|
NCVEC Position on Code
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... If/when the FCC totally eliminates code testing it will have made the second biggest mistake of its tenure of regulating amateur radio. The first was the introduction of a Citizens Band on frequencies where propagation causes RF to travel long distances. Anyone who believes otherwise will, in time, learn the truth. Dick Hey Dick........ Were you perchance a Ham-Op in the 80's and early 90's when the infamous "14.313 Booer Wars" between KV4FZ's "anti-phone patch" factions and the opposing Maritime Mobile Net's faction were in full swing..? It was QUITE a time! Just about any week night and all weekend long you could tune to either 14.300 or 14.313 and hear any variety of catcalls, music, snide comments, foul language, noisemakers, the infamous "dirty black box" and anything else in-between. (the way it worked was if the MM Net was on .313 then the nuts were on .300 and visa-versa) This went on for close to 12 Years that I was aware of. It became known as the Ham Radio Comedy Channel and before it ended it drew in just about every kook from 75 Meters. Guess what Dick...? It turned out that 90% of the WORST on the air offenders and un-ID'ed stations turned out to be Hams with Advanced and Extra Class Licensees, most of of which had held that ticket for 10 or more years duration and more importantly, at that time one needed to pass a 13 and 20 WPM code test respectively to obtain in the first place! (...unless of course, you bribed the VEC for your code-credit which was occuring in parts of the Southeastern USA at the time) So Dick, please remember that keeping Code WILL NOT keep the fruitcakes out of the hobby, nor will it bring more stations into the same. The fruitcakes are already here, and for the most part, the general public does not know ham radio from a wris****ch nor would they as the "radio craze" of the late-70's CB Era ended a VERY long time ago. Besides, if they (the public) want "radio communications" they are going to go to WalMart and purchase a pair of blister-packed FRS Radios for $39.95 from off the pegboard in Asile #7. (...and if you went to WalMart back in April or May, you could have snagged a pair of full-channel Motorola FRS Radios for $26.68 as I did when they were on sale) I've been in ham radio since the late 60's and supported the ending of code in the 80's when it would have done some good. Forget it doing ANY good now of course as today's youth are more interested in the Internet than in ham radio. If they want "radio" there's FRS. Buy em, put in 3 type AA Cells and your talkin with FRS. Sorry but that's the truth. Still, it's ****Un-be-freaking-lievable**** that the same ages-old debate of if to keep stupid damm old code or not is still going on. Then again, ham radio has been in an arrested state of development for Years. Looks like ole Wayne Green was right ALL ALONG. ..... .. : ) : ) : ) |
In article , "Chic N Pox"
writes: Were you perchance a Ham-Op in the 80's and early 90's when the infamous "14.313 Booer Wars" between KV4FZ's "anti-phone patch" factions and the opposing Maritime Mobile Net's faction were in full swing..? It was QUITE a time! Just about any week night and all weekend long you could tune to either 14.300 or 14.313 and hear any variety of catcalls, music, snide comments, foul language, noisemakers, the infamous "dirty black box" and anything else in-between. (the way it worked was if the MM Net was on .313 then the nuts were on .300 and visa-versa) This went on for close to 12 Years that I was aware of. It became known as the Ham Radio Comedy Channel and before it ended it drew in just about every kook from 75 Meters. Yup = a real black eye for amateur radio. Guess what Dick...? It turned out that 90% of the WORST on the air offenders and un-ID'ed stations turned out to be Hams with Advanced and Extra Class Licensees, most of of which had held that ticket for 10 or more years duration and more importantly, at that time one needed to pass a 13 and 20 WPM code test respectively to obtain in the first place! (...unless of course, you bribed the VEC for your code-credit which was occuring in parts of the Southeastern USA at the time) So Dick, please remember that keeping Code WILL NOT keep the fruitcakes out of the hobby, nor will it bring more stations into the same. It won't keep 'em all out, that's for sure. All of those violators also passed several written tests which included FCC rules 'n' regs. Those written tests didn't stop 'em though. Shall we dump the writtens 'cause they're not a perfect filter? All that "variety of catcalls, music, snide comments, foul language, noisemakers, the infamous "dirty black box" and anything else in-between" - what mode were those folks using? It sure wasn't CW/Morse. Maybe it's not the code TEST but the code USE which is the filter. 73 de Jim, N2EY. |
|
On 31 Jul 2003 17:37:02 -0700, Brian wrote:
I said it before the last restructuring and I guess its necessary that I say it again, "What I fear most about restructuring the ARS is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the Status Quo is a lack of enforcement. The Morse Exam is no substitute for enforcement." For once we agree. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Phil Kane wrote: On 31 Jul 2003 17:37:02 -0700, Brian wrote: I said it before the last restructuring and I guess its necessary that I say it again, "What I fear most about restructuring the ARS is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the Status Quo is a lack of enforcement. The Morse Exam is no substitute for enforcement." For once we agree. Not me. Not at all . You know as well as anyone, better than most, that almost the only "enforcement" we've had on the ARS for many years prior to Riley's appointment WAS the code test. Now, a 'difficult' (for that type of individual) test which discourages, yea, FILTERS him from active, open participation is a poor excuse for monitor vans and well trained and equipped crews. But it's what we had. Now we have Riley and a 5wpm code test. Soon only Riley. When he goes, I for one believe the ARS will follow his exit, not far behind. By that time there will be far more than adequate evidence that the ARS is no longer a viable self- policing entity, staffed with conscientious people willing and able to conduct themselves in a manner commensurate with the priveleges granted, most of which will shortly be summarily withdrawn. Dick, these thoughts have been buzzing around the drafty recesses of my head: "I don't have time to learn Morse code....." "I'm never going to use Morse code, I'm not going to learn it....." "I think band plans are stupid, it's an obsolete idea for an obsolete mode. They really aren't law anyhow...." "There are a lot more people running SSB, why shouldn't they have the bandwidth......" "I don't feel like self policing, that's just interfereing with my RIGHTS. Besides, there isn't enough enforcement personnel to catch me....." At that point it is a dire situation indeed! And it's already all been heard in this group. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , "Chic N Pox" writes: So Dick, please remember that keeping Code WILL NOT keep the fruitcakes out of the hobby, nor will it bring more stations into the same. It won't keep 'em all out, that's for sure. So its much more important to keep out some or a lot of ordinary law abiding citizens who otherwise could be enjoying the ARS? You never did get it, did you? YOU never did get it. No one has any intent to keep anyone out who wants to follow the rules and refrain from becoming a problem. But keeping out people was the net effect of your code exam. You never could see that a code test never kept otu anyone who wanted in,. just a few who were too mildly interested to bother. Like you. I got in with a code exam. I said it before the last restructuring and I guess its necessary that I say it again, "What I fear most about restructuring the ARS is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the Status Quo is a lack of enforcement. The Morse Exam is no substitute for enforcement." That's all you know about it. It is true. For years the code test was the ONLY factor that restricted troublemakers from freely roaming the ham bands, FCC having been relegated by lack of funding to more or less toothless-watchdog status. Of course that doesn't nean a thing to you, but what that shows id your lack of perception. It shows that someone wasn't doing their job. So when a few thousand refugees from way up there descend onto the HF bands -as some have very recently indicated their intent right here on rrap- and lonely Riley is left to sweep up,. just how much enforcement you think there'll be? But press on- it's "kill the code" even if it kills us. Dick, coded people can be idiots, too. Have you heard Kelly challenge other to "Meet me on HF, any band, any mode, any time..." Was that so he could sweet talk them? |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
I just don't believe the public OR the government would tolerate CB on the same level as ham radio has long existed. And that's exactly where it's headed, and has been for too many years. Thats kind of nonsense wording, but I gather that the Code Exam "as a barrier to idiots" doesn't work? |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... Brian wrote: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , "Chic N Pox" writes: So Dick, please remember that keeping Code WILL NOT keep the fruitcakes out of the hobby, nor will it bring more stations into the same. It won't keep 'em all out, that's for sure. So its much more important to keep out some or a lot of ordinary law abiding citizens who otherwise could be enjoying the ARS? You never did get it, did you? YOU never did get it. No one has any intent to keep anyone out who wants to follow the rules and refrain from becoming a problem. You never could see that a code test never kept otu anyone who wanted in,. just a few who were too mildly interested to bother. Like you. I said it before the last restructuring and I guess its necessary that I say it again, "What I fear most about restructuring the ARS is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the Status Quo is a lack of enforcement. The Morse Exam is no substitute for enforcement." That's all you know about it. For years the code test was the ONLY factor that restricted troublemakers from freely roaming the ham bands, FCC having been relegated by lack of funding to more or less toothless-watchdog status. Of course that doesn't nean a thing to you, but what that shows id your lack of perception. So when a few thousand refugees from way up there descend onto the HF bands -as some have very recently indicated their intent right here on rrap- and lonely Riley is left to sweep up,. just how much enforcement you think there'll be? But press on- it's "kill the code" even if it kills us. I remember a long time ago in this newsgroup, accusing some of using the CW test as a filtering tool. I was nearly lambasted to Timbuktu. Now, it's popular and OK to just make the declaration! If CW is used as a "filter" to keep anyone of the ARS; then it's plain wrong. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
I remember a long time ago in this newsgroup, accusing some of using the CW test as a filtering tool. I was nearly lambasted to Timbuktu. Ouch, that sounds painful! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 06:35:08 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: I remember a long time ago in this newsgroup, accusing some of using the CW test as a filtering tool. I was nearly lambasted to Timbuktu. Too bad you fell short, I need Timbuktu. :-) Now, it's popular and OK to just make the declaration! Popular? Perhaps, in some circles. Popularity doesn't prove correctness, though. I'd point out that Hitler was pretty popular in Germany once upon a time, but N2EY might call up the Godwin's Law police and have them lock me up, so how about...burning witches at the stake used to be pretty popular once upon a time. If CW is used as a "filter" to keep anyone of the ARS; then it's plain wrong. Doesn't keep anybody out of the ARS anyway. Just keeps them from getting a license that grants HF privileges, forcing them to either find a control operator who's passed a code test, or work VHF/UHF. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... I just don't believe the public OR the government would tolerate CB on the same level as ham radio has long existed. And that's exactly where it's headed, and has been for too many years. Thats kind of nonsense wording, but I gather that the Code Exam "as a barrier to idiots" doesn't work? It's certainly no surprise that you'd view it that way . I didn't. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
I remember a long time ago in this newsgroup, accusing some of using the CW test as a filtering tool. I was nearly lambasted to Timbuktu. Now, it's popular and OK to just make the declaration! If CW is used as a "filter" to keep anyone of the ARS; then it's plain wrong. Kim W5TIT Aaron Jones was keeping the "Morse Myths" list. That one was probably in the top ten. |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: I'd point out that Hitler was pretty popular in Germany once upon a time, but N2EY might call up the Godwin's Law police and have them lock me up, so how about...burning witches at the stake used to be pretty popular once upon a time. I just mentioned Godwin's Law. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. If CW is used as a "filter" to keep anyone of the ARS; then it's plain wrong. Doesn't keep anybody out of the ARS anyway. Just keeps them from getting a license that grants HF privileges, forcing them to either find a control operator who's passed a code test, or work VHF/UHF. Or they can just pass the test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
. You know as well as anyone, better than most, that almost the only "enforcement" we've had on the ARS for many years prior to Riley's appointment WAS the code test. Now, a 'difficult' (for that type of individual) test which discourages, yea, FILTERS him from active, open participation is a poor excuse for monitor vans and well trained and equipped crews. But it's what we had. Now we have Riley and a 5wpm code test. Soon only Riley. When he goes, I for one believe the ARS will follow his exit, not far behind. By that time there will be far more than adequate evidence that the ARS is no longer a viable self- policing entity, staffed with conscientious people willing and able to conduct themselves in a manner commensurate with the priveleges granted, most of which will shortly be summarily withdrawn. Dick, EVERY time there has been change of any real sort in ham radio, there have been cranky olde fartz like you preaching "end of the world" doom and gloom ... and every time it has not come to pass ... Witness: conversion from spark to CW; conversion from AM to SSB; introduction of packet radio and other "new-fangled @^#%$ computer thingies"; the introduction of the no-code Tech license; restructuring 3 years ago; and many others I'm sure I've omitted. The point is, the world (and ham radio) is NOT going to end ... despite your rants that it is. Actually, on the contrary, if these changes hadn't happened and we were still stuck in the spark era (i.e., if cranky olde fartz like you had stopped the progress of ham radio over the years), we WOULD be in danger. If you want to see what presents the biggest danger to the future of ham radio LOOK IN THE MIRROR ... the enemy you fear is yourself, with your backward thinking, unwillingness to accept progress, and lack of tolerance for newcomers (unless, of course, they've suffered through the same fraternity hazing rituals that you had to endure, lo those many years ago and think in exactly the backward, narrowminded ways that you do). When you're done looking in the mirror, you can look a your cronies, Larry, Dave Heil, and the whole list of like-thinkers... they are also part of the enemy you fear ... for they think and act essentially the same way as you do. THERE is where the REAL danger to the future of ham radio lies ... in people who are so married to/stuck in its past that they despise any thought of change, progress, and the newcomers that it will bring (unless the newcomers are acceptable "clones" cast in your own image). However, those newcomers are the future of ham radio ... for us older guys will surely die, and if there aren't younger folks to replace us ham radio will die with us. It's up to us to WELCOME and ENCOURAGE them ... their ways will not be the ways of the past ... things change and nobody can freeze time. But insulting, berating, demeaning them, and trying to keep them out is not the way ... Think about these things long and hard before you look yourself in the mirror again ... without some reflection, reconsideration, and change in your ways, you may not like what you see ... the enemy that is YOU. (Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay stuck in the first part ...) Carl - wk3c |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes: I'd point out that Hitler was pretty popular in Germany once upon a time, but N2EY might call up the Godwin's Law police and have them lock me up, so how about...burning witches at the stake used to be pretty popular once upon a time. I just mentioned Godwin's Law. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. NO one expects the Spanish Inquisition! If CW is used as a "filter" to keep anyone of the ARS; then it's plain wrong. Doesn't keep anybody out of the ARS anyway. Just keeps them from getting a license that grants HF privileges, forcing them to either find a control operator who's passed a code test, or work VHF/UHF. Or they can just pass the test. Too hard, too hard! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
Dick Carroll; wrote: . You know as well as anyone, better than most, that almost the only "enforcement" we've had on the ARS for many years prior to Riley's appointment WAS the code test. Now, a 'difficult' (for that type of individual) test which discourages, yea, FILTERS him from active, open participation is a poor excuse for monitor vans and well trained and equipped crews. But it's what we had. Now we have Riley and a 5wpm code test. Soon only Riley. When he goes, I for one believe the ARS will follow his exit, not far behind. By that time there will be far more than adequate evidence that the ARS is no longer a viable self- policing entity, staffed with conscientious people willing and able to conduct themselves in a manner commensurate with the priveleges granted, most of which will shortly be summarily withdrawn. Dick, EVERY time there has been change of any real sort in ham radio, there have been cranky olde fartz like you preaching "end of the world" doom and gloom ... and every time it has not come to pass ... Witness: conversion from spark to CW; conversion from AM to SSB; introduction of packet radio and other "new-fangled @^#%$ computer thingies"; the introduction of the no-code Tech license; restructuring 3 years ago; and many others I'm sure I've omitted. The conversion of Saint Carl? The point is, the world (and ham radio) is NOT going to end ... despite your rants that it is. Actually, on the contrary, if these changes hadn't happened and we were still stuck in the spark era (i.e., if cranky olde fartz like you had stopped the progress of ham radio over the years), we WOULD be in danger. You aren't much younger than I am, Carl. You just haven't been involved in amateur radio as long. Further, you remained a tech for a couple of decades until the morse testing speed was dropped. Since that time, you've become an HF SSB op. This latest rant shows you to be as cranky as anyone else here. If you want to see what presents the biggest danger to the future of ham radio LOOK IN THE MIRROR ... the enemy you fear is yourself, with your backward thinking, unwillingness to accept progress, and lack of tolerance for newcomers (unless, of course, they've suffered through the same fraternity hazing rituals that you had to endure, lo those many years ago and think in exactly the backward, narrowminded ways that you do). When you're done looking in the mirror, you can look a your cronies, Larry, Dave Heil, and the whole list of like-thinkers... they are also part of the enemy you fear ... for they think and act essentially the same way as you do. I note that you've reverted to your original "Big Mouth Carl" persona, Squiggy. The leopard does not change his spots, even if they fade and his coat begins to look a little worn and thin in places. Your tirade includes some tired and quite familiar terms like "fraternity hazing rituals", "suffered" and "endure", "backward" and "narrowminded". THERE is where the REAL danger to the future of ham radio lies ... in people who are so married to/stuck in its past that they despise any thought of change, progress, and the newcomers that it will bring (unless the newcomers are acceptable "clones" cast in your own image). I submit that you don't really know where the "REAL" danger to the future of ham radio lies. Simply lowering requirements and standards is not "progress" in anyone's book. Newcomers have always been welcomed if they're good ops. A lid is a lid and we already have enough of them. However, those newcomers are the future of ham radio ... for us older guys will surely die, and if there aren't younger folks to replace us ham radio will die with us. 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. It's up to us to WELCOME and ENCOURAGE them ... their ways will not be the ways of the past ... things change and nobody can freeze time. I welcome and encourage them. Some of them will become good ops. Some won't. But insulting, berating, demeaning them, and trying to keep them out is not the way ... I'm not insulting, berating or demeaning them. I might insult, berate and demean you but not them. Newcomers aren't required to take responsibility for you. Think about these things long and hard before you look yourself in the mirror again ... without some reflection, reconsideration, and change in your ways, you may not like what you see ... the enemy that is YOU. I'll take your sermon to heart about the time you begin telling us of your own soul searching, reflection and reconsideration of opinions which are unlike your own. Let us know if you like what you see. (Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay stuck in the first part ...) Quit rattling your chains and moaning. Dave K8MN |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... If you're really that stupid you're to be pityed on the level of one who is mentally handicapped.In facxt it seems your hatred for morse code has caused you some serious REAL mental difficulties, or you surely wouldn't go off on such idiotic rants. Ditto for your zeal for it, Dick. Kim W5TIT |
We have met the enemy and they are us -- From "Pogo" by Walt Kelly --
1960's "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Think about these things long and hard before you look yourself in the mirror again ... without some reflection, reconsideration, and change in your ways, you may not like what you see ... the enemy that is YOU. (Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay stuck in the first part ...) Carl - wk3c |
"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. Brian |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Well there goes Kandid Karl on his modernize-or-die rant, build 36. VS DICK on his Stagnate-or-Die rant, ver 1.0 (i.e., never changing)? What was the last regulatory change to the ARS did you promote? |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message m... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... I remember a long time ago in this newsgroup, accusing some of using the CW test as a filtering tool. I was nearly lambasted to Timbuktu. Now, it's popular and OK to just make the declaration! If CW is used as a "filter" to keep anyone of the ARS; then it's plain wrong. Kim W5TIT Aaron Jones was keeping the "Morse Myths" list. That one was probably in the top ten. I wouldn't give the character "Aaron Jones" an ounce or less of credibility... Kim W5TIT Because he was anonymous? He/she was probably an FCC or high-up ARRL figure just trying to keep his job separate from personal opinion. If that is possible, which Phil Kane has shown cannot. Too many anecdotal stories of how one ham in the FCC can cause havok for the entire ARS. |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote
EVERY time there has been change of any real sort in ham radio, there have been cranky olde fartz like you preaching "end of the world" doom and gloom ... and every time it has not come to pass ... Carl, With all due respect, the above and similar jeremiads from you, Dick, (and whoever) qualify as finalists in the rrap IPOTD (Irrelevant Post Of The Decade) competition. Look, you have a valid FCC license. Dick has a valid FCC license. I have a valid FCC license. That makes us all members of a group comprising about one quarter of one per cent of the U.S. population. We have strong common interests as a result of that shared status. Let's focus on that. The whole argument about Morse code reminds me of sail-boaters and power-boaters arguing among themselves about which technology is "most efficient", or "gets through rough water", or whatever, while in the meantime a commercial interest is petitioning to drain the water out of our lake and converting the whole damned place to an industrial park. Friends, our "lake" of spectrum is in danger of being drained away -- spend your energy and intellect trying to solve that problem which MEANS SOMETHING to everyone of us, instead of arguing over the merits/demerits of Morse testing. Without spectrum, there is no Amateur Radio. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- The dust will not settle in our time. And when it does some great roaring machine will come and whirl it all skyhigh again. |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Think about these things long and hard before you look yourself in the mirror again ... without some reflection, reconsideration, and change in your ways, you may not like what you see ... the enemy that is YOU. (Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay stuck in the first part ...) "Changes" like SS on 20 and cw contest "simulators"? If you and those like you are the future of the ARS, it's bleak indeed. Ah poo, it's another slow weekend in Allentown, lotta slow weekends in Allentown, the bands are munged up so he tossed out another goofy troll. Hey Carl, got yer towers up yet? Thought not. Why don't you go do something actually useful? |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Brian wrote: And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick, Larry, Dan, Bruce... Citations please, to use your favorite phrase. NOWHERE has any of the above said any such thing and you know it... no, actually you probably don't. You don't seem to know much of anything. Now you're lying. So you can prove it, right? Get it on! DICK, you remember what you said, or don't you? |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
et: Wow Carl, All that below to equate those who support the retention of Element 1 with "the enemy." I repeat, are you sure we're talking about the 5-wpm exam? Sure doesn't sound like it. The continued existence of a CW test does actually threaten the future of the hobby, i.e. it is a 'deal killer' for recruitment. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done, as it has been allowed to persist long past it's 'sell by' date. 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. 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. If they really could stop the wheel of progress, the hobby likely would die with their generation, but luckily that won't happen. 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. |
"Brian" wrote in message om... "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Brian wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Brian wrote: And we've already heard from the Extra's how if they don't get their way they are going to destroy the amateur radio service. Dick, Larry, Dan, Bruce... Citations please, to use your favorite phrase. NOWHERE has any of the above said any such thing and you know it... no, actually you probably don't. You don't seem to know much of anything. Now you're lying. So you can prove it, right? Get it on! DICK, you remember what you said, or don't you? Brian is a liar, a bs artist, and just a general troublemaker. No one said a thing about destroying the ARS. I for one said I would fight against those THAT WANT TO DESTROY THE ARS. Which obviously includes Brian the braindead. Dan/W4NTI |
"Brian" wrote in message
om... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... I wouldn't give the character "Aaron Jones" an ounce or less of credibility... Kim W5TIT Because he was anonymous? He/she was probably an FCC or high-up ARRL figure just trying to keep his job separate from personal opinion. If that is possible, which Phil Kane has shown cannot. Too many anecdotal stories of how one ham in the FCC can cause havok for the entire ARS. Oh, heck no. I don't really care about anonymity in the newsgroup. No, I just didn't like him and got a few emails about his character that didn't sound so up and up (his character, not the emails...LOL) Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... PRICK, so you CAN'T prove it becasuse it never happened! Uh, the signature should come *after* the post has ended, not at the beginning... :o Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: The point is, the world (and ham radio) is NOT going to end ... despite your rants that it is. Actually, on the contrary, if these changes hadn't happened and we were still stuck in the spark era (i.e., if cranky olde fartz like you had stopped the progress of ham radio over the years), we WOULD be in danger. You aren't much younger than I am, Carl. You just haven't been involved in amateur radio as long. Further, you remained a tech for a couple of decades until the morse testing speed was dropped. Since that time, you've become an HF SSB op. This latest rant shows you to be as cranky as anyone else here. 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. 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. 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... If you want to see what presents the biggest danger to the future of ham radio LOOK IN THE MIRROR ... the enemy you fear is yourself, with your backward thinking, unwillingness to accept progress, and lack of tolerance for newcomers (unless, of course, they've suffered through the same fraternity hazing rituals that you had to endure, lo those many years ago and think in exactly the backward, narrowminded ways that you do). When you're done looking in the mirror, you can look a your cronies, Larry, Dave Heil, and the whole list of like-thinkers... they are also part of the enemy you fear ... for they think and act essentially the same way as you do. I note that you've reverted to your original "Big Mouth Carl" persona, Squiggy. The leopard does not change his spots, even if they fade and his coat begins to look a little worn and thin in places. Your tirade includes some tired and quite familiar terms like "fraternity hazing rituals", "suffered" and "endure", "backward" and "narrowminded". Those terms are quite appropriately used. I'm sure you mean what you've written even if it isn't borne out by fact. 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? 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. 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. THERE is where the REAL danger to the future of ham radio lies ... in people who are so married to/stuck in its past that they despise any thought of change, progress, and the newcomers that it will bring (unless the newcomers are acceptable "clones" cast in your own image). I submit that you don't really know where the "REAL" danger to the future of ham radio lies. Simply lowering requirements and standards is not "progress" in anyone's book. Newcomers have always been welcomed if they're good ops. A lid is a lid and we already have enough of them. 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. The standards have not been lowered at all. So the requirements have been lowered but the standards haven't? However, those newcomers are the future of ham radio ... for us older guys will surely die, and if there aren't younger folks to replace us ham radio will die with us. 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. It's up to us to WELCOME and ENCOURAGE them ... their ways will not be the ways of the past ... things change and nobody can freeze time. I welcome and encourage them. Some of them will become good ops. Some won't. 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? But insulting, berating, demeaning them, and trying to keep them out is not the way ... I'm not insulting, berating or demeaning them. I might insult, berate and demean you but not them. Newcomers aren't required to take responsibility for you. 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. 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? Think about these things long and hard before you look yourself in the mirror again ... without some reflection, reconsideration, and change in your ways, you may not like what you see ... the enemy that is YOU. I'll take your sermon to heart about the time you begin telling us of your own soul searching, reflection and reconsideration of opinions which are unlike your own. Let us know if you like what you see. (Try to be *completely* like Scrooge ... go through the change, don't stay stuck in the first part ...) Quit rattling your chains and moaning. 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 |
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 |
"Phil Kane" wrote:
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. Oh, it was *loaded* with that! Here's an interview where he explained how it started, and what he was thinking of. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html 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 He was very active on Usenet back when it was a small community, and certainly added productively to the discussions that he engaged in. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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 08:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com