Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#611
|
|||
|
|||
|
#612
|
|||
|
|||
"Sciz" wrote in message ... On 02 Jan 2005 04:04:54 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: Total all classes - 671,773 (decrease of 3019) 73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY Yep the No-Code CBplussers were right, Dumbing Down of Ham Radio will cause the RANKS to GROW. The decrease is more likely due to Ye Olde Farhtz like Dick Carroll finally becoming silent keys... And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which may well have never been issued). LOL With all due regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA (former WN2CJV, WB2OSP, WA3RJX, N2JH) |
#613
|
|||
|
|||
And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as
former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which may well have never been issued). LOL What's sad is these No-Code CBplussers know they can NEVER be an EQUAL to REAL HAMS. They will all ways be referred to as WELFARE HAMS no matter how many CALLSIGNS they BUY. |
#614
|
|||
|
|||
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which may well have never been issued). LOL What's sad is these No-Code CBplussers know they can NEVER be an EQUAL to REAL HAMS. They will all ways be referred to as WELFARE HAMS no matter how many CALLSIGNS they BUY. The problem is that I can't define a "real ham". Perhaps you can? There are folks running moonbounce - and it would take me a bit of studying to get to their level - not so much on the electronics, but the rotation of the earth and motion of the moon in its' orbit. There are others that deal in pretty high frequencies. Seems I remember a couple of guys doing moonbounce on 24 GHz. Not a simple problem. There is some truth buried in most posts, but it gets hidden by our own standards of belief - along with the usual flames. I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
#615
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto. ["First Among Equals"] :-) As to license numbers, the regular poster of those uses massaged data as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow "truth in numbers." Not quite. The raw data is available from the FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get their massive files. Several sites provide such raw data, such as www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the regular poster posts. Raw data numbers are usually higher than the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be logical to use the higher number rather than lower] The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no doubt will continue to be great. :-) |
#616
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto. ["First Among Equals"] :-) As to license numbers, the regular poster of those uses massaged data as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow "truth in numbers." Not quite. The raw data is available from the FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get their massive files. Several sites provide such raw data, such as www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the regular poster posts. Raw data numbers are usually higher than the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be logical to use the higher number rather than lower] The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no doubt will continue to be great. :-) |
#617
|
|||
|
|||
One problem with using "massaged" numbers is that those massagers
seldom show their justification for such massaging. As an example, the data from www.hamdata.com for January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2004 is given following, as Hamdata totalled it - In the left blocks, in one year's time, there have been 12,203 license class changes. Total number of licensed amateurs is not affected by that. For the same period, there were 17,282 new amateurs, but 19,065 are expired and no longer licensed. As far as the overall license totals go, that means a 1,783 DROP in numbers. Not a big thing and might be ascribed to normal attrition rates. The one thing the regular poster wants to downplay is the number of Technician Class licensees. Those have been continually growing and now make up (within 0.02%) two-fifths of all licensees. That growth rate is, by far, the biggest of all classes, amounting to nearly 10 thousand a year. So much for the alleged "drop due to end of grace period." :-) That allegation turned out to be false. Class totals can be compared from Hamdata numbers based on January 1 of 2005 growth/decline relative to January 1, 2004: Technician 289,868 (39.98% of total) (growth of 9,902) Technician Plus 60,664 ( 8.37% of total) (decline of 9,326) Novice 35,894 (4.95% of total) (decline of 4,117) General 146,668 (20.23% of total) (growth of 846) Advanced 83,424 (11.51% of total) (decline of 1,566) Extra 108,537 (14.97% of total) (growth of 1,768) All excepting club calls 725,055 (decline of 2,493) Note: Rounding of percentages to one-hundredths decimals results in 100.01% instead of 100.00%. All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from any class totals. To repeat, the allegation that there is a "big drop" in Technician Class numbers is WRONG. Raw data doesn't show that. Implying that the allegation still exists is merely compounding the wrongness. To paraphrase McLuhan, the medium is the massage. Someone is kneading to bake bad bread. . |
#618
|
|||
|
|||
Lenof21 wrote: In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto. ["First Among Equals"] :-) Do you see other posters here as equals, Len? As to license numbers, the regular poster of those Do you mean me, Len? You seem to be unable to refer to me by first name or callsign. Why is that? uses massaged data What do you mean by "massaged data", Len? The plain, simple fact is that there is a brief, clear explanation of the numbers I post - each time they are posted. They are the number of *current* FCC amateur licenses held by *individuals*. Which means that club, military, RACES and other station-only licenses are not included. Also, licenses which are expired but in the grace period are not included. Only currently-licensed individual amateurs are listed in the totals I post. as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow "truth in numbers." Is there some problem with posting the number of currently-licensed individual amateurs, and leaving out station-license-only entries? Is there a problem with leaving out expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses? Not quite. The raw data is available from the FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get their massive files. Have you done that, Len? Several sites provide such raw data, such as www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the regular poster posts. That's because they include expired and station-only licenses. I've explained this before, but apparently you don't understand it. Raw data numbers are usually higher than the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be logical to use the higher number rather than lower] Then it seems you are the one wanting to use them for "self-agitprop purposes". The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no doubt will continue to be great. :-) I don't use "massaged" data. What you see is exactly what the posts say it is: the total number of current FCC amateur licenses held by individuals. Why do you have a problem with that, Len? Jim, N2EY |
#619
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 | General | |||
First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors |