"Bob Brock" wrote in message
news:_Eovh.2876$ch1.1567@bigfe9...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, "
wrote:


Not at all, John, you be wrong there. ARRL has periodical and
publication racks on the floors of HRO and Radio Shack and
other stores to catch all eyes.

Not really trying to change the subject, but I went to the local
bookstore and two Radio Shacks trying to get a copy of the General
Class Study manual. Both Radio Shacks said that they no longer carry
the study guides. So, I opted to download the questions and answers
from the net for free and give that a shot.

Did two Radio Shack managers lie to me? Has anyone seen the ARRL
study guides? I didn't even see any of the "Now Your's Talking" books
at the local stores.

Radio Shack has basically gotten out of amateur radio. I haven't seen
any study guides there for a couple of years. Sometimes you can get them
at Barnes & Noble but you have to special order. In that case one might
as well order directly off the ARRL website.

The Technician license manual is no longer called "Now You're Talking".
I don't recall the new name.

Right. Radio Shack pimps the hot products for the moment. The way I see
it, them not even carrying license manuals speaks volumes about demand for
them. Now, when you walk into a Radio Shack and see loads of HF antennas,
HF rigs, and a shelf of study guides; then you can say that Ham radio is
back in demand.

So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the average ham
is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? The way I
see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. Ham radio
needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good
start. However, it was only the beginning.


It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so to
speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site is
one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We have
2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham per
thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't a lot
of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of their
leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the current
level. It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half over the
next decade or so before leveling out.

Dee, N8UZE

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
On 28 Jan 2007 13:11:46 -0800, " wrote:

So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the average ham
is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? The way I
see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. Ham radio
needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good
start. However, it was only the beginning.

It will be very tough to grow ham radio. We've "saturated the market" so to
speak. If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site is
one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. We have
2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham per
thousand people. While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't a lot
of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of their
leisure pursuits. We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the current
level. It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half over the
next decade or so before leveling out.

Dee, I give you a standing ovation for admitting that!

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.
"Ham radio" needs to look at itself and its standards
very, very carefully.

The ARRL just doesn't have it to REALLY promote the hobby.
It hasn't had it for years. The ONLY promotion comes from
relatively-isolated (from League hierarchy) groups who have
actively pursued promotion themselves. ARRL's main
"interest" is promoting its (de facto) business of selling
publications. It IS a multi-million-annual-income
corporation despite what Believers say is "non-profit."

The League must CHANGE its political position. Radically.
Singing to the chorus of other amateurs about how good they
are is what the League leaders may want...but it is off-
putting to the majority. Either they show REAL leader-
ship as a membership organization and get with the
mainstream or just be a publisher of niche activities.

There really isn't much choice for them. They've resisted
and resisted and resisted BASIC changes to amateur radio
activity for years. As a result they've NOT increased
their membership by any worthwhile amount for years. The
largest amateur radio licensee class is Technician. It's
been that way for years...yet the League just shines off
that easily-observable fact.

Those who really and truly LIKE amateur radio MUST resist
the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
"superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
in amateurism at the same time they are looking down their
noses at others. Despite how much they think of themselves
and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
shared by others, the mainstream. They MUST learn that
not all "newbies" MUST get into amateur radio as teen-
agers. They MUST learn that teen-agers have many MORE
diversions of very interesting activities AVAILABLE.
Not the latest fad interest or popular entertainment but
very real electronic activities that don't touch on
radio...or, if it does touch on radio, that radio is very
much more and farther from the traditional HF "short-
wave" in the real world. It is what IS, not what
individual olde-tymers want to preserve, that intangible
wonder of something shown to them long, long ago.

I don't have the answers, don't pretend to. But, I can
SEE what has happened, SEE cause-and-effect, and do not
PRETEND that "radio" has remained static since the first
olde-tymers "discovered" it.

I'm not an amateur. I'm a professinal in electronics.
Yet, I've been a hobbyist in electronics since before
most of you readers existed. I've seen the whole of
electronics ("radio" is a subset of that) CHANGE radically
in my lifetime. I've also seen that younger olde-tymers
bitterly resist change, change that they cannot control.
Those who resist change can alter the course of future
amateur radio by simply causing its stagnation and
eventual demise.

Too bad I'm on your "kill list." We might have had a
real conversation here on this. But, no, I have been
categorized as "inferior" or "unworthy" or, as one
put it in the past, "just horrid!" :-)

Regards,

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:
So, to bring this back on topic. I wonder if the intent of the average ham
is to make ham radio grow or to maintain a stale status quo? *The way I
see it, a steady increase in qualified hams is a good thing. *Ham radio
needs a good infusion of new blood and the no-code tech license as a good
start. However, it was only the beginning.

It will be very tough to grow ham radio. *We've "saturated the market" so to
speak. *If you check around the internet (for example, Speroni's site is
one), you can find the statistics on a few of the other countries. *We have
2 hams per thousand people while Europe is running more like 1 ham per
thousand people. *While we need to actively recruit, there just aren't a lot
of people out there that are inclined to amateur radio as a part of their
leisure pursuits. *We will have to recruit hard just to stay at the current
level. *It would not surprise me if our numbers dropped in half over the
next decade or so before leveling out.

* *Dee, I give you astandingovationfor admitting that!

* *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?

* *"Ham radio" needs to look at itself and its standards
* *very, very carefully.

Agreed.

Which standards should be changed?

* *The ARRL just doesn't have it to REALLY promote the hobby.
* *It hasn't had it for years. *

What would you have them do that is not being done now?

The ONLY promotion comes from
* *relatively-isolated (from League hierarchy) groups who have
* *actively pursued promotion themselves. *

Who are these groups? What are they doing that ARRL is not?

One of the most visible promotions of amateur radio is Field Day.
Every
club Field Day I have seen in the past 20+ years has made a point of
setting up in a public place, handing out literature, getting
themselves in the local papers and sometimes on TV.

Field Day is sponsored by the ARRL.

ARRL's main
* *"interest" is promoting its (de facto) business of selling
* *publications. *It IS a multi-million-annual-income
* *corporation despite what Believers say is "non-profit."

The ARRL is more than a publisher, Len.

* *The League must CHANGE its political position. *Radically.

Why?

And how should it change?

* *Singing to the chorus of other amateurs about how good they
* *are is what the League leaders may want...but it is off-
* *putting to the majority. *Either they show REAL leader-
* *ship as a membership organization and get with the
* *mainstream or just be a publisher of niche activities.

What would constitute "REAL leadership"?

Who was it that led the fight against BPL?

* *There really isn't much choice for them. *They've resisted
* *and resisted and resisted BASIC changes to amateur radio
* *activity for years. *

Which changes?

As a result they've NOT increased
* *their membership by any worthwhile amount for years. *The
* *largest amateur radio licensee class is Technician. *It's
* *been that way for years...yet the League just shines off
* *that easily-observable fact.

I don't think they do. There are plenty of ARRL publications
aimed at VHF/UHF, satellites, repeaters, meteor scatter, and
other non-HF activities. QST has a considerable number of
articles aimed at Technicians.

* *Those who really and truly LIKE amateur radio MUST resist
* *the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
* *"superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
* *in amateurism at the same time they are looking down their
* *noses at others.*Despite how much they think of themselves
* *and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
* *shared by others, the mainstream. *

Who are these "mainstream" folks, Len?

What should the standards be?

They MUST learn that
* *not all "newbies" MUST get into amateur radio as teen-
* *agers. *They MUST learn that teen-agers have many MORE
* *diversions of very interesting activities AVAILABLE.
* *Not the latest fad interest or popular entertainment but
* *very real electronic activities that don't touch on
* *radio...or, if it does touch on radio, that radio is very
* *much more and farther from the traditional HF "short-
* *wave" in the real world. *It is what IS, not what
* *individual olde-tymers want to preserve, that intangible
* *wonder of something shown to them long, long ago.

US Amateur radio is, and always has been, open to interested people
of all ages. The efforts to interest young people are in recognition
of
the fact that young people don't have the financial and other
resources
of adults.

* *I don't have the answers, don't pretend to. *

You're demanding change without saying what the changes should be,
nor what the desired results are. That doesn't make sense.

But, I can
* *SEE what has happened, SEE cause-and-effect, and do not
* *PRETEND that "radio" has remained static since the first
* *olde-tymers "discovered" it.

Nobody is pretending that radio has remained static. And your
claims of cause-and-effect aren't proven. Correlation is not
causation.

For example, the repeater boom of the late 1970s-mid-1990s brought a
lot
of people into amateur radio who were looking for a personal radio
communications
service. They were looking for a radio service that was better behaved
and more reliable than cb, for local/regional personal communications.
The Technician license was their ticket, and became even more popular
when its written test was simplified (1987) and lost its Morse Code
test (1991).

We got a lot of new hams that way. Some became interested in things
beyond the local repeater - some did not. But with the introduction of
inexpensive cell phones, plus FRS/GMRS, that source of new hams has
all but disappeared.

Losing that source of new amateurs is one reason for the lack of
growth in US amateur radio.

* *I'm not an amateur. *I'm a professinal in electronics.
* *Yet, I've been a hobbyist in electronics since before
* *most of you readers existed. *I've seen the whole of
* *electronics ("radio" is a subset of that) CHANGE radically
* *in my lifetime. *

Len, perhaps you should take your own advice:

"MUST resist the very-strong temptation to act as all-around extra
"superiors" and demand "respect" for credentials earned
......at the same time they are looking down their
noses at others. Despite how much they think of themselves
and other olde-tymers, their personal standards are NOT
shared by others, the mainstream."

I've also seen that younger olde-tymers
* *bitterly resist change, change that they cannot control.

Not all changes are for the better, Len. Is it wrong to resist
changes?

For example, the traditional single-family detached house used to be
the
"standard" home that most Americans wanted to buy. It was considered
the most desirable.
But in recent decades, alternative home forms have become popular,
such as condominiums, homes with in-law suites, etc. More and more
American homeowners do
not own a single-family detached house. The old paradigms don't work
for them,

Yet some people bitterly resist the zoning changes that would
accomodate the new
era of real estate.

See the parallels?

* *Those who resist change can alter the course of future
* *amateur radio by simply causing its stagnation and
* *eventual demise.

Again, not all change is for the better. Unless someone
can make a good case for exactly why a particular change is
needed, why should it be supported?

* *Too bad I'm on your "kill list."

Len, it's a very safe bet that the reason you are on Dee's "kill list"
is because
of *your* behavior here. IMHO, Dee simply got tired of your name-
calling, various
forms of insult, and factual errors. She can correct me if I'm wrong -
but I don't think I am.

*We might have had a
* *real conversation here on this.

Len, your behavior here indicates that such a "real conversation"
would
only last until Dee disagreed with you. It's a safe bet that at the
first real
challenge to your statements, you'd start with the name-calling ("Mama
Dee"),
and the various insults, diversions, and factual errors.

*But, no, I have been
* *categorized as "inferior" or "unworthy" or, as one
* *put it in the past, "just horrid!" * :-)

There's a good reason why, Len. And for once, it *is* all about you.

--

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.

Jim, N2EY

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!


Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

From: on 31 Jan 2007 15:33:35 -0800


Agreed.

Agreed to what?

Which standards should be changed?

Which standard should never be changed?


What would you have them do that is not being done now?

Why do you ask?


Who are these groups? What are they doing that ARRL is not?

Why do you ask?

Field Day is sponsored by the ARRL.

Why is that important?

Are you a farmer out-standing in his field?

Did you get a crop subsidy? Did you consider yourself
as growing something? Is that why you spread so much
fertilizer around?


The ARRL is more than a publisher, Len.

Why do you care?

Do you have stock in the ARRL?

Do you have any ARRL publications?

Why should we care whether or not you do?


And how should it change?

How should what change?

Why can't you describe your question?


What would constitute "REAL leadership"?

Why do you consider the ARRL as "leaders?"

Why does the ARRL consider themselves as the
"leaders?"

Who was it that led the fight against BPL?

Did you not read the Comments on BPL at the
FCC website?

Why do you think ONLY ARRL 'fights against it?'

Why haven't you engaged your browser to look
around more?

Have you ever been engaged?

Have you ever browsed the singles groups?


Which changes?

What are you talking about?

Do you ever change your underwear?

Haven't you ever changed your mind?


I don't think they do. There are plenty of ARRL publications
aimed at VHF/UHF, satellites, repeaters, meteor scatter, and
other non-HF activities. QST has a considerable number of
articles aimed at Technicians.

Why aren't more Techs members of the ARRL?

Don't you realize that Technician class is now bigger
than ALL other US license classes combined?

Why hasn't the ARRL gotten more than a quarter of
all amateur radio licensees as members?


Who are these "mainstream" folks, Len?

Are you still up the creek and out of the main stream?

What should the standards be?

Shouldn't you ask NIST that?


US Amateur radio is, and always has been, open to interested people
of all ages. The efforts to interest young people are in recognition
of the fact that young people don't have the financial and other
resources of adults.

Is that why ARRL is always asking for some kind of donation?


You're demanding change without saying what the changes should be,
nor what the desired results are. That doesn't make sense.

Why do you think all postings are made direct to you?


Nobody is pretending that radio has remained static. And your
claims of cause-and-effect aren't proven. Correlation is not
causation.

Why haven't you cleaned up the static in your postings?

Have you cleaned up the static on your radio?


We got a lot of new hams that way. Some became interested in things
beyond the local repeater - some did not. But with the introduction of
inexpensive cell phones, plus FRS/GMRS, that source of new hams has
all but disappeared.

Do you have your finger on the pulse of all radio-interested?

Are you A. C. Nielson? Or are you Leslie Nielson?

Are we to take your words as TRVTH engraved on a building?

Why can't we take your words as in a comic strip, "BC?"


Losing that source of new amateurs is one reason for the lack of
growth in US amateur radio.

Why can't you take the fact that so many just aren't
interested in morse code?

Why can't you understand that newcomers coming in via
no-code Tech classes are not quite able to keep up with
old coded hams who are dying off?


Len, perhaps you should take your own advice:

Why do you say YOUR advice is "mine?"

Why do you act like only YOU are supreme judge of all?

Where is it written that only YOU know what is best?


Not all changes are for the better, Len. Is it wrong to resist
changes?

Is this an old folk homily? Is it an aphorism? Isn't it
more of your own apocryphal buzz-word-ism?

Why can't you accept FCC 06-178 with good grace.

Or do you always say "Good night grace?"


Again, not all change is for the better. Unless someone
can make a good case for exactly why a particular change is
needed, why should it be supported?

Why do you NOT understand what the FCC wrote in 06-178?

Why are you in such denial?

Have you sought psychologic help for your denial problem?

Have you gotten laid yet?

Do you floss after every meal?


Len, your behavior here indicates that such a "real conversation" would
only last until Dee disagreed with you.

Why do you call me by a familiar name? Why do you think
you have been authorized to do so?

Why do you continue the facade of seeing the future?

Are you a fake fortune teller? Do you read palms?

Have you ever run your hands along a woman's hand?

Have you ever held a conversation where you didn't try
to correct someone constantly?

Why do you think real conversations always involve you
asking questions?

It's a safe bet that at the first real
challenge to your statements, you'd start with the name-calling ("Mama Dee"),
and the various insults, diversions, and factual errors.

Why do you want to chastize others for things that have
not yet happened?

Why are you always making up stories about the future?

Do you have facts from the future?

Why do you consider yourself the ultimate authority?

Why are you imagining things?

There's a good reason why, Len. And for once, it *is* all about you.

What is "all about me?"

Why do all your posts put you on the ultimate authority
throne?

Haven't you heard of Ex-Lax?

Have you ever had an endoscopy procedure?

Haven't you ever considered that others consider
your attitude as ****ty?


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.

Why are you acting like a boss? Were you born in Red Bank, NJ?

Why must all answer your questions?

Are you Alex Trebek in drag?

Are you in or have you ever been in jeopardy?

Why do you always answer with other questions?

Why are you so irritable? Have you considered tranquilizers?

Haven't you gotten laid yet?

-30-

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.

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

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.

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

What are you going to do?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

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

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?

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.

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

Why should any radio amateur be irrelevant?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 -

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:
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