|
On 02 Aug 2003 12:27:09 GMT, N2EY wrote:
I just mentioned Godwin's Law. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Mike Godwin, with whom I met and debated in several seminars on Computer Freedom and Privacy in the 90s, tossed out "Godwin's Law" in a moment of sarcasm..... Is it now "holy writ" ?? ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
|
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: And your notes of Carl's history with ham radio seem at most, perfuntory. They have nothing to do with the fact that Carl posted his comments to this thread. Unless you believe that Carl must be exactly equal with you before you consider any importance to his comments. As you are, so is Carl in my age group. Carl sat on a Tech ticket for 2 1/2 decades until the requirements were lowered. So? Carl crowed about the large numbers of highly technical people being kept out of ham radio by "high speed" morse tests. Extra Class Carl spends his time chasing DX on HF SSB with a commercial rig. Carl is as cranky as anyone here. He's just cranky with a view opposite mine. I offer his sermon as proof. You mounted your view on the allegation that Carl has not been licensed in the same manner as you ( your whining about his being a Tech for so long and his alledged comments about CW). Does one have to be in ham radio exactly as long as you, be as old as you, have been on HF SSB and CW as much as you, before you think they're "worthy?" Why no, Kim. Then again, I didn't write anything like that. Perhaps you just had a feeling... Then, why the opening remarks then and now, with this post, about how long Carl was a Tech and his alledged comments on CW? Why enter that into your remarks at all, Dave, if not to cast attention to that? If you are casting attention to that, then why? Perhaps you like your terms, better. It's always interesting to note how you quickly change to name-calling ("Squiggy", "Big Mouth Carl") when you see things you don't like. Did you bother to read what Carl wrote about me? And, I think many times here you have poked at me for defending something I've said because of what or how someone else said it. Which makes you a hypocrite for now defending your actions because of the actions of someone else. Is this another chapter in your book? No chapter in my book is devoted to Carl. If you'd like a copy, I can sell you one at a pre-publication discount. I've read the book, seen the movie. Both were unworthy of my partaking in your offer. Go to your library and get a book on communication--somewhere in there you'll see part where it says that resorting to name-calling doesn't provide substantiation nor clarification for thoughts, only provides that the person has nothing more important to do but resort to infantile pouting. Thanks for saving me the trouble of going to the library. I'll attempt to filter out your additions and paraphrasing. Glad to see you got my point, no matter how you may resent it. The requirements have been adjusted (lowered if you like) to accommodate current trends and shift focus from older technology to newer. "Adjusted" is so cute and newspeak. We're still using the older technology in question, you might recall. Then, changed if you like that better. Dave, the "requirements" for living have changed since the pioneer days. Things change constantly, if they intend to keep up. The requirements for ham radio have changed here in the United States and now, indeed, the world. What about that is so difficult for you to grasp. I note your folding my remarks up into your neat little package of, "if one does argues against CW testing in any way, they must certainly be against the use of CW." Use your claimed intelligence. Find a damned post where I have ever said anything against its use. I am only and simply against it being a testing element. The standards have not been lowered at all. So the requirements have been lowered but the standards haven't? No, Dave. We all still have to abide by the same R&R as we always have. Those standards have not been lowered at all. What standards do you do ham radio by? You cannot be using your book for that, because someone else definitely supercedes you on that. Dave Heil said: There have always been newcomers in amateur radio. Old timers always die and newcomers always arrive. Newcomers may be the future (a great many newcomers have gray hair) but we're the present, not the past. The future has not yet arrived. Even you don't know what the future holds, as much as you'd like to see yourself as a visionary. In your stumbling around, above, your forgot to leave a point. Not at all, Kim. You just neglected to digest it. Most new hams aren't new people. They aren't young. Many are quite old. A great many "old timers" have decades left in them. They aren't going away. They are not only the past, but the present of amateur radio. I think you just stumbled again. There's a difference between encouraging only those with whom you agree, and encouraging *everyone*. When you say that "standards" have been lowered, you send a message you may not be meaning to send. I wrote that standards were lowered because that is, in fact what took place (again). I did not place blame on newcomers. They didn't lower the standard. I did not place a qualifier on the welcoming of newcomers. Do you ever read the words I've written before replying to them? I don't think the standards have been lowered at all. Your attempt to defend the "lowered standards" statement has fallen on deaf ears IMHO. Your messages come across as attempts to insult, berate, and demean, Dave. Good. I intended to insult, berate and demean Carl. I wrote no such thing about newcomers. You didn't read what I wrote or you could not have come to such a conclusion. You are very political in your approach with people here. No kidding. Clue us in as to what you do here. I have agreed with and offended both sides of the fence here, Dave, and in my life. I don't let politics of something determine how I will be affected by them. If someone does not act and think just as you, you assert superiority. What are you attempting to achieve in writing the sentence above? Are you attempting to assert superiority? No, and sorry you took it that way. I am pointing out to you how others perceive your nature. And, no, it's not just me. You are quite dislikable, whether you realize it or not. I'm sure that it appears that way to someone like you, Kim. In your view, Carl can tell others to engage in reflection and tell them to change their ways. If similar words are directed to Carl, you find the person "dislikable". Go hug a tree, Kim. Take a whale to lunch. And you do seem to approach life from the comfort zone... ...whatever that means. Dave K8MN I think you know what it means, Dave. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... Brian wrote: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... You are quite dislikable, whether you realize it or not. And you do seem to approach life from the comfort zone... Kim W5TIT Probably from a lifetime of work and play in a radio shack. He needs to get out more often. I get out very well on any number of bands. Dave K8MN Ham radio is a pretend zone of life, Dave. They all pretend to be friendly, gregarious individuals. Most hams I've met in real life? I won't mention... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... The fact is there for all to see- the code test has for years been the ONLY factor hindering those very induhvidiuals from HF ham radio access en masse. With the code test gone, here they come! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (sayeth Dick ...) Nope. Sayeth Kandid Karl. I'm just describing the facts. That's my point ... every change in the history of ham radio has had folks like Dick ranting and raving that "This will be the end of ham radio!" Oh *that* won't end ham radio, just make it unrecognizable. Maybe to the point where FCC or other authority would strongly consider action to seriously curtail the service.When enough hams cease to behave well enough you can be sure closer scrutiny will result. The enforcement problems today represent a quite small percentage of hams, but it won't take much of a raise in that percentage for the ship to go aground. Believe it, it didn't originate with me. If you've missed authorities remarks to that effect, shame on you. Dick, you ASSume that a large percentage of new hams will "behave badly," solely on the basis that Morse testing will no longer be required. As I said before, if the (unlicensed) law-breakers aroung 27 MHz really WANTED to be amongst us, they'd be here now ... lack of a license doesn't stop them at 27 MHz ... why would it stop them here? The problem I have with you is that your views and rhetoric are so steeped in disdain for anyone who doesn't share your views WRT keeping code testing that you are out of touch with reality. The "hordes of CBers" argument doesn't hold water ... if they're "freebanding" (illegally and without licenses) around 27 MHz, why would any rational person think the lack of a license would keep them from the ham bands TODAY (if they wanted to be here) ... You really uninformed, aren't you? Yyou been too busy rachetjawing on 20 meter SSB to notice what's going on on 10 meters? Read the latest enforcement logs. That's where they talk to* each other*. They don't need to, they have all that mostly uninhabited spectrum between CB and 28 mhz but instead they land in the 10 meter band by CHOICE. Wonder why they do that? Couldn't be for the very reason I've stated-that they just want to cause trouble for, and thumb their noses at hams, could it? Why shouldn't they get easy ham radio licenses and REALLY do it right? We're talking about some truckers looking for a clear, "private" channel ... Since a lot of 10m is essentially an unoccupied wasteland (and I do operate on 10m ...), with virtually all the activity concentrated in the 28.3-28.5 segment (except for the minority of folks who deliberately want to shun the Tech+ and Novice ops), wouldn't it be better to OCCUPY that spectrum by allowing Novice/Tech/Tech+ access there? (remember the "use it of lose it" saying ...) It's not surprising you missed out on the reported cases where numbers of those very people have been overheard discussing what they intend to do after they get their no-code licenses and get on HF. If a few are heard making such plans, you can be sure many plan it that don't talk about it overtly. While this anecdotal "evidence" has not been documented/proved AFAIK, you can also be pretty sure that, if such conversations HAVE actually taken place, there's a big "hot air" factor ... look at how such folks bluster and posture here (and I expect also in the CB groups ... though I don't monitor those ...) The doom and gloom, end of the world scenario that Dick keeps trying to peddle smells of sour grapes ... You can sanitize it any way you want, but the situation smells and it isn't going away with the end of code testing, to the contrary, It'll only get worse. Forever the "Things are going to change somewhat and that will be the end of civilization." FUD ... Sorry Dick, it just doesn't hold water, based on all of the historical evidence of the same sort of dire predictions in every case of change in the past, and the fact that NONE of them panned out. Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it ... Carl - wk3c |
On 02 Aug 2003 23:46:47 -0800, Floyd Davidson wrote:
Mike Godwin, with whom I met and debated in several seminars on Computer Freedom and Privacy in the 90s, tossed out "Godwin's Law" in a moment of sarcasm..... It was not sarcasm. It was a very *intentional* experiment in social engineering on the net, and it was clearly very successful too! Knowing Mike, it had to have a lot of "let's see who salutes it" irony in it. He's a neat guy - we once debated the perceived role of the FCC in content regulation while we were in the men's room during a session break (I was still with the agency at the time)..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: The continued existence of a CW test does actually threaten the future of the hobby, i.e. it is a 'deal killer' for recruitment. WHOA, hold on a second, there! Folks, here's a claim that the code test must go because it allegedly holds back growth in the ARS. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done, as it has been allowed to persist long past it's 'sell by' date. Sounds like you're hedging your bets, Alun. Sure, 5 wpm is easy (higher speeds were not, but that's moot now). However, the CW test manages to be too slow to impart any genuinely useful level of CW ability, whilst at the same time putting off prospective hams. In other words, it's more counter-productive than useful. Sure. there is a lot of CW use by hams on HF, but there are precious few prospective hams who want to use it. How do you know they don't want to use it? At the past several Field Days, the CW ops generated the most interest. Put in all the written questions you like on CW, though, as that won't cause the same kind of problem. I think it's true that those who want to keep a code test would likely have wanted to keep spark if they had been around back then. Different thing entirely. Spark for hams wasn't outlawed in the USA until 1927 - long after hams had stopped using it. By choice. If they really could stop the wheel of progress, the hobby likely would die with their generation, but luckily that won't happen. Do you want code USE by hams to continue or not, Alun? Keeping out all those who aren't interested in CW may keep a few 'breakers' out, but it keeps out most people, period. That may suit a few people here, but it isn't the way forward. Ultimately, keeping the code test would do far more to destroy the hobby than letting in a few CBers (and I do mean a few, as most of them are not smart enough to pass the written tests). If we keep a code test, the hobby will fail for lack of interest. Luckily, I don't expect that to happen. OK, let's look at some facts: - Growth in the ARS in the USA from 1980 to 1990 (when there were no waivers and all hams had to pass at least 5 wpm) was almost exactly the same as from 1990 to 2000 (when both waivers and codetestless licenses were available) - Overall, the ARS in the USA has kept on growing for the past 35 years. In fact, since the end of WW1, the only periods of non-growth were WW2 and most of the 1960s. And now a challenge to all this stuff about disincentives. Soon the code test will probably be gone. There will probably be a surge of new licenses and upgrades, then back to growth rates near to what they were before. If we don't see more long-term growth without code tests, will you admit you were wrong and help get code tests reinstated? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... We're talking about some truckers looking for a clear, "private" channel .... And it is aggravated by the fact that you can find 10m ham radios in truck stops next to the CBs. Although labeled as requiring a license, that is totally ignored. Since a lot of 10m is essentially an unoccupied wasteland (and I do operate on 10m ...), with virtually all the activity concentrated in the 28.3-28.5 segment (except for the minority of folks who deliberately want to shun the Tech+ and Novice ops), wouldn't it be better to OCCUPY that spectrum by allowing Novice/Tech/Tech+ access there? (remember the "use it of lose it" saying ...) The 10-10 club was formed to help keep the 10 meter band active. Unfortunately, the propagation is so dependent on the sunspot cycle that for 2/3s of the cycle (roughly 7 years out of every 11) that the 10 meter band is generally only good for local communications except for occasional openings caused by sporadic E. No matter how many people we allow on 10 meters, there's going to be a lot of dead air except during the peaks of the sunspot cycle. Just check the beacon stations and you'll realize that for yourself. For whatever reason, I have found that not many Novice/Tech+/Tech with HF privileges are taking advantage of 10 meters. If all those licensed for it used it, I'd certainly be hearing something as I'm in a major metropolitan area. Yet it's quiet. I suspect that those interested in HF have already upgraded to General and the rest aren't on the air because they fall in the class of inactive hams. Inactivity of existing hams is more of a problem than any test requirements, etc. If every US ham already licensed for HF made one QSO per day, it would be wall to wall signals. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com