|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! Leo, I think you realized that I have seen through your cunning plan, and was not trapped by it. But rather than admit that I have outsmarted you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel" and snipped. I repeat the relevant question: If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? It's a simple question. Your reply or lack of one says much more about you than it does about me. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 7, 7:03�pm, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! Leo, I think you realized that I have seen through your cunning plan, What cunning plan? * and was not trapped by it. But rather than admit that I have outsmarted you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel" and snipped. Isn't it? *:) * No. I repeat the relevant question: If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? Of course - so long as it predates my original post! Ah - so you add a condition! Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error in Len's postings here. Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at 7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists. In that long, long post, Len says: ""CB" came into being in 1958." But that's incorrect. By a whole decade. My point is proved. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: nope more like woger and yourself not anybody funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has nothing to do with the thread but then you are a censor wannabe As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!??? vk3rdf said... just seeing if some blokes were serious in claiming you do not allow posts on your blog 1:44 AM mark said... yes obvuiously I do allow it but I do ask they reasonably on tpoic to the entry posted to BTW I remind folks since I decide what gets posted my own remark can follow as quickly as i can type em 1:46 AM HHHmmm, you seem to have censored yourself. I see that you removed the statement concerning the fact that you decide what is posted after our little tete d'tete and then suddenly the above appears. No comments other than your own and suddenly some concerned citizen decides to post?? OOOhhh pleezzzeeee Don't you sleep at all Mark. A fellow from "down under" posts and you can respond less than 2 minutes later?? Perhaps your "wife" the ham and F Arts major can teach you something else BTW does your radio club know just what a ****** you are?? I am surprised that you are even allowed in...well not really since you are not who you say you are. Perhaps on Veterans Day or Memorial Day you can regale them with stories of your military involvement in Iraq or was it Kuwait? And yet one person does not challenge your Bravo Sierra at your "military" career. Feel free to deny everything, that's what you do best The alleged Mark Morgan..profession and permanent victim sorry, I callz 'em as I seez 'em No 73 EVER for you Dean http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 8, 8:56�am, Leo wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 16:41:37 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 7:03?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! Leo, I think you realized that I have seen through your cunning plan, What cunning plan? and was not trapped by it. But rather than admit that I have outsmarted you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel" and snipped. Isn't it? :) No. I repeat the relevant question: If I give you one example of a factual error that Len has made in the past few days, but which I have not yet corrected, will you agree that I have proved my point? Of course - so long as it predates my original post! Ah - so you add a condition! An obvious condition, considering that my post referred to your activities which preceeded it! * A condition you added at the last possible moment. Just keeping you honest..... *:) When have I ever been less than honest? Nevertheless, it's a simple task to find an uncorrected factual error in Len's postings here. Scroll back up this thread to January 30. See the post Len made at 7:56 PM (at least, that's the time Google lists. In that long, long post, Len says: ""CB" came into being in 1958." But that's incorrect. By a whole decade. Hmmm - I don't believe that one qualifies, Jim. It does. Len got the date wrong, that's all. A simple factual error. *The concept of the 'Citizen's Band' dates back to 1945 - but the allocation was way up in the UHF bands, where radio equipment for the average 'citizen' was quite impractical, due to the the technology of the time (both size and cost of the transceiving equipment would have been enormous!. * That's your opinion. The facts are that "CB" was created at least a decade before 1958. There was type-accepted CB equipment on the market in 1948. There were several manufacturers making and selling UHF CB equipment before 1958, and it was being bought and used. There were even handhelds for UHF CB. Probably the best known example was the Vocaline transceiver, which was small, simple, rugged, relatively low cost and easy to use. other words, it existed in regulations only, but was virtually unusable for its intended purpose by the general public it was designed to serve. It did not "exist in regulations only". How usable it was is a matter of opinion. But the usability or popularity of pre-1958 CB is not the issue. The fact is that Len got the date for the creation of CB wrong. The "Citizen's Band" that exists to this day, in the 27 MHz band, does indeed date back to 1958. Yes, it does. But CB was not created in 1958. 27 MHz CB is sometimes referred to as "Class D" CB. IIRC, Class C CB refers to 27 MHz radio control. But Class A and Class B CB refer to UHF CB, and predate 1958 by at least a decade. I'd say he was right on this one, from a practical point of view. * Of course you would say that. But you'd be mistaken. My point is proved. Not yet! * Yes, it is. The fact is that CB was created at least ten years before 1958. What band it was on, and how popular it was are immaterial - the radio service known as CB wasn't created in 1958. Those are the facts. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: nope more like woger and yourself not anybody funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has nothing to do with the thread but then you are a censor wannabe As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!??? I do not practice censorship at all http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship Is this what they taught you in military officer training school?? You are definitely the quintessential mental deficient sewer file for you reply all you want I pity the Copper Country club you belong to phhewww -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent ofthe average amateur ...)
Dean M wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship Sorry, that's not the definition of "censorship". Discrimination is not necessarily censorship. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message et... Dean M wrote: BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship Sorry, that's not the definition of "censorship". Discrimination is not necessarily censorship. I would certainly agree with you BUT what his niblets was doing was not being discriminating, far from he. He invited comments then refused to post any of those that he did not approve of. As in point, he revised that thing he calls a blog, to eliminate anything he wrote trying to post a a dozen or so insulting coments to this blog just doesn't work since i moderate them IOW if it's not to his liking it's outta here OOOppss now I'll be sued for copyright infringement Thanks Cecil, just what I need ;-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent ofthe average amateur ...)
Dean M wrote:
I would certainly agree with you BUT what his niblets was doing was not being discriminating, far from he. He invited comments then refused to post any of those that he did not approve of. That doesn't meet the definition of "censorship". It is very difficult for a private citizen who is not employed or appointed by the government to engage in "censorship". Editors of newspapers invite letters to the editors and then refuse to publish them. That's not "censorship". QEX invites articles to be submitted and then refuses to publish them after agreeing to publish them. That's not censorship. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500
On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! Leo, I think you realized that I have seen through your cunning plan, What cunning plan? HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!! Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down! Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate the Embassy, then execute Plan B! and was not trapped by it. But rather than admit that I have outsmarted you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel" and snipped. Isn't it? :) Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in five seconds! :-) cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle" It's a simple question. Your reply or lack of one says much more about you than it does about me. LOL! Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to Readers Digest. I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be undigestable to the Digest. :-) cue theme from "Moonlight Zone" Bon chance, mon ami, salute, LA |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
Sorry, that's not the definition of "censorship". Discrimination is not necessarily censorship. Mark's has defined 'censorship' as having one (or more) of his postings rejected by a moderated newsgroup. Using that same definition, he practices 'censorship' in his own blog site's 'readers comments' area. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 8 Feb 2007 12:03:03 -0800, "
wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...nothing but evasive drivel. Entire post skipped! Leo, I think you realized that I have seen through your cunning plan, What cunning plan? HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!! Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down! Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate the Embassy, then execute Plan B! Egad! He's on to us! Quick, hide! and was not trapped by it. But rather than admit that I have outsmarted you, my post is labeled "evasive drivel" and snipped. Isn't it? :) Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in five seconds! :-) cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle" ....for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree, he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'. It's sad, in a way..... It's a simple question. Your reply or lack of one says much more about you than it does about me. LOL! Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to Readers Digest. I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque - he's actually quite forgettable.... :) I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be undigestable to the Digest. :-) As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? I have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who will remain useless..... :) cue theme from "Moonlight Zone" ....or the theme from 'Trailer Park Boys' :) Bon chance, mon ami, salute, La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute LA 73, Leo |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500
wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: Leo, I think you realized that I have seen through your cunning plan, What cunning plan? HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!! Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down! Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate the Embassy, then execute Plan B! Egad! He's on to us! Quick, hide! I can't run...I have to stay and feed my dog Fideaux some Alpeaux dog food... Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in five seconds! :-) cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle" ...for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree, he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'. He hasn't been able to open it yet. Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to Readers Digest. I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque - he's actually quite forgettable.... :) I agree. :-) I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be undigestable to the Digest. :-) As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? I have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who will remain useless..... :) Heh heh heh. Moon? A mere quarter-million miles away, but saying that off-hand is classified as an ERROR and MISTAKE to Cranky. He gonna do da Spanky and demand 6-digit absolute numbers or have me taken out and shot for making a MISTAKE! Nah, Cranky no be wrong. Ever. "CB" radio (as all know it today) on 11m was authorized in the USA in 1958. It was in all the electronics trade papers and Regulations of our FCC. In 1958 little Cranky was just beginning to read, but might have reached 13 WPM level in morse code... The ****y pedant is correct in saying CLASS A and CLASS B Citizens Band radio existed prior to 1958 but that was above 400 MHz and never became a market best-seller. The 11m Citizens Band here was CLASS C (radio control, now in our Part 95 regs as "Radio Control Radio Service") and CLASS D (23 channels of radiotelephone, sharing channel 23 with R-C). The old A and B classes of Citizens Band were eliminated several years back (maybe decades, exact date immaterial to normal folks). By the time of regulation changes to "CB" here, the number of channels was expanded to 40. Not that THAT helped since there were at least a million "11m" CB radios in-use here then and more in various world nations. Hardly anything but heterodynes. [at least they were 'hetero', it would be hell if they were 'homodynes'...:-) ] Heil on the break-in: "You aren't funny, Leonard!" :-) cue theme from "Moonlight Zone" ...or the theme from 'Trailer Park Boys' :) Theme from "Clockwork Yellow"? "2007: A Code Oddity"? Bon chance, mon ami, salute, La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute Oui. Always the WORD WAR 3 bitter fight waged by morsemen... Well, after feeding Fideaux with Alpeaux I might have a pizza with peppereaunix...? As I eat that I'll read biographies of Guglielmeaux Marconeaunix and Phileaux Farnsworth. Leonardeaux |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 8 Feb 2007 16:27:11 -0800, "
wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: Leo, I think you realized that I have seen through your cunning plan, What cunning plan? HUSH, Leo! The jig is up...we've been FOUND OUT!!! Le Grande Conspiracie has been shot down! Quick, burn all the classified papers, evacuate the Embassy, then execute Plan B! Egad! He's on to us! Quick, hide! I can't run...I have to stay and feed my dog Fideaux some Alpeaux dog food... Cranky Spanky seems to think he is "Jim Phelps." Little does he know that not only will "the Secretary disavow any knowledge of him" but never knew him in the first place and doesn't have ANY tape that self-destructs in five seconds! :-) cue theme from "Mission Impopsicle" ...for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree, he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'. He hasn't been able to open it yet. I believe that you're right! Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to Readers Digest. I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque - he's actually quite forgettable.... :) I agree. :-) Thought you might! :) I've a hunch that it would be too far-out and be undigestable to the Digest. :-) As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? I have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who will remain useless..... :) Heh heh heh. Moon? A mere quarter-million miles away, but saying that off-hand is classified as an ERROR and MISTAKE to Cranky. He gonna do da Spanky and demand 6-digit absolute numbers or have me taken out and shot for making a MISTAKE! If we're lucky, he won't recalculate that by himself. It took weeks to wash the crap out of the newsgroup after he did that the first time! Nah, Cranky no be wrong. Ever. "CB" radio (as all know it today) on 11m was authorized in the USA in 1958. It was in all the electronics trade papers and Regulations of our FCC. In 1958 little Cranky was just beginning to read, but might have reached 13 WPM level in morse code... A stellar accomplishment, by any measure, that! The ****y pedant is correct in saying CLASS A and CLASS B Citizens Band radio existed prior to 1958 but that was above 400 MHz and never became a market best-seller. The 11m Citizens Band here was CLASS C (radio control, now in our Part 95 regs as "Radio Control Radio Service") and CLASS D (23 channels of radiotelephone, sharing channel 23 with R-C). The old A and B classes of Citizens Band were eliminated several years back (maybe decades, exact date immaterial to normal folks). By the time of regulation changes to "CB" here, the number of channels was expanded to 40. Not that THAT helped since there were at least a million "11m" CB radios in-use here then and more in various world nations. Hardly anything but heterodynes. [at least they were 'hetero', it would be hell if they were 'homodynes'...:-) ] The A and B classes dies a horrible death because - they were'nt useable by the target audience. Sure, there were transceivers available for 450 MHz in 1945 - but they would have cost big bucks, and been massive beasts as well. (as Ptoooey so aptly points out, there were handheld units available for these frequencies in the '50's, but they would have required King Kong's hand to hold them! And King Kon's wallet to buy them, as well.....) . But, because there was a regulation in place that said "Citizen's Band" (regardless of whether it was usable by the "citizens' without exorbuiant expense and superhuman effort), then CB must have existed in 1945. What an idiot! This guy is proof that you shouldn't sign your organ donor card without reading it very carefully - looks like they came for his brain a few years early! :) Heil on the break-in: "You aren't funny, Leonard!" I'd suggest taking his word as Gospel on that subject - Dave is an expert on the subject of "not funny". :) But, on the plus side, he can sign his organ donor card any time. I do find it unusual that the US Diplomatic Corpse did not require that particular characteristic from their employees! You'd think that that would be a prerequisite..... :) :-) cue theme from "Moonlight Zone" ...or the theme from 'Trailer Park Boys' :) Theme from "Clockwork Yellow"? "2007: A Code Oddity"? That works too! Bon chance, mon ami, salute, La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute Oui. Always the WORD WAR 3 bitter fight waged by morsemen... Well, after feeding Fideaux with Alpeaux I might have a pizza with peppereaunix...? As I eat that I'll read biographies of Guglielmeaux Marconeaunix and Phileaux Farnsworth. Leonardeaux au revoir pour maintenant, mon ami - voyez-vous bientôt ! 73, Leoaux (?) |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 8, 5:35�pm, Leo wrote:
As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle. *I have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who will remain useless..... :) Who is that, Leo? |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 8, 8:40�pm, Leo wrote:
On 8 Feb 2007 17:35:24 -0800, wrote: On Feb 8, 5:35?pm, Leo wrote: As far out as the Moon, I'll bet - say, how far is that, anyway? About 250,000 miles. Varies because the orbit is not a perfect circle. * * * * have conflicting figures here from some 'engineer' in this group, who will remain useless..... :) Who is that, Leo? That was you. No, it wasn't. You are mistaken, Leo. I have posted the approximate distance from the earth to the moon here a few times. 250,000 miles, each time. Ptoooey - did you forget? *:) Ptoooey? |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500
wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: ...for a guy who supposedly made it all the way to a Masters degree, he seems to have a great deal of trouble thinking 'outside the box'. He hasn't been able to open it yet. I believe that you're right! With some the 'box' looks so pretty unopened that they never do remove the pretty wrappings. shrug Leo, I'm debating on whether or not to submit Cranky as an "unforgettable character I've met" article to Readers Digest. I'm afraid that your article would be returned without the $100 cheque - he's actually quite forgettable.... :) I agree. :-) Thought you might! :) On second thought, Asimov's Science Fiction might be interested... :-) Nah, Cranky no be wrong. Ever. "CB" radio (as all know it today) on 11m was authorized in the USA in 1958. It was in all the electronics trade papers and Regulations of our FCC. In 1958 little Cranky was just beginning to read, but might have reached 13 WPM level in morse code... A stellar accomplishment, by any measure, that! A Nova! Ah, but later in life came the Bossy Nova! ...and the beat goes on... The A and B classes dies a horrible death because - they were'nt useable by the target audience. Sure, there were transceivers available for 450 MHz in 1945 - but they would have cost big bucks, and been massive beasts as well. (as Ptoooey so aptly points out, there were handheld units available for these frequencies in the '50's, but they would have required King Kong's hand to hold them! And King Kon's wallet to buy them, as well.....) . Well he said, assuming a serious mien there was ONE "simple" 400+ MHz transceiver...el cheapo modulated oscillator cum super-regen detector. Forgot who made it but it was really cheap in everything inside. I had gotten one free from another who wanted to set up a link down in Inglewood, CA. It would reach, at best, a mile and a half. That was in the later 1950s and the UHF bow-tie and reflector aluminum wires had already started to crystalize enough to snap off easily. Still had it when I moved into this house in 1963 but the steel chassis and steel cabinet were so rusty I just tossed it a year later. :-( But, because there was a regulation in place that said "Citizen's Band" (regardless of whether it was usable by the "citizens' without exorbuiant expense and superhuman effort), then CB must have existed in 1945. Not quite. Our FCC was struggling mightily with all sorts of post-WW2 regulation, radio service changes back then...and preparing for the onslaught of TV in gorgeous black and white. FM broadcast was about to move to double its pre-WW2 frequencies and the various public safety agencies wanted to get to "low band" (30 to 50 MHz) and, maybe, "mid band" (150 to about 160 MHz). It would seem that the original US Citizens Band on UHF was a sort-of afterthought. Manufacturers started to lobby for lower frequencies in this tube- only era and the post-WW2 FCC looked at the amateur "11m" band (not an International allocation) and the rest was history. Radio-wise, the fit hit the shan after 1958 with all sorts of different radio services wanting this and that plus the electronics industry had to step in to stop the color TV "war" between CBS Labs and RCA (neither one would have been suitable). Our FCC was barely keeping up with the changes everywhere. Again, "CB" was an afterthought radio service and NOBODY really anticipated the surge in off-shore design and production that would flood N. America by a decade later. What an idiot! This guy is proof that you shouldn't sign your organ donor card without reading it very carefully - looks like they came for his brain a few years early! :) Now, now... :-) Heil on the break-in: "You aren't funny, Leonard!" I'd suggest taking his word as Gospel on that subject - Dave is an expert on the subject of "not funny". :) Jawholl! heels click together, monocle snaps in place But, on the plus side, he can sign his organ donor card any time. Pity the recipient... I do find it unusual that the US Diplomatic Corpse did not require that particular characteristic from their employees! You'd think that that would be a prerequisite..... :) NOT in Foggy Bottom (part of DC). The soubriquet of "Ugly American" was bestowed honestly by those in foreign lands. :-( I'm one US citizen who hasn't been happy with State for a couple decades. Of course the koff Presidents steer our State Department so that may explain much. On the other hand, the first new US Embassy in Moscow was a bugging disaster and we had to scrap it. KGB must have had a ball stuffing bugs in that building. Where were the State inspectors? Busy buying up souvenirs at the GUM? Bon chance, mon ami, salute, La guerre, la guerre....tojours la guerre! snappy salute Oui. Always the WORD WAR 3 bitter fight waged by morsemen... Well, after feeding Fideaux with Alpeaux I might have a pizza with peppereaunix...? As I eat that I'll read biographies of Guglielmeaux Marconeaunix and Phileaux Farnsworth. Leonardeaux au revoir pour maintenant, mon ami - voyez-vous bientôt ! 73, Leoaux (?) I'll see if I can get a "Martin Brandeaux'" lexicon to help you with names. :-) Aw reservoir, LA |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 9, 2:17�am, "
wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: * *With some the 'box' looks so pretty unopened that they * *never do remove the pretty wrappings. *shrug You mean like the box your license is in? The A and B classes dies a horrible death because - they were'nt useable by the target audience. *Sure, there were transceivers available for 450 MHz in 1945 - but they would have cost big bucks, and been massive beasts as well. (as Ptoooey so aptly points out, there were handheld units available for these frequencies in the '50's, but they would have required King Kong's hand to hold them! And King Kon's wallet to buy them, as well.....) . * *Well he said, assuming a serious mien there was ONE * *"simple" 400+ MHz transceiver...el cheapo modulated * *oscillator cum super-regen detector. *Forgot who made * *it but it was really cheap in everything inside. * Do you mean the Vocaline unit? There were others. Google "Al Gross". I had * *gotten one free from another who wanted to set up a * *link down in Inglewood, CA. *It would reach, at best, * *a mile and a half. *That was in the later 1950s and * *the UHF bow-tie and reflector aluminum wires had * *already started to crystalize enough to snap off easily. * *Still had it when I moved into this house in 1963 but * *the steel chassis and steel cabinet were so rusty I just * *tossed it a year later. *:-( But, because there was a regulation in place that said "Citizen's Band" (regardless of whether it was usable by the "citizens' without exorbuiant expense and superhuman effort), then CB must have existed in 1945. So Len was wrong. Thanks for admitting that. * *Not quite. *Our FCC was struggling mightily with all * *sorts of post-WW2 regulation, radio service changes * *back then...and preparing for the onslaught of TV in * *gorgeous black and white. *FM broadcast was about to * *move to double its pre-WW2 frequencies and the various * *public safety agencies wanted to get to "low band" * *(30 to 50 MHz) and, maybe, "mid band" (150 to about * *160 MHz). *It would seem that the original US Citizens * *Band on UHF was a sort-of afterthought. *Manufacturers * *started to lobby for lower frequencies in this tube- * *only era and the post-WW2 FCC looked at the amateur * *"11m" band (not an International allocation) and the * *rest was history. *Radio-wise, the fit hit the shan * *after 1958 with all sorts of different radio services * *wanting this and that plus the electronics industry * *had to step in to stop the color TV "war" between * *CBS Labs and RCA (neither one would have been * *suitable). *Our FCC was barely keeping up with the * *changes everywhere. *Again, "CB" was an afterthought * *radio service and NOBODY really anticipated the surge * *in off-shore design and production that would flood * *N. America by a decade later. So you admit, Len, that FCC did indeed create CB long before 1958. Thanks for owning up to your earlier factual error. --- btw, Len old chap: The number of Technician class amateur licenses has never exceeded the number of licenses of all other amateur license classes combined. You were wrong on that too, some days back. Thanks a heap. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent ofthe average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 8, 7:49?pm, Leo wrote:
there were handheld units available for these frequencies in the '50's, but they would have required King Kong's hand to hold them! http://www.retrocom.com/algross2.htm |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 8, 1:52 pm, "Dean M" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: nope more like woger and yourself not anybody funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has nothing to do with the thread but then you are a censor wannabe As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!??? I do not practice censorship at all http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship Is this what they taught you in military officer training school?? You are definitely the quintessential mental deficient sewer file for you reply all you want I pity the Copper Country club you belong to phhewww What Copper Country Club? That's never been brought up here. Looks like more Robesin stalking to me. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 8, 2:16 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:52:18 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: nope more like woger and yourself not anybody funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has nothing to do with the thread but then you are a censor wannabe As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!??? I do not practice censorship at all http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship 2nd though on this post Funny how you object to my requiring the comments on blog to be ontopic I don't recall you objecting to the proposed NG doing the same thing Actually, he likes the idea. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 8, 2:16 pm, wrote: On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:52:18 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: nope more like woger and yourself not anybody funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has nothing to do with the thread but then you are a censor wannabe As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!??? I do not practice censorship at all http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship 2nd though on this post Funny how you object to my requiring the comments on blog to be ontopic I don't recall you objecting to the proposed NG doing the same thing Actually, he likes the idea. Actually, like your very existence, I could care less it's the hypocrisy that you and the mentally challenged Marcus exhibit It's OK for you and your good buddy to say one thing yet exhibit behavior totally opposite oh yes, be sure to report me |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 10, 2:25�pm, Leo wrote:
On 9 Feb 2007 03:56:19 -0800, wrote: On Feb 9, 2:17?am, " wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: * ith some the 'box' looks so pretty unopened that they *.ever do remove the pretty wrappings. shrug You mean like the box your license is in? The A and B classes dies a horrible death because - they were'nt useable by the target audience. *ure, there were transceivers available for 450 MHz in 1945 - but they would have cost big bucks, and been massive beasts as well. (as Ptoooey so aptly points out, there were handheld units available for these frequencies in the '50's, but they would have required King Kong's hand to hold them! And King Kon's wallet to buy them, as well.....) . * ell he said, assuming a serious mien there was ONE *"simple" 400+ MHz transceiver...el cheapo modulated */scillator cum super-regen detector. *orgot who made *)t but it was really cheap in everything inside. Do you mean the Vocaline unit? There were others. ...of equally unpopular units. *Gross may have been a pioneer, agreed - but the CB service he built units for never got off the ground. According to various sources, he sold over 100,000 units for UHF CB. That's not as popular as 11 meter cb, but it was considerable. By comparison, in 1950 there were only about 100,000 US hams. Al Gross was W8PAL, btw. Google "Al Gross". Here's what some others have to say about him: MIT: http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/gross.html IEEE: http://www.comsoc.org/socstr/org/ope...lgrossmem.html Others: http://hamgallery.com/Tribute/W8PAL/ http://www.retrocom.com/Al%20Gross.htm UHF CB HT http://www.retrocom.com/algross2.htm I had *'otten one free from another who wanted to set up a *,ink down in Inglewood, CA. * t would reach, at best, *! mile and a half. *hat was in the later 1950s and *4he UHF bow-tie and reflector aluminum wires had *!lready started to crystalize enough to snap off easily. * till had it when I moved into this house in 1963 but *4he steel chassis and steel cabinet were so rusty I just *4ossed it a year later. :-( The Vocaline unit was not made by Al Gross's company. If my sources are correct, in those days it was also legal to build one's own UHF cb unit, or to convert surplus, if the person had the required commercial license. Conversion of inexpensive units like the BC-645 or AN/APS-13 to UHF cb was possible, for those with the knowledge and skill to do so. But, because there was a regulation in place that said "Citizen's Band" (regardless of whether it was usable by the "citizens' without exorbuiant expense and superhuman effort), then CB must have existed in 1945. 1948 is the date the rules were in effect. So Len was wrong. Thanks for admitting that. Brilliantly, you are agreeing with my paraphrase of your own assertion! *Nice reading comprehension.... *:) Yes, Len was wrong about UHF CB. * ot quite. *ur FCC was struggling mightily with all *3orts of post-WW2 regulation, radio service changes *"ack then...and preparing for the onslaught of TV in *'orgeous black and white. *M broadcast was about to *-ove to double its pre-WW2 frequencies and the various *0ublic safety agencies wanted to get to "low band" *(30 to 50 MHz) and, maybe, "mid band" (150 to about *160 MHz). * * t would seem that the original US Citizens and on UHF was a sort-of afterthought.anufacturers *3tarted to lobby for lower frequencies in this tube- */nly era and the post-WW2 FCC looked at the amateur *"11m" band (not an International allocation) and the *2est was history. *adio-wise, the fit hit the shan *!fter 1958 with all sorts of different radio services *7anting this and that plus the electronics industry *(ad to step in to stop the color TV "war" between BS Labs and RCA (neither one would have been *3uitable). *ur FCC was barely keeping up with the *#hanges everywhere. gain, "CB" was an afterthought *2adio service and NOBODY really anticipated the surge *)n off-shore design and production that would flood * . America by a decade later. So you admit, Len, that FCC did indeed create CB long before 1958. They created an impractical CB service which would later be replaced with a far more practical one in '58. 100,000 units sold by a single company isn't practical? Thanks for owning up to your earlier factual error. LOL! Whether or not UHF CB was "practical" in Len's or "Leo's" opinion is besides the point, too. The fact is that CB was created by FCC in 1948, not 1958, and it *was* used. It just wasn't as popular as 27 MHz cb would eventually turn out to be. --- btw, Len old chap: The number of Technician class amateur licenses has never exceeded the number of licenses of all other amateur license classes combined. You were wrong on that too, some days back. A fact, perhaps....at last! Check out the numbers. Technicians amount to less than half the total. Even if one considers Technicians and Technician Pluses combined, the total is less than half. Jim, N2EY |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:25:53 -0500
On Feb 9, 2:17?am, " wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: So you admit, Len, that FCC did indeed create CB long before 1958. They created an impractical CB service which would later be replaced with a far more practical one in '58. I wonder what part of CB eludes Cranky Spanky's understanding? "CB" AS IT IS KNOWN *NOW* has been around for 49 years. Certainly for 48 years since the original ELEVEN METER CITIZENS BAND's two new allocations were announced later in 1958. Note: One MUST be SUPER ACCURATE in saying anything to Cranky Spanky; any approximation will be punishable by his being on your case for his 7-year itching. :-) Thanks for owning up to your earlier factual error. LOL! I can just see L'Enfant Terrible* reading Radio & Television News magazine in 1958 when it had a feature article on this new Citizens Band - L'Enfant slams down the magazine and shouts to the world, "IT WAS ALREADY THERE YOU IDIOTS, ADMIT IT!!! RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS IS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! AND MAKES FACTUAL ERRORS!!!!!!" Then he stalked off looking for mommie and a clean pair of training pants. * sounds very classy when Alex Trebek says it on "Jeopardy" but it has the same meaning as "mean little kid." :-) The number of Technician class amateur licenses has never exceeded the number of licenses of all other amateur license classes combined. You were wrong on that too, some days back. A fact, perhaps....at last! (whew - that took a while!) Not quite... From the daily stats at www.hamdata.com for 10 Feb 07, 14:19 UTC: Technician 311,157 Technician Plus 40,654 Novice 29,253 General 142,153 Advanced 76,664 Extra 111,393 Club Calls 10,329 Total, ALL 721,603 Club Calls can be subracted from the Total since they are not those of individuals. In that case the total number of INDIVIDUAL USA amateur radio licensees is 711,274. Based on 711,274 individuals, the percentage of licensees by class is, by 10 Feb 07: Technician 43.75% Technician Plus 5.72% Novice 4.11% General 19.99% Advanced 10.78% Extra 15.66% Technician and Technician Plus together = 351,811 or 49.46% 50% of 711,274 is exactly 355,637 or 3,826 more than 351,811. If this sissy-fuss wants to keep rolling his "factual error" rock uphill all the time, let him. [that's a play on words for all youse who be un-eddycated, about the mythical king Sisyphus] However, all should be able to get the "sissy-fuss" moniker since Cranky be da sissy and all fussy-fussy about "accuracy." :-) On the home page of www.hamdata.com is a small block of licensee numbers for the last 12 months: New Licensees: 22,006 Expired Licenses: 28,618 Based on that the LOSS in 12 Months = 6,612 There's NO WAY of escaping the NUMERICAL FACT that USA amateur radio licensee numbers are DECREASING, and have been decreasing for nearly 4 years. The pro-coders' constant argument is "the original no-code techs grace period is up and they've quit ham radio" or words to that effect. Oh, my, but that does NOT make sense when NEW "no-code techs" are INCREASING at an average rate of THIRTY-TWO per day! The is by far the greatest increase per class. Cranky has many times tried to rationalize that the amateur extra is the "largest increasing class" but, again, the numbers never fitted his "explanation." However, Cranky is an extra, so therefore he is "right." :-) Upgraders are those already licensed who are just changing their license class...they neither increase nor decrease the total number of licensees. Based on that Hamdata delta of 6,612 LOSS in 12 months, that represents a LOSS of 18 per day in the USA! [6,612 / 365 = 18.115] But, but, but...cry the rationalizing a-souls of the morse persuasion, *WE* don't change (they probably claim immortality as well, as Robesin once did in here). They are NEVER wrong, by their own implicit perfection of encyclical utterance. Ave. Sigh. Bon your, LA |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:25:53 -0500
On Feb 9, 2:17?am, " wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: So you admit, Len, that FCC did indeed create CB long before 1958. They created an impractical CB service which would later be replaced with a far more practical one in '58. I wonder what part of CB eludes Cranky Spanky's understanding? "CB" AS IT IS KNOWN *NOW* has been around for 49 years. Certainly for 48 years since the original ELEVEN METER CITIZENS BAND's two new allocations were announced later in 1958. Note: One MUST be SUPER ACCURATE in saying anything to Cranky Spanky; any approximation will be punishable by his being on your case for his 7-year itching. :-) Thanks for owning up to your earlier factual error. LOL! I can just see L'Enfant Terrible* reading Radio & Television News magazine in 1958 when it had a feature article on this new Citizens Band - L'Enfant slams down the magazine and shouts to the world, "IT WAS ALREADY THERE YOU IDIOTS, ADMIT IT!!! RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS IS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! AND MAKES FACTUAL ERRORS!!!!!!" Then he stalked off looking for mommie and a clean pair of training pants. * sounds very classy when Alex Trebek says it on "Jeopardy" but it has the same meaning as "mean little kid." :-) The number of Technician class amateur licenses has never exceeded the number of licenses of all other amateur license classes combined. You were wrong on that too, some days back. A fact, perhaps....at last! (whew - that took a while!) Not quite... From the daily stats at www.hamdata.com for 10 Feb 07, 14:19 UTC: Technician 311,157 Technician Plus 40,654 Novice 29,253 General 142,153 Advanced 76,664 Extra 111,393 Club Calls 10,329 Total, ALL 721,603 Club Calls can be subracted from the Total since they are not those of individuals. In that case the total number of INDIVIDUAL USA amateur radio licensees is 711,274. Based on 711,274 individuals, the percentage of licensees by class is, by 10 Feb 07: Technician 43.75% Technician Plus 5.72% Novice 4.11% General 19.99% Advanced 10.78% Extra 15.66% Technician and Technician Plus together = 351,811 or 49.46% 50% of 711,274 is exactly 355,637 or 3,826 more than 351,811. If this sissy-fuss wants to keep rolling his "factual error" rock uphill all the time, let him. [that's a play on words for all youse who be un-eddycated, about the mythical king Sisyphus] However, all should be able to get the "sissy-fuss" moniker since Cranky be da sissy and all fussy-fussy about "accuracy." :-) On the home page of www.hamdata.com is a small block of licensee numbers for the last 12 months: New Licensees: 22,006 Expired Licenses: 28,618 Based on that the LOSS in 12 Months = 6,612 There's NO WAY of escaping the NUMERICAL FACT that USA amateur radio licensee numbers are DECREASING, and have been decreasing for nearly 4 years. The pro-coders' constant argument is "the original no-code techs grace period is up and they've quit ham radio" or words to that effect. Oh, my, but that does NOT make sense when NEW "no-code techs" are INCREASING at an average rate of THIRTY-TWO per day! The is by far the greatest increase per class. Cranky has many times tried to rationalize that the amateur extra is the "largest increasing class" but, again, the numbers never fitted his "explanation." However, Cranky is an extra, so therefore he is "right." :-) Upgraders are those already licensed who are just changing their license class...they neither increase nor decrease the total number of licensees. Based on that Hamdata data of 28,618 EXPIRATIONS in 12 months, that represents a LOSS of 78 per day in the USA! [28,618 / 365 = 78.405] If the newcomers weren't coming in via the no-code tech route, the USA ham license totals would have been shrinking much faster. But, but, but...cry the rationalizing a-souls of the morse persuasion, *WE* don't change (they probably claim immortality as well, as Robesin once did in here). They are NEVER wrong, by their own implicit perfection of encyclical utterance. Ave. Sigh. Bon your, LA |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent ofthe average amateur ...)
|
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 10, 7:20�pm, "
wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: The number of Technician class amateur licenses has never exceeded the number of licenses of all other amateur license classes combined. You were wrong on that too, some days back. * *Not quite... Yes, quite. You were quite wrong, Len. Mistaken, in error, barking up the wrong tree, inaccurate, mixed up, saying the thing which was not, etc. Here's a link to the post: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en where you wrote: "Don't you realize that Technician class is now bigger than ALL other US license classes combined?" To answer your question, I don't realize it because it's not true. Anyone with an understanding of the facts knows it's not true, either. * *From the daily stats at www.hamdata.com for 10 Feb 07,*14:19 UTC: Those stats include licenses that are expired but in the grace period. But since you like them, let's see what they say: * *Technician * * * 311,157 * *Technician Plus * 40,654 * *Novice * * * * * *29,253 * *General * * * * *142,153 * *Advanced * * * * *76,664 * *Extra * * * * * *111,393 * *Club Calls * * * *10,329 * *Total,ALL* * * 721,603 * *Club Calls can be subracted from the Total since they are * *not those of individuals. *In that case the total number * *of INDIVIDUAL USA amateur radio licensees is 711,274. 711,274 total individual USA amateur radio licensees minus 311,157 Technicians leaves 400,117 individual USA amateur radio licensees of all other license classes combined. 400,117 is 88,960 more than 311,157. So the claim "Technician class is now bigger than ALL other US license classes combined" is simply not true. Not true at all. Not even close - and using *your* numbers! * *Based on 711,274 individuals, the percentage of licensees * *by class is, by 10 Feb 07: * *Technician * * * *43.75% 43.75% is a less than 50%. * *Technician Plus * *5.72% * *Novice * * * * * * 4.11% * *General * * * * * 19.99% * *Advanced * * * * *10.78% * *Extra * * * * * * 15.66% * *Technician and Technician Plus together = 351,811 or 49.46% 49.46% is a less than 50%. And you didn't write 'Technician and Technician Plus together', Len old chap. You wrote: "Technician class is now bigger than ALL other US license classes combined" And it isn't. Just for grins, suppose we consider the combined total of Technicians and Technician Pluses. 711,274 total individual USA amateur radio licensees minus 351,811 Technicians and Tech Pluses leaves 359,463 individual USA amateur radio licensees of all other license classes combined. 359,463 is 7,652 more than 351,811. So even if we consider Techs and Tech pluses as Techs, they do not outnumber all other license classes. So the claim "Technician class is now bigger than ALL other US license classes combined" is simply not true. Not true at all. Not even close - and using *your* numbers! * *50% of 711,274 is exactly 355,637 or 3,826 more than 351,811. Which proves that your claim was just plain wrong, Len. * *If this sissy-fuss wants to keep rolling his "factual error" rock up hill all the time, let him. You made the error, Len. I simply pointed it out. Yet you act like I'm doing something wrong.. * *On the home page ofwww.hamdata.comis a small block of * *licensee numbers for the last 12 months: * *New Licensees: * * 22,006 * *Expired Licenses: *28,618 * *Based on that the LOSS in 12 Months = 6,612 So what? You still got the facts wrong, Len. * *There's NO WAY of escaping the NUMERICAL FACT that USA * *amateur radio licensee numbers are DECREASING, and have * *been decreasing for nearly 4 years. That's not the point, Len. I know that better than you do, from posting the ARS license numbers twice a month. * *The pro-coders' constant argument is "the original no-code * *techs grace period is up and they've quit ham radio" or * *words to that effect. * Oh, my, but that does NOT make sense * *when NEW "no-code techs" are INCREASING at an average rate * *of THIRTY-TWO per day! Yet they still do not outnumber all other license classes combined. *The is by far the greatest increase * *per class. How many of those 32 per day are new licenses, and how many are Tech Pluses renewed as Technicians? * *Cranky has many times tried to rationalize that the * *amateur extra is the "largest increasing class" Where? Show us where that was claimed. If it has been said many times, you should be able to prove it easily. But I think you are mistaken - again. but, again, * *the numbers never fitted his "explanation." *However, * *Cranky is an extra, so therefore he is "right." *:-) Len, you are the crankiest one here. Are you referring to yourself in the third person? * *Upgraders are those already licensed who are just changing * *their license class...they neither increase nor decrease * *the total number of licensees. FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs since April 15, 2000. That's one reason the number of Technicians keeps growing. Yet the number of Techs does not exceed the number of all other license classes combined, even after almost 7 years. * *Based on that Hamdata data of 28,618 EXPIRATIONS * *in 12 months, that represents a LOSS of 78 per day in * *the USA! *[28,618 / 365 = 78.405] *If the newcomers * *weren't coming in via the no-code tech route, the * *USA ham license totals would have been shrinking much * *faster. Maybe. Or maybe they'd be coming in by another route. US amateur radio had many periods of growth before there was a license without a code test. Soon we will see what the effect of total elimination of the Morse Code test will be. Perhaps there will be more growth - or perhaps not. I will post the numbers in either case. But regardless of all that, Len, the number of Technicians does not exceed the number of all other license classes combined - even if Tech Pluses are counted as Technicians. All your shouting, name calling and attempted diversions do not change that. Jim, N2EY |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On 10 Feb 2007 15:58:10 -0800, "
wrote: From: Leo on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:25:53 -0500 On Feb 9, 2:17?am, " wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: So you admit, Len, that FCC did indeed create CB long before 1958. They created an impractical CB service which would later be replaced with a far more practical one in '58. I wonder what part of CB eludes Cranky Spanky's understanding? "CB" AS IT IS KNOWN *NOW* has been around for 49 years. Certainly for 48 years since the original ELEVEN METER CITIZENS BAND's two new allocations were announced later in 1958. Note: One MUST be SUPER ACCURATE in saying anything to Cranky Spanky; any approximation will be punishable by his being on your case for his 7-year itching. :-) 7 years so far, anyway.....who knows how long he'll go on? Thanks for owning up to your earlier factual error. LOL! I can just see L'Enfant Terrible* reading Radio & Television News magazine in 1958 when it had a feature article on this new Citizens Band - L'Enfant slams down the magazine and shouts to the world, "IT WAS ALREADY THERE YOU IDIOTS, ADMIT IT!!! RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS IS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! AND MAKES FACTUAL ERRORS!!!!!!" Then he stalked off looking for mommie and a clean pair of training pants. Heh....I read that same article in an old copy of Radio And Television News a couple of years ago (an old copy I found at a hamfest). Of course they were wrong! * sounds very classy when Alex Trebek says it on "Jeopardy" but it has the same meaning as "mean little kid." :-) The number of Technician class amateur licenses has never exceeded the number of licenses of all other amateur license classes combined. You were wrong on that too, some days back. A fact, perhaps....at last! (whew - that took a while!) Not quite... Houston.....we have a problem.....again...... From the daily stats at www.hamdata.com for 10 Feb 07, 14:19 UTC: Technician 311,157 Technician Plus 40,654 Novice 29,253 General 142,153 Advanced 76,664 Extra 111,393 Club Calls 10,329 Total, ALL 721,603 Club Calls can be subracted from the Total since they are not those of individuals. In that case the total number of INDIVIDUAL USA amateur radio licensees is 711,274. Based on 711,274 individuals, the percentage of licensees by class is, by 10 Feb 07: Technician 43.75% Technician Plus 5.72% Novice 4.11% General 19.99% Advanced 10.78% Extra 15.66% Technician and Technician Plus together = 351,811 or 49.46% 50% of 711,274 is exactly 355,637 or 3,826 more than 351,811. If this sissy-fuss wants to keep rolling his "factual error" rock uphill all the time, let him. [that's a play on words for all youse who be un-eddycated, about the mythical king Sisyphus] However, all should be able to get the "sissy-fuss" moniker since Cranky be da sissy and all fussy-fussy about "accuracy." :-) ......don't challenge him at mathematics - he's an expert in that field! :) Maybe you can play his game, and say that you were just approximating? :) On the home page of www.hamdata.com is a small block of licensee numbers for the last 12 months: New Licensees: 22,006 Expired Licenses: 28,618 Based on that the LOSS in 12 Months = 6,612 There's NO WAY of escaping the NUMERICAL FACT that USA amateur radio licensee numbers are DECREASING, and have been decreasing for nearly 4 years. The pro-coders' constant argument is "the original no-code techs grace period is up and they've quit ham radio" or words to that effect. Oh, my, but that does NOT make sense when NEW "no-code techs" are INCREASING at an average rate of THIRTY-TWO per day! The is by far the greatest increase per class. Cranky has many times tried to rationalize that the amateur extra is the "largest increasing class" but, again, the numbers never fitted his "explanation." However, Cranky is an extra, so therefore he is "right." :-) Upgraders are those already licensed who are just changing their license class...they neither increase nor decrease the total number of licensees. Based on that Hamdata delta of 6,612 LOSS in 12 months, that represents a LOSS of 18 per day in the USA! [6,612 / 365 = 18.115] ....and never the right one (sigh again) But, but, but...cry the rationalizing a-souls of the morse persuasion, *WE* don't change (they probably claim immortality as well, as Robesin once did in here). They are NEVER wrong, by their own implicit perfection of encyclical utterance. Ave. Sigh. I can't wait to see N2-D2's flabbergasted response to this post......and about how wrong you are again.....(sigh) :) Bon your, LA De rien! 73, Leo |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
From: Leo on Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:38:34 -0500
wrote: From: Leo on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:25:53 -0500 On Feb 9, 2:17?am, " wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: So you admit, Len, that FCC did indeed create CB long before 1958. They created an impractical CB service which would later be replaced with a far more practical one in '58. I wonder what part of CB eludes Cranky Spanky's understanding? "CB" AS IT IS KNOWN *NOW* has been around for 49 years. Certainly for 48 years since the original ELEVEN METER CITIZENS BAND's two new allocations were announced later in 1958. Note: One MUST be SUPER ACCURATE in saying anything to Cranky Spanky; any approximation will be punishable by his being on your case for his 7-year itching. :-) 7 years so far, anyway.....who knows how long he'll go on? "Til the end of time..." :-) I can just see L'Enfant Terrible* reading Radio & Television News magazine in 1958 when it had a feature article on this new Citizens Band - L'Enfant slams down the magazine and shouts to the world, "IT WAS ALREADY THERE YOU IDIOTS, ADMIT IT!!! RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS IS WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! AND MAKES FACTUAL ERRORS!!!!!!" Then he stalked off looking for mommie and a clean pair of training pants. Heh....I read that same article in an old copy of Radio And Television News a couple of years ago (an old copy I found at a hamfest). Of course they were wrong! Naturally! :-) [even though Radio News (old title) had been around in 1948...:-) ] As to the "first" creator of the "walkie-talkie," I found a nice, detailed description about a Canadian, Donald Hings, VE7BH, P.Eng, M.B.E., C.M. (Order of Canada to you yanks). I will credit Hings as the first in 1937. See a web page titled "Walk the Talk, Talk the Walkie-Talkie" by his grandson. The Canadian CE-58 that resulted from that commercial portable transmitter-receiver was about on par with the US SCR-194 and SCR-195. Big and bulky by today's standards, but good to reach out lots of miles. The US SCR-194 (27-52 MHz) and SCR-195 (52-65 MHz) were both super-regen receivers, modulated oscillator structures, "VFO" in tuning. The "line" officers of the US Army didn't like them and invited a group of civilian engineers from Galvin in Chicago (later Motorola) to observe maneuvers and ask them if they could come up with something better. The result was the low-HF SCR-536, the FIRST "handie-talkie" for the US Army. About 40 thousand were produced. Galvin would later design and sell the SCR-300 VHF FM backpack portable that went into battle first in Italy in 1943. Spanky seems intent on making a Big Deal out of Al Gross. Probably about the "romance" of "Joan-Elenor spy radios." Spanky never was in any military and can only get vicarious thrills out of reading of the mysterious 'black' doings. Gross did good in his lifetime and did do SOME firsts. Hings had 75 patents as sole inventor, 5 more a co-inventor. As to hand-helds ("handie-talkie"), the US Army was first with the SCR-536 from Motorola. A super-regen and modulated oscillator was old hat in the late 1940s, having been done at least 15 years earlier many places. The SCR-536 was a crystal-controlled superhet receiver with modulated PA from a crystal-oscillator, some 40 thousand were used until replaced by the AN/PRC-6. The Gross commercial 460 MHz handie-talkie is notable only for the fact it went up that high in frequency when it was introduced. By the way, Gross' Citizens Band Communications company must have gone down the tubes by 1957 since he left them then and went to work for another corporation. One year short of the 11m CB Order from the FCC. Houston.....we have a problem.....again...... Technician and Technician Plus together = 351,811 or 49.46% 50% of 711,274 is exactly 355,637 or 3,826 more than 351,811. If this sissy-fuss wants to keep rolling his "factual error" rock uphill all the time, let him. [that's a play on words for all youse who be un-eddycated, about the mythical king Sisyphus] However, all should be able to get the "sissy-fuss" moniker since Cranky be da sissy and all fussy-fussy about "accuracy." :-) .....don't challenge him at mathematics - he's an expert in that field! :) Maybe you can play his game, and say that you were just approximating? :) This homie don' play no games wid him... If Spanky wants to say that 49.46% is NOT EXACTLY 50% then he would be technically right, but ten kinds of WRONG on judging people. Note: Rounding off 49.46% to two integers *IS* 50%! On the home page of www.hamdata.com is a small block of licensee numbers for the last 12 months: New Licensees: 22,006 Expired Licenses: 28,618 Based on that the LOSS in 12 Months = 6,612 Based on that Hamdata delta of 6,612 LOSS in 12 months, that represents a LOSS of 18 per day in the USA! [6,612 / 365 = 18.115] ...and never the right one (sigh again) He has a very, very narrow look-angle on amateur activity, only as far as his hambuddies are concerned and what he hears on 40m over his kit-constructed radio. I can't wait to see N2-D2's flabbergasted response to this post......and about how wrong you are again.....(sigh) :) He was there and tried to do something...looked at it and said to hell with him, went on to enjoy the weekend. N2-D2 is a cousin of R2-D2. Cranky isn't related to C3P0. Has no gold finish regardless. But IS robotic. Ya know, if one takes an EXACT-frequency color-burst xtal and puts the oscillations into a 16 flip-flop chain of dividing by 59,659, the chain output will be 60.000 091 4 Hz. That is off EXACT 60 Hz by 1.5238 PPM. If that is divided down more for a clock, the clock will be off only 131.656 mS per day, gaining not quite 1 second per week (actually +0.921594 Sec). Spanky would jump up and down on such accuracies as "WRONG!" "NOT FACTUAL!" Or other dumb ****. My Lacrosse radio wrist-watch is accurate to one second plus/minus per day, thanks to the 60 KHz time signal from Fort Collins, CO. Probably "not good enough" for Cranky Spanky... There's just NO satisfyin' these cry babies. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent ofthe average amateur ...)
|
Don't you realize that Technician class is not bigger?
On Feb 12, 12:24�am, "
wrote: From: Leo on Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:38:34 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:25:53 -0500 On Feb 9, 2:17?am, " wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:49:50 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:35:00 -0500 wrote: From: Leo on Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:03:16 -0500 On 7 Feb 2007 15:29:04 -0800, wrote: On Feb 7, 4:40?pm, Leo wrote: On 7 Feb 2007 03:25:23 -0800, wrote: * Technician and Technician Plus together = 351,811 or 49.46% * 50% of 711,274 is exactly 355,637 or 3,826 more than 351,811. That's right. But your claim was that Technicians outnumbered all other license classes combined. They don't. * *If Spanky wants to say that 49.46% is NOT EXACTLY 50% then he * *would be technically right, but ten kinds of WRONG on judging * *people. * 50.54% is more than 49.46%, Len. You asked: "Don't you realize that Technician class is now bigger than ALL other US license classes combined?" And I replied: I don't realize it, because it's not true. And it isn't. Note: Rounding off 49.46% to two integers *IS* 50%! No, Len, it's not. Rounding off 49.46% to two integers is 49%. You made another factual error! |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 10, 12:23 pm, wrote:
On 10 Feb 2007 07:38:37 -0800, wrote: On Feb 8, 1:52 pm, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0000, "Dean M" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:45:02 -0500, "KH6HZ" wrote: wrote: nope more like woger and yourself not anybody funny that you like to might fun of the diabled even when it has nothing to do with the thread but then you are a censor wannabe As opposed to you.. a censorship practitioner!!??? I do not practice censorship at all http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ BRAVO SIERRA MARK You stated yourself, until you edited it away that you only allow those posts that you agree with By definition that's censorship Is this what they taught you in military officer training school?? You are definitely the quintessential mental deficient sewer file for you reply all you want I pity the Copper Country club you belong to phhewww What Copper Country Club? That's never been brought up here. Looks like more Robesin stalking to me. I assume it refering to the Copper Country Radio Amateur Society and is another of the crude threats but he forgets he has already "reported" and mysexaulity to that gruop it was a mistake on his part to "report" my wife as male to that gruop since they have all met her and know or at least are conviced it isn't true it is more Robeson like stalking and boring he forgpot that you can't ut me to same the samegroup more than once It's important to note that "Dean M" has some kind of connection to the "Copper Country Club" stalkings. |
Quantity Over Quality (Was: Unwritten policy and the intent of the average amateur ...)
On Feb 11, 10:03�pm, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: * *My Lacrosse radio wrist-watch is accurate to one second * *plus/minus per day, thanks to the 60 KHz time signal from * *Fort Collins, CO. *Probably "not good enough" for Cranky * *Spanky... *There's just NO satisfyin' these cry babies. Well, if it isn't Dick Tracy! *I think that's about as close to amateur radio as you'll get. Dave K8MN Spanky, spanky! :-) Little red-hatted morse monkey rattles his tin cup again after Cranky grinds his organ. I think Brian is on to something when he asked you about "visiting a men's room"... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com