Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote in
s.com:

On Jan 30, 8:03�pm, "
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. 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. 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. Perhaps not much consolation
however in the fact that they will have become irrelevant.

How do they suddenly become irrelevant, Mike? If they gone on with
their lives, operate on the bands in the same manner they've operated
for years, if they check into nets, chase DX, operate in contests--where
does irrelevant become reality?

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

What odd twist of fate leads you to your present state of gloom and doom?

The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to
advance their technical skills and knowledge. The days when a Ham's
worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are
gone.

Please don't use the word "paradigm", Mike. It has bad ju-ju associated
with it. We don't "market the migration", "enter into a bold new
paradigm", "become proactive" or "think outside the box".

Hams have never ever been one dimensional, nor do all radio amateurs
march in lock step. Most of the hams I've known in over four decades in
amateur radio have more than one area of interest. Most pride
themselves on the sum of their skills, not in only a single one.

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

What new potential has now been offered that wasn't there last month?

What are you going to do?

I'm planning to do what interests me.

Dave K8MN

"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.

Personally, I've never encountered it on the air. I've never looked up the
callsign of someone who has been licensed and made a decision not to
communicate with them on the basis of their callsign. Neither has any other
ham operator I'm aware of. In thousands of contacts I've had, and listened
to, I've never heard someone shunned on their basis of their license class,
or their lack of a morse code examination.

Oh, I'm sure there are some out there. I'm sure some ham operators out there
still believe in Santa Claus too. There are probably a few Gay Pagan
Dyslexic hams out there as well.

Should I characterize ham radio, or even "many" ham radio operators, on the
basis of those claims?

No.

73
kh6hz

On Feb 1, 8:15 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:35:34 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800, wrote:

On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, "
wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote:
snip

Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
or
respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
callsign.

*tsk*. Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker.

Poor guy. Just can't help himself!

why does Jim think he ahs the right to be called by His name he
certainly does not object to others not being called by theirs

Thou shalt not take Jim's name in vain.

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, ...

On Feb 3, 5:28�am, wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:15 pm, wrote:





On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:35:34 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800, wrote:

On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, "
wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote:
snip

Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
or
respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
callsign.

*tsk*. *Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker.

Poor guy. *Just can't help himself!

why does Jim think he ahs the right to be called by His name he
certainly does not object to others not being called by theirs

Thou shalt not take Jim's name in vain

Why not? He does. He's about as vain as any morse
monkey. :-)

[see dumpster diving for transceivers under $100 cost,
see "having friends and neighbors over to admire his
work," see stories of travail of teen-agers taking many
busses to reach a very official FCC Field office, etc.]

beep, beep

LA

wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:28�am, wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:15 pm, wrote:





On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:35:34 -0500, Leo wrote:
On 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800, wrote:
On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, "
wrote:
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote:
snip
Now you will do one of two things: either ignore this post entirely,
or
respond to it in your usual manner, with name-calling, insults, etc..
The one thing you *won't* do is respond in a civil fashion, answer
the questions I posed, or even call me by my first name and/or
callsign.
*tsk*. �Sucked in again - hook, line and sinker.
Poor guy. �Just can't help himself!
why does Jim think he ahs the right to be called by His name he
certainly does not object to others not being called by theirs
Thou shalt not take Jim's name in vain

Why not? He does. He's about as vain as any morse
monkey. :-)

[see dumpster diving for transceivers under $100 cost,
see "having friends and neighbors over to admire his
work," see stories of travail of teen-agers taking many
busses to reach a very official FCC Field office, etc.]

You're still a horse's patoot, Leonard.

Dave K8MN

From: Mike Coslo on Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:43:36
-0600

wrote in
On Jan 30, 8:03?pm, " 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?

tsk, tsk, ol' cranky spanky jes' cain't take phrases... :-


What should the old paradigms be replaced with?

Element one is gone.

CAREFUL! Pedantry rulez! "Factual error!"

It be gone from the test suite toot sweet.


The new paradigm IMO should be that hams should now be expected to
advance their technical skills and knowledge. The days when a Ham's
worth was measured by motor skills and auditory processing ability are
gone.

Hmmm..."motor skills." Does that apply to their MOUTH?

"Auditory processing ability." Well, so many hear only
what they want to hear so I guess they DO have some
skill at that... :-)


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

Good for you! Way to go!

Ya know, onct upon a time long ago in a land far, far away
I got assigned to a large HF station in the military. Very
impressive to my mind then. Caused me to (eventually) do
an about-face on life career goals. Quit Art Center School
of Design, went to collitch classes to learn electronic
engineering, worked at that until about last week. :-)
Got all the collitch degrease I need, no lube jobs to
personnel departments needed either. Had a VERY
interesting career, fun, challenge, doing what I really
liked doing. Liked it so much I did my own electronic and
"radio" projects as a hobby, have an indoor workshop to do
that, been doing that for 40 years in there.

Now I've been chided, castized, categorized, pilloried and
profiled all on acount of NOT GETTING A HAM LICENSE *FIRST*!
MORAL-ETHICAL FELONY! Oooo, Oooo! :-)

Now, what I started out to do in here (and a few other places)
was to advocate elimination of the code test. Vigorously.
Not to get a "ham ticket." [we already have a coupon for
ham at the supermarket...saving it for Easter time] That
was DONE. FCC 06-178 is ESTABLISHED FACT and WILL BECOME
*LAW* in roughly three weeks (give or take a few days
depending who reads this stuff when...).

What are you going to do?

I can care less what ol' Spanky gonna do. What I saw him
do is ten kinds of hypocritical "enthusiasm" and the usual
denial of all his harping about his beloved morse goad.
He gonna go on and on and on about his 'history' subjects
that he writes about AS IF he were a witness, etc. He got
his lil' red-hatted morse monkey helping him post, too.

Maybe I'll think about getting one o them thar "ham
tickets" (rather have some Lakers tickets). Maybe I won't.
What will it hep me do? "Communicate around the world?"
Did that, got lots of T-shirts. "Learn 'radio'?" Already
did that, too, made money at it. [collitch degrease did
NOT help me 'lubricate the ways' was only a personal perq]
"Join a pool of trained radio operators?!?" Ya gotta be
kidding! WTF did they think I did a half century ago?!?
"Show my 'dedication' to the ARS?!?" WTF do they think
the 'ARS' *IS*?!? If I want or need spiritual guidance
I'll go down to All-Saints Church on the end of my street
and get help from Pastor Midtlyng. He is closer to God
than all these Mighty Masters, the Macho Morsemen, will
ever be.

The Four Morsemen of the Apocalypse are still riding but
unshod. They've tried to shoo off others and lost their
footing. Poor babies. Amateur professionals.

LA

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!

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.

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

Shalom,
LA

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. *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!

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.

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.

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

Therefore, your claim of

"Every time - without fail!"

has already been demonstrated to be false.

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

There's your demonstration.

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.

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

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in
oups.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. Hopefully the newbies won't sense it.

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


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

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.

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.

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

And we need more of that.

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.


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.

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

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -