|
Wasting free time is pretty much what this newsgroup is all about, Steve.
However, don't think everyone in this newsgroup spends all their free time here - most of us get our hands dirty with other things. Like sweating on your microphone... (or paddle) |
Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF.
If ten meters was not open during the day for the past couple days, you probably weren't checking it. 11 meters was kicking!. I didn't partake in any skip, though. |
"Scott Unit 69" wrote in message ... Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF. From URL: http://www.testeq.com/charts/freqclas.lasso 30 - 300 Hz 2 Extremely Low Frequencies ELF 300 - 3000 Hz 3 Voice (Audio) Frequencies VF 3 - 30 KHz 4 Very Low Frequencies VLF 30 - 300 KHz 5 Low Frequencies LF 300 - 3000 KHz 6 Medium Frequencies MF 3 - 30 MHz 7 High Frequencies HF 30 - 300 MHz 8 Very High Frequencies VHF 300 - 3000 MHz 9 Ultrahigh Frequencies UHF 3 - 30 GHz 10 Super-High Frequencies SHF 30 - 300 GHz 11 Extremely High Frequencies EHF 300 GHz - 3 THz 12 Sub Millimeter- - |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: I'll cheerfully give up thumping for code tests when the writtens get much stiffer than they are now. Hey, I expected that the code test would someday go away over 20 years ago- Then you held on to it at least 20 years longer than necessary. before the volunteer exam system was started and the writtens moved from being some evidence of learning to being no more than evidence of passing through a fomality. Those darned "fomalities." Maybe they just wusn't that "impotent." As the situation stands now everywhere I look the service is being dumbed down. There is no other realistic way to regard it. When the code test is gone, ham radio is tossed onto the steepest part of the slippery slope. Becoming a ham will be so little beyond getting on CB that what we'll have is all the Freebanders who aren't the least concerned about regulations dumping into the ham bands. Many recent postings here on rrap show this clearly enough. They got the mule's goat, didn't they? How many examples of how that philosophy has backfired badly in other spheres do you have to see before you get the drift? Welfare? Public education? Where and how do we draw the line in ham radio? but it was the only thing I could come up with at this moment. Uh-huh. There's a reason for that. However, I think even those with code ability would agree that at least some have walked away from ham radio because of the code testing requirement. Not "some", uncountable hordes. I've been listening to that excuse for more decades than I'd like to admit. I never shed a tear for any of 'em. It's a blatent copout and a strong indicator of what ham radio would have gotten from them. I'm convinced there are some small number of strong technical types out there who have a problem with learning morse code that should have had some means of being licensed without high speed code in years past. So what was your solution? With the 5wpm max code speed, that argument evaporated. But it sure didn't make a dent in the codeless whiners arguement, did it? It's dump code- and dump on code- all the way, no holding back, gimme, gimme, gimme. No end to it. Sure there is. When people learn the code because it is of value to them. But it's the end of ham radio, as the calendar works it's way forward, at least the end of any resemblence of ham radio as a useful entity. If we wanted that sort of crap we could have all gone on up to the region above 27 mhz to find it. Like you're not already there. |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: (WA8ULX) wrote in message ... I was on HF and communicating before any of the regulars in here and I didn't have to use any morse code at all. Im sure your right, CB or 11 Meters is considered HF. He's so fulla **** the whites of his eyes gotta be brown. Incorrect. They are blue. That has to be an interesting look you've got there, Leonard. What color are the pupils? Why do you ask about my former class? Those pupils were representative of nearly all races. I for one was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my Novice ticket. Then you were BOOTLEGGING, old man. ILLEGAL. Tsk, tsk. I think we may see another gap in your knowledge looming. All indications are that Kellie was BOOTLEGGING despite claims (which will surface) that there was a "control operator" there. No way to ascertain if that control operator was there...except by his word. Since you cannot accept anyone's word (if their opinion on a subject is different than yours), you cannot corroborate anything Kellie said or did 52 years ago. You are overextending your self-professed task of being the newsgroup kop in here. The only "HF experience" he had in that timeframe was as a grunt U.S. Army apprentice RTTY equipment mechanic & babysitter 1952-53. Incorrect AGAIN! Microwave Radio Relay Operation and Maintenance Supervisor, (then) MOS 281.6. Temporarily doing Fixed Station Transmitters operation and maintenance (supervisor) 1953 to 1956 at US Army radio station ADA in Tokyo, Japan. 43 transmitters on HF ranging from 1 KW (BC-339) to 40 KW (AN/FRC-22)...working to Seoul, Pusan, Okinawa, Manila, Saigon, Anchorage, Seattle, Hawaii, San Francisco on a 24/7 schedule. Not a single circuit used any morse code. I know you just forgot to mention, "Fifty years ago..." In 1952 I was in Basic Training and at the Signal School in Fort Monmouth, NJ. ...and a year later you were an expert. INCORRECT. I've never stated I was "expert" in HF communications. A half century ago the US Army did NOT use morse code for long- haul HF communications. I am a direct witness to that. So is N2JTV. THAT was my point which you will never ever concede due to your peculiar need to be some sort of radio guru and traffic kop. After three years at Army station ADA and its 43 HF transmitters, doing both operations and maintenance, I can claim some experience in HF radio long ago. "It ain't braggin' if ya done it." I did it. LHA |
|
In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes: Brian Kelly wrote: (Len Over 21) wrote I for one was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my Novice ticket. Then you were BOOTLEGGING, old man. ILLEGAL. Tsk, tsk. Of course Putzie would have to have some real information on ham radio to know how that works, wouldn't he? US amateur radio is one of the most publicized of electronics-related hobbies...almost as much as radio-controlled models (there are about 170 thousand members of the Academy of Model Aeronautics and there are about 170 thousand members of ARRL). If you ever scan the HAM RADIO Magazine CD ($150 for a 3-disk set of all 22 years of publication), you can see my articles in there. If the CDs also include the masthead page you will also find me there for two years. And the liklihood that *HE* has done a large bit of bootlegging is more than obvious given his longtime 'interest' in ham radio and the fact that he has never held a license, no? I've never done any bootlegging in any radio service, old man. I've held a commercial license since 1956 and had three years of REAL radio communications for three years prior to that. You were not able to do that before age 25. Probably too lazy on your part, ey? You can't do anything more than throw **** (excuse me, "dung" or "feces") at others in here...another fine example of the prime of US amateur radio...and a former VE. LHA |
"Brian Kelly" wrote:
(snip) I'll cheerfully give up thumping for code tests when the writtens get much stiffer than they are now. As the situation stands now everywhere I look the service is being dumbed down. In case you haven't noticed, the entire country is being "dumbed" down. So what are you going to do about it - continue to excluded more and more people from Ham Radio as you wait for someone to do something about it? I don't like what is going on in this country either. But I don't see how we can sit here and insist Ham Radio is only for "smart" people as we exclude more and more in a growing country while our own numbers barely remain stable. Especially when I see darn few 'rocket scientists' in our existing numbers - in any license class. In my opinion, the existing license exams serve their purpose well. Therefore, I see no reason to demand that future prospective Hams know more than new Hams today, twenty years ago, or fifty years ago. Of course, you're perfectly free to continue "thumping for code tests" as much as you want. The same with the "stiffer" written tests. However, since code tests serve no purpose other than to exclude today and stiffer written tests would do the same, you certainly won't get any support from me. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"Brian Kelly" wrote: (snip) I'll cheerfully give up thumping for code tests when the writtens get much stiffer than they are now. As the situation stands now everywhere I look the service is being dumbed down. In case you haven't noticed, the entire country is being "dumbed" down. I disagree! There are lots of things that are not being "dumbed down". For example, I don't see TAC making the marathon one inch shorter. So what are you going to do about it - continue to excluded more and more people from Ham Radio as you wait for someone to do something about it? Who is being excluded? The requirements are what the FCC says they are. Meet those requirements and the license is granted. I don't like what is going on in this country either. But I don't see how we can sit here and insist Ham Radio is only for "smart" people as we exclude more and more in a growing country while our own numbers barely remain stable. You might want to check those numbers. Especially when I see darn few 'rocket scientists' in our existing numbers - in any license class. Note that reducing the license requirements has NOT brought on significantly more growth nor attracted the "rocket scientists". Compare the growth of US ham radio from 1980 to 1990 (no medical waivers, all hams code tested, Techs had same written as General until '87) with the growth from 1990 to 2000. Sure there were short term surges but not long term. Since 2000 the total growth has been maybe 12,000 even though both written and code testing were reduced. Or look at what has happened in Japan since 1995... In my opinion, the existing license exams serve their purpose well. All depends what that purpose is. Looking at the FCC enforcement logs, it seems that they don't ensure some hams know enough about how to behave on the air. Therefore, I see no reason to demand that future prospective Hams know more than new Hams today, twenty years ago, or fifty years ago. The problem is that as the technology "advances", the knowledge seems to drop. Read rec.radio.amateur.antenna for a while and see how long it takes before somebody starts yet another round on the T2FD.... Of course, you're perfectly free to continue "thumping for code tests" as much as you want. The same with the "stiffer" written tests. However, since code tests serve no purpose other than to exclude today and stiffer written tests would do the same, you certainly won't get any support from me. The purpose of tests is not to exclude but to guarantee a certain minimum level of knowledge. What that knowledge should be is purely a matter of opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , "Dick Carroll;" writes: Brian Kelly wrote: (Len Over 21) wrote I for one was on the HF ham bands in 1951 *with CW* from W3CGS before I got my Novice ticket. Then you were BOOTLEGGING, old man. ILLEGAL. Tsk, tsk. Of course Putzie would have to have some real information on ham radio to know how that works, wouldn't he? US amateur radio is one of the most publicized of electronics-related hobbies.. So you've read about ham radio and now you're an expert on it, you got it all mastered. Yep, that's about your speed, all right. Again and as usual, no surprises here. I've never claimed to be an "expert" on amateur radio or any part of radio. I've enjoyed a reasonably well-paying career in radio- electronics engineering, something influenced by doing three years of large-scale military communications before 1956. So how was it you're still so uninformed that you never heard of an unlicensed (or underlicensed) operator working a ham radio station under the supervision of a control operator who has the appropriate license? Hmmmm? So your reading didn't really teach you all that much about ham radio? Whatta surprise! Kellie was describing what he did 52 years ago at age 14, BEFORE HE WAS LICENSED. Kellie previously claimed "26 patents" as a mighty inventor and a search of patent records showed only ONE. Kellie previously stated a number of old radio "facts" which were proven false by others in here. [see "28 V jeeps" as one] Kellie gets his "Irish" up every now and then and does a great deal of BS scribbling. Now YOU PROVE - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that Kellie was telling the ABSOLUTE TRUTH back then. If you ever scan the HAM RADIO Magazine CD ($150 for a 3-disk set of all 22 years of publication), you can see my articles in there. Don't bother with the CD nonsense, I was a charter 1968 subscriber, and I still have all the magazines save a few that were loaned out and didn't make it home. It sure is funny that I never noticed your byline, nor even any mention of you or your name in any of them. I can't help your obvious reading DISABILITY, old man. My bylines are still there and my mailing address is still the same. You WILL find my name on HR's masthead, too. There's a website with a complete listing of HAM RADIO Magazine articles...taken from HR's annual listings, probably. I don't have the bookmark but you can find it through a search. Of course I could get them out and do a manual search just to see how much of a liar you really are, but naw, you're a phoney from the get-go and that'd be a waste of my time. I wouldn't want your fantasy shattered. Keep believing your own lies. You will find peace, happiness, and serentity in Nirvana of fantasy. Whatever (if anything) you may have contributed was too inconsequential to be of note. How would you know? :-) You never understood Shannon's Law according to your exchanges with Cecil Moore in here. It took you a year to understand how to operate an outboard DSP audio filter by your own public statements...and then you got rid of it. I doubt you have bothered to understand basic principles of radio and electronics beyond Ohm's Law! Hey, That's the way things work in the publishing world. Again HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? Have YOU ever sold any work to a publisher? I've sold work to five publishers of electronics interest, all of it without once meeting the editors face to face. The work sold itself. It was a FUN thing to do as a sideline, never intended to be of "heavyweight" calibre. The heavyweights are well remembered while the featherweights just float away, off into well deserved oblivion..... DICK, you've been forgotten before you were known... I've never done any bootlegging in any radio service, old man. So you now say, but you've said numerous things here that have shown to be inaccurate at best, downright lies at worst. Maybe your NCI buddies will believe you. Tsk, tsk, tsk...another RAGE sufferer. Feel free to spend weeks in the FCC Reading room, looking for all those "bootlegging violations." You won't find any. I've never bootlegged in radio or anything else under the ATF. :-) I once had two pair of boots. Wore them on my feet, not the legs. I've held a commercial license since 1956 and had three years of REAL radio communications for three years prior to that. A tisket, a tasket, you lost your yellow basket! So you babysat the fuse panel at some obscure transmitter site outside Hiroshima or some such. How impressive! Maybe it was the leftovers from Fat Boy that got to you. Tsk, tsk, tsk. YOUR problem might be radiation effects from your own RF...or too much monotonic beeping. Army radio station ADA was hardly "obscure." It was in and near Tokyo in central Honshu, rather farther up north from Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Radiating ~150 KW RF (old site) to ~250 KW RF (new site), all on HF, it was most certainly "noticed" by anyone within several miles. :-) 43 transmitters with RF output ranging from 1 to 40 KW takes up about 200 feet of interior space if arranged in two lines. The antenna field required a 1 x 2 mile former airfield to hold them all. I realize that isn't near as impressive as a Yaecomwood ham shack in Missouri. :-) You were not able to do that before age 25. Probably too lazy on your part, ey? The lazy occured on your shift when you forgot to learn how to count. I took my discharge from the Army at age 23 after five years service, and had the First phone the last three years of that time. Maybe your mailorder pschyo'ed bride will loan you a digital calculator? You got a "discharge" after 5 years? Interesting. Weren't the terms of service EIGHT years back then, old timer? It's not nice to insult my wife...who is NOT "mailorder" and NOT under any psychosis, nor did she ever get her degrees from any "correspondence school." Lessee, just what was it *you're* good at now, besides slinging dung at licensed hams? I'm not involved in any dung, DICK. Your federal merit badge is NOT an automatic exemption to allow yourself being an asshole. Babysitting circuitbreakers at a transmitter site in the backwoods on some Oriental island 50 years ago? Tsk, tsk, tsk. If you are so emotionally braindead that you think operation and maintenance of 43 HF transmitters, 16 VHF-UHF radio relay sets, and 9 24-channel microwave radio relay sets is just "babysitting circuitbreakers" then your own ham shack can be described as a crystal set good for listening to AM BC from as far away as 20 miles. :-) Claiming authorship/editor**** of a ham radio magazine many years ago, altho you never were licensed, when no one WITH a ham radio license ever heard of you? N2JTV not only "heard of me," he served with me in the same time, same job, on another team (we had four). Gene and I have since talked long distance and exchanged mail. He lives in Long Island, NY, but his radio activity is mostly with radio-controlled model aircraft. As to "claims," it ain't braggin if ya done it. I did it. I dunno, Len, I terminated my career nearly ten years ago with an attractive retirement. Since then I've done whatever I felt like doing, in radio and outside it. I don't need some 50 year old crutch to prop me up, again within ham radio or outside it. Clearly your needs hang out there on your sleeve for all to see. Whatta shame. Actually 55-year-old statement of fact. The US Army and US Air Force GAVE UP on morse code modes for HF primary communications way back in 1948. I was lucky to be assigned to work in one such station five years later. And once again-- I **KNOW** I've done more real radio work, work on heavy hardware -radio transmitting- iron than you ever dreamed of, and I don't mean just in ham radio, either, though I've done my share of that, too. OF COURSE YOU DID. You KNOW things that other folks DON'T. Wow! Heavyweight FANTASY material, old timer. Yes, we all KNOW that Missouri is a Mecca of "heavy hardware radio transmitting iron." Yup, you've told us. :-) :-) :-) Live with it. You live with your FANTASY, I'll live with my REALITY. OBTW, I was in your backyard again last week. I visited Yaesu USA Center at the Vertex Standard building in Cypress, and we toured around the region a bit just looking things over. Can't say I envy you living there.The place leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Literally. You don't know what clean air is. Cypress is NOT even close to being in "my backyard." :-) California became the most populated state in the USA many years ago. Many, many, many folks moved here because THEY liked it. Tsk, tsk, why isn't Yaesu USA located in Missouri? :-) LHA |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Zzzzzzz . . . Poor old man...put you to sleep again, did we? Tsk, tsk, tsk. You've been putting folks to sleep here for quite sometime, Leonardo. Reference any of your material beginning, "Fifty years ago I was..." You've never worked REAL HF communications, old man. You pretend you have playing with your HF radio in an AMATEUR band. Let's go over a few basics for your benefit, Len. 1. HF amateur radio is REAL HF communications. 2. The newsgroup deals with amateur radio. 3. You aren't remotely involved in amateur radio. Now go take a rest and when you wake up, do some number exercises. Carefully go through the one that says "26 does NOT equal 1." Not in patents, not in anything. Did you ever figure out the one about 0 amateur radio licenses not equaling 1 minute on the ham bands? Dave K8MN |
"N2EY" wrote:
Who is being excluded? The requirements are what the FCC says they are. Meet those requirements and the license is granted. Jim, please read the thread before replying. Brian is arguing for stiffer written tests and/or code to exclude those he doesn't like. My comments addressed the concept of using excess requirements to exclude others. Note that reducing the license requirements has NOT brought on significantly more growth nor attracted the "rocket scientists". I didn't say it did, Jim. The 'rocket scientists' point was made to address Brian's argument for stiffer requirements to keep "dumb-downed" people out. My comments about growth had to do with what I suspect would happen if Brian were successful in his efforts to exclude others with changes in the requirements. (snip) The purpose of tests is not to exclude but to guarantee a certain minimum level of knowledge. (snip) Again, I didn't say the purpose was to exclude. Again, my comments had to do with the changes Brian is seeking, not the existing requirements. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: "Brian Kelly" wrote: Stand up and draw some lines in the sand. Do a Harry Truman, "The buck stops here." However, the buck doesn't stop here. Ham Radio belongs to the American public. When we set out to exclude that public with unnecessary requirements (excessively stiff written tests or even code), we're simply asking for trouble. You're right. I think that all should be issued Amateur radio licenses at birth. The testing requirements should be changed to "Utilization Encounters" that no longer have test questions, but rather non-competitive non-graded sessions designed to enhance the self esteem of the Amateur Radio operator. The different grading of the tickets would no longer be based on knowledge, but on how good the licensee feels about themselves. Dang, Mike, you been doing consulting work at the FCC? The important thing is how you feel about how I feel about that! Let's be sure no one is left out, and all will be well. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote: Who is being excluded? The requirements are what the FCC says they are. Meet those requirements and the license is granted. Jim, please read the thread before replying. I did. Brian is arguing for stiffer written tests and/or code to exclude those he doesn't like. That's not how I read it. It's about what every ham should know and be tested on. My comments addressed the concept of using excess requirements to exclude others. But who decides what requirements are excess? It all comes down to opinion. For example, I think every ham should at least know Ohm's Law for DC circuits. Basic stuff like E = IR, resistors in series and parallel, how many amps a 50 watt rig draws from a 12 volt source if its overall efficiency is 50%, etc. Others would say that stuff is "too technical", particularly for "entry level" licenses. And there are plenty of hams who don't know that stuff. Is requiring Ohm's Law knowledge exclusionary? Is it an excess requirement? Note that reducing the license requirements has NOT brought on significantly more growth nor attracted the "rocket scientists". I didn't say it did, Jim. The 'rocket scientists' point was made to address Brian's argument for stiffer requirements to keep "dumb-downed" people out. My comments about growth had to do with what I suspect would happen if Brian were successful in his efforts to exclude others with changes in the requirements. Nobody know what would really happen because for the past 25+ years the direction has been towards easing the test requirements. Dick Bash started it. None of the changes along the way was very big but the end result has been dramatic. Particularly for the top license classes. (snip) The purpose of tests is not to exclude but to guarantee a certain minimum level of knowledge. (snip) Again, I didn't say the purpose was to exclude. Again, my comments had to do with the changes Brian is seeking, not the existing requirements. What bad things would happen if the tests were "beefed up", particularly the written tests for the General and Extra? Perhaps the idea of dropping the code test would get a lot more acceptance if it were coupled to better written testing. But it's not - in fact, the written testing keeps getting trimmed. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
You're right. I think that all should be issued Amateur radio licenses at birth. The testing requirements should be changed to "Utilization Encounters" that no longer have test questions, but rather non-competitive non-graded sessions designed to enhance the self esteem of the Amateur Radio operator. The different grading of the tickets would no longer be based on knowledge, but on how good the licensee feels about themselves. Well, responding in an equally sarcastic manner, you're perfectly free to think that if you wish, Mike. However, I think we should have reasonable requirements that are neither too simplistic nor too difficult. Those requirements should address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio without attempts to use them to unfairly exclude others. In my opinion, the current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio, while the code test does not. Dwight, it all depends on what you mean by unnecessary. Necessary and reasonable, both words used throughout my comments, are pretty much self-explanatory. If that doesn't satisfy you, read the paragraph I wrote above. CB'ers are on the air on HF. Many run power, illegal or not. And no one has taken a test to do that. This proves that * you don't need any test at all* to successfully run a station at HF frequencies. But can one do so safely and in compliance with the rules and regulations? Of course not. And that is why the actions of that CB'er is illegal. And it is also why that example is not applicable to ham radio. And reasonable requirements can be anything from a difficult test to no test at all. just depends on who is doing the reasoning. The FCC is doing the reasoning. We're simply agreeing or disagreeing with that reasoning. The ARS can be what we make of it. All is arbitrary, and we have to start with an idea of how adroit we want the typical member to be and go from there. From EE to CB. In that case, why stop with just excluding "dumbed down" people. There is just as many reasons to write rules to exclude the poor. 'Those people' can't buy good radios and the cheap radios owned by 'those people' can cause problems on the ham frequencies. Clearly, we should write rules to get rid of anyone who earns less than $50k. When you start down the path of intentionally excluding others, it has the tendency to go much further then you ever intended. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Brian Kelly" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: However, the buck doesn't stop here. Ham Radio belongs to the American public. Wrong. The whole planet owns the RF spectrum and the FCC is charged with doling out spectrum space to U.S. users of the that space in the public interest as it sees fit. Getting user access to the spectrum is not some wifty inherent "right of the people", it's a privilege. And to gain that privilege come certain requirements and responsibilites. Yes, reasonable requirements and responsibilities. The FCC is not going to change those requirements just because you and perhaps a few others want to exclude what you call "dumbed downed" people. Instead, you'll have to make a factual, not just rhetorical, link between those people and specific problems. You'll also have to establish that your remedy (stiffer license exams) will resolve those specific problems. Until then, all you're doing is blowing around a lot of hot air and slandering fellow hams. If the "American public" is not up for meeting the requirements and responsibilties which come with a ham license they can still go to 27 Mhz, FRS and MURS. Which is why those services were created. Man, you're talking about the American people as if they were some kind of minor regard in this country. I sincerely hope the FCC never shares that attitude. And when it's all said and done we're back to the Cheerios syndrome. When was the last time you know of when a wannabe ham said "geez, don't dumb down the tests any more, they'll TOO easy for me . . " A wannabe ham is a person who, by definition, has never taken the license exams. How can anyone who hasn't taken the exams possibly comment on their content? Right. I support keeping the bar at it's current level. I oppose lowering the bar to a lower level as you suggest. That's the way it is. Excuse me? Would you please show me where I have EVER even suggested the possibility of "lowering the bar" when it comes to the written tests? With the exception of the code tests, I have repeated said throughout this thread, and elsewhere, that I fully support the current license requirements. Instead, I have simply said I don't support raising that bar solely to exclude others. Now, if you can show me how raising that bar is necessary for Ham Radio (not just to exclude others), we'll talk. You can put that in bank right now. There is nothing evil about evenly-applied discrimination. It's everywhere around us, in zoning plans, in the bases for your compensation and perks on the job, in the privileges accorded holders of the various classes of ham licensees, endless list. Don't look now Dwight but discrimination is the underlying engine which drives capitalist democracies. Zoning laws, job policies, and ham licenses, all serve a legitimate purpose. Policies or rules designed solely to exclude don't. Just when and where did I state any such BS please? A question has a question mark on the end, Brian. That question mark was on the end of my sentence. Here's your opportunity to parade out your list of high-end techo nocodes with skills like those I've picked as examples have. I don't judge or sort out people based on their code ability, Brian. Therefore, I'll pass on your invitation. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
That's not how I read it. It's about what every ham should know and be tested on. Read back over Brian's messages in this thread. His stated goal is to exclude "dumbed down" people with stiffer license exams. He has given no real evidence to suggest that doing so would improve ham radio or further the purpose and goals of ham radio. Likewise, he has offered no real evidence to suggest that his proposal would solve any specific problem with ham radio. Instead, he has focused solely on the idea of excluding people. But who decides what requirements are excess? It all comes down to opinion. The FCC does. All we can do is agree or disagree with their decisions. However, if one disagrees with their decisions and wants others to agree with that (or wants the FCC to change their decisions), it is obviously up to that person to give solid reasons why. Brian's stated reasons are to exclude 'dumbed down" people, without any real evidence to back that up. I just don't think that is a solid reason. What bad things would happen if the tests were "beefed up", particularly the written tests for the General and Extra? Perhaps the idea of dropping the code test would get a lot more acceptance if it were coupled to better written testing. But it's not - in fact, the written testing keeps getting trimmed. I disagree. The written tests have been "beefed up" when necessary. For example, the Technician and other license exams were "beefed up" several years ago to put more emphasis on RF exposure levels and RF environmental safety practices. There was a need for those changes. I just don't see a need to "beef up" the license exams just for the sake of "beefing up" the license exams, especially when there is no real benefit in doing so. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote: You're right. I think that all should be issued Amateur radio licenses at birth. The testing requirements should be changed to "Utilization Encounters" that no longer have test questions, but rather non-competitive non-graded sessions designed to enhance the self esteem of the Amateur Radio operator. The different grading of the tickets would no longer be based on knowledge, but on how good the licensee feels about themselves. Well, responding in an equally sarcastic manner, you're perfectly free to think that if you wish, Mike. However, I think we should have reasonable requirements that are neither too simplistic nor too difficult. Those requirements should address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio without attempts to use them to unfairly exclude others. In my opinion, the current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio, while the code test does not. What are those "realistic needs and goals", Dwight? We've already proven that no test at all is needed to get on HF and run some fair amount of power. Lot's of CB'ers do it all the time. It doesn't matter that it is illegal to do, that isn't the point. The point is that it didn't take any kind of formalized education or testing process for them to get on the air without doing damage to themselves. But is that what we want? Some people do want just that. Interestingly enough, they applaud the likely elimination of the Morse code test, and will probably agitate for more. (or less depending on how you look at it) That is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to buckle down and get things under control. Dwight, it all depends on what you mean by unnecessary. Necessary and reasonable, both words used throughout my comments, are pretty much self-explanatory. If that doesn't satisfy you, read the paragraph I wrote above. Your definition of necessary and reasonable. You should be trumpeting that from the rafters at every chance. Because some others have a quite different definition. This is why it is so critical for the NCTA's to take up their leadership role NOW. My definition of necessary and reasonable include a test for Morse code. So all the other PCTA's and myself are immediately marginalized and irrelevant. CB'ers are on the air on HF. Many run power, illegal or not. And no one has taken a test to do that. This proves that * you don't need any test at all* to successfully run a station at HF frequencies. But can one do so safely and in compliance with the rules and regulations? Of course not. And that is why the actions of that CB'er is illegal. And it is also why that example is not applicable to ham radio. And reasonable requirements can be anything from a difficult test to no test at all. just depends on who is doing the reasoning. The FCC is doing the reasoning. We're simply agreeing or disagreeing with that reasoning. The ARS can be what we make of it. All is arbitrary, and we have to start with an idea of how adroit we want the typical member to be and go from there. From EE to CB. In that case, why stop with just excluding "dumbed down" people. There is just as many reasons to write rules to exclude the poor. 'Those people' can't buy good radios and the cheap radios owned by 'those people' can cause problems on the ham frequencies. Clearly, we should write rules to get rid of anyone who earns less than $50k. When you start down the path of intentionally excluding others, it has the tendency to go much further then you ever intended. Where on earth did you come up with that one, Dwight? I'd never say such a thing, and I'm a little disappointed you would try to inject that here. Note that there is a big difference between expecting that a person has some level of adroitness and denying them because of some external and irrelevant factor. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: In my opinion, the current written tests address the realistic needs and goals of Amateur Radio, while the code test does not. Why of course Dwight! Tha makes the test requirements easy and non-existant. What more could you want? There seems to be a bigger picture that the NCTA's are having trouble grasping. After their victory, their people - in this case, *all* those who oppose Morse code testing are coming out of the woodwork. And they seem to be having problems recognizing their new resposibility. Dwight and I are not too different on the requirements to become a Ham. The problem is that a lot of other people in his camp have some drastically different ideas of what is realistic or reasonable. Those are the people who need to be reigned in. Question is, are the NCTA's up to the task? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
Zoning laws, job policies, and ham licenses, all serve a legitimate purpose. Policies or rules designed solely to exclude don't. How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse code test? How many people have been excluded? - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Dwight Stewart wrote: Zoning laws, job policies, and ham licenses, all serve a legitimate purpose. Policies or rules designed solely to exclude don't. How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse code test? How many people have been excluded? This is and has long been the common thread among codehaters. There is no logic nor proof involved, and now the NCVAEC has taken up the very same theme. What a shame. I'm more than sure they'll have some crow to eat when all the commenting is done. And then after a couple years, that nasty test will be what is keeping people out of the ARS. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
What are those "realistic needs and goals", Dwight? Please, don't waste my time with silly questions like that, Mike. Every ham knows, or should know, that the goals of Amateur Radio are specified in 97.1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The needs are that necessary to meet those goals. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse code test? In the past, you were not excluded (code testing served a need). However, if code testing remains solely as a means to exclude "those people," others in the future will be. "Those people" include anyone you set out to exclude. You want stiffer written tests (or code testing) to exclude "dumbed down" people. I don't agree with that. Show me something that individual has done wrong and I'll support your efforts to get rid of that person. However, I'm not willing to exclude groups of people simply because some don't like them or a few in that group have done things some don't like. Many don't like CB'ers and want stiffer written exams (or code testing) to keep "those people" out. I don't agree with that. Again, if you want to throw someone out because that person has broken the rules, I'm all for that. However, I'm not willing to exclude someone from even getting into ham radio simply because they once owned a CB radio and we don't like what some did with those radios. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , "Dick Carroll;" writes: "Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote: California became the most populated state in the USA many years ago. Many, many, many folks moved here because THEY liked it. And now it's one of the most highly taxed, crime ridden places in the United States. They face a $35BILLION budget shortfall for *this year* and they're not finished counting yet. All those "feel good" deals, and Putzie's vaunted emergency services bills coming due. Wonder what will be left when it all settles out? Quick and dirty math, that's at least $1000 for each citizen, man-woman-child residing there. One has to wonder when the big exodus will begin. So they're about to fire their Governor, not that he could have done much to avoid it all. And what will his replacement do to fix it? From all I've read and heard, the reason for all these California crises (remember the electric energy emrgency?) comes from a fundamental failure of the system and the voters there to connect rights with responsibilities. IOW, services are not connected to taxes. They vote in all sorts of mandates but not the taxes to fund them. And wouild you like to guess who's voting all that into being? The voters Hint: It's not the conservatives! Seems like Liberalism is about to devout itself in the Sunshine State. Actually, it's both. The "liberals" vote in the mandates. The "conservatives" block the taxes. Both sides disconnect rights from responsibilities. You get the worst of both worlds. Look at their electric "deregulation" of a few years back. The retail prices were regulated (classic big government utility/monopoly idea) but the wholesale prices weren't (classic laissez-faire trickle-down supply-side free-market-capitalism). Coupled with that was the desire for high tech jobs and investment (Silicon Valley) but not the responsibility to build the infrastructure to run it (power lines, generating stations). End result: Lotta people's lights went out. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
... "Mike Coslo" wrote: How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse code test? In the past, you were not excluded (code testing served a need). However, if code testing remains solely as a means to exclude "those people," others in the future will be. "Those people" include anyone you set out to exclude. You want stiffer written tests (or code testing) to exclude "dumbed down" people. I don't agree with that. Show me something that individual has done wrong and I'll support your efforts to get rid of that person. However, I'm not willing to exclude groups of people simply because some don't like them or a few in that group have done things some don't like. Excellent point, Dwight. It is only recently that I have heard more and more alignment with the philosophy [paraphrasing] that it's OK to filter out bad people from the ARS by having CW as an element for testing. If it is believed that taking that element away will "dumb down" the ARS; then it is logical to make the assumption that many support CW as a filtering tool for the ARS--which is disgusting. Many don't like CB'ers and want stiffer written exams (or code testing) to keep "those people" out. I don't agree with that. Again, if you want to throw someone out because that person has broken the rules, I'm all for that. However, I'm not willing to exclude someone from even getting into ham radio simply because they once owned a CB radio and we don't like what some did with those radios. It has become popular now, to label others as "those people." In ham radio, in everyday life. If CW is serving as a "filtering tool" in the eyes of a majority in ham radio--I say abolish it. But, I've a feeling the attitude that it is a filtering tool is not prevalent. Thank goodness!! Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Dwight Stewart wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote: How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse code test? In the past, you were not excluded (code testing served a need). However, if code testing remains solely as a means to exclude "those people," others in the future will be. "Those people" include anyone you set out to exclude. You want stiffer written tests (or code testing) to exclude "dumbed down" people. I don't agree with that. Show me something that individual has done wrong and I'll support your efforts to get rid of that person. However, I'm not willing to exclude groups of people simply because some don't like them or a few in that group have done things some don't like. First off, I don't think I've ever said "dumbed down". If you know I have, post the reference. Now to the subject at hand. I do not consider the Morse Code to be *any test of intelligence or desirability whatsoever. What I do consider it is a method of ensuring that the person actually wants to be in the service. It is a measure of inclusivity, not exclusivity. Kind of like learning to parallel park or do a three point turn. Many don't like CB'ers and want stiffer written exams (or code testing) to keep "those people" out. I don't agree with that. Again, if you want to throw someone out because that person has broken the rules, I'm all for that. However, I'm not willing to exclude someone from even getting into ham radio simply because they once owned a CB radio and we don't like what some did with those radios. You"re way off base with me Dwight. I own a CB radio - use it for traveling. It's saved my tookus on a few occasions. I even had a license, (my parents did to be precise, many years ago) KBM-8780. We can be whatever we want to be. There is no argument that no license testing is at all necessary at all in order to put up a station and start transmitting as soon as the Morse code requirement is gone. So we choose. We do already have indications of what the spectrum of behaviors are. Right now, those who favor less knowledge have the upper hand. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote: And then after a couple years, that nasty test will be what is keeping people out of the ARS. Yet, you and Dick are the only two in this thread who have even suggested anything like that. Not a single person opposed to code testing has made any such comments in this thread. And I certainly haven't made any comments about reducing or eliminating the written tests. It is simple crystal ball gazing, Dwight. I just look at a situation, and work it out into the future. There are many people with many views, people like you who support testing as it is now, and people who support lessening the tests. BTW, I believe it was Bill Sohl who proposed that sort of thing (yes, I know - not as an official NCI position). At any rate, people being what they are, and now encouraged by the recent changes, those who want less or no testing will feel encouraged to speak up and see if they can get their wishes granted. Nothing stays in one place. Liberals tend to get more liberal, and conservatives get more conservative as they have success, until they start getting out of touch with the mainstream. Some of you are just not looking past the ends of your noses. The inability of people to set still on something means that there will be calls to further "simplify" or "make more inclusive" the requirements to be a Ham. Those of us who think it should mean something will just be considered cranks. As you no doubt consider us cranks, eh? Most people are realistic. Very true. Who among us, no matter what their opinion, doesn't think they are being realistic? 8^) I support keeping the written tests because those tests serve a purpose which benefits me and the entire ham radio community. Code testing, which a few of you can't seem to get past, doesn't today. My comments about "keeping people out," or excluding people, only had to do with test requirements designed to exclude instead of serving a need for ham radio. Code testing once served a need, so did not exclude at that time. If it remains today solely as a barrier to keep others out, it does exclude. As does any test whatsoever! Testing in any form is a matter of your definition exclusion, With even as hard a time as I had learning Morse code, it is not harder than the rest of the testing regimen. Brian's idea of stiffer written exams don't exclude if it serves a purpose or need. However, if done solely to keep others out, it also does exclude. How many CB'ers (who are not Hams already) have been tested for access to their band? Many are running serious power, and they can put up antennas and put rigs together. And operate just fine. There is just no NEED for any testing whatsoever in order to do the physical act of getting on the air. No need at all! Unless of course, you would like to have the ARS mean a bit more than Citizen's band radio. We have to as hams decide just how adroit we want the new ham to be. As the new lords of the hood, you NCTA's have to make sure of that. Again, once we start down the path of excluding others, when does it stop and who else do we exclude? Am I next in the list? Are you? I wasn't going to say this, but I'm weary of the "exclusive" sthick going on. I know a young lady who is a General class ham. She works mostly CW. She's a pretty darn good Operator too. I'm not going to give out her name or callsign to protect her privacy She is also a person who attended special education classes for her education. A dear woman, but not as smart as the average person. And yet, somehow, some way, she learned Morse code, studied for and passed the General test, and is now on the air as an active ham. When I see the whining about exclusivity, and all the other complaining about how unfair the Morse code test, I often think of her. Then I think of the complainers and compare them, who think it is just too hard, and her, she who took the trouble to learn, even though she has not been blessed with the same gifts as most of us. She's a brother/sister ham, and I'm happy and proud to INCLUDE her in the service. Wanna guess who I respect more? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing wholsale change in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the code test. When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery slope. BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970. Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses _others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser. And regardless of how silly all of your other arguments are, such as your statement that you knew of no hams that lamented the loss of 11 meters, your claim that the difference between CB and Amateur Radio is the *code test*, is utterly absurd. The difference is having an *appropriate* *technical* *test* that pertains to what the Amateur Radio Service is today. In 1960 when I was first licensed a code test was most certainly a valid part of such an appropriate test, but it hasn't been now for 20 years at least. All you are is a narrow minded bigot that wants a play pen that elevates you to king of the sand box and keeps other who might challenge you out. I held a commercial telegraph license, and worked for a company that actually paid (other) people to operate CW, but the last commercial CW operation was *decades* ago now. And that is exactly when the code requirement for the Amateur Radio Service should have been removed. Now, why don't you just slide back under the 27 MHz rock that you slithered out from, dick. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote: How was I excluded from the ARS by the Morse code test? In the past, you were not excluded (code testing served a need). However, if code testing remains solely as a means to exclude "those people," others in the future will be. "Those people" include anyone you set out to exclude. You want stiffer written tests (or code testing) to exclude "dumbed down" people. I don't agree with that. Show me something that individual has done wrong and I'll support your efforts to get rid of that person. However, I'm not willing to exclude groups of people simply because some don't like them or a few in that group have done things some don't like. Many don't like CB'ers and want stiffer written exams (or code testing) to keep "those people" out. I don't agree with that. Again, if you want to throw someone out because that person has broken the rules, I'm all for that. However, I'm not willing to exclude someone from even getting into ham radio simply because they once owned a CB radio and we don't like what some did with those radios. No it's not to keep them out but to insure that they KNOW the rules and regulations and good operating practices when they do make the transition to ham radio. Given some of the questions that licensed hams have asked about the rules and regs that they should already know since they have passed the tests, I'm inclined to think that stiffer exams are necessary to insure that ham radio doesn't turn into a mess due to ignorance on the part of otherwise well intentioned new operators. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
First off, I don't think I've ever said "dumbed down". If you know I have, post the reference. You've agreed with Brian and 'dumbed down" were his words. I do not consider the Morse Code to be *any test of intelligence or desirability whatsoever. What I do consider it is a method of ensuring that the person actually wants to be in the service. It is a measure of inclusivity, not exclusivity. Kind of like learning to parallel park or do a three point turn. That ridiculous, Mike. Surely you must be joking. That premise is absurd at its very core. It's basically saying nearly half the Hams today, those without code skills, didn't actually want to be involved in Ham Radio - that all their money invested in radio equipment and efforts invested in activities were done because they didn't really want any of this. And that, in the end, only a code test will prove they actually did want it. If I didn't think you were serious, I'd be laughing at this point. (snip) We do already have indications of what the spectrum of behaviors are. Right now, those who favor less knowledge have the upper hand. Okay, now I'm laughing. Where are all those people who have the upper hand (the ones who favor less knowledge)? There must be many thousands of them if they have the upper hand. I've been involved with Ham Radio for a number of years now and I have yet to hear all those people advocating less knowledge about Ham Radio. I haven't seen any web sites stating that goal. I've never talked to a person on the radio who has stated that goal. If these people actually exist, they must be the most secret group in America. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote: (my comments here snipped) As you no doubt consider us cranks, eh? No, I don't consider you anything. However, I am a bit frustrated that my comments are being twisted to apply to arguments I never made. Throughout this discussion, my comments have focused solely on Brian's argument for stiffer written tests. Since then, my words have been twisted to apply to the current tests and to some potential future tests that don't even exist yet (and will very likely never exist). Likewise, code testing has been added to the discussion - a subject I've tried hard to avoid over the last two to three years and tried to minimize in this discussion. I'm not here to debate the code tests. Brian's idea of stiffer written exams don't exclude if it serves a purpose or need. However, if done solely to keep others out, it also does exclude. (snip) (snip) Again, once we start down the path of excluding others, when does it stop and who else do we exclude? Am I next in the list? Are you? (snip) And yet, somehow, some way, she learned Morse code, studied for and passed the General test, and is now on the air as an active ham. When I see the whining about exclusivity, and all the other complaining about how unfair the Morse code test, I often think of her. Then I think of the complainers and compare them, who think it is just too hard, and her, she who took the trouble to learn, even though she has not been blessed with the same gifts as most of us. She's a brother/sister ham, and I'm happy and proud to INCLUDE her in the service. Wanna guess who I respect more? See what I mean? I made a comment about "Brian's idea of stiffer written exams" and you responded with comments about code testing. Lets try to get pass this issue once and for all. I've never complained about the code tests being too hard, nor have I ever said they were unfair. I don't care about code testing. In my opinion, with the recent ITU changes, this issue will soon be dead anyway. Further, to clarify another issue, my comments about excluding people applied only to the idea of using license requirements solely in an effort to exclude - I didn't introduce that premise, those specifically advocating the exclusion of others did. If you're one of those people, and those are your ideals, I don't really care to know who you're proud of or respect. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
Floyd Davidson wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing wholsale change in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the code test. When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery slope. BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970. Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses _others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser. Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!! How's things up there north of the North pole, Gud Buddie??? Shootin' lots of skip on the upper side these days? Sure must be awful, having to slither through all that permafrost getting NO sleep in all the wall tyo wall daylight! Life's a bitch and then you die! Well gee DICK, no as a matter of fact I'm not much aware of CB and all the required vocabulary. You see, unlike you, I never did use CB. Now, tell me why anyone would want to pay any attention to what another CB'er like you has to say about the ARS? Hey hypocrite, shouldn't we cross post this to a CB group so you'll be at home? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote: Floyd Davidson wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing wholsale change in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the code test. When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery slope. BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970. Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses _others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser. Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!! One thing more, you flaming nincompoop- the ONLY reason I hang out here is to counter the misinformation dished out by phoney dingalings like you. For sure there are more fun ways to spend my retirement, but I will not allow the likes of you to by the only resource for the new and future hams reading here. They deserve better- MUCH better. You hang out here because you're a hypocrite. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote:
(snip) ALL licenses exclude those who don't meet the qualifications, and include those who do. Why else would they exist? There is a huge difference in requirements necessary to meet a certain goal or purpose and requirements designed to exclude those we doesn't like, Dick. I'm sure you know that. And I'm equally sure you know this discussion is about the latter. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message t.net...
On 1 Aug 2003 07:00:01 -0700, Brian Kelly wrote: Then they come up with notions like putting chunks of mind-bending intellectual and political expertise like Arnold to work on leading 'em out of the swamp . . Was Ronnie the Ray-Gun any better ?? Hey I kinda liked his Shiny Pebbles thingies . . Hey, was Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, the professional politician, Yale law school graduate, YALE? Well, there ya have it . . any better? BTW - Arnold declined to run. Supposedly his XYL put the nix on it because she doesn't want to be anywhere near the BS. |
Hey, Floyd!!! Wow, you got Dickie going!! LOL
Kim W5TIT "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Floyd Davidson wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: being made so easy? I'll say it again-the only thing preventing wholsale change in ham radio toward the exact same thing that happened to CB is the code test. When that's gone, ham radio is on a steeper part of the slippery slope. BTW I held CB callsign KIQ8934, c. 1970. Well ain't that just sweet. And you are the twit that accuses _others_ of coming from 27 MHz. You're little more than a flaming hypocrite of the first order. A CB retreated loser. Hey, it's Frozen Floyd!!! How's things up there north of the North pole, Gud Buddie??? Shootin' lots of skip on the upper side these days? Sure must be awful, having to slither through all that permafrost getting NO sleep in all the wall tyo wall daylight! Life's a bitch and then you die! Yep, Gud Buddie, I was there at the very beginning, even before the beginning, when 11 meters was a fullfledged ham band. But it sure wasn't used much and - like I said- I knew no ham who lamented it's reassignment, in fact most hams I knew thought it a neat idea. We liked radio and knew some ordianry folds who used CB would get to liking it too, and become hams, especially if us hams got on CB-with licnses, of course- and talked them into it. And that was the way it worked, for a time. Then the scabs came and ran out the normal folk.... An would you believe there's more? In the winter of 1958, as a student I and the gentleman I worked part time for *built* a pair of CB sets to use in his business. Yes, BUILT them, from an article in Popular Electronics. He (a ham also) ordered the parts and we put them together like kits. All very legal and above board at that time. There were NO commercial CB sets yet on the market. But hey, you missed all this! You weren't even licensed as a ham 'til 1960, and from your postings, you never were active enough to know what went on. even then. So I suppose we'll just have to POOF! blow you off like the rest of the lightweights. All talk and no walk, that's our snakey friend from the frozen north. Must be a real pain slithering you way across the frozen tundra. But carry on! You can do it! And regardless of how silly all of your other arguments are, such as your statement that you knew of no hams that lamented the loss of 11 meters, your claim that the difference between CB and Amateur Radio is the *code test*, is utterly absurd. The difference is having an *appropriate* *technical* *test* that pertains to what the Amateur Radio Service is today. So you think there's a technical test involved in ham radio licensing today? Really? Have you even seen a test lately? The question pools which not only give all the questions with their exact answers, till recently they even listed the answers in the same order in the pool that they appeared in the tests. Some technical test! No surprise that so many new hams today are not literate at all on the material ton which they were just tested. No one ever said the tests, especially the entry levels need be difficult nor cover that much technical material, but what we have today is simply a sham. And you should know it, but clearly do not. In 1960 when I was first licensed a code test was most certainly a valid part of such an appropriate test, but it hasn't been now for 20 years at least. Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. Yoiurs doesn't smell any better than that of anyone else. All you are is a narrow minded bigot that wants a play pen that elevates you to king of the sand box and keeps other who might challenge you out. Dare I note that you're an ignoramous of the first magnitude? Yes I dare, in fact I 'll state it unambiguously and most forcefully. It's rare that you'll ever encounte another ham who has been personally responsible for so many hams becoming licensed. of ALL classes, including many codeless techs. Not only did I do this willingly, I did it voluntarily and for the most part eagerly. On Tuesday night after our test session I always stayed up until all the paperwork was finalized and ready to drop into the post office first thing next morning on my way to work at 6. Need I say I never got more than a very few hours sleep on those workweek nights? Have you done any of that Frosty Floyd? So now you're working to get a "remote licensing" system for the Alaska outback. Wunnerful! That'll never be compromised, I'm sure! I held a commercial telegraph license, and worked for a company that actually paid (other) people to operate CW, but the last commercial CW operation was *decades* ago now. And that is exactly when the code requirement for the Amateur Radio Service should have been removed. Floyd, you really need to move down to the lower 48 where you can try to stay in contact with realty. The US Coast Guard dropped the Maritime 500khz wartch four years ago. There is still commercial CW in many places in the world, not that it matters to us hams. If you really think that CW in ham radio is dead, well you should try turning on a HF receiver at once in your lifetime and tune it down to the lowe end of any HF band, assuming you can find one. Surprise, surprise! Now, why don't you just slide back under the 27 MHz rock that you slithered out from, dick. Well Frosty, I was there and watched the rock form. Get back to us when you learn something. --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
... Further, to clarify another issue, my comments about excluding people applied only to the idea of using license requirements solely in an effort to exclude - I didn't introduce that premise, those specifically advocating the exclusion of others did. If you're one of those people, and those are your ideals, I don't really care to know who you're proud of or respect. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ HOOWAHH, Dwight. Yessirreee, that is *exactly* on target! Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com