"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Alun:

My point exactly. This is one of the reasons why the requirements to
be
licensed in the AMATEUR radio service do not require professional-level
RF engineering skills. Nevertheless, Carl seems to hold on to the
notion
that his being an RF engineer somehow grants him exalted status as an
AMATEUR radio operator. Why is that?

73 de Larry, K3LT



Could it be because he knows a lot about radio?

Alun:

Well, I'm sure Carl expects that his professional RF engineering
qualifications
should grant him exalted status in the ARS, but in truth, it just ain't
so!

Larry,

I don't expect "exalted status" ... just some respect as one who is arguably
more knowledgable and competent in RF technology than the average ham.

However, as has been pointed out, you insist that your superior CW skill
is ALL that counts and that since I'm not up to your standards in that area
I'm a "lesser ham."

Carl - wk3c

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...

Not really. Anyone can learn PSK31 in a half hour of looking over the help file and
playing iwth their keyboard. As you know if you've been listening to all the laments
appearing here from the "excluded", no such possibliley exists for Morse code.

30 minutes, huh?

As I recall, you couldn't get it to work.

Here we go again, regaled by the Recollections of the Lame, lazy and incompetent.


Weeks of trying and posting here.

Go googling and get back to us when you find all that. And NOT until.
That'll keep you busy the rest of your naturl life.



Under PSK31 testing, you would be excluded from the HF part of the ARS.

You are truly the original numb nuts.

DICK, you go gurgle. Include Cecil in your search and you will find
when and where you failed.

"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...

Extra DICK doesn't understand Shannon's work, can't relate PSK31 to
CW as far as a bandwidth limited channel is concerned, and was soundly
thrashed by others for his stubborn refusal to learn.

Yea ... I was in that argument with Dick too ... he kept insisting that
Shannon had NOTHING to do with ham radio (like some of the
most fundamental principles of communications theory are ... to
Dick, at least ... "irrelevant" to hams). I think I challenged him to
break Shannon's law ... :-)

Of course, Extra DICK is still here telling us that he is a measure
of what makes for a good ham operator, and that anyone who's any
dumber than him shouldn't be allowed on the bands.

Hmmm... maybe when we look at it from that perspective, he may have
a point, eh?

Yes, I would say that the threshold should be more like "Anyone who's
even close to as dumb as Dick shouldn't be a ham, let alone an Extra."

Carl - wk3c

In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
Could it be because he knows a lot about radio?

Alun:

Well, I'm sure Carl expects that his professional RF engineering
qualifications
should grant him exalted status in the ARS, but in truth, it just ain't so!

If you ever learn enough about Amateur Radio to catch on, you'll
eat those words. Carl, if for no other reason than his
professional qualifications, though in his case he still would
fit the bill if he were instead a store clerk, is in fact a
person who does reach the status of "exalted".

Floyd:

Perhaps the difference here is that Carl is seeking "exalted" status,
and I'm not. I have never, in seriousness, described myself as anything
other than an "average" radio amateur.

SNIP

So the *only* way, in your demented opinion, to be a great Radio
Amateur, is to retain "Morse/CW" skills... No none code
licensee could ever be a good ham.

I have stated many times that it *is* possible for a "no-code" licensee
to be a good ham. However, the will be lacking the useful
communications skill of Morse/CW proficiency, and I do require then
to at least acknowledge this as a meaningful difference between
themselves and hams who do possess this skill.

No hobbiest who forgets Morse code 10 or 20 years after passing
the test could then be a better ham than you.

Why? Well, it seems to be that you still know Morse, so they
should too!

No, I have stated that they are missing (or not using) a valuable
communications skill -- a skill which confers practical communications
capability under conditions which render other modes unusable. This
is a proven, verifiable truth -- but only CW users know it to be so.

And they *must* explore and adopt new modes!

The Radio Amateur's Code states: "A radio amateur is PROGRESSIVE…
with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient station and
operation above reproach." -- Paul M. Segal, W9EEA, 1928.

So they can't
stick with AM, or SSB, or Slow Scan, or RTTY, or NBFM, or AMSAT,
or whatever (even though they *must* continue with CW), but
instead have to jump to whatever is the latest and the greatest.

What part of the above excerpt from the Radio Amateur's Code
suggests that "sticking with one mode" is "progressive?" I don't see it
that way, and I'm sure that W9EEA wouldn't have, either.

(BTW, what *is* the latest and greatest that everyone should be
doing? I'm collecting old brass triumph style straight keys and
toying with 30 year old tube radios, does that count???)

Pursuing the collection and use of old equipment is certainly a
popular pastime among radio amateurs, but if it is done to the
exclusion of advancing your communications capabilities to include
more modern, digital modes, then you are only serving to foster the
impression the public has that radio amateurs are, in fact, outdated
and NON-progressive. Is this an image you want people outside the
ARS to have of us, particularly in light of present and future
challenges to our spectrum allocations?

Their stations are truly up-to-date,

I can't even begin to define what "truly up-to-date" is. I know
some really great hams that just dearly love to use only old
tube type equipment.

And their "love" is both self-serving and likely to be detrimental
to the future of the ARS.

I had an email conversation with an old
Internet friend the other day, who just dearly loves to use and
work with old AM transmitters!

Too bad you didn't have that QSO on PSK-31, instead!

He can't, in your world, be a good Ham.

Probably not.

I'm going to have to
tell him that after 50 years, he's not an OT, he's a waste in
the Book Of Larry "Measuring Stick for All Amateur Operators"
Roll.

And he has nobody to blame but himself. I consider myself to be a
qualified judge of what makes a good radio amateur. If your OT
friend doesn't measure up, perhaps he should consider taking steps
to rectify the situation!

they have usually attained high places on the DXCC standings, routinely

Really? Even the ones who've never worked HF in their lives?
I'd bet that the majority of really great Hams since 1950 or so
have never even gotten a DXCC certificate, much less ever been
high up on the DXCC Honor Roll.

Well, I'll accept that, as long as they've made strides in VHF/UHF
modes such as EME, satellite operation, packet radio, APRS, etc.

Maybe Larry "Measuring Stick Himself" Roll like to DX?

Yes, I like to work DX.

hold leadership positions within their clubs, and can be counted on to
provide
valuable input and personal support for all club activities.

Now, that I agree is most likely true.

Thank you very much!

They are the ones
who newcomers look to for the answers, while the so-called "professional"
hams simply cluster amongst themselves and look down their noses at the
proceedings of the rest of the club.

No Larry. It is those professionals who usually *are* the ones
people look to for answers and leadership.

Sure, in some cases, they are. Not in my personal experience, however.

But yes, indeed, Carl does know a lot about radio!

And you don't.

No, I don't. I'll NEVER know enough about radio. But I'm willing to
learn!

That's one reason why he's a such a good role
model, a recognized leader, and a good Radio Amateur.

Correct. That's what makes a good radio amateur. A willingness to
learn.

73 de Larry, K3LT

And Larry is a twit.

Ah, name calling. That's what is usually brought out when the ability
to make a convincing argument dries up! Unfortunately for you, Floyd,
it also means that you lose this round!

73 de Larry, K3LT

SNIP

What do you know about Vertubi encoders,

Surely you mean Viterbi?

or Reed-Soloman coding?

No spell-check, huh? Oh well, I haven't either. That's OK.

For those who don't know these terms and are trying to look them up he
means Viterbi and Reed-Solomon, though.

Can you explain what "cross-pol" interference means?

I can't either. What is it?

Or would
you have any idea why mu-law PCM coding results in a signal to
noise ratio of 37 dB because of quantization distortion?

SNIP

Post the proof. I'd like to see it.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

However, as has been pointed out, you insist that your superior CW skill
is ALL that counts and that since I'm not up to your standards in that
area
I'm a "lesser ham."

It's a simple fact that you don't have operating experience

Would you like me to scan and e-mail you the logs of hundreds of contacts
on 40/80m CW? (mostly 40 ... things like Johnston Is. from SoCal with
3W)

and proficiency

No, I have not maintained proficiency ... but neither have a LOT of
code-tested
hams ... but for you, the fact that they passed (long ago) a higher-speed
Morse
test makes them forever OK ...

in Morse/CW, which I consider to be one of the most useful communications
skills in the radio amateur's arsenal.

That's just your opinion ... others find it slow, cumbersome, and boring ...
even when they HAVE achieved proficiency at 13 wpm+ ...

I have always acknowledged your
superior, professional-grade technical skills, and those of all other hams
of
all license classes who possess them.

When it suits you, it seems ... other times, we're "lazy, knuckle-dragging,
looking-for-a-freebie," etc.

However, I must reiterate, this is the AMATEUR Radio Service.

Read the FCC's view of what it's about ... particularly in the R&O
in 98-143 ... they say it's "primarily a technical service" and that
continued Morse requirements "do not comport with the purpose."
The fact is that while hams collectively and individually define what
happens in the ARS, it's the FCC that defines what SHOULD happen.
If we don't live up to those expectations, we are at risk.

The ARS has a long-standing tradition of
requiring proficiency in the use of the Morse code,

SO WHAT? We've been down this road before ... it is NOT the
FCC's legitimate regulatory purpose to prop up "tradition."

for the purpose of
permitting radio amateurs to exploit the many benefits and advantages of
that particular mode. I have consistently stated that I feel that this
skill
is
important enough to radio AMATEURS that it simply cannot be replaced,
even with technical skills which exceed licensing requirements.

This is my opinion, Carl

That is correct ... it is you opinion ... nothing more. There is no law
that I know of that requires that your opinion correlate with reality.

-- not a demonstration of any lack of due respect.
I would expect a person of your intelligence to recognize and acknowledge
the difference. Moreover, I have never held myself out as anything more
than an "average" ham, with the notable exception of occasional hyperbole
used in this newsgroup (and nowhere else) to push the buttons of
particularly
intransigent fellow participants, including your own good self.

Larry ... if you took a poll, I doubt that you'd find that those you've
demeaned
with your "hollier than thou" attitude and demeaning attacks on their value
as
hams would take your comments as "hyperbole." If it were once in a while,
with a "smiley," one would reasonably take it as hyperbole or "just pulling
chains." However, you have *quite consistently* expressed those views
and demeanded folks that you obviously consider "lesser hams" over a period
of something on the order of 5 years now ... with you it seems to be the
rule,
not the exception.

I expect you to recognize and acknowledge that difference as well.

I acknowledge that there have been occasions when you have opined that
I know quite a bit about radio ... but, as stated in my previous paragraph,
those pale by comparison to the insults to just about anyone who doesn't
meet the "Larry Roll Morse-based standard of excellence in hamdom."

I'm perfectly willing to live with the fact that we don't see eye-to-eye
code testing.
Are you?

Sure ... you have a right to your opinion ... I respect that right ... but
you do ham radio a great disservice with your elitist attitude and demeaning
comments towards those who don't share that opinion.

Carl - wk3c

Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...

So, what we get down to is Extra DICK don't know Shannon from
Shinola. What a hoot.

I think that bad dog just got swatted with a rolled newspaper.