Dave Heil wrote in
news
What odd twist of fate leads you to your present state of gloom and
doom?

You can contact me off list if you want to know why I have developed
a different attitude toward the people who have a problem with people like
me and will probably have a much bigger problem with people who have no
code test at all. I won't discuss it here.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"KH6HZ" wrote in :

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many
years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams,

I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim.


And I sir, do.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On 3 Feb 2007 12:46:59 -0800, "
wrote:


From: Leo on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:42:17 -0500

On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

:-)

I give him mebbe four days, then he can't resist the URGE
any longer!

Pretty close - almost two days!


Denial ain't no river in Egypt. He ain't no sphinx either.

[his opinion sometimes stinx tho'...]

How about a hint on how the Canadians are feeling about
their southern neighbor's amateur radio regulation
changes? I be most curious about that. Haven't had the
time to surf the 'net to some of the Canadian ham sites
to look in.

Good question - other than announcements stating that code testing was
ending down there, I haven't seen much discussion on the subject.

The great code test debate was settled here a while back with little
fanfare - and surprisingly little mudslinging between the two sides.
Probably the same down there - this little corner of heaven
notwithstanding.....

And the world did not end! (doomsayers take note)

Next up looks like a new "Foundation" licence category may be on the
way, to encourage those who only want to communicate using simple ham
radios to join in. This license would require bare minimum study and
testing - after all, using one of the modern 2-meter handhelds isn't
any more complex than using an FRS handheld - add how to use a
repeater, and some simple procedures and protocol, and they're good to
go! (Australia and England have already done this, IIRC).

Wonder if that's something which will start up down your way too? (or
perhaps the Tech license already fills this requirement?) I'd bet
that discussion would keep the 'regulars' on this group busy for the
next decade!


Hah! I'll bet that Canadians don't much give a diddly
darn about all the Ugly Americans beeping around their
bushes down here! :-)

Heh!


Shalom,
LA

73, Leo

On Feb 3, 10:23�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote groups.com:

On Feb 2, 10:43�pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote
ups.
com:

On Jan 30, 8:03�pm, "
g
wrote:

previous post stuff snipped

* *At last, an amateur extra licensee besides Hans Brakob
* *who admits what has been visible for years.

* *The old paradigms are no longer worth a pair of pennies.

Which old paradigms, Len?

What should the old paradigms be replaced with?

Element one is gone.

In three weeks, yes.

The hams who fought code elimination for so many
years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams, or even nickle
Extras such as myself now are at a crossroads.

Do you think I am one of those you describe, Mike?

Have you ever seen me display hatred for *any* amateur radio operator
who follows the rules?

* * * * Jim, I've picked up enough from your posts to believe that you are
going to have some trouble when the new folks start come in, if I read
my posts correctly.

What sort of trouble, Mike?

Hopefully the newbies won't sense it.

* * * * But as a direct answer - I haven't seen any hatred in your posts.

That's good.

They can either accept
the change for what it is, or become like little neutron stars,
perhaps embracing their hatred, perhaps clanning together to
reminisce about the good old days when hems were really hams.

There's nothing wrong with opposing a change that one thinks is not
a good idea. Of course there are good ways and bad ways of opposing a
change.

* * Of course not. Depends on just how they oppose it.

Exactly.

I propose that
Hams who call new guys CB'ers, and idiots just might be doing it the
wrong way.

I agree!

And I propose that those who refer to more-experienced/more-
knowedgeable hams as "fossils", "dinosaurs", "Luddites", "beepers",
and a host of other derogatory nicknames are doing it the wrong way,
too.

Perhaps not much consolation
however in the fact that they will have become irrelevant.

Why should any radio amateur be irrelevant?

You misunderstand. Amateur radio isn't and won't be irrevelant. The
"haters" will.

Not will. Already are.

My experience leads me to suspect that most will choose the latter.
Too bad, that.

That works both ways.

The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to
advance their technical skills and knowledge.

That's not a new paradigm at all. It's as old as amateur radio itself.
In fact, it's a very old, traditional paradigm.

* * * * Kinda an old paradigm. But kinda not either, With alomst 50
percent
of Hams at the Technician level, it's more talk than walk.

How? There's a whole bunch of factors going on.

For one thing, the "Technician level" includes everyone from the VHF/
UHF centric ham who got his/her license 50-odd years ago, and the
newcomer who got one last week. It includes hams who never passed a
code test and hams who passed 5 wpm in front of the steely-eyed FCC
examiner. Hams who passed the new 35 question Element 2, hams who
passed the old pre-2000 30 question Element 2 (Novice) and 35 question
Element 3A, (Tech) and pre-1987 hams who passed the even older Element
3 (General/Tech) written exams.

It includes hams who are very active, hams who are totally inactive,
and everything in between.

And it includes hams who are waiting for Feb 23 so they can upgrade
without a code test, and hams who have no interest in upgrading at
all.

Perhaps we will see a massive upgrading to General and Extra after Feb
23. I hope we do.

License class is only one indicator of technical skills and
knowledge.

Basically it says that amateur radio operators are not simply users of
radio appliances. IMHO.

* * * * And we need more of that.

Google my callsign for an example of a non-appliance station....

The days when a Ham's
worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are gone.

Operating skills are still a major part of amateur radio - and what
hams should have and continue to develop. Whether or not they are
tested doesn't mean those skills are no longer relevant.

You're kind of combining a couple statements to come up with
something else, Jim.

My point is that technical knowledge and skills are not the only
things a ham should know.

IMHO, a "real ham" has technical knowledge, technical/practical
skills, regulatory knowledge, and operating skills.

I'm planning on moving on and am excited by the new potential.

* * * * What are you going to do?

Promote amateur radio - help other hams and wouldbe hams - enjoy
building, fixing, operating, teaching, and learning.

IOW, the same stuff I've been doing in amateur radio for almost 40
years.

No new paradigm at all.

We're going to hold beginners classes in everything from *soldering
to component identification to simply operating a HF radio to running
amplifiers. The whole shebang. No assumptions that the new guy
or gal is
knowledgeable or that they are an idiot and not worth the effort.

That's excellent!

* * * * I will hold that that is a bit of a change.

Perhaps in detail, but not in basic philosophy.

Take a look at the Glowbugs and Elecraft reflectors if you get the
chance. Online Elmering and technical/operating discussions. All sorts
of help to newcomers and oldtimers alike.

And while they are both moderated reflectors, the moderators take a
laid-back attitude and rarely if ever step in. Nor do they need to.

I suggest you take a look at them if you are interested in either
subject.


73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

And I sir, do.

Where?

A few idiots on the air?

That would be akin to me classifying all hams according to Mark Morgan.

On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, 7:42?pm, Leo wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 1, wrote:

Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?

I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. orks
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. very time - without fail!

That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".

But you will not admit it.

Please demonstrate!

It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".

K8MN wrote:

"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"

Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).

And you ("Leo") replied:

"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Some might call that "the lure"....


Then you wrote:

"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. Every time - without
fail!"

Note that last sentence:

"Every time - without fail!"

All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Factual errors according to whom? With reference to what source?

In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?

You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!


Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.

....if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! Specifics would be nice, too.


Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.


Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

I'll bet he'd be crushed!


There's your demonstration.

Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.


Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship. A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'?

Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? And
encourage everyone to join them?

Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!

You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?


And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?

Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?

How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation? That's magical!


So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

Perhaps....

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On Feb 3, 10:32 pm, wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 05:41:10 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 3, 7:38 am, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 03:11:36 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Element one is gone. The hams who fought code elimination for so many
years, many with unbridled hatred for uncoded hams,

I've yet to see anyone ever post any "proof" of this claim.

bull**** or at least then you have not read Robeson in RRAP

Gunny Robesin, Wince Fiscus, Larry tRoll, Bruce Benyon, Dick Carrol/
SK, Val Germann, ...

but I guess he is bllind to anything he doesn'twant to read

He is Quitefine with selective reading.

wrote:

KH6HZThat would be akin to me classifying all hams according to Mark
Morgan.

there is your proof your expressed hate

What hate?

You're a self-proclaimed gay pagan dyslexic ham.

Are all hams gay pagan and dyslexic?

Categorizing all 'extra' class operators on the basis of the actions of one
(or a few) would be akin to me classifying all hams as gay pagan dyslexics,
using you as the poster boy.

Sorry to burst your stereotype.

From: Leo on Sun, Feb 4 2007 9:21 am

On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, 7:42?pm, Leo wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, wrote:

Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.

Some might call that "the lure"....

...and some would, rightly, say that "Judge" miccolis just
has his head up his ass... shrug


All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.

Factual errors according to whom? With reference to what source?

In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?

"Judge" Miccolis, Ultimate Authority of course. :-)

"Professor Irwin Corey" is gone, so a replacement was
needed. The slow must go on...


You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you? It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!

...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! Specifics would be nice, too.

Sigh...here we go seven years into the past...sort of
like that old CBS program "You Are There." The one
that opened with the announcer saying, "All things are
as they were then...and you are there."

Or even the old Lone Ranger program, "Come with us now
to the days of yesteryear...and the thundering hooves
of the grate hoarse Jimmie" [paraphrased]



Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.

Reminds me of that great one-page cartoon once in CQ,
"Vector Conjecture." [a take-off on all the Vector
explanations of SSB by the phasing method]


Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.

I'll bet he'd be crushed!

Freshly-squeezed. From Florida (California only has frozen
oranges now).


There's your demonstration.

Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.

Oh, oh, here comes the "promise" of Extra-out-of-the-box."
Seven years ago I was supposed to have "promised" something
that had some kind of "moral imperative" to it, like "do it
or forever be silent" and other assorted bull**** from the
control freaks in here. :-(

In a way that is good. Folkses won't discuss my even-
earlier "promises" I made to certain ladies of my bachelor
days! :-) phew


Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.

Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim. Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship. A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'?

"Pathological?" My take on that was 'congenital.'

"Captain Righteous!" One of the X-Men, soon to be in
a Marvel Comics at your neighborhood newsstand!

Picture the offspring of "Baitman" and "Oblivious Man."
Mighty muskles all over in that tight suit of his, but
wearing his shorts on the outside instead of inside.

Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? And
encourage everyone to join them?

Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!

You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?

We will never know. Captain Righteous will immediately
shift to my "faults" and never, ever admit his "why."

Mike Coslo didn't do anything wrong. Nobody wanted to
join him so that all would have a happy, happy, we-all-
think-the-same kaffeklatsch.

The buzz should be about hive minds...


And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.

Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?

Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?

How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation? That's magical!

"Everything I say is a lie."

If it is a "lie" then that sentence cannot be true because
it is encompassed by "everything." Ergo, I do not lie.
But, I MUST be lying! :-)

A classic conundrum. Jimmie trying to beat it.

Boom, boom.

On the other hand (besides four fingers and a thumb), maybe
I WON'T go away? See, if I said I was "going," then that
would be a lie...and, in order to fulfill the Mighty Masters
of Macho Morse wishes that I am lying, then I must be
planning to stay here. If I lie then I can't possibly be
going. But, I am supposed to go, yet I haven't so there-
fore I am telling the truth. But, but, I lie so there-
fore I have to stay here (a fate worse than death?)?

Please pass the Tylenol.


So it's really a moot point, "Leo".

Perhaps....

"Moot?" "Moot Court?" Captain Righteous imitating John
Houseman's character on "Paper Chase?"

This is Salem II, where heretics are tried on the trump
test of FIRE on the charge of Whichcraft! Gather ye the
wood to pile it higher around the stake...they want that
stake to be cooked well-done. With A-1 Operator Sauce!

beeeep, beeeep,

LA

From: Leo on Sat, Feb 3 2007 11:07 pm

On 3 Feb 2007 12:46:59 -0800, " wrote:
From: Leo on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:42:17 -0500
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, 5:01?pm, Leo wrote:

How about a hint on how the Canadians are feeling about
their southern neighbor's amateur radio regulation
changes? I be most curious about that. Haven't had the
time to surf the 'net to some of the Canadian ham sites
to look in.

Good question - other than announcements stating that code testing was
ending down there, I haven't seen much discussion on the subject.

Agreed. After a few days I looked around more and
didn't see near as much talk on it. Of course, that
was primarily a "southerner" thing (relatively
speaking from northerners' point of view).

The great code test debate was settled here a while back with little
fanfare - and surprisingly little mudslinging between the two sides.
Probably the same down there - this little corner of heaven
notwithstanding.....

NOT so down here. :-( Interestingly, www.qrz.com
seemed to have deliberately down-played the whole
thing. www.eham.net did not. Of course "QRZ" is also
a business and can't alienate one group v. another
without risking some loss. ARRL is playing it cagey
now and won't commit much of an opinion...but their
publishing part of their house must keep making a
profit in order to survive.

And the world did not end! (doomsayers take note)

Now, THAT's debateable! :-)

In USA amateur radio history since 1934, FCC 06-178 may
go down as the premiere earth-shattering event, even
more than the cessation of amaterur operations due to
our involvement in WW II. Never before had morse code
testing been totally eliminated in the 73-year span of
our FCC. Hadn't happened in the three previous radio
regulating agencies here, either, not since 1912.

Next up looks like a new "Foundation" licence category may be on the
way, to encourage those who only want to communicate using simple ham
radios to join in. This license would require bare minimum study and
testing - after all, using one of the modern 2-meter handhelds isn't
any more complex than using an FRS handheld - add how to use a
repeater, and some simple procedures and protocol, and they're good to
go! (Australia and England have already done this, IIRC).

I've seen a few things on the "Foundation" license but
haven't gauged it. There were also a few hit remarks
from certain types in the yew-kai about that. I was
bouyed in spirit by the Australians about radio in
general for years. All across the 'classes' and that
may be due to their 'last frontier' spirit having vast
spaces of not much and begun after the USA revolted.
All kinds of parts stores/vendors on the web, activity
websites, etc. New Zealand, too, although smaller yet
the distances are still vast.

I've always wondered if Canada was going to be infected
by nearness of certain American opinions/bigotry.
Sharing an immense border and proximity of so many large
urban areas at the border would seem to invite some kind
of social cross-pollination. Looking back, I'd say that
Canada has NOT been polluted, but has remained relatively
independent. I applaud that.

Wonder if that's something which will start up down your way too? (or
perhaps the Tech license already fills this requirement?) I'd bet
that discussion would keep the 'regulars' on this group busy for the
next decade!

The only thing I've seen were a few Petitions to the
FCC and some scattered nattering. Most of the olde-
tyme vocal hammes here look down at Techs as kiddies
in radio. They TOLERATE them in the main, but seldom
regard them as anything close to equals. That's a pity
here since Techs now make up HALF of all US amateur
licensees. Sort of like the French Revolution with the
"royalty" minority represented by the olde-tyme
morsemen and a huge, huge group of "commoners" (Techs)
that have begun "storming the Bastille." Or another
analogy, the "storming of the Winter Palace." Da? :-)

However, the little FRS handhelds have been quietly
out-pacing ALL the multi-button ham HTs. In the 2003
transcript of the FCC's panel on overviewing "Part 15"
devices (unlicensed radios), one of the panelsts said
that FRS radios "now" (2003) numbered 15 MILLION here.
In numbers, that's on par with CB, a much much older
radio service. The usual pooh-pooh attitude from the
olde-tymers is that they are "short range." Heh, AS
IF those olde-tymers were all Collossi standing astride
continents! With 40 to 100 W PEP and at the mercy of
the ionosphere at HF, they could talk "long distances"
any time they felt like doing so? No way.

Between FRS, CB, and cell phones down here the USA has
roughly 130 MILLION two-way radios, all unlicensed,
useable by ordinary citizens. Toss in all the R-C
for modelers, Bluetooth and IEEE 802 wireless links,
all the WLANS, wireless doorbells, wireless security
cameras, cordless telephones, etc., and there's
maybe another 50 million unlicensed radios working
away here. Somehow those things just don't penetrate
the USA olde-tymer's heads. They can't understand
that 1950s paradigms just don't apply any more.
Those old paradigms aren't worth two cents now.
But, the olde-tymers are undaunted and proceed AS IF
time had stood still while they stood on ornate
crumbly-clay pedestals. :-(

Hej,
LA