| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
[major snippage]
Here are some suggested questions for the survey: Answers for questions 1-11: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N = Neutral/No Opinion, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree 1. All Morse Code testing for a US amateur license should be eliminated as soon as possible. Neutral 2. Morse Code testing for US amateur licenses should be retained as it is today. Disagree 3. Morse Code testing for US amateur licenses should be reduced in some way but not totally eliminated. Disagree (that's been done already) 4. Amateur radio tests in the USA for license classes above entry-level should have the option of a Morse Code test or an additional written test on other modes. Disagree (I think) (entry level license should allow maybe 2 of the more "busier bands" say for instance like 10 meters and 2 meters.) 5. There should continue to be separate subbands on the HF amateur bands reserved for Morse Code and digital signals only Agree, as there needs to be some form of organization. Different parallel, the public roadways; if there wasn't some type of organization on the roadways there would be even more chaos than there is now. Allocations for the different voice, digital and morse code modes should be able to be created with adequate room for all parties to "play well together." 6. Separate subbands on the HF amateur bands reserved for Morse Code signals only should be created. See answer in question 5. 7. Separate subbands on the HF amateur bands reserved for Morse Code signals only should be created if the code test is eliminated. As long as some hams feel morse code is beneficial, there should be allocations for them as well as other modes. Periodic review of usage on some type of a regular basis could help to direct that. See question 5 response as well. 8. Subbands by mode on the HF amateur bands should be eliminated. See response to question 5 again. 9. Any further reduction, or elimination, of Morse code testing in the USA should be accompanied by more comprehensive written testing. That needs to happen, or needed to happen as far as 30 years ago or more. Any testing I have taken in the public/emergency services field has ALWAYS been at least 100 questions, and some cases as much as 250 questions. I am not declaring as to how many should fit the bill, but I will say we need more questions added to ALL amateur license tests. 10. If the code test is eliminated, there should be other changes to the privileges granted to the entry-level license classes (Novice, Technician, Technician Plus) Possibly... will have to get back on this one...... 11. The code test issue should be dealt with as a single issue and not connected to other changes. BINGO! 12. Of my current amateur operation, I use Morse code: B - 0 to 25% of the time 13. Of my current amateur HF/MF operation, I use Morse code: F - I am currently inactive on HF/MF 14. The ARRL leadership should take the following role in the code test issue: E. Stay the hell out of it until they truly represent all of the amateur radio community. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
|
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:19:46 -0400, Robert Casey
wrote: On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? Tastes like crap. So I would recommend against it...... Having never eaten it, I don't know what crap tastes like. If you do, please enlighten those of us who don't. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:11:25 -0400, Brian wrote: Jon Bloom wrote in message g... But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. Hmmmm. Are you saying that the "Operate CW" numbers are inflated? No, I'm saying the survey measures the respondents opinions of their own levels of activity. What that means in objective terms is something on which you're free to speculate, although I can't imagine what useful result would obtain from such speculations. Jon Jon, you can't, huh? At a time when the ARRL wanted to save CW testing, I could imagine the use of upping the numbers. Just my opinion. Brian |
"I Zorg" wrote in message ... On 23 Jul 2003 17:31:39 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ... Not a problem...let all the no code braindeads have phone. I'll just run cw on top of them with my narrow filter. We already do that. They're never get it. --------------------^^^^^^^ w3rv Can't you see this guy with a key? No wonder people on the other end never "get it." He can't even construct a meaningful sentence! And he's talking about jamming other operators to boot! Ain't CW operators a cut above the rest? (not) Jamming? How can I be jamming if Im dead zero beat and you dont hear a thing? IDIOT. Dan/W4NTI |
Man, it's a damned good thing that you CW operators will soon be put in your
place by the FCC. Just nothing but a bunch of jammers. Pitiful lids. It's time you were put in your places. They are only "jamming" for milliseconds. : |
"I Zorg" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:17:58 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote: Jamming? How can I be jamming if Im dead zero beat and you dont hear a thing? IDIOT. If you interefere with another licensed amateur's transmissions, you are an illegal jammer IDIOT!!! Zero beat or not (and I'll bet you aren't smart enough to really do that), any act of willful interference which causes receiver desensing or any other kind of problem is AGAINST THE LAW. IDIOT!! Man, it's a damned good thing that you CW operators will soon be put in your place by the FCC. Just nothing but a bunch of jammers. Pitiful lids. It's time you were put in your places. Nothing to worry about. You wont recognize cw if it bit you on the ass. That is obvious from your stupid comments. Oh and BTW...what makes you think because CW testing will be ended that CW itself will be ended? You really are a stupid idiot ain't ya? Dan/W4NTI |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:45 -0400, N2EY wrote: Jon Bloom wrote in message g... On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 19:41:11 -0400, N2EY wrote: In article , (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) writes: Why not, 8 years ago, the Arrl did a survey. That's pretty close - 1996 They asked amateurs who had passed a morse code exam if they EVER used morse code. No, you are mistaken. On several counts. They asked 1100 US hams, chosen at random. Of these, 100 were Novices and 200 each Techs, Tech Pluses, Generals, Advanceds and Extras. So they asked hams who had not taken a code test as well as hams who had. The question was "How much do you operate Morse code?" and there were only three possible answers: "Regularly", "Rarely" and "Never". No definitions of what those terms mean, no questions on other modes, etc. (After all, a ham who is not on the air at all never uses Morse code on the air). Two out of three responded "no". I.e. 2/3's of the hams surveyed NEVER used morse code. Wrong again! 35% answered "Never" 37% answered "Rarely" 27% answered "Regularly" 1% did not answer. It is obvious that the question is so flawed as to be meaningless. For example, how much Morse operation is "regular"? It's only flawed for the purposes you're trying to put it to. Its original purpose was to gauge the level of interest based on use of Morse. For that purpose, it doesn't matter whether the respondent's use of Morse fits your definition of "regularly" -- or mine -- it matters only whether it fits the respondent's definition. I disagree, Jon. You refuse to accept that the survey wasn't intended to answer the question you want answered. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Too much is left to the respondent's interpretation. Too much for your purposes, yes. Too much for anyone's purposes. A person can have a 'high level of interest' in Morse, yet rarely or never operate, because of inactivity, equipment failure, etc. IOW a ham who rarely or never operates at all must, by definition, rarely or never operate Morse. A sizable percentage of those responding to the survey were completely inactive on ANY mode, so they probably answered the question "never". And that's just one problem. It's only a problem for you. Does once a year count as "regularly"? Does one day a month CW and all the rest 'phone constitute "rarely"? That judgement is left up to the individual responding. Exactly! Most of the cavilling about survey questions comes from misunderstanding the question's purpose and misuse of the results to try to "prove" things that the survey wasn't addressing. As I understand it, the survey was trying to determine what position ARRL should take WRT code testing at a WRC in the late 1990s (1997, I think). So why do the questions beat about the bush so much? Why notjust ask those surveyed what they think FCC should do, and how much they operate CW? Because it's not a plebiscite. Understood. But since ARRL is a representative organization, some might think the majority opinion on an issue like this would be important. If you want to sample opinion on a topic, hire a reputable research firm to formulate and conduct a survey that will elicit the facts you want. Trying to hammer an existing survey into something that it wasn't designed to be is almost certain to lead to skewed conclusions. 2) The survey left itself wide open to all sorts of interpretations because it was not well designed. The fact that the League payed a professional does not mean they got a good survey. The fact that the survey doesn't answer the questions you want answered doesn't mean it's not a good survey, either. I think the questions I want answered are relevant questions. But as you point out, nobody really knows what "operate" means in this case. Sure they do. It means to have QSOs using the mode. To you. To everybody? Who knows? For example, if a person's entire use of Morse code is to copy repeater IDs, which they do by laboriously copying down the dots and dashes and then looking up the letters in a table, is that "operation" of Morse? The survey doesn't say. How many hams do you know do that? I've known a few over the years. Exceptions that prove the rule. I guess these days most repeaters have voice ID, though. I know some that have both. Voice unless there is audio on the receive channel, so you don't have to talk over the ID. I don't know any. I do know lots of hams who have 2-way QSOs on the amateur HF bands using CW, though. Maybe a better example: If you just listen around the band are you "operating?" Yes. I revise my earlier definition. I bet you would get less than complete consensus on that one. If you listen a lot but rarely transmit, are you operating "regularly" or "rarely"? Depends on the respondent. So if it came to a vote you'd have a hard time keeping things as they are. Maybe. Try this "survey": Actually listen to the CW/digital subbands and see how much activity there really is. Try 40 meters below 7050 some evening. That's a much better way to get a feel for the true level of interest. Signals on the air are a much better measure of what's popular in ham radio than any survey results or any amount of Usenet bloviating. Then why was that question in the 1996 survey? I believe it was intended to provide background to the answers to the other questions in the survey. Much of the usefulness of surveys comes from crosstabbing of the results. The purpose of this survey was to sample opinions on Morse testing, not to nail down the percentages of operating time by mode. For the purposes of the survey, a simple indication of activity, as gauged by the member's own characterization, was sufficient. More would have been overkill and thus would have unneccesarily complicated the survey, leading to lower response rates -- to no good purpose. I don't think having a few more choices would be a problem. On a subject like this, most hams WANT to answer - hence the high response rate. One thing I found interesting in the results of the surveys sent to nonmembers was how many were returned due to changed address. If you listen to the HF/MF amateur bands, Morse/CW is second in popularity only to SSB. So if we already know that, what's the point of surveying -- to learn something that we already know? To put a more objective number on it. I strongly suggest that a well-constructed survey/poll of the entire ARRL membership be conducted, and the results published in QST. Web polls and small samples are not necessarily indicative of the views of the membership. The last time such a survey was conducted was 1975. I know, I responded to it. My wife's first job was a part-time job at HQ opening the survey responses. (She was four years old at the time, of course!) Tell her thank you for me. The questions were extensive and the results published in QST. Why can't this be done today? Make it a tear-out sheet in QST and have everyone enter their member number to avoid dupes. I have no idea whether that will happen -- it wouldn't if it were up to me. I'd consider it a monumental waste of resources. Interesting. 28 years ago, in paper-and-pencil days, Hq. thought it was a good idea, and had the resources. Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular with a large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC, and increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire membership? All of those who disagree with the result, of course! I don't see how, if they were part of the survey. Too many amateurs, ARRL members or not, think that decisions are made in "ivory tower isolation", and that their views are not considered adequately when ARRL formulates a position. Polls won't change that. How do you know? It's been 28 years since the last one that surveyed all members. Those who dislike the result will just claim the poll questions were no good. (Oops!) Maybe not. While such a survey will not be free, it will be money well spent if the membership and amateur radio community perceives that ARRL is truly responding to member opinion and input. There's a difference between taking people's views into account and taking a direct vote. It's the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy. Exactly. The point is that there's a difference between passively asking for input and actively seeking it. (Say, were you a Perot voter by any chance?) Now you've gone from disagreeing with me to being insulting! ;-) It's because of Perot we had 8 years of Bill Clinton (he divided the Republican vote TWICE so that Clinton got in). Just like Ralph Nader gave George Bush II his shot at the White House. I don't quite understand why you think an all-inclusive vote should be taken when you don't even think the voters are smart enough to decide whether they operate CW "regularly" or "rarely"! Not a question of smarts. A question of getting accurate information. Some would say getting accurate information on this issue is a waste because it's a lost cause. On the other hand, if you are willing to spend the money to do the polling, please let us all know what results you get. If nothing else, it'll make good fodder for rrap. I thought things like polls were what my dues were for. In fact, it may be advisable to survey every radio amateur in the US. Such a survey might change the way the ARRL is viewed by nonmembers on both sides of the issue. People's minds are well made up on this issue, and nothing anyone does is going to change that. Agreed. But what is the majority opinion? Dump Element 1 ASAP? Keep it at all costs? Something else, like drop code but beef up the writtens? Those who support Morse testing will be angry with the ARRL if it comes out for elimination of the test no matter how that decision was made. Those who favor elimination will be equally angry if the ARRL supports continuation of testing. I think I said that way back in the beginning. Ah, here it is: "Whatever position ARRL takes on this issue will be very unpopular with a large number of members and nonmembers alike, so it is important to be able to back up that position with solid data. A valid survey of the entire membership, backing up the ARRL position, can only serve to improve ARRL's credibility with both the amateur community and FCC, and increase support for the position chosen -- whatever it may be. Who could fault ARRL for going with the majority opinion of its entire membership?" And those of us who think far too much energy has already been wasted on this subject will groan yet again if ARRL spends any more substantial resources on it. OK, fine, we'll just go with the results of the 1996 poll, shich showed the majority favoring code testing retention.... Here are some suggested questions for the survey: [snip] That will all fit on one side of one sheet of paper. Return address on the back. Fold it over, put a stamp on and send it in. And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is your idea of money well spent? They cannot be read by computer? How was it done in '75? Why not? In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do with Morse testing. OK, fine. I'd put BPL far ahead of code testing in importance any day. But what I'm trying to point out is that many hams out here in the boonies feel ARRL ignores them and their opinions. Too many think that decisions are made "up there in Newington". Perhaps a large scale poll would help change that, perhaps not. However, I don't see how an attitude of "it's not worth the resources to poll the membership" is going to help change that "ivory tower" image. There's also the possibility that FCC will simply dump Element 1 on its own and save ARRL from having to take a position at all. In that case, polling would be a waste because it would not make any difference in the outcome. So how about this: Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 by MO&O, saying it's all been debated before. All it would take is one sentence, something like "Based upon decisions made with regard to WT98-143 and the Wormser-Adsit-Dinelli Petition for Reconsideration, credit for Element 1 is hereby given to all applicants for any class of amateur radio license". Should there be other changes to the license requirements and privileges, particularly the entry-level license classes? Seems kind of odd that in a nocodetest future, most of the HF privileges of an entry-class ham would be CW. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On that note, we're still waiting for your opinion on eating elephant dung - good idea or bad? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Bad. Very bad, indeed. Personally, I wouldn't do that. Your mileage may vary. I presume you have practical experience eating elephant dung on which you base that opinion. I know you wouldn't express an opinion if you weren't qualified to render one...right? John: I've had the experience of smelling elephant dung, and since the sense of smell is directly related to the sense of tast, my "experience" made me realize that the elephant dung would not make for a particularly wholesome and appetizing meal. OTOH, people who have never learned and used Morse code have no alternative experience from which to base their objections to code testing, since they haven't learned, first-hand, of it's operational benefits and advantages. The "elephant dung" argument is purely apples-to-oranges. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Jon Bloom wrote in message g...
And then we hire the mail crew to open and the data-entry crew to enter the responses from a half million 14-question survey responses. This is your idea of money well spent? Why not? In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do with Morse testing. Your list of priorities is yours and is not at all indicative of the membership's as a body. You're not any more prescient or more on top of what the membership thinks than I am. Since the code test wheel is apparently going to make yet one more revolution and many members do have opinions on the code test question I think a poll of the membership would be very much in order. Particularly in light of ARRL BoD divisive cat fight which preceeded the last revolution of the wheel. It's time for solid membership input on this one, repeat debacles get boring. I don't agree with Jim's proposal for a detailed survey for the same basic reasons you don't agree. I'd like to have a very simple version: "Do you want to have the code test eliminated. If yes check here." "Do you want the code test retained? If yes check here." Any four year old could handle the tabulation . . . Jon |
|
|
|
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
... On 24 Jul 2003 03:28:04 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: Memo to John, KC2HMZ: If I were you, I'd get my squelch fixed -- it doesn't seem to be working! That's because no mere squelch circuit could realistically be expected to cope with your noise level. For dealing with you, an attenuator and some serious filtering are required. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Or, an on/off knob. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Stu Parker wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:16:40 GMT, Carl R. Stevenson wrote: [snip] Go ahead. Pick at nits. We all know what he meant. But the point is well-taken. If CW is to be removed as a *requirement* for a ham license, then its special status has evaporated. Why give it any band-plan perks at all? CW operators can already operate in the phone bands (most of them don't, but that's a free choice), so why not accord the phone users the same freedom of choice? I'd be in favor of reserving a very small portion of each HF band for rtty, psk31, etc., but I'd let all modes permitted by an operator's license be used everywhere else. In other words, it is legitimate and useful to reevaluate the entire band-plan structure of the Amateur Radio Service, and it is even thinkable that what is commonly called the "cw portion" of the bands should be reallocated. Well, Carl, here is a well thought out and well presented argument. Your answer? What is yours...other than another trolling "question"? I do agree that Stu's comments are perfectly valid and reasonable points to consider. But, I've also seen so #$%^&!! many "points" about keeping the status quo absolute in here that I cannot expect reasonable people to be considered. The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those? LHA |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those? What is any of this to you, Leonard? You aren't involved in amateur radio in any way. You aren't a ham. You aren't a regulator. You aren't a budding neophyte. You're a guy who delights in pointing out his past accomplishments in military and commercial radio. Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those? What is any of this to you, Leonard? Colonel Klunk, you have NO authority to demand any such answer. You are not Mike Coslo...to whom my remarks were aimed. Why do you attempt to answer for another? Do you have multiple personalities? Or is your psychosis a mild one of simple hatred for anyone pointing out that you never did any glorious government radio pioneering in the 1980s. You aren't involved in amateur radio in any way. Not required. You aren't a ham. The FDA hasn't been around to stamp my beef. Why do you think you can beef so much without such inspection? You aren't a regulator. NEITHER ARE YOU. Quit trying to play Raddio Kop. Or did you get one of those nice shields in the mail so that you can flip open your badge wallet and pretend to be some kind of officer? Were your friends and neighbors amazed and delighted at your "promotion?" You aren't a budding neophyte. I was a "neophyte" in radio a half century ago. That quickly passed. You're a guy who delights in pointing out his past accomplishments in military and commercial radio. Sorry, but you are LYING again. As I keep saying, the US Army quit using morse code modes for long-haul primary communications on HF in 1948. I began operating on HF in early 1953 as part of a team of four to keep a very large Army radio station operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Both the US Army and US Air Force quit using morse code modes for long-distance primary communications on HF 55 years ago. "It ain't braggin' if ya done it." I did it. LHA |
|
Exactly. As well as writing to their elected officials as well.
-- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... Though I've been a member of the ARRL longer than I've been a ham, I often find that it is wiser to represent myself than let the ARRL do it. We often have differing viewpoints. Those who are not ARRL members can simply represent themselves to the FCC. Brian |
That wasn't directed at your survey for the most part, more of a general
statement...... Again, I still stand by my statement as that is at least what was learned a statistics class in high school. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: Show me a truly impartial survey and I might actually consider joining the Anti-Radio Relay League. ALL surveys are slanted in some direction or another, as to prove some point or theory. Was my survey slanted? If so, how? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... 14. The ARRL leadership should take the following role in the code test issue: E. Stay the hell out of it until they truly represent all of the amateur radio community. Right now they are the only organization who represents us at all. If you want to control their policies, become a member and climb the political structure. No... they only represent their membership. (as that has been dictated to me time and time again.) There in lies the real root of the problem, it is a "political" organization, i.e. bureaucracy. Those who are not members of the ARRL have chosen to remain unrepresented since they have done nothing to form a lobyy to take the place of the ARRL. I can self-represent for the time being. It's better that what the has been done to amateur radio since my involvement since 1988. I write letters on a regular basis to not only the FCC, as well as the elected officials from my area that serve in congress and the senate. Not only do issues come up that they might have an opportunity to vote on, they "have friends" in other parts of the goverment as well I am sure. Instead of lazily waiting for the arrl to act on matters, I can just imagine the response if at least 20-30 wrote letters on a regular basis to there congress and senator persons. Our districts for each up north here contain *at least* 1,000 hams a piece. That was another question I also had.....WHO are the arrl lobbyists? WHAT exactly are they doing? WHO exactly are they talking to? WHAT is their budgets?? I have asked this before but with no response. If it is not for the magazine subscription (QST is actually a fairly decent magazine even though content is forever dwindling over the years due stuff being pushed to the website) then the other argument by some is for some type of protectionist/mafioso scheme as to why to join the arrl. I do not consider the arrl the equivalent of christianity, nor will I be brainwashed to think that arrl can do no wrong or preach/recite some mantra's. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... 14. The ARRL leadership should take the following role in the code test issue: E. Stay the hell out of it until they truly represent all of the amateur radio community. Right now they are the only organization who represents us at all. If you want to control their policies, become a member and climb the political structure. No... they only represent their membership. (as that has been dictated to me time and time again.) There in lies the real root of the problem, it is a "political" organization, i.e. bureaucracy. Those who are not members of the ARRL have chosen to remain unrepresented since they have done nothing to form a lobyy to take the place of the ARRL. I can self-represent for the time being. It's better that what the has been done to amateur radio since my involvement since 1988. I write letters on a regular basis to not only the FCC, as well as the elected officials from my area that serve in congress and the senate. Not only do issues come up that they might have an opportunity to vote on, they "have friends" in other parts of the goverment as well I am sure. Instead of lazily waiting for the arrl to act on matters, I can just imagine the response if at least 20-30 wrote letters on a regular basis to there congress and senator persons. Our districts for each up north here contain *at least* 1,000 hams a piece. That was another question I also had.....WHO are the arrl lobbyists? WHAT exactly are they doing? WHO exactly are they talking to? WHAT is their budgets?? I have asked this before but with no response. If it is not for the magazine subscription (QST is actually a fairly decent magazine even though content is forever dwindling over the years due stuff being pushed to the website) then the other argument by some is for some type of protectionist/mafioso scheme as to why to join the arrl. I do not consider the arrl the equivalent of christianity, nor will I be brainwashed to think that arrl can do no wrong or preach/recite some mantra's. I do not consider the ARRL end all and be all either. But a strong, organized group is more successful than random individuals writing to elected and appointed officials. That is a political fact of life. Those who do not care to admit that to themselves will have very limited success in achieving their objectives. Now as far as who the ARRL represents. Yes it is their members. These members are a cross section of the ham community. The policy is based on what the members want. If you wish the ARRL to change direction, then join it and get a sufficient number of people with your views behind you and get more people to join that have your views so that you have the support to become an official and a policy maker. Those hams who say that they won't join the ARRL because they have a different viewpoint than the current membership of the ARRL are choosing to be less effective in getting their viewpoints across to the ham community and the FCC. The ARRL isn't some magic entity that exists out there that hams join. It is the result of hams banding together. The views represented by the ARRL will be those of the people who have decided to become active and push those views. While I do agree that individuals should write their elected officials and so on, that does not negate the need for having an organized body to push for changes. The most effective way to change the system is to work from within not from without. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: The pro-coder regulars in here have been sorely wounded by the WRC-03 decision on S25 and they are vengeful, looking for blood regardless of manner in which it is spilled. Are you one of those? What is any of this to you, Leonard? Colonel Klunk, you have NO authority to demand any such answer. When was a demand issued, Leonora? You are not Mike Coslo...to whom my remarks were aimed. Why do you attempt to answer for another? You must have forgotten how usenet works, kindly old gent. Perhaps you'll want to engage in an e-mail exchange directly with Mike if it bothers you when others comment on what you've written in this very public place. Do you have multiple personalities? Or is your psychosis a mild one of simple hatred for anyone pointing out that you never did any glorious government radio pioneering in the 1980s. You've called a number of people crazy over the past week or so. You know what they say about one who believes that a number of others are insane? You aren't involved in amateur radio in any way. Not required. You aren't a ham. The FDA hasn't been around to stamp my beef. Why do you think you can beef so much without such inspection? from 9/5/96 Anderson: "Will I take a license exam? Probably. I'm a year from retirement and it's only taken me two decades to achieve 3 WPM... Will I recommend amateur radio as a hobby to a young person? Only guardedly and only after explaining everything that I've observed over the last four decades as a professional in the electronics/ communications industry." Then there's that "Extra right out of the box". Apparently you aspire to become a ham as soon as the requirements have been lowered sufficiently. Perhaps you can obtain that Extra right out of the next box. You aren't a regulator. NEITHER ARE YOU. No kidding? I am involved in amateur radio. Since you aren't a regulator and you aren't a ham, your presence here and your fixation with amateur radio are a tad peculiar. Quit trying to play Raddio Kop. Or did you get one of those nice shields in the mail so that you can flip open your badge wallet and pretend to be some kind of officer? Were your friends and neighbors amazed and delighted at your "promotion?" This isn't the "raddio" and I've not present myself as an enforcement official in amateur radio. Even if I was, it wouldn't matter. You aren't a part of amateur radio. You aren't a budding neophyte. I was a "neophyte" in radio a half century ago. That quickly passed. You have yet to become a neophyte in amateur radio. You'll become a beginner after passing a license exam. You'll have the opportunity to be a neophyte all over again. You're a guy who delights in pointing out his past accomplishments in military and commercial radio. Sorry, but you are LYING again. As I keep saying, the US Army quit using morse code modes for long-haul primary communications on HF in 1948. I began operating on HF in early 1953 as part of a team of four to keep a very large Army radio station operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Let's look at a few Anderson quotes over a long period of time: from 2/1/97 Anderson: "Ahem...as one who was _working_ in radio 40 years ago..." from 9/13/96 Anderson: "Len - tested and passed Commercial 1st Radiotelephone 40 years ago." from 9/13/96 Anderson: "Geoffrey, between 1953 and 1955 I was a fixed-station repairman, then supervisor on one team (of 4) at U.S. Army station ADA in Tokyo. With 27 transmitters (23 on HF bands), 108 TTY circuits, 7 voice circuits over the Pacific, 24 hours a day, I may have worked more traffic on HF than the average Extra ham will work in a lifetime. ADA pushed a quarter million TTY messages a month..." from 12/10/96 Anderson: "In my case, I've already worked 24-hour-a-day "DX" on HF as a member of the U.S. Army in the 1950s...took and passed a Commercial Radiotelephone license in 1956...worked as a hands-on electronics engineer in successful design..." from 10/8/96 Anderson: "Recall that I've worn the Army uniform and moved more traffic on the HF transmitters I operated and maintained in one month than any Extra class amateur has sent in an entire lifetime." Any of that familiar to you? "It ain't braggin' if ya done it." I did it. What is it you did in amateur radio, Len? You're more likely as a candidate for an amateur radio "Who's He?" than "Who's Who". Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote: Do you have multiple personalities? Or is your psychosis a mild one of simple hatred for anyone pointing out that you never did any glorious government radio pioneering in the 1980s. You've called a number of people crazy over the past week or so. You know what they say about one who believes that a number of others are insane? Like "laughing" at 10 or 15 lines of posts? He HAS gone over the edge. Poor pogue still trying to figure out how he got here and why hasn't President Nixon got us out of Viet Nam yet..... That's OK, though...I am sure he's happy, where ever his mind is... Steve, K4YZ |
Good point Jon. As I said when I tabulated the WT Docket 98-143 comments,
the amateur radio community is more or less divide on the Morse code exam issue. The issue can not be decide consensus or polls. Commission will dispose of this issue in due course. There is no good reason for the ARRL to waste any more funds on the Morse code matter. At WRC 2003 not one radio administration spoke in favor of retaining the mandatory international Morse code requirement. The ARRL did a lot of good work in getting a an agreement of the realigment of 40 meters. I though it would be impossible. But look what can be accomplished when ARRL spents it resource to solve a problem that makes sense even to SW broadcasters. Kind of like a bandplan for hams and broadcasters. Larry "Jon Bloom" wrote in message ... People's minds are well made up on this issue, and nothing anyone does is going to change that. Those who support Morse testing will be angry with the ARRL if it comes out for elimination of the test no matter how that decision was made. Those who favor elimination will be equally angry if the ARRL supports continuation of testing. And those of us who think far too much energy has already been wasted on this subject will groan yet again if ARRL spends any more substantial resources on it. In my opinion, because it's a waste of resources -- time and money -- that would be better devoted to tackling the problems Amateur Radio faces that are important -- a list that does not, in my mind, include anything to do with Morse testing. Jon |
"lk" wrote in message ... Good point Jon. As I said when I tabulated the WT Docket 98-143 comments, the amateur radio community is more or less divide on the Morse code exam issue. Of course that was 5 years ago. Convential wisdom has it that, if anything, the shift over time would result in less support for code testing today than then. The issue can not be decide consensus or polls. The FCC was pretty clear in their assessment as stated in the R&O. No reason for code testing other than the former treaty. Commission will dispose of this issue in due course. There is no good reason for the ARRL to waste any more funds on the Morse code matter. At WRC 2003 not one radio administration spoke in favor of retaining the mandatory international Morse code requirement. Agreed. The ARRL did a lot of good work in getting a an agreement of the realigment of 40 meters. Agree also. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ... "lk" wrote in message ... Good point Jon. As I said when I tabulated the WT Docket 98-143 comments, the amateur radio community is more or less divide on the Morse code exam issue. Of course that was 5 years ago. Convential wisdom has it that, if anything, the shift over time would result in less support for code testing today than then. IARU changed their position, and maybe ARRL will change their position. At least they should stop wasting members funds trying to save a rule that no radio administration supported at WRC 2003. Larry |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com