|
NCVEC Position on Code
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On 1 Aug 2003 02:52:19 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote: 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. Only problem I have with that statement is the FACT (stated by Riley himself as quoted in QST, CQ, Popular Communications, Monitoring Times, Worldradio, and possibly others I didn't read) that the two frequencies FCC received the most complaints about (14.303 and, I believe, 3.950) were frequencies where the operators had to pass code tests in order to obtain privileges to operate there. Yup. That's true. They also had to pass at least two written tests to operate there. The written tests are largely about the rules and regulations of the ARS. Obviously those written tests didn't keep those ops out of the ARS, nor cause them to behave correctly. Should we just dump those written tests because they did not work perfectly? Also - what mode were those folks using on 14.313 and 3.950? In a way, I guess we're lucky - if the Liberty Net hadn't attracted all the jammers (and counter-jammers) to the one frequency they'd have been...well...freely roaming the bands. 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, the code isn't stopping those few thousand refugees from descending into the HF bands now, and it wouldn't stop them from doing so in the future even if we continued to have a code test for the next 267 years...any more than it has stopped them from inhabiting the so-called "freeband" which is another place they don't have any privileges or licenses to operate. See above about written exam... The *only* thing keeping unlicensed operators off the ham bands in droves is the well-known determination of licensed hams to keep them off of here, even if it means going out at 3:00 AM in the middle of an ice storm to do some DF'ing and tape recording. That's it, period. No, there's another part: the fact that there may be some enforcement action as a result of that determination. Didja see where FCC cited a couple of trucking companies because of truckers' illegal use of 10 meters? The code test is not now, never has been, and never will be a deterrent to anyone contemplating an act of gross stupidity on the bands...and that applies to hams and non-hams alike. Then please explain why there are so many NALs for violations committed using voice modes, and so few for violations using Morse code or data modes. Maybe it's not the TEST but the MODE that has an effect? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: 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... Hmmm. Curious. I don't recall who originally posted this, but I would certainly be interested in seeing a quote where I said that I intended to "destroy the amateur radio service" once code testing had been abolished. To be sure, it would hardly be necessary for me to lift a finger to "destroy the ARS" since our so-called "newcomers" will be doing their level best to accomplish that on their own! Well, I don't intend to. Heck, I'll probably do lot's of "self policing". Any attempts at "self policing" will, for the most part, be wasted breath, once all the eager new HF phone operators are finally liberated from 11 meters and join their "fellow amateurs" on our HF phone bands. About the only thing that could possibly work would be some sort of "super Elmering" at the local club levels -- meaning, put the Codeless General/Extra-class "newcomers" on a very short leash, and keeping them on it more or less permanently. However, since I believe that 99.999999999018 percent of the problems in amateur radio originate on the phone bands, we'd be asking the inmates to guard the jailhouse. Looking at it from the bright side, the antics of the present and future phone operators may be the best "incentive" yet for people to learn the Morse code! However, as usual, they'll probably just give up entirely, rather than make the effort to learn a useful communications skill. After all, the code went away because of laziness. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
On 02 Aug 2003 12:27:10 GMT, N2EY wrote:
Then please explain why there are so many NALs for violations committed using voice modes, and so few for violations using Morse code or data modes. Maybe it's not the TEST but the MODE that has an effect? The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2 or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net... On 02 Aug 2003 12:27:10 GMT, N2EY wrote: Then please explain why there are so many NALs for violations committed using voice modes, and so few for violations using Morse code or data modes. Maybe it's not the TEST but the MODE that has an effect? The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2 or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon Heh heh, and maybe CW is not so commonly understood by those at the FCC? Phil? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
In article , (Brian) writes: 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... Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that Dick, Larry, et al deserve ... For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or their national equivalent thereof). Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other license classes. So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ... Please don't lump all Extras in with that crowd ... it just 'aint so. Carl - wk3c |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Is that the music to the Twilight Zone I hear? Yes, yes it is... Believe it or not, folks, this is one of Kim's more reasonably intelligent posts! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: In article , (Brian) writes: 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... Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that Dick, Larry, et al deserve ... For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or their national equivalent thereof). Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other license classes. So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ... Please don't lump all Extras in with that crowd ... it just 'aint so. Carl - wk3c Carl: Brian made the statement that "Extras" such as Dick, Dan, Bruce, and myself wish to "destroy the amateur radio service." Obviously, he thinks we want to do this because we *are* PCTA's, and see the value of retaining code testing (what's left of it) in the ARS. In other words, because we don't agree with him and the NCTA's, we want to "destroy" the ARS. Do you think this is accurate? Do YOU think that us PCTA's want to "destroy" the ARS? AFAIC, when the FCC finally gives us a No-Code Test ARS licensing system, the "destruction" of our hobby/service is self-assured. About the best we can hope for is for the NCTA's to continue with their traditional apathy and laziness, and somehow not flock to the ARS in any great numbers. We would also require the assistance of the ARRL and the FCC to resist the urge to expand HF phone spectrum, but I don't see that as something the ARRL would do, so the FCC will be happy to oblige when the petitions start coming in. In any case, the future of the ARS looks bleak, and it will be the non-code tested "newcomers" who will be administering the coup de gras. BTW, Carl -- the only reason you're an "Extra" is because you waited until the code test was dumbed down to a maximum of 5 WPM. That's not being a Real Extra(tm) in the opinion of any of the traditional PCTA's. You're just a wannabe Extra Pretender who got in on an Affirmative Action program. 73 de Larry, K3LT Amateur Extra since 1983 |
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:45:41 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:
The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2 or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity. Heh heh, and maybe CW is not so commonly understood by those at the FCC? Phil? Nope - I am told that the requirement still is 16 wpm for field office enforcement agents and 20 wpm for monitoring techs - yes, there still are those, just not as many because the mon stas are all remoted to a central point now, where each can be brought up as necessary by a single tech. Several of the field office agents are ex-monitoring techs as well. As long as Morse is permitted in any radio service for any purpose, such as IDs in the land mobile services or "permissive" Morse in the maritime services, or "permissive" Morse in the ARS, that job requirement will stay. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net... On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:45:41 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote: The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2 or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity. Heh heh, and maybe CW is not so commonly understood by those at the FCC? Phil? Nope - I am told that the requirement still is 16 wpm for field office enforcement agents and 20 wpm for monitoring techs - yes, there still are those, just not as many because the mon stas are all remoted to a central point now, where each can be brought up as necessary by a single tech. Several of the field office agents are ex-monitoring techs as well. As long as Morse is permitted in any radio service for any purpose, such as IDs in the land mobile services or "permissive" Morse in the maritime services, or "permissive" Morse in the ARS, that job requirement will stay. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Wow, Phil! I had no idea. And, I am glad to hear it. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net... On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 09:45:41 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote: The days when the monitoring stations would catch ham operators 2 or 3 kHz outside the band edge (especially in contests) are gone forever. "Cruising" is no longer a daily activity. Heh heh, and maybe CW is not so commonly understood by those at the FCC? Phil? Nope - I am told that the requirement still is 16 wpm for field office enforcement agents and 20 wpm for monitoring techs - yes, there still are those, just not as many because the mon stas are all remoted to a central point now, where each can be brought up as necessary by a single tech. Several of the field office agents are ex-monitoring techs as well. As long as Morse is permitted in any radio service for any purpose, such as IDs in the land mobile services or "permissive" Morse in the maritime services, or "permissive" Morse in the ARS, that job requirement will stay. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Wow, Phil! I had no idea. And, I am glad to hear it. Kim W5TIT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Is that the music to the Twilight Zone I hear? Yes, yes it is... Believe it or not, folks, this is one of Kim's more reasonably intelligent posts! 73 de Larry, K3LT Yes, Larry, it is an appropriate and astute question that Kim asked. You PCTAs are so freaking out of touch with reality that it makes it so ... Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
In article , (Brian) writes: 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... Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that Dick, Larry, et al deserve ... "Us Extras"? Whooo, that's rich, Carl! For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or their national equivalent thereof). What differentiates a majority from a vast majority? In a country with only two license classes, the higher class license is equivalent to the U.S. Extra? Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other license classes. What constitutes a "significant number" of Extas when compared to the percentage of your membership holding a license for which no code test is required? So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ... ....and I gather that you don't have many members who support code testing :-) Dave K8MN |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote: Hmmm. How interesting. We're not just "out of touch with reality," we're "freaking out of touch with reality." That sounds a bit severe! Just what, may I axe, makes us PCTA's so "freaking" out of touch with reality? Is it because we believe in the usefulness of the Morse code, and the need to have code testing so prospective hams get the opportunity to be exposed to it? Or is it just that we disagree with the NCTA and NCI, and are able to express our opinions with clarity and conviction? It's gotta be something along those lines! Following your line of thinking, why doesn't the test include listening and transmitting on AM so prospective hams get the opportunity to be exposed to it? Also FM, and all the other modes? |
Dick Carroll; wrote: JJ wrote: Larry Roll K3LT wrote: Hmmm. How interesting. We're not just "out of touch with reality," we're "freaking out of touch with reality." That sounds a bit severe! Just what, may I axe, makes us PCTA's so "freaking" out of touch with reality? Is it because we believe in the usefulness of the Morse code, and the need to have code testing so prospective hams get the opportunity to be exposed to it? Or is it just that we disagree with the NCTA and NCI, and are able to express our opinions with clarity and conviction? It's gotta be something along those lines! Following your line of thinking, why doesn't the test include listening and transmitting on AM so prospective hams get the opportunity to be exposed to it? Also FM, and all the other modes? Isn't everyone "exposed" to voice and voice modes well before entering ham radio? How many people ever are exposed to radiotelgraphy? What about all those digital modes? It makes just as much sense to make sure new hams can operate those modes as it does CW. |
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: In article , (Brian) writes: 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... Wait a minute ... don't tar all of us Extras with the same brush that Dick, Larry, et al deserve ... "Us Extras"? Whooo, that's rich, Carl! Yes, Dave, "Us Extras" ... much as it may eat at you, I'm an Extra, too. (FCC said so ... and it's up to them, not you ... :-P For example the vast majority of the Directors of NCI are Extras (or their national equivalent thereof). What differentiates a majority from a vast majority? In a country with only two license classes, the higher class license is equivalent to the U.S. Extra? When I said "or their national equivalent thereof," I was refering to our Director from New Zealand ... a long-time, coded ham of their highest class. Additionally, there are a significant number of Extras amongst our membership ... at least in proportion to the % of Extras to other license classes. What constitutes a "significant number" of Extas when compared to the percentage of your membership holding a license for which no code test is required? I haven't calculated the exact percentage, but we have a LOT of members who hold an Extra class license ... and that's not just since folks were able to upgrade with "only 5 wpm." So, it's not "the Extras" ... it's the PCTAs ... ...and I gather that you don't have many members who support code testing :-) That's right ... one of the requirements for membership is supporting the elimination of Morse testing. Carl - wk3c |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: I've seen quite a bit of the "If I don't get my way, I'll take my ball and go home." attitude ... you, Larry, for one have said in the past something to the effect that "If code testing is eliminated, they might as well just auction our bands off to the commercial folks." (perhaps not an exact quote, but pretty darned close and certainly conveying the meaning of what you've said ...) Carl: Yes, I did say that. And it still seems like a good idea to me, considering what the future prospects for the ARS are looking like. After all, we're hoarding literally billions of dollars worth of commercially-viable spectrum, most of which isn't being used by us (hams) for a damn thing worth talking about. I'm sure we'll always have most of our HF allocations, but I expect we're gonna lose big time above 500 MHz or so. And that, in reference to another post, is just my concept of "reality." AFAIC, when the FCC finally gives us a No-Code Test ARS licensing system, the "destruction" of our hobby/service is self-assured. About the best we can hope for is for the NCTA's to continue with their traditional apathy and laziness, and somehow not flock to the ARS in any great numbers. We would also require the assistance of the ARRL and the FCC to resist the urge to expand HF phone spectrum, but I don't see that as something the ARRL would do, so the FCC will be happy to oblige when the petitions start coming in. In any case, the future of the ARS looks bleak, and it will be the non-code tested "newcomers" who will be administering the coup de gras. BTW, Carl -- the only reason you're an "Extra" is because you waited until the code test was dumbed down to a maximum of 5 WPM. That's not being a Real Extra(tm) in the opinion of any of the traditional PCTA's. You're just a wannabe Extra Pretender who got in on an Affirmative Action program. Over 32 years as an RF Engineer, recognized in my profession, and I'm "not good enough" for the likes of you and Dick? Not sure whether to ROTFLMAO or gag/puke ... What do 32 years of RF engineering experience have to do with ham radio, Carl? I'll admit that it's handy to have guys like you around, but most of the hams I know have no professional-level technical skills whatsoever. We are radio AMATEURS. Your professional credentials are recognized within your profession for good reason -- you deserve such recognition -- WITHIN YOUR PROFESSION. As a radio amateur, however, you're no better than any other dumbed-down Extra-Lite who waited for years to get around the requirement to learn and be tested for a useful communications skill. Sorry about that, my friend, but that's just the TRVTH. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
|
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: And now, Rod Serling steps out from behind the scroll bar on the left side of our screens and says: "Meet one Larry Roll, K2LT, a man with a chip on his shoulder the size of the national debt..." John: Ooops. That's Larry Taft, not Larry Roll. I didn't know that Mr. Taft had such a big chip on his shoulder! Beam us up, Scotty...there is definitely no intelligent life down here. Apparently not. (Whirring sound, sparkley lights around the dematerializing figures of Capt. Kirk and the landing party, then they disappear leaving the scene full of sand, styrofoam rocks, and plastic foilage.) Back aboard the Enterprise: Scotty: So what'd you be seein' down there, Capt'n? Kirk: The usual stuff, Scotty -- sand, styrofoam rocks, plastic foilage, and KC2HMZ! Unfortunately, John was already brain dead, there was nothing Bones could do for him. Dr. McCoy: Damn it, Jim -- I'm a Doctor, not a miracle worker! Kirk: Sorry, Bones. I know, he was beyond help! 73 de Larry, K3LT Apologies to Star Trek screenplay writers everywhere! |
In article , JJ
writes: What about all those digital modes? It makes just as much sense to make sure new hams can operate those modes as it does CW. JJ: No problem here! I'd be all for operational testing in the digital modes, and I'll throw in a 40 WPM typing test to boot! Shall we co-author a Petition for Rulemaking to the FCC? If so, send the first draft to my E-mail address! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Dick Carroll;"
writes: Not really. Anyone can learn PSK31 in a half hour of looking over the help file and playing iwth their keyboard. Dick: Yup. That's about what it took me to "learn" PSK-31. Of course, I had the unfair advantage of having been a RTTY user for years prior to giving PSK31 a try. As you know if you've been listening to all the laments appearing here from the "excluded", no such possibliley exists for Morse code. Yeah, that took about a week's worth of half-hour daily sessions to get me up to the 5 WPM level. Then I got on-the-air, started making QSO's and having a blast, and before I knew it, I had passed the 20 WPM code test! That was after having spent half my life (up to that time) convinced that I could never do it! Go figure… 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: It's not the truth, or even the TRVTH. RF is RF. I haven't noticed any difference between amateur or professional RF energy. 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 |
|
Alun Palmer wrote:
(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: 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? .... Could it be because he knows a lot about radio? Makes no difference to Larry. His measure of an Amateur is simply how near to being identical to Larry Roll are they. If it is not important to Larry, it isn't important to the ARS. If it is important to Larry, then any ham that doesn't measure up, somehow isn't a real ham. It never occurred to him that many many hams are also professionals, and if we measured him by the same standard, he'd get laughed out of the club meeting. But in fact very few hams who are pro's in the business think that hams are measured the way Larry does. We do realize that it wouldn't be fair, and that the ARS is afterall, a hobby and should remain that way. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , JJ writes: What about all those digital modes? It makes just as much sense to make sure new hams can operate those modes as it does CW. JJ: No problem here! I'd be all for operational testing in the digital modes, and I'll throw in a 40 WPM typing test to boot! Shall we co-author a Petition for Rulemaking to the FCC? If so, send the first draft to my E-mail address! 73 de Larry, K3LT Yeah. Larry's never up for creating one himself. Kim W5TIT |
"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. Weeks of trying and posting here. Under PSK31 testing, you would be excluded from the HF part of the ARS. |
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! I know lots of radio amateurs, of all license classes, who haven't made dime number one as a professional electronics technician or engineer, who are infinitely better hams than I am or Carl could ever be. What they all have in common is the fact that they have, throughout their "careers" as radio amateurs, been willing to explore and adopt new modes, while retaining the skills learned with the old ones, particularly Morse/CW. Their stations are truly up-to-date, they have usually attained high places on the DXCC standings, routinely hold leadership positions within their clubs, and can be counted on to provide valuable input and personal support for all club activities. 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. But yes, indeed, Carl does know a lot about radio! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Floyd Davidson
writes: Alun Palmer wrote: (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: 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? ... Could it be because he knows a lot about radio? Makes no difference to Larry. His measure of an Amateur is simply how near to being identical to Larry Roll are they. Floyd: Incorrect. My "measure" of a radio amateur is based on their having attained reasonable knowledge and proficiency in the basic skills required to conduct effective radio communications under the rules and regulations of the Amateur Radio Service. I hardly ever compare other hams to my own self, since as a radio amateur, I am now, by today's standards, an exceptionally fine example! If it is not important to Larry, it isn't important to the ARS. Only if you think so, Floyd. Since you seem to be willing to suck up to me, feel free to start impressing me at your convenience. If it is important to Larry, then any ham that doesn't measure up, somehow isn't a real ham. Prove it, Floyd. It never occurred to him that many many hams are also professionals, and if we measured him by the same standard, he'd get laughed out of the club meeting. I see. And this would be in keeping with the spirit of the Amateur Radio Service…how? I'm sure you've done a lot of "laughing" at "non-professional" hams in your day, Floyd. And I've known a lot of "professional" hams who've done the laughing. However, I can't really say I've learned anything useful from them, except for maybe how to have a ****-poor attitude. But in fact very few hams who are pro's in the business think that hams are measured the way Larry does. Well, you must have brought up the "laughing out of meetings" for a reason, Floyd. You obviously have some experience in that area, or you wouldn't have mentioned it, if you truly feel what you just said in the quote directly above. In reality, all you've done is to expose the true nature of your attitude toward radio amateurs who truly are "amateurs" in the sense that they don't make their living as professional electronics technicians or engineers. We do realize that it wouldn't be fair, and that the ARS is afterall, a hobby and should remain that way. You're making a vain attempt to straddle the fence here, Floyd. Unfortunately, the top rail just splintered your ass but good! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
ospam (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". You don't Larry. And the following paragraph demonstrates why. You've missed what it is all about. It is a hobby, with a vast variety of areas to specialize in and enjoy and learn about. I know lots of radio amateurs, of all license classes, who haven't made dime number one as a professional electronics technician or engineer, who are infinitely better hams than I am or Carl could ever be. What they all have in common is the fact that they have, throughout their "careers" as radio amateurs, been willing to explore and adopt new modes, while retaining the skills learned with the old ones, particularly Morse/CW. 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. 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! And they *must* explore and adopt new modes! 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. (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???) 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. 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! He can't, in your world, be a good Ham. 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. 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. Maybe Larry "Measuring Stick Himself" Roll like to 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. 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. But yes, indeed, Carl does know a lot about radio! And you don't. That's one reason why he's a such a good role model, a recognized leader, and a good Radio Amateur. 73 de Larry, K3LT And Larry is a twit. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"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. |
(Brian) wrote:
"Dick Carroll;" wrote: Brian wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote: Not really. Anyone can learn PSK31 in a half hour of looking over the help file and .... 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. Well, this just sounded too good not to go have a look. What a hoot. There's was the DICK, saying that something doesn't fit Shannon's theorum, then claiming oh, actually it is just Cecil's way of describing it... Lord, I was falling out of my chair laughing while I read through that. 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. 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? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
"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 |
ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
Floyd Davidson writes: Floyd: Perhaps the difference here is that Carl is seeking "exalted" status, Wrong. I've yet to see any indication that he seeks any such status. He doesn't really need to because he's had it for apparently a significant number of years, and seems a bit modest about it to boot. and I'm not. I have never, in seriousness, described myself as anything other than an "average" radio amateur. Yeah sure. Don't you even read the crap you post Larry. That article was filled with it, an this article was filled with it. Anyone who hasn't done what Larry Role has done, is a nobody who is an inferior Ham, is less than qualified, and probably should not even be allowed to operate a station. Who do you think you're kidding. You've been parading yourself as the yard stick with which to measure what public service is, what a good cw operator is, how difficult cw is to learn, what cw speed an Extra Class should attain, how people can and should learn cw, (repeat all of the previous, but swap radio theory with cw), (repeat all of the previous, but swap diversity with radio theory), and probably two or three things I missed. Chuck it Larry, you don't come close to Carl, and you are never going to be Mr. Average Ham, or "The Stick We Measure By" no matter how often you crow. 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, You've misspelt "useless", again. Look, I *love* CW. But I'm not stupid enough to think it is ever going to be useful for anything other than my personal satisfaction. I mean, whoop dee doooooo. Larry Roll and Floyd Davidson can both listen to a repeater ID itself and know what the callsign is! We can also tell what kind of gibberish they use in a movie when they send code. Boy, that is one really great "communications skill", ain't it! We can also exchange information in the slowest possible way at a time when actual communications is needed if we were dumb enough. Instead, you and others practice for the day when you in fact *don't* do that, and instead use a decent communications media because if you don't someone will suffer. (I was once upon a time *very* much involved in the communications aspects of Emergency Medical Services delivery, and have somehow *never* heard of any potential use for cw. If you need an explanation of why that is, I'd be happy to enlighten you.) and I do require then to at least acknowledge this as a meaningful difference between themselves and hams who do possess this skill. So you admit using your own miniscule stature as the measuring stick. (Two minutes of empty space is provided here, while our readers control their laughing and regain their composure after rolling on the floor.) (Note that the space was compressed using a modified Lempel-Ziv coding, which Larry may or may not be familiar with. But that's how we got 2 minutes squeezed into only 5 empty lines. :-) 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. Damned man... I've been able to use cw for 40 some years. And I've spent all of that engaged in the business of communications. But not one time in 40 years did I *ever* need that skill you claim is valuable. And I know a few hundreds of others in the business, some of whom could use code, some of whom could not, but none of us ever did. You don't suppose you could just plain be wrong do you???? 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. Well goodness, ain't that great. A ham should know about tubes as well as spark gaps! Impressive. What do you know about Vertubi encoders, or Reed-Soloman coding? Can you explain what "cross-pol" interference means? 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? Or are you like Extra DICK and can't understand why 20 wpm cw working fine on a receiver with a 200 Hz bandpass filter when a PKS31 signal doesn't work is *not* proof that cw can get through when PKS31 cannot? Somehow, "progressive", or "up to date", or whatever it is you'd like to call it, is *not* an objective measure. Whatever *you* want to use as the stick for others is going to be nothing more than an expression of the bias that Larry Roll brings to the table. The fact is, Carl can probably run circles around you in many many areas, but I don't hear him claiming that *his* expertise should be the measure of whether you or anyone else should have a ham ticket. I only hear you and DICK and a few others doing that. 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. I don't think you speak for W9EEA. Or anyone else for that matter. I can't see anything at all wrong with someone sticking with one mode for their entire lifetime. And in some cases, that may be *extremely* progressive... if, for example, they tend to move that particular mode itself forward. Once again, you are just trying to use Larry "I'm the One and Only True Measuring Stick" Roll in a roll where he won't bounce. (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 Oh, digital modes! Why would I do that for a hobby Larry? I've done more with digital communications that you've ever imagined to exist. If I want to relax, I'll play with keys and tubes! 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? That from a guy who probably hasn't got a clue what benefit there is to multilevel digital encoding, has probably never heard of a bandwidth limited Gaussian distribution, and who probably couldn't even define what "digital" is in comparison to "analog" and be expected to get it right. The point, of course, is that you don't have the background to be deciding what is or is not appropriate for others. 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. And your love of cw, to the point of demanding that *all* Amateurs learn it, is somehow beneficial to the ARS???? You have never studied logic, have you? (It helps if you actually want to use digital communications to have some understanding of Boolean logic. But to post articles to Usenet, you'd best learn a little deductive logic first.) 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! Oh, trust me, this old fart knows more about digital communications that you and me put together multiplied by at least 2 and then some. Not that *you* added anything significant to that total, but... Was it you or someone else who posted a while back in one of these groups that cw was an analog method? It probably wasn't you, but your the kind of guy who would say that. Maybe Len Anderson needs to step in and beat you with a sticker for a day or two! He can't, in your world, be a good Ham. Probably not. He's been licensed longer than I have, and was engineering the stuff you think is "progressive" before you'd ever heard of it, and since then has moved on to things you might learn something about in the next decade or so as you catch up. But you don't think he can be a good Ham... Get a grip on yourself and take a reality check Larry! 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 And we see, Larry "Measuring Stick for all Hams" Roll isn't actually nearly as up to date with technology as the people he pretends that he can judge. What a hoot! friend doesn't measure up, perhaps he should consider taking steps to rectify the situation! Good lord yes. I've been known to bounce a few ideas off him over the years. He's a pretty good source of information and technical understanding. 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. And here we are again... Larry "The Stick" Roll, who says he wouldn't do any such thing as be The Stick. 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! One item out of many, kind doesn't look like anyone is going to thank you, that's for sure. 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. That could explain why you're kinda backwards and not exactly the sharpest tech or the slickest op around too, eh? 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! When do you plan on starting? 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! Ah, I see... you can say others aren't up to snuff, but when it is pointed out, line by line, through an entire message that you are a twit, and at the end that is exactly the word used to summarize what we've learned, poor Larry objects. Sorry, but it sticks, you are *still* acting like a twit. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com