len. That's all it takes.

This isn't a new thing, or a secret. Look up his 1998
comments to the FCC on the subject, if you don't believe me.

What is even more amusing is if you look up Lennie's comments to the FCC,
out of thousands of pages of comments, he felt the need to rebut my comments
virtually line for line.

Pages and pages worth, too, even though your comments were 100% in
support
of the maximum possible Morse Code test reduction under the treaty, and
complete
Morse Code test elimination at the earliest possible moment if/when the
treaty changed.

Think about it. If all Len *really* wanted was Morse Code test
elimination, why would
he send in all those pages refuting someone who wanted exactly that,
and who
supported that part of the NCI agenda to the letter? The explanation is
simple: You
were/are a target because you disagreed with Len.

He specifically asked FCC to do the following in response to NPRM
98-143:

I have always felt stronger (not read: more difficult) theory examinations
were more important to the ARS than morse code testing. It is an opinion
that I hold to this day.

Well, we agree on the desirability of better written tests. We disagree
on the
Morse Code test in that you support complete elimination of that test
and I
don't.

However, FCC's response has been to reduce both the number of written
tests and the total number of questions required for every class of
license.
The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC

IOW, he *supported* the NCI proposal of that time! He's a
dyed-in-the-wool no-coder!

I actually have my NCI membership certificate packed someone in my boxes.

You mean you haven't got it "right out of the box"?

3) Reduction of the number of amateur radio license classes
to two.

I still feel two license classes - a 50MHZ+ and a 30MHZ- would not
necessarily be a bad idea.

Well, we disagree on that, too.

This was almost ten years ago. I don't think Mike has changed

Not at all. I still feel all my ideas presented 8 years ago hold merit
today.

Len does not want to discuss the merit of anyone's ideas if they
disagree with *his* ideas, or if they correct his mistakes.

I do not really see any need for two HF licenses. The FCC should simply
eliminate the General license and have a Class A and Class B license.

Well, it's interesting to see that you can be nasty to those
who agree with you....

Since Lennie's first appearance... oh, 10? years ago, he's pretty much been
a nasty fellow.

About 10 years, and an enormous volume of verbiage under a variety of
screen
names. He used the screen name " for several posts
here,
then later denied ever using that name in rrap.

Of course someone (ahem) pointed out that he had, indeed, posted to
rrap
using that screen name. Len's reaction was quite predictable.

As I've posted in the past, he reminds me a great deal of my
long-since-departed paternal grandmother, who was so miserable, she had to
try and make everyone else around her miserable too. I can only conclude
that Lennie's inability to get a ham license has made him very, very
miserable.

See the paragraph above about Len's behavior here. All anyone has to
do is disagree with Len, or correct a mistake he makes, and it's
showtime.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

"No matter what employment, education, life experience or
government/military service a person has, if that person
disagrees with any of Len's views, or corrects any of Len's
mistakes, he/she will be the target of Len's insults, ridicule,
name-calling, factual errors, ethnic/gender/racial slurs,
excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."

That's way too much for me to parse at 5am.

Let me see if I can put it in simplier terms

"If you don't kiss Len's ass, expect to be the target of his vitriol".

Yeah, that sounds about right.


The explanation is simple: You were/are a target because you
disagreed with Len.

I laugh about it to this day. Thousands of pages of comments, hundreds (if
not thousands of hams) responding, and Lennie


Well, we agree on the desirability of better written tests. We
disagree on the Morse Code test in that you support complete
elimination of that test and I don't.

Something a few of the posters here (oddly enough, the most vocal/rabid
members of the No-Code Agenda, it would seem) cannot simply seem to grasp is
that gentlemen can agree to disagree without resorting to ad hominem
attacks.

I am not entirely opposed to having a "skills test" in addition to a theory
examination. There is precedent in other testing scenarios maintained by the
government. For example, to get a pilot's license, you not only take a
written test, you also have to take a 'hands on' test.

Of course, CW is a very easy method "skills test" to implement, which makes
it a natural selection for the that component in ham radio testing.

I can understand why you would support such a test. This is, IMO, a
legitimate course of reasoning on your part and I can understand the
viewpoint.

While I agree with it in principle, personally, I do not feel that a morse
test is a good selection for a skills test.

Furthermore, I cannot think of a really good alternative, either. Thus,
until someone can present a very concise idea on how to implement a
pertinent skills test in the ARS today, I'll fall back to the side of having
none.


The other ideas on written test improvement were ignored by FCC

Unfortunately, the trend with licensing in ham radio is very similiar to the
trend we saw wih CB radio licensing back in the mid 70's. It concerns me
that testing gets more and more lax.

Another disturbing trend is the desire to modify our licensing standards for
"quantity". Everyone focuses on license numbers, and continuing to grow the
number of licensed amateurs. I believe the majority of changes in our
licensing system over the past 15 years has been directly related to
people's desires to 'swell our ranks'.

I've always been a proponent of quality over quantity. I would rather have
one person interested in learning radio electronics, antenna theory, etc.
over two people who are nothing more than glorified applicance operators.


You mean you haven't got it "right out of the box"?

I may no longer be a member. Years ago Carl threatened to throw me out of
NCI over my criticism of NCI publically, under the guise of me "really not
being a no-code test advocate". What Stevenson really wanted was an army of
little mindless zealots who reguritated what they were spoon-fed by NCI --
something I was not.


See the paragraph above about Len's behavior here. All anyone has
to do is disagree with Len, or correct a mistake he makes, and it's
showtime.

Lennie's fun to wind-up. Every time I post, you know his blood pressure
rises a couple of points. He can't resist the urge to throw out some acerbic
comments.

73
KH6HZ

wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

...
The problem Len has with you isn't your license, or lack of it. It's
the fact that
you dared to disagree with him, and/or correct one or more of his
mistakes
here. Once someone does either or both of those things, Len's reaction
is
100% predictable. In fact, there's a handy profile that pretty much
sums it all up:


Now that's funny. The problem with Len is he has pulled some covers
here and pi$$ed off a few. As to Len being perfect? Well, maybe, maybe
not--I kinda like him. As for Len being "predictable", hey look in a
mirror, you are one we are making fun of for that very thing!!!

...
73 de Jim, N2EY


You guys are VERY small MEN. Len knows that, I know that, the whole
world knows that. If you attempt to step away from it, you can't. You
will now be seen for what you truly are. You know that and it irks you,
don't take that anger out on Len ...

JS

wrote:

...
not quite the the whole world, which is the problem the MM exist for
him to b e codependant in De Nile but the Aswan Dam is broken and the
water is racing down the Gorge
JS
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Mark:

You know what I am waiting for? (hint, I like watching idiots and using
sarcasm) I am waiting for them to get over to
rec.radio.amateur."something".moderated and startup attempting to ignore
the world again; I am waiting for them to attempt to exert the type of
control they have practiced for decades, etc. ...

Damn. I just hope they drop back here and watch us reading them and
laughing our b*tts off! grin

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

AaronJ wrote:
If as you say the "service" is that performed by the Government for the
citizens, then how does your sentence make any real sense?

Once again, from Webster's: "service - an administrative
division, as of a government". There is no service
required by the members of the Amateur Radio Service.
The "service" is a benefit that the federal government
performs for those citizens who meet the qualifications,
not vice versa.

You said (quote):
"Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one."

Paraphrasing, you say that a well rounded ham is best for the ham service.

That use of the word "service" is found often in ham text but doesn't fit either
of your definitions. The word service as used in this way is ham jargon and
refers to all hams as a group. IMO it seems to over inflate our importance. My
comment was simply that we're really just a hobby and not all that important
anymore.

That was my third attempt at trying to get that particular point across. I'll be
happy to discuss with you or anyone else our real importance as a hobby group
(or service if you prefer), but you now have the last word on the semantics...

AaronJ wrote:
You said (quote):
"Seems to me that a ham who is a jack-of-all-trades-
and-master-of-none would be more valuable to the
"service" than one who is ignorant of most trades
and master of one."

Paraphrasing, you say that a well rounded ham is best for the ham service.

No, you got it wrong. You left out my quotation marks around
the word, "service".

When you finally understand the difference that those quotation
marks make in the meaning of the word, "service", you will
realize that your prolonged argument is irrelevant at best.

That use of the word "service" is found often in ham text but doesn't fit either
of your definitions.

Yes, you are finally getting it. That's exactly what happens when
one uses quotation marks around a word in the following way:

From Webster's "Basic Manual of (English) Style":
"Use quotation marks: to draw attention to ... a usage very
different in style from the context." e.g. different from
the context of those ham texts to which you alluded above.

My quote above, quoted by you, puts "service" in quotation marks
to *draw attention to a usage very different* in style from the
context that you were using, i.e. service to the public. Why are
those quotation marks not drawing your attention to my very
different usage? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
My quote above, quoted by you, puts "service" in quotation marks
to *draw attention to a usage very different* in style from the
context that you were using, i.e. service to the public. Why are
those quotation marks not drawing your attention to my very
different usage? :-)

Cecil:

Perhaps I can offer an explanation. I mean sitting back here in the
background, with others I am sure, they demonstrate their lack of education?

I mean, what other explanation is possible?

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
Perhaps I can offer an explanation. I mean sitting back here in the
background, with others I am sure, they demonstrate their lack of
education?

Was it W. C. Fields who objected to having a battle
of wits with an unarmed opponent? Winston Churchill?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com