RadioBanter - Ham radio's REAL ememy

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Ham radio's REAL ememy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/26744-re-ham-radios-real-ememy.html)

N2EY	August 5th 03 03:21 AM

Ham radio's REAL ememy

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more growth
or not?

For a historical context, here are some numbers on the growth of US amateur
radio in the past 30 years or so. All numbers are rounded off but are accurate
to within 2%. Sources are various Callbooks and US census data.:

US Hams:

1970: 270,000
1980: 350,000
1990: 514,000
2000: 680,000

Growth Rate:

1970 to 1980: 29.6% (120,000 net growth)
1980 to 1990: 46.8% (164,000 net growth)
1990 to 2000: 32.2% (166,000 net growth)

Oddly enough, percentage growth slowed down after the introduction of code test
waivers and the Tech lost its code test. The total net growth in the '90s was
almost exactly the same as in the '80s, even though the US population was
larger.

As a percentage of the total US population:

Year - US population/annual growth - US hams - % hams
1970: 203 million 270,000 0.133%
1980: 227 million 350,000 0.154%
1990: 249 million 514,000 0.206%
2000: 281 million 680,000 0.242%

US hams as a percentage of population increased 0.021% in the '70s, 0.052% in
the '80s and 0.036% in the '90s. So the growth slowed down after the
introduction of code test waivers and the Tech lost its code test.

It stands to reason that if code testing were an 'unnecessary, arbitrary, and
distasteful (to many) barrier to entry', those who were interested, but
dissuaded by those unnecessary barriers would "jump in." when the 'barriers'
were eliminated. Except that's not what happened, in either absolute number of
hams or percentage growth. Growth in total hams was almost exactly the same
during the '90s, compared to the '80s, and the percentage growth actually
dropped.

Current number of US hams is about 687,000. Current US population is left as an
exercise for the reader.

as Alun has said, the Morse test is a "no sell" for
many folks who would otherwise make fine hams.

I think the salesperson can have a lot to do with whether a sale is made or
not...;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY	August 8th 03 03:28 AM

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
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 ...

There have also been predictions and promises of a "brave new world"
that the new changes would bring. Which also did not come to pass.

I would submit that the change from spark to CW was a big, progressive
change.

Sure. Hams did it voluntarily.

Likewise the change from AM to SSB.

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio used to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs hearing hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

From plain RTTY to things like AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK31, etc.

Plain RTTY is still very much in use, thank you. AMTOR is pretty much dead, I
am told. Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Did these changes come about overnight? No.

Actually, the change from spark to CW took only a few years.

When hams got back on the air in 1919, the dream station was a 200 meter spark
kilowatt with rotary gap, kickback preventer, etc. Good for 1000 miles when
everything worked. Within 5 years such a station was an antique, replaced by a
CW set on the shortwaves (80, 40, even 20 meters) using a tube of much lower
power but much greater performance. Two things convinced hams of that era to
change: the 1921 Transatlantic Tests, where the superiority of CW vs Spark was
demonstrated in the number of stations heard by Godley in Scotland, and the
first shortwave transatlantic QSO in 1923 (1XAM and 1MO to French 8AB on 110
meters).

It wasn't lectures or laws that got hams to change, it was demonstrations by
other hams.

Did OTs bitch and whine? Yes.

Where you there? I think not. ;-)

Witness:

conversion from spark to CW;
conversion from AM to SSB;
introduction of packet radio and other "new-fangled @^#%$ computer
thingies";

None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change. Hams adopted
them voluntarily. For example, spark wasn't outlawed for hams until
1927, even though it was essentially abandoned by hams by 1923 or 24.

Nobody is proposing a regulatory change that will prohibit or in any way
restrict the USE of Morse ...

OH YES THEY ARE!!!!

Check this out from ARRL's coverage of the VEC gathering:

"Maia's proposal suggested upgrading all current Tech and Tech Plus licensees
to General and allowing their use of all bands. Beginner licensees should be
granted call signs from the NA-NZ#xxx call sign block, he said. Both Maia and
Neustadter suggest ways to streamline the number of license classes. Maia
offered up the possibility of asking the FCC to eliminate the Morse testing
requirement immediately, easing code exam format restrictions"

here it comes:

"and giving serious thought to dropping CW-only subbands as well."

The only CW-only subbands are on 6 and 2 meters. I don't think those are the
subbands Freddy wants to drop. I think he means "CW/data subbands" - on HF.

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

Nobody is being forced to do anything ... in fact, the proposed/anticipated
change will STOP forcing folks to do something that many don't want to
do ...

So, the "None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change." argument
doesn't hold water Jim.

Sure it does. The point being that none of the historic changes you cite
involved rules changes.

AM is still popular on HF - in fact, more popular than 20-30 years
ago. What caused hams to abandon AM in large numbers was the simple
fact that an SSB transceiver was less expensive than an AM
receiver-transmitter combo of equal effective power. That transition
also drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams.

What drastically reduced the amount of homebrewing done by hams
is a combination of the following:

1) technology got more "complicated" for the uninitiated

And for the initiated. Yet we hams are supposed to keep up with technology, are
we not? A lot of the reasons given for dropping the code test by NCVEC are
about "technically qualified persons" and "advanced technology" and all that.
Yet what does it matter how "technically qualified" someone is if all they do
as a ham is use manufactured equipment in well established ways like HF SSB?
What is the essential difference between a Ph.D in EE ham using a Yaesu and a
bus driver using an Icom?

2) parts got harder to buy at reasonable prices in small
quantities

Not really. Compare the cost of parts in old catalogs compared to new ones -
then adjust for inflation. $100 for a ham rig in 1958 doesn't sound like much
until you realize that back then $5200/year was a good middle class annual
salary. At that level, $100 was a week's gross pay.

Of course if one is used to seeing the prices paid by manufacturers for
quantities in the thousands and up range, the single-unit prices are
outrageous. Always been that way. Which is howcum Heath could undercut homebrew
on things like power transformers 40+ years ago.

3) the performance and quality of "store-bought" gear
improved and at the same time the cost in (adjusted) $
dropped dramatically.

That I can agree with - sort of. The best-performing HF transceiver for under
$2000 today, however, is a kit.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

Does that mean I think homebrewing should roll over and die?
CERTAINLY NOT ...

But how will homebrewing survive? How many amateur radio HF or VHF transceivers
have you designed and built, Carl? If it's not worth your time and effort, how
can the rest of us be expected to do it?

the introduction of the no-code Tech license;

Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a
techno revolution.

If it weren't for the thousands of hams who have entered via the
no-code tech license, the ham population would be something
like 1/2 what it was in 1990 ...

That presumes none of them would have gotten licensed if the rules hadn't
changed. That's not reasonable. You're saying that we'd be down to ~257,000
hams by now if not for the changes to the Tech.

For a historical context, here are some numbers on the growth of US amateur
radio in the past 30 years or so. All numbers are rounded off but are accurate
to within 2%. Sources are various Callbooks:

US Hams:

1970: 270,000
1980: 350,000
1990: 514,000
2000: 680,000

Growth Rate:

1970 to 1980: 29.6% (120,000 net growth)
1980 to 1990: 46.8% (164,000 net growth)
1990 to 2000: 32.2% (166,000 net growth)

Oddly enough, percentage growth slowed down after the introduction of code test
waivers and the Tech lost its code test. The total net growth in the '90s was
almost exactly the same as in the '80s, even though the US population was
larger.

Do you have numbers to disprove the above?

Since the restructuring of 2000, we're up about 12,000 hams. In three years and
three months.

And no techno revolution, either. Who gave us PSK-31 and APRS?

When you start out with an old, greying demographic (and I'm
no "spring chicken"), if there are no newcomers, the population
can only drop dramatically.

Sure. But you assume there will be no newcomers solely because of the code
test. The facts say differently.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Carl R. Stevenson

August 8th 03 02:20 PM

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

From plain RTTY to things like AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK31, etc.

Plain RTTY is still very much in use, thank you.

Yes, I know ... but that's a CHOICE, just as using CW or any other mode
is a choice.

AMTOR is pretty much dead, I am told.

Certainly not as popular as it once was, but I don't think it's entirely
"dead."

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff. However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

It wasn't lectures or laws that got hams to change, it was demonstrations
by
other hams.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a BIG difference between
wholesale abandonment of a mode (Spark - CW, AM - SSB)
or the outlawing of a mode (Spark) than there is in simply removing
the Morse test requirement.

Removing the Morse test requirement does not take away any operating
privs from anyone ... it does not disallow the choice to use Morse. It
simply removes a requirement that is extremely dissinteresting (and in some
cases difficult) for many people.

There's a BIG difference in the comparisons.

Nobody is proposing a regulatory change that will prohibit or in any way
restrict the USE of Morse ...

OH YES THEY ARE!!!!

Check this out from ARRL's coverage of the VEC gathering:

"Maia's proposal suggested upgrading all current Tech and Tech Plus
licensees
to General and allowing their use of all bands. Beginner licensees should
be
granted call signs from the NA-NZ#xxx call sign block, he said. Both Maia
and
Neustadter suggest ways to streamline the number of license classes. Maia
offered up the possibility of asking the FCC to eliminate the Morse
testing
requirement immediately, easing code exam format restrictions"

here it comes:

"and giving serious thought to dropping CW-only subbands as well."

The only CW-only subbands are on 6 and 2 meters. I don't think those are
the
subbands Freddy wants to drop. I think he means "CW/data subbands" - on
HF.

I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at
6m/2m.

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that
is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Nobody is being forced to do anything ... in fact, the
proposed/anticipated
change will STOP forcing folks to do something that many don't want to
do ...

So, the "None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change."
argument
doesn't hold water Jim.

Sure it does. The point being that none of the historic changes you cite
involved rules changes.

The elimination of spark did ... and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ... the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

Does that mean I think homebrewing should roll over and die?
CERTAINLY NOT ...

But how will homebrewing survive? How many amateur radio HF or VHF
transceivers
have you designed and built, Carl? If it's not worth your time and effort,
how
can the rest of us be expected to do it?

Now that the WRC is over, my business travel schedule will be less
demanding (hard to work on home projects when you're away from
home for 5 weeks).

My first priority for the rest of the summer/early fall is to get up
at least one, preferably two, tower(s) and some better antennas
than what I have now for HF, plus a good set of VHF/UHF
antennas ...

Once that is done, or work stopped due to weather, I plan to
get down to brass tacks on designing/building some gear. It
will NOT be "conventional," but it will be designed to be amenable
to reduction to kit form for those who'd like to build their own.

the introduction of the no-code Tech license;

Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a
techno revolution.

If it weren't for the thousands of hams who have entered via the
no-code tech license, the ham population would be something
like 1/2 what it was in 1990 ...

That presumes none of them would have gotten licensed if the rules hadn't
changed. That's not reasonable. You're saying that we'd be down to
~257,000
hams by now if not for the changes to the Tech.

I had intended to say 1/2 to 2/3 ... the 1/2 would be worst case ...

Carl - wk3c

N2EY	August 8th 03 06:12 PM

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

From plain RTTY to things like AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK31, etc.

Plain RTTY is still very much in use, thank you.

Yes, I know ... but that's a CHOICE, just as using CW or any other mode
is a choice.

AMTOR is pretty much dead, I am told.

Certainly not as popular as it once was, but I don't think it's entirely
"dead."

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

It's up to the homebrewers to make it happen. But there are not many
of us homebrewers any more.

It wasn't lectures or laws that got hams to change, it was demonstrations
by other hams.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a BIG difference between
wholesale abandonment of a mode (Spark - CW, AM - SSB)
or the outlawing of a mode (Spark) than there is in simply removing
the Morse test requirement.

Sure. Apples and oranges. So it's not a valid analogy.

Removing the Morse test requirement does not take away any operating
privs from anyone ... it does not disallow the choice to use Morse. It
simply removes a requirement that is extremely dissinteresting (and in some
cases difficult) for many people.

There's a BIG difference in the comparisons.

Sure. Apples and oranges. So it's not a valid analogy. Here's a better
comparison:

Was "incentive licensing" a mistake? It was very unpopular. Lots of
folks were against it. Said it would kill amateur radio. I remember
those times - they make this whole code-test thing look like afternoon
tea.

Nobody is proposing a regulatory change that will prohibit or in any way
restrict the USE of Morse ...

OH YES THEY ARE!!!!

Check this out from ARRL's coverage of the VEC gathering:

"Maia's proposal suggested upgrading all current Tech and Tech Plus
licensees
to General and allowing their use of all bands. Beginner licensees should
be
granted call signs from the NA-NZ#xxx call sign block, he said. Both Maia
and
Neustadter suggest ways to streamline the number of license classes. Maia
offered up the possibility of asking the FCC to eliminate the Morse
testing
requirement immediately, easing code exam format restrictions"

here it comes:

"and giving serious thought to dropping CW-only subbands as well."

The only CW-only subbands are on 6 and 2 meters. I don't think those are
the
subbands Freddy wants to drop. I think he means "CW/data subbands" - on
HF.

I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at
6m/2m.

Sure. And I think he means dropping the CW/data subbands on HF, not
those little pieces of 6 and 2.

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?
Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

And that's a good thing.

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

ARRL's rep did not vote at the NCVEC meeting on the "drop the code
test" petition. Current ARRL policy would have required that he vote
against, but since that policy is under review, the rep abstained. So
the NCVEC reports the petition "approved without opposition".

Nobody is being forced to do anything ... in fact, the
proposed/anticipated
change will STOP forcing folks to do something that many don't want to
do ...

So, the "None of these were forced on hams by regulatory change."
argument
doesn't hold water Jim.

Sure it does. The point being that none of the historic changes you cite
involved rules changes.

The elimination of spark did ...

No, it didn't. By the time it was outlawed, hams already had given it
up. The changeover went very fast, driven by the simple fact that a CW
station which cost X dollars would get much better results than a
spark station that cost X dollars. This also coincided with the moves
to the "short waves".

and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

OK.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

Does that mean I think homebrewing should roll over and die?
CERTAINLY NOT ...

But how will homebrewing survive? How many amateur radio HF or VHF
transceivers
have you designed and built, Carl? If it's not worth your time and effort,
how
can the rest of us be expected to do it?

Now that the WRC is over, my business travel schedule will be less
demanding (hard to work on home projects when you're away from
home for 5 weeks).

Sure. And that's life for most of us these days.

My first priority for the rest of the summer/early fall is to get up
at least one, preferably two, tower(s) and some better antennas
than what I have now for HF, plus a good set of VHF/UHF
antennas ...

Snow will be here soon. Hard to think about that in August, but it's
on the way.

Once that is done, or work stopped due to weather, I plan to
get down to brass tacks on designing/building some gear. It
will NOT be "conventional," but it will be designed to be amenable
to reduction to kit form for those who'd like to build their own.

It will be interesting to see what results.

the introduction of the no-code Tech license;

Which has not resulted in greatly increased longterm growth nor a
techno revolution.

If it weren't for the thousands of hams who have entered via the
no-code tech license, the ham population would be something
like 1/2 what it was in 1990 ...

You're saying that one of the reasons for dropping the code test is to
promote growth in the number of hams, and if we don't drop Element 1
we will have no growth. Thank you.

That presumes none of them would have gotten licensed if the rules hadn't
changed. That's not reasonable. You're saying that we'd be down to
~257,000 hams by now if not for the changes to the Tech.

I had intended to say 1/2 to 2/3 ... the 1/2 would be worst case ...

2/3 of 514,000 is 342,000. That's less than half of what we have now.
Sorry, those numbers don't add up.

Your prediction is based on the invalid assumption that if the Tech
had kept its code test we would have gotten no newcomers. Yet we had
almost exactly the same growth in the '90s as in the '80s.

We may soon see what the result of dropping Element 1 will be. I
predict we'll see an initial surge of new hams, then back to the same
slow growth as before.

Then where will the blame be placed?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WWHD

Carl R. Stevenson

August 8th 03 11:01 PM

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio
used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs
hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new
hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio??? I don't think so ...

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

I have AMTOR capability, but haven't hooked it up in the 3 years I've
been here in the new house ... used it a lot from the sailboat in the early
90's ...

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

Actually, it's not a bad idea to use existing PC capabilities to do the
signal processing for multiple modes ... it's all software ... and within
the limits of a typical SSB radio, you can do some interesting, albeit
rather slow, stuff on HF.

However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

Whatever ... I tend to think that RF modems is a good term ...
after all, modem is the concatenation of MODulator and DEModulator.

And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

Actually, most modern digital radios convert directly to I/Q baseband
and do the signal processing there ...

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

I was telling you of some plans I have for after I get my antenna work
done this summer ... winter projects, so to speak. However, you will
realize that I do work for a living and have other obligations as well,
so don't hold me to some firm, preconceived schedule. Don't get me
wrong, it's something I *really* want to do, and I intend to do it with
as much diligence as I can in terms of getting something accomplished.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

9600 is a kludge in virtually all of the rice-boxes ... and it's not fast
enough to really be interesting or all that useful ...

Was "incentive licensing" a mistake? It was very unpopular. Lots of
folks were against it. Said it would kill amateur radio. I remember
those times - they make this whole code-test thing look like afternoon
tea.

I personally think that incentive licensing, as implemented, was a mistake.
It made little sense to require higher Morse speeds for privs that were
primarily non-Morse ... I have NO problem with a *reasonable* number
(I think 3 is adequate, 2 might be alright) of license classes in order to
encourage folks to learn more about radio technology ... I know that
many will say it's impractical from an enforcement standpoint, but I would
restrict power for the lower classes (though you've probably seen me
comment that brute force power is over-rated ... I doubt that I will ever
get a legal limit amp ... 100W seems to work just fine on HF), rather than
segregate newcomers from everyone else as widely as our current rules
do. Newcomers need to be welcomed and "socialized" (not like Larry's
"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" shpiel ...) That's
how
to make more good ... and better ... hams - welcome them and show them
the way (politely).

I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at
6m/2m.

Sure. And I think he means dropping the CW/data subbands on HF, not
those little pieces of 6 and 2.

I wasn't at the NCVEC meeting and am not privy to the discussion/intent
WRT this issue ... I won't presume to speak for Fred in any sort of
definitive, authoritative way ...

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

It is my understanding that there are 13 or 14 VECs in the NCVECs ... ARRL's
rep was there. My understanding is that there was NO opposition to the
NCVEC
petition being filed as written.

Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

They are considered by the FCC as an authoritative source. Why they said
each and every word they said is something upon which I won't speculate.

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it
will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

And that's a good thing.

The primary objective is to eliminate Morse testing ... we don't want to
be distracted or delayed by other non-NCI-core issues that will take
more time for the FCC to decide ...

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps
from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

ARRL's rep did not vote at the NCVEC meeting on the "drop the code
test" petition. Current ARRL policy would have required that he vote
against, but since that policy is under review, the rep abstained. So
the NCVEC reports the petition "approved without opposition".

Read Roberts' Rules ... I think a lone abstention does not count as
opposition ... to oppose, the party in question would have had to
proactively vote "no." An abstention amounts to "I don't care one
way or the other on this issue." (Or perhaps, "I'm not *allowed* to
vote one way or the other," when the voter is someone's employee.)

and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

OK.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot
"build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification,
and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

You do your conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it
into a file that is used to program the IC and voila, something that had NO
"personalilty" ... no "idea of how to do anything" ... is now a functional
"custom IC." This is REALLY cool stuff ... and there are lots and lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC ...

The digital domain is moving closer and closer to the antennna ... folks who
want to design and build need to start thinking in new paradigms ... like "I
buy some off the shelf RF ICs, A/D and D/A converters and I hook them
up with an FPGA that I've programmed, maybe a uController ... or an
interface to a PC (maybe Ethernet) and I have a programmable radio that
can be whatever I want it to be ...

Folks just need to think in new paradigms ... unfortunately, that does not
seem
to be the strong suit of many present hams.

Carl - wk3c

Ben Coleman

August 9th 03 04:52 AM

On 8 Aug 2003 10:12:11 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

The ARRL first proposed what became incentive licensing in 1963. It
was *not* well received. The upturn after incentive licensing was
implemented appears to be more of a 'well, they actually did it.
Might as well get on with life.' reaction than a positive result of
the change.

A couple of thoughts from this:

1. It appears likely that the overall attitude of *existing* hams may
affect ham growth more than licensing changes. From what I see, ham
growth stopped not because of licensing changes, but because a large
segment of hams became disgruntled over what was merely a proposed
change (What appears to be a decent description appears in
http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page13.html and
http://www.qsl.net/ecara/wayback/page14.html). What that tells me
today is that the future of ham radio is probably going to be affected
more by the attitudes of existing hams than it is by the exact nature
of the entrance exams. If you want to see growth in the numbers and
character of the amateur radio community, it will probably depend more
on whether or not you and hams like you (whether NCTA or PCTA) will
welcome, train, and encourage new hams and prospective new hams than
on squabbling over entrance test requirements. Argue all you want
over the code requirement, but if you really care about the future of
the hobby, pay attention to your own attitudes to other hams and to
prospective hams.

2. If the ham community could 'get on with life' after the squabbling
over incentive licensing, we should be able to do the same after the
code requirement squabbling. It appears there may be hope for the
hobby after all.

Ben

N2EY	August 9th 03 05:20 PM

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[triming down stuff that's been repeated in the thread]

To a certain extent. But the change had its downside, too. Ham radio
used
to
get a lot of free publicity and recruitment in the form of SWLs
hearing
hams on
AM. That pretty much ended with the switch to SSB. The number of new
hams
slowed down (in part) because of that change.

So we need a new publicity mechanism ... I'd agree with that ...

Point is that there were downsides to the shift to SSB. From the end
of WW2 to 1963 (17 years) the number of US hams quadrupled. Then it
stopped dead and the numbers hung at about a quarter million for more
than 5 years in the '60s.

Oddly enough, growth started back up again when the incentive
licensing changes were enacted. Huh?

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio???

No, I'm simply pointing out the facts. There was lots of growth for about 17
years after WW2 (~8% per year!) then it stopped dead at the beginning of 1963.
Did not pick up again until about 1970, which was soon after IL was in place.

The numbers prove it. Do you have any conflicting data to present?

I don't think so ...

Based on what? In the mid-'60s there were a few years when the numbers actually
declined.

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

Immediately after WW2, yes. But after the restructuring of 1951, most newcomers
were people too young to have been in either war.

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

You need to read up on the history, Carl. There was no boom in the '60s. You
are thinking of the '70s, which is when the things you describe happened on a
wide scale. The mid-1970s, in fact, when license requirements were the
toughest.

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

I have AMTOR capability, but haven't hooked it up in the 3 years I've
been here in the new house

I'll take that as "NONE"

... used it a lot from the sailboat in the early 90's ...

Ten years ago. My point is that it's a rare thing these days, supplanted by
PACTOR and PSK-31.

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

Actually, it's not a bad idea to use existing PC capabilities to do the
signal processing for multiple modes ... it's all software ... and within
the limits of a typical SSB radio, you can do some interesting, albeit
rather slow, stuff on HF.

Of course - but at the same time, really new modes and maximum performance are
not explored unless they fit within the "SSB/PC" mindset.

However,
still limited in some respects and we can do better with purpose-made
RF modems capable of more speed and other improvements.

"Purpose made RF modems"?? Why not call them data radios?

Whatever ... I tend to think that RF modems is a good term ...
after all, modem is the concatenation of MODulator and DEModulator.

There's a lot more to a ham rig than modulating and demodulating, though.

And I agree - a dig built specifically for data modes is the better
solution. Deal with the decoding right at the IF level, rather than
converting to audio and all that jazz.

Actually, most modern digital radios convert directly to I/Q baseband
and do the signal processing there ...

Which may or may not optimize performance.

But somebody's got to design and build the data radios. Who is going
to tie the bell on that cat?

I was telling you of some plans I have for after I get my antenna work
done this summer ... winter projects, so to speak.

That's good.

However, you will
realize that I do work for a living and have other obligations as well,

So do most of us.

so don't hold me to some firm, preconceived schedule.

I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the challenges of homebrewing in
our "technical service" called the ARS.

Don't get me
wrong, it's something I *really* want to do, and I intend to do it with
as much diligence as I can in terms of getting something accomplished.

Of course. But like many other projects, it's on the classic "round tuit"
priority list.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

9600 is a kludge in virtually all of the rice-boxes ... and it's not fast
enough to really be interesting or all that useful ...

Exactly. And to go a lot faster, you need a new radio, and we're back to
belling the cat again.

Was "incentive licensing" a mistake? It was very unpopular. Lots of
folks were against it. Said it would kill amateur radio. I remember
those times - they make this whole code-test thing look like afternoon
tea.

I personally think that incentive licensing, as implemented, was a mistake.

So how would you have implented it?

It made little sense to require higher Morse speeds

Speed. 20 wpm.

The ARRL's 1963 proposal was for no additional code testing at all. FCC, the
expert agency, wanted 20 wpm for all privileges.

for privs that were
primarily non-Morse ...

That's simply not true.

The final plan, as enacted Nov 22, 1968, made the lower 25 kHz of 80, 40, 20
and 15 Extra-only territory. That's 100 kHz. The Extra-only 'phone territory of
that time was 3800-3825 and 21250-21275. Only 50 kHz, on two bands (75 and 15).
On 40 and 20, Advanceds had all 'phone privs.

The original announced plan was for the lower 50 kHz of the four bands to be
Extra-only (total 200 kHz), but that was quietly dropped in 1969.

The biggest difference in 'phone privileges was between General and Advanced:

General: 3900-4000, 7250-7300, 14275-14350, 21350-21450 (total 325 kHz)

Advanced: 3825-4000, 7200-7300, 14200-14350, 21275-21450 (total 600 kHz)

IOW, upgrading from General to Advanced in those days got you 275 more kHz of
'phone (almost double) and no additional CW on HF. And all it took was a
written test.

Upgrading from Advanced to Extra got you 100 kHz more CW and only 50 kHz more
'phone. Written and code test.

Thus, the argument that the Extra was "for privs that were primarily non-Morse
...."

is simply not valid.

It is left to the reader to compare the differences at various points since
1969.

btw, I passed Advanced in 1968 at the age of 14 and Extra in 1970 at the age of
16. So even those old tests were not impossible or even that difficult if one
had a little knowledge and skill.

I have NO problem with a *reasonable* number
(I think 3 is adequate, 2 might be alright) of license classes in order to
encourage folks to learn more about radio technology ... I know that
many will say it's impractical from an enforcement standpoint, but I would
restrict power for the lower classes (though you've probably seen me
comment that brute force power is over-rated ... I doubt that I will ever
get a legal limit amp ... 100W seems to work just fine on HF), rather than
segregate newcomers from everyone else as widely as our current rules
do.

Which means you agree with the philosophy but not the details.

Newcomers need to be welcomed and "socialized" (not like Larry's
"don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" shpiel ...) That's
how
to make more good ... and better ... hams - welcome them and show them
the way (politely).

Not just newcomers - everyone.

I think that Fred knows quite well that the only CW-only subbands are at
6m/2m.

Sure. And I think he means dropping the CW/data subbands on HF, not
those little pieces of 6 and 2.

I wasn't at the NCVEC meeting and am not privy to the discussion/intent
WRT this issue ... I won't presume to speak for Fred in any sort of
definitive, authoritative way ...

I don;t expect you to. I'm merely pointing out that there ARE folks who would
eliminate the nonphone subbands.

Besides, that is ONE petition of a number that have been/will be filed.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

It is my understanding that there are 13 or 14 VECs in the NCVECs ... ARRL's
rep was there. My understanding is that there was NO opposition to the
NCVEC
petition being filed as written.

That's not the question I asked.

Since NCVEC is not a representative organization, and is only involved
in testing, why are they getting into things like subbands?

They are considered by the FCC as an authoritative source. Why they said
each and every word they said is something upon which I won't speculate.

They want to determine policy.

While I will not divulge the detailed contents of the draft NCI petition
that is under Board review right now, I *will* guarantee you that it
will NOT
propose any changes in band segmentation.

And that's a good thing.

The primary objective is to eliminate Morse testing ... we don't want to
be distracted or delayed by other non-NCI-core issues that will take
more time for the FCC to decide ...

I think we're stuck with a full NPRM cycle.

all that's being asked for is to eliminate the
test requirement that even the FCC and the IARU admit are not in the
best interest of the future of ham radio.

That's what YOU propose. W5YI & Co. are already on the next page.

It's not fair to single out W5YI ... its the NCVECs ... including reps
from
ARRL and all the other VECs ... one of whom used to be "top dog" in
amateur regulation at the FCC.

Does NCVEC *ever* go against what Maia wants? Or are they his puppet?

ARRL's rep did not vote at the NCVEC meeting on the "drop the code
test" petition. Current ARRL policy would have required that he vote
against, but since that policy is under review, the rep abstained. So
the NCVEC reports the petition "approved without opposition".

Read Roberts' Rules ... I think a lone abstention does not count as
opposition ... to oppose, the party in question would have had to
proactively vote "no." An abstention amounts to "I don't care one
way or the other on this issue." (Or perhaps, "I'm not *allowed* to
vote one way or the other," when the voter is someone's employee.)

Still doesn't answer the question. ARRL is, by far, the biggest VEC and they
abstained.

and my "None ... by regulatory change" was
meant to indicate that eliminating Morse testing will not force ANYTHING
on anyone by regulatory change.

OK.

Heck, you can buy a decent 2m transciever for $150 today
... something with performance, quality, reliability, and ergonomics
that the average ham couldn't duplicate for 3x that price when
buying parts in small quantities.

And it's a throwaway.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

the ARRL website has a lot of good info
on working with SMT ... and I've built a LOT of prototypes in
the lab by hand using SMT without special, expensive tools.
It just takes a different technique.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. My point is not about SMT,
it's about the fact that much of today's consumer electronics isn't
meant to be worked on. It's cheaper to just replace than to repair.
Lookit your PC - most of the "components" aren't resistors,
capacitors, transistors or ICs. The components in your PC are
subassemblies: drives and cards and premanufactured cables, power
supplies etc. A knowledgeable person can "build" a functioning PC from
a pile of "components" with just a screwdriver and good grounding
technique.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot
"build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification,
and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

Sure. But it adds a big step to the project.

In the bad old days there were basically two steps: Mechanical construction,
then wiring. PCB construction reduced the wiring but added the step of PCB
fabrication and increased the toolkit needed. Adding programmability means yet
another step and an even bigger toolkit.

Hams need small, easy, quick projects to start with. That's why the simplicity
of CW is a real asset.

You do your conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it
into a file that is used to program the IC and voila, something that had NO
"personalilty" ... no "idea of how to do anything" ... is now a functional
"custom IC." This is REALLY cool stuff ... and there are lots and lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC ...

Sure. But the beginner isn't going to start out at that level. The question is
one of growth path.

The digital domain is moving closer and closer to the antennna ... folks who
want to design and build need to start thinking in new paradigms ... like "I
buy some off the shelf RF ICs, A/D and D/A converters and I hook them
up with an FPGA that I've programmed, maybe a uController ... or an
interface to a PC (maybe Ethernet) and I have a programmable radio that
can be whatever I want it to be ...

They need practical examples, too. Completed projects that really work and are
accessible through the amateur literature.

Folks just need to think in new paradigms ... unfortunately, that does not
seem to be the strong suit of many present hams.

That's true on both sides of the code test debate.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21

August 10th 03 02:00 AM

Len Over 21

August 10th 03 02:00 AM

Len Over 21

August 10th 03 02:00 AM

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[AND GETS ANSWERED IN ALL CAPS SO THAT HE CAN HEAR
EVERYTHING LOUD AND CLEAR]

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth
or not?

I'm going to interject here, since I'm still on Vacation and can only
get in so many posts for a bit.

NO EXCUSES!

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

IT'S ALL ARCHIVED IN GOOGLE. OLD ARGUMENT IN HERE, THAT REV.
JIMMIE WAS TRYING TO WEASEL OUT OF BY USING THAT TIRED OLD
LUMPING OF TECH-PLUSSES WITH TECHS PLOY.

HAD YOU SEEN THE ARGUMENT AWAYS BACK YOU WOULD HAVE
UNDERSTOOD THAT US AMATEUR RADIO WAS ACTUALLY
SHRINKING WITHOUT THE NO-CODE-TEST TECHNICIANS COMING
ON BOARD.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

I WANT TO KNOW THE "ADVANCES" THE PRO-CODERS BROUGHT
IN OVER THE LAST HALF-CENTURY.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

THE LIVING MUSEUM OF THE ARCHAIC RADIOTELEGRAPHY
SERVICE IS ALWAYS OPEN, ALWAYS BEEPING. SOME AREN'T
MARCHING, BUT ARE USING WALKERS.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

WHO ARE YOU, RAND-MCNALLY? THE USCGS?

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

MORE LIKE "THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE."

I find it amusing that even though the PCTA's have lost the war, that
those who brought this to bear cannot avoid smacking us around a little
bit yet. It might be fun, but isn't doing anyone a bit of good.

AWWWW....POOR POOR LITTLE HOCKEYPUCK!

FEEL BEAT UP DO YOU?

TSK, TSK.

Gloat time is over.

NOT BY A LONG SHOT, HOCKEYPUCK.

PRO-CODERS HAVE HAD A HALF CENTURY PLUS OF GLOATING
AND BROW-BEATING THOSE THAT DIDN'T CARE TO USE MORSE
OR DIDN'T SEE THE NEED TO USE IT.

HALF CENTURY.

Your time has come.

Nope. YOURS has. You aligned yourself with the pro-coders on the
barricades. You WILL lose. Try, try to get used to the reality.

You now have the chance to prove that you were right.

That was "proven" a long time ago by every OTHER radio service.

The old Beepers wanted to preserve their youth long, long after
and kept up the pressure for all AMATEURS to test for code.

The IARU finally saw the light of reality for the International
Amateur Radio community. ARRL may never see it. ARRL
seems a law unto itself with all its brainwashing over the years.

And browbeating the losers isn't a very good start.

POOR BABY!

My, the HOLIER-THAN-THOU attitude sounds so "noble!"

You ain't no "loser," hockeypuck. You just picked the wrong
side and try to disguise your whining with that holier-than-thou
hypocritical BS about some imaginary "ethics."

If you are going to restart all that tinnitus whining, you're out of
luck. I have it too and I'm not whining or making excuses.

A half century ago I and hundreds in my outfit were busy doing
primary HF communications trans-Pacific. NO morse code
used for that then, none after, not even after HF communications
went from primary to secondary status in 1978.

Sorry to hijack the thread, Jim!

Back under the bridge, troll...

LHA

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

August 10th 03 09:55 AM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

A half century ago...(SNIP)

You were unlicensed in the Amateur Radio Service, a "tradition"
you continue to this date...

Sorry to hijack the thread, Jim!

Back under the bridge, troll...

Takes one to know one, eh, Lennie...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Phil Kane

August 10th 03 11:56 PM

On 8 Aug 2003 10:12:11 -0700, N2EY wrote:

AMTOR is pretty much dead, I am told.

Certainly not as popular as it once was, but I don't think it's entirely
"dead."

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

Yet SITOR - the commercial version of AMTOR - is the standard HF
mode of data communication in the maritime service. That, and not
obscenenly-expensive satellite comms, is what killed maritime CW.
The ship's purser or deck officers can pull up the preset HF
transceiver channel and pound away, and even personal e-mail is now
sent and received by a SITOR connection to AOL via Globe Wireless,
the successor to RCA and ITT, via an AOL "kiosk" in the recreation
areas. No Radio Officer needed.

One of the San Francisco area marine radio techs, a ham, applied to
the FCC to be able to offer PACTOR service in the marine bands, and
after consulation with the ITU, his request was turned down because
it was not an international standard and would not give that much
improvement over SITOR considering the changes necessary.

And the US Coast Guard and other similar agencies world-wide
continue to transmit NAVTEX bulletins (marine broadcasts) on 518 kHz
worldwide using SITOR.

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Yeah - I can tune SITOR by setting the (suppressed) carrier 2.2 kHz
higher than the channel center and using LSB. Cheapie "FSK".

Going to be "more easier" later on this week when my new Ten-Tec
computer-tuned DSP HF receiver arrives, and I can set the filtering
to just where I want it.

I'm not throwing my AMTOR/SITOR TNCs away just yet.

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

Hey, we know that we can get at least 28K or more in a standard
audio channel. But hams are cheap - nobody (including me) wants
to throw away existing 1200 baud radios and TNCs that work really
well for the type of canned messages that we get on packet, unless
they are super-whizzes at Qualcom, with due appolgies to Phil Karn
who fits that description and has done a LOT for digital ham radio
specifically and whom I admire greatly.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

N2EY	August 12th 03 12:18 AM

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 8 Aug 2003 10:12:11 -0700, N2EY wrote:

AMTOR is pretty much dead, I am told.

Certainly not as popular as it once was, but I don't think it's entirely
"dead."

How many HF amateur AMTOR contacts have you or anyone you know made in
the past year?

Yet SITOR - the commercial version of AMTOR - is the standard HF
mode of data communication in the maritime service. That, and not
obscenenly-expensive satellite comms, is what killed maritime CW.

Wasn't maritime MF Morse capability mandatory until the satellite based
distress system came online?

The ship's purser or deck officers can pull up the preset HF
transceiver channel and pound away, and even personal e-mail is now
sent and received by a SITOR connection to AOL via Globe Wireless,
the successor to RCA and ITT, via an AOL "kiosk" in the recreation
areas. No Radio Officer needed.

Sure. And the reason all that happened was that the shipping companies decided
to make the inital investment in SITOR equipment, and pay for it with the
salaries of the laid-off radio officers. And as long as the SITOR equipment
does the job and costs less per year, there will be no reason to replace it
with something better.

One of the San Francisco area marine radio techs, a ham, applied to
the FCC to be able to offer PACTOR service in the marine bands, and
after consulation with the ITU, his request was turned down because
it was not an international standard and would not give that much
improvement over SITOR considering the changes necessary.

Exactly - the improvement was judged to be not worth the investment. Since
decisions like this are made at the top and conformity is deemed more important
than what people *want* to do, the existing system is kept.

Which is why you can watch a 2003 TV show on a 50+ year old TV receiver. NTSC,
anyway.

And the US Coast Guard and other similar agencies world-wide
continue to transmit NAVTEX bulletins (marine broadcasts) on 518 kHz
worldwide using SITOR.

Using a system that is almost completely automated.

Of course what really drove all that was PC/soundcard setups becoming
affordable.

Agreed ... multimode with a std SSB radio and PC ... cool stuff.

Yeah - I can tune SITOR by setting the (suppressed) carrier 2.2 kHz
higher than the channel center and using LSB. Cheapie "FSK".

Going to be "more easier" later on this week when my new Ten-Tec
computer-tuned DSP HF receiver arrives, and I can set the filtering
to just where I want it.

bwaahaahaa

I'm not throwing my AMTOR/SITOR TNCs away just yet.

But how much AMTOR will be found in the HF ham bands today? I daresay not much.
In fact you'll probably find more 60 wpm Baudot RTTY on the ham bands in the
course of a year than you will find AMTOR. (if you count contests).

Sort of. But it's actually a patch job.

One reason packet is stuck at 1200 baud all these years is because
going faster would require a purpose-built data radio. Ikensu isn't
going to do it unless there's a proven market, and the failure of 9600
to get much attention means they will wait some more.

Hey, we know that we can get at least 28K or more in a standard
audio channel.

Sure - if the channel's characteristics are good enough.

There's also the question of what FCC will allow in symbol rate and such.

But hams are cheap - nobody (including me) wants
to throw away existing 1200 baud radios and TNCs that work really
well for the type of canned messages that we get on packet, unless
they are super-whizzes at Qualcom, with due appolgies to Phil Karn
who fits that description and has done a LOT for digital ham radio
specifically and whom I admire greatly.

I disagree with hams being "cheap". It's more a matter of not being able to
write off expenditures. Businesses can depreciate equipment - hams can't. They
can also pay for equipment out of reduced labor and repair cost - hams can't.
Engineering economics 101.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dave Heil

August 12th 03 12:46 AM

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio??? I don't think so ...

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

Now, now. Rev. Jimmie LIVED THOSE TIMES. He KNOWS.

:-)

You've told us about morse landline telegraphy. Did you LIVE THOSE
TIMES? Do you KNOW? Maybe you read it in a BOOK or saw an article on
the WEB. :-)

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

Incorrect. There was no boom of JA radios in the 1960's.

It's difficult for even old-timers to understand a postwar boom period and
the Cold War getting hotter when they've just reached First Grade. :-)

I don't know about when you were in school, Len. They provided us
history books. Most of us figured out that there was additional
historical material available. :-) :-)

The holier-than-thou old-timers insist on the "no-coders" to do all
the technical advancements in amateur radio. Never mind that they
weren't able to do much in a half century. :-)

What's it to you? You aren't involved. If you're to make any technical
advancements in amateur radio, you'd better get cracking. You've wasted
decades talking about "getting into" amateur radio. :-)

The holier-than-thou old-timers won't hear of "being nice" to newcomers.

They have achieved TITLE, STATUS, Rank and Privelege and can sign
their callsign behind their names (just like nobility). They are Very
Important exhalted People who are "superior!"

Love your "fox and the grapes" routine. You got the callsign and
privilege portion partially correct.

Nobility suffers the peasantry, poor things.

In this game, you aren't nobility and you aren't a peasant. You're an
onlooker.

Dave K8MN

N2EY	August 12th 03 01:45 AM

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

There has never been a correlation made between the growth of ham
radio and new batches of war vets.

It should be noted that the number of US hams grew from about 60,000 on VJ Day
to almost 100,000 in 1951, when the restructuring that gave us the "name"
classes (including Novice) took place. Some of that was obviously returning
vets, some was "pent up demand", etc.

btw, FCC continued to conduct ham exams and issue amateur operator licenses
during WW2. They simply suspended all station licenses. So there were plenty of
hams but no ham stations for them to operate legally. This was a big
improvement over WW1, when all licenses were revoked, equipment had to be
dismantled and sealed, and even antennas had to be lowered to the ground and
removed.

The far more likely reasons were
the overall increase in the standard of living and more personal
leisure time aided and abetted by a heightened awareness of radio
comms and technology in general after those wars.

All big factors. Something as simple as a VA or FHA mortgage and a bunch of
Liberty bonds made a big difference.

And to a lesser
extent the availability of surplus mil-spec hardware for cents per
pound was a boon to growth.

Sure. Plus wartime manufacturing advances meant that prices on both parts and
manufactured gear went down compared to inflation.

More younger people joined the hobby for
all these reasons plus the availability of the then-new Novice license
was a big shot in the arm for growth. "I wuz one" . . .

The Novice had the effect of drastically reducing the age of the average
newcomer. Some folks back then were not happy about that.

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios,

There was no boom in the '60s. JA radios did not really appear until the mid
'70s.

That growth occurred when brands like (bloody expensive!) Drake,
Collins, Hammarlund, Heath, B&W and the rest were the only games in
town.

Yep - the '40s, 50s and very early '60s.

a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later, the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

'70s, not '60s. Driven by cheap surplus land-mobile stuff.

HF equipment suppliers were and still are almost entirely driven by
market needs and expectations and the competition to meet those needs
and expectations per buck per performace capability. The availability
of the HF riceboxes in the '70s did just that for the existing
population of hams. I've never known of an example of anybody getting
into ham radio simply because the newer HF equipment provided more
bang for the buck.

Actually, what really has a big effect is the perceived cost to get started. In
the bad old days most hams started out with a receiver and simple wire antenna,
costing whatever they could afford. For many it was a $10 Command set or $25
used SWL rx or homebrew. Once the license was earned, a simple tx and TR system
was added. Not state of the art even for the times but a lot of fun was had and
the expenditures were modest and spread out in time. Most of all, beginners had
lots of examples of simple inexpensive first stations. And there was a long
road of improvements possible, all spread out in time.

Today the "paradigm" seems to be a new transceiver, manufactured antenna, etc.,
all at considerable cost up-front before even any listening is done.

Equipment availability for the bands above HF was never been much of a
driver in growth until the Tech license was converted from being an
experimenters ticket to a communicators ticket and even then there
wasn't all that much growth. It wasn't until the 1980s that Techs got
into packet in a big way and into the FM voice infrastructures because
of the increasingly inexpensive VHF/UHF riceboxes that the they became
major players in the growth equation. It was the Disincentive
Licensing maneuver of '91 and the availabilty of $150 2M FM xcvrs
which really done the deed. So now we have numbers. What else did we
get out of that one?

I dunno that we even got that much in the way of numbers. Sure, a lot of hams
started out as post-1991 Techs, and we've grown considerably since then. But
look at the '80s growth, and the '70s growth....

Actually, it's not a bad idea to use existing PC capabilities to do the
signal processing for multiple modes ... it's all software ... and within
the limits of a typical SSB radio, you can do some interesting, albeit
rather slow, stuff on HF.

There ya go again dammit. It's gonna STAY that way too until YOU
figger out how to pull it off without screwing up the bands by being a
spectrum hog for your own jollies.

9600 is a kludge in virtually all of the rice-boxes ... and it's not fast
enough to really be interesting or all that useful ...

9600 would have helped ten years ago but it never happened. In the
meanwhile packet and the Internet have been interlaced and the need
for 9600 has all but disappeared.

I would respectfully disagree ... the idea that "hams can't work
with SMT" is bogus ...

I agree!

Then YOU snip the frigging resistors and jumpers in this frigging SMT
radio so that I can get on 60M. Ya need a 10X magnifier just the SEE
the things on the frigging PCB!

All part of the tool kit.

Building a radio will involve components ... some may be "store-bought"
ICs, others will be R/L/C, perhaps some discrete transistors, etc. ... BUT
there is no reason that reasonably technically-inclined, intelligent hams
cannot
"build" their own custom ICs at home these days ... there are all sorts of
programmable logic devices, ranging from a few thousand or less gates to
several millions of gates ... and the software to do design, simulation,
verification,
and programming is either affordable, or in some cases free.

You do your conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it
into a file that is used to program the IC and voila, something that had NO
"personalilty" ... no "idea of how to do anything" ... is now a functional
"custom IC." This is REALLY cool stuff ... and there are lots and lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC ...

Let's see,

What I'm hearing is that it's "reasonable" to expect hams who are not
electrical engineering professionals to
do a "conceptual design, code it in VHDL, simulate it, synthesize it into a
file that is used to
program the IC" and then integrate it. We can also expect them to use "lots and
lots of
free "cores"out there for all sorts of things ... SPI interfaces,
microcontrollers,
FEC, and on and on and on ... all things that can be "hooked up" together
and/or with your own code and synthesized into your own IC"s. And then put it
all together into
a functioning, useful RADIO - on their own time and with their own money and
tools.

But it is not "reasonable" to expect them to learn enough Morse code to pass
Element 1. OK, fine.

And when it's all said and done the average ham won't learn or know
any more than he/she needs to pass the tests and/or to get on the air
and meet their specific operating objectives. Whatever takes the least
effort and brain pain prevails.

btw, I don't see anyhting on Shannon's work in the question pools.

Fred is working on it . . .

Actually I think a "21st century Novice" license isn't such a bad idea. The
problem is on the other end of the scale.

Folks just need to think in new paradigms ... unfortunately, that does not
seem to be the strong suit of many present hams.

Another "bell the cat" problem. Which new paradigms? The real problems most
hams, particularly new ones, face are
things like CC&Rs, and RFI.

I heard exactly that same lament in the 1950s and it was just as true
then as it now. What conclusions do you draw from that as it relates
to the health, welfare and growth of ham radio?

What matters is not how many hams there are but how many active hams there are.
The FCC database sez 687,000 or so in the USA alone. What do you think the
bands would sound like if even 10% of them were on the air at once?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21

August 12th 03 03:38 AM

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio??? I don't think so ...

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

Now, now. Rev. Jimmie LIVED THOSE TIMES. He KNOWS.

:-)

You've told us about morse landline telegraphy. Did you LIVE THOSE
TIMES? Do you KNOW? Maybe you read it in a BOOK or saw an article on
the WEB. :-)

Irrelevant. No one in here lived in 1844 when morse code was first used
in commercial landline communications.

No one in here lived when Marconi did his first radio communications in
Switzerland in 1895, or proved in Italy in 1896...using morse code for
on-off keying of a spark transmitter.

No one in here lived when the Titanic went down and mighty morse code
managed to get through for rescuing some...morse code could get
through because there was NOTHING ELSE to compare it with.

Try reading a BOOK on the REST of the world of radio instead of what
if spoon-fed you by the little publisher in Newington. You might find out
that the REST OF THE RADIO WORLD has gone beyond amateurism.

There is NO need in the rest of the radio world for DX contesting or
morsemanship skills or collecting QSL cards.

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later,
the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

Incorrect. There was no boom of JA radios in the 1960's.

Of course not. Hallicrafters, National Radio, RME, Collins were all
having terrific sales, snowing the amateur market with ham gear.

Right. Sure. Where are they now?

Collins quit the ham market long ago. Hallicrafters folded or something
even longer ago. National Radio went for the military electronics stuff
quitting ham radio sales. Even Heathkit went belly-up.

Are you in some kind of dream world where you think Yaesu, Icom,
Kenwood, and JRC are "American" companies?!?!?

It's difficult for even old-timers to understand a postwar boom period
and
the Cold War getting hotter when they've just reached First Grade. :-)

I don't know about when you were in school, Len. They provided us
history books. Most of us figured out that there was additional
historical material available. :-) :-)

Paper, moveable type, and the printing press were all invented LONG
before 1844 and the first use of commercial morse code
communications.

I was a working radio professional in 1952 when the Cold War was
already started. Are you saying your holiness as a school boy has
MORE experience in Cold War life?!?!?

The holier-than-thou old-timers insist on the "no-coders" to do all
the technical advancements in amateur radio. Never mind that they
weren't able to do much in a half century. :-)

What's it to you?

Stuff it, Colonel Klunk.

You aren't involved. If you're to make any technical
advancements in amateur radio, you'd better get cracking.

Stuff it twice. YOU are NOT a judge. You are NOT an official who can
"run" the US amateur radio community. You are NOT in government
anymore and were NEVER a radio regulator at the FCC.

I've had a successful career in PROFESSIONAL radio-electronics and
still enjoy that in retirement. Radio-electronics has been a fun hobby
for me for a longer time.

Now tell us, great big four-decade experienced AMATEUR radio god,
what have YOU ever done to "advance amateur radio?!?"

Show us your patents, your marvelous discoveries, all your important
technical contributions. You've had FORTY YEARS of amateurism
and all you can come up with is trying to put down folks in an amateur
newsgroup?!?

In this game, you aren't nobility and you aren't a peasant. You're an
onlooker.

That's all you are, big radio god of the AMATEUR bands.

A hot-air balloon who plays with ready-built radios and talks tuff as a
newsgroupie.

Get a better life.

LHA

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

August 13th 03 12:06 AM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(pSycho pSteve) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

A half century ago...(SNIP)

You were unlicensed in the Amateur Radio Service, a "tradition"
you continue to this date...

You still off your medications, pSycho pSteve?

Hmmmm...I think YOU would call that a "misdirection".

I call it a childish dodge.

You're STILL not licensed in the Amateur Radio service.

Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil

August 13th 03 01:42 AM

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

Now you're trying to tell us that incentive licensing PROMOTED
growth in ham radio??? I don't think so ...

More likely the boom after WWII (and Korea) was due to military
radio folks becoming hams when they got out ...

Now, now. Rev. Jimmie LIVED THOSE TIMES. He KNOWS.

:-)

You've told us about morse landline telegraphy. Did you LIVE THOSE
TIMES? Do you KNOW? Maybe you read it in a BOOK or saw an article on
the WEB. :-)

Irrelevant. No one in here lived in 1844 when morse code was first used
in commercial landline communications.

No one in here lived when Marconi did his first radio communications in
Switzerland in 1895, or proved in Italy in 1896...using morse code for
on-off keying of a spark transmitter.

No one in here lived when the Titanic went down and mighty morse code
managed to get through for rescuing some...morse code could get
through because there was NOTHING ELSE to compare it with.

What I wrote was precisely relevant. You wrote of someone's having not
been alive when something took place. I pointed out that you weren't
alive during some of the things which you've pontificated on in this
venue.

Try reading a BOOK on the REST of the world of radio instead of what
if spoon-fed you by the little publisher in Newington.

"YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis."

--Leonard H. Anderson

You might find out
that the REST OF THE RADIO WORLD has gone beyond amateurism.

What the hell are you prattling about?

There is NO need in the rest of the radio world for DX contesting or
morsemanship skills or collecting QSL cards.

Did you have a point?

The boom in the 60's was probably due to the emergence of economical
JA radios, a general increase in the interest in electronics, and later,
the
emergence of VHF/UHF FM and repeaters ...

Incorrect. There was no boom of JA radios in the 1960's.

Of course not. Hallicrafters, National Radio, RME, Collins were all
having terrific sales, snowing the amateur market with ham gear.

Right. Sure. Where are they now?

Collins quit the ham market long ago. Hallicrafters folded or something
even longer ago. National Radio went for the military electronics stuff
quitting ham radio sales. Even Heathkit went belly-up.

Are you in some kind of dream world where you think Yaesu, Icom,
Kenwood, and JRC are "American" companies?!?!?

You certainly wrote a large number of diversionary words to cover your
gaffe. There was no boom of Japanese ham gear in the 1960's. Is it
clear now?

It's difficult for even old-timers to understand a postwar boom period
and
the Cold War getting hotter when they've just reached First Grade. :-)

I don't know about when you were in school, Len. They provided us
history books. Most of us figured out that there was additional
historical material available. :-) :-)

Paper, moveable type, and the printing press were all invented LONG
before 1844 and the first use of commercial morse code
communications.

I was a working radio professional in 1952 when the Cold War was
already started. Are you saying your holiness as a school boy has
MORE experience in Cold War life?!?!?

Why no, Len, not as a school boy. I certainly have more governmental
communications experience during the cold war.

The holier-than-thou old-timers insist on the "no-coders" to do all
the technical advancements in amateur radio. Never mind that they
weren't able to do much in a half century. :-)

What's it to you?

Stuff it, Colonel Klunk.

You aren't involved. If you're to make any technical
advancements in amateur radio, you'd better get cracking.

Stuff it twice. YOU are NOT a judge. You are NOT an official who can
"run" the US amateur radio community. You are NOT in government
anymore and were NEVER a radio regulator at the FCC.

It doesn't take a regulator to truthfully state that you weren't
involved and are not involved in amateur radio. Don't tell me what I am
to amateur radio. I'm a licensed ham and have been for decades. You,
quite truthfully are not involved at all in amateur radio. You aren't a
judge of what hams do or have done. You are not a regulator.

I've had a successful career in PROFESSIONAL radio-electronics and
still enjoy that in retirement. Radio-electronics has been a fun hobby
for me for a longer time.

Trust me. Things have a way of evening out.

Now tell us, great big four-decade experienced AMATEUR radio god,
what have YOU ever done to "advance amateur radio?!?"

No, I don't believe I will, Len.

Show us your patents, your marvelous discoveries, all your important technical contributions.

Still have your patent fetish?

You've had FORTY YEARS of amateurism
and all you can come up with is trying to put down folks in an amateur
newsgroup?!?

Folks? Well, there's you. Then again, you aren't a ham. You're just a
groupie.

In this game, you aren't nobility and you aren't a peasant. You're an
onlooker.

That's all you are, big radio god of the AMATEUR bands.

You've got it wrong, Len. I have a license and have had it for decades.
I make contacts via amateur radio daily. I'm a participant in amateur
radio. I don't issue catcalls from the sidelines. The guy who does
that is you.

A hot-air balloon who plays with ready-built radios and talks tuff as a
newsgroupie.

Why, Len, you're the wanna-be.

Get a better life.

I'm quite happy with this one, Len. Yours seems to be a little lacking
in light of your ham radio envy.

Dave K8MN

N2EY	August 13th 03 03:20 AM

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

I find it amusing that even though the PCTA's have lost the war, that
those who brought this to bear cannot avoid smacking us around a little
bit yet. It might be fun, but isn't doing anyone a bit of good.

What "war"?

FCC has been pushing for nocodetest since 1975. They've been nibbling away at
both the code and written tests since then.

Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.

Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??

A few other countries have dumped code testing. More are on the way to it. It
will be interesting to see what happens in those countries.

Sorry to hijack the thread, Jim!

You didn't hijack anything.

73 de Jim, N2EY

AveryFine

August 13th 03 04:22 AM

(Len Over 21)
writes:

Irrelevant.

Yes, you certainly are,
Len Anderson ;-) ;-)

No one in here lived in 1844 when morse code was first used
in commercial landline communications.

No one "in here" lived when
the telephone was first used
in commercial landline
communications.

No one in here lived when Marconi did his first radio communications in
Switzerland in 1895, or proved in Italy in 1896...using morse code for
on-off keying of a spark transmitter.

No one "in here" lived when
Fessenden did his first voice
radio communications in
1900 (or was it 1906?)

No one in here lived when the Titanic went down and mighty morse code
managed to get through for rescuing some...morse code could get
through because there was NOTHING ELSE to compare it with.

The Titanic sank at
least six years after
Fessenden demonstrated
voice radio communications.

Try reading a BOOK on the REST of the world of radio instead of what
if spoon-fed you by the little publisher in Newington.

Why?

You might find out
that the REST OF THE RADIO WORLD has gone beyond amateurism.

If that is true, Len Anderson
why do you post here?

And why are you so nasty
in your postings?

Do you have some sort of
unresolved anger towards
others?

"I'm not interested in either getting or dreaming about any AMATEUR license."
- Leonard Anderson

There is NO need in the rest of the radio world for DX contesting or
morsemanship skills or collecting QSL cards.

There is NO need in the amateur
radio world for your posts, Leonard
Anderson.

"The things that upset us most are often things we see as
qualities in our ownselves." - Kim W5TIT

Paper, moveable type, and the printing press were all invented LONG
before 1844 and the first use of commercial morse code
communications.

I was a working radio professional in 1952 when the Cold War was
already started. Are you saying your holiness as a school boy has
MORE experience in Cold War life?!?!?

Perhaps Dave Heil has more
experience in hot wars than you,
Len Anderson. He was in
Vietnam when there was a
war going on there.

Were you ever in a country
where a war was going on?

Stuff it, Colonel Klunk.

"YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis."

Guess who said that?

Perhaps you should
take your own advice, Len.

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

August 13th 03 10:52 AM

(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Len Over 21)

Were you ever in a country
where a war was going on?

Naaaah...He was CLOSE to one once, and since a bunch of guys he
didn't know got killed in it, he just used THIER share of war stories
to make up the difference.

Stuff it, Colonel Klunk.

"YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis."

Guess who said that?

Perhaps you should
take your own advice, Len.

Never thought I'd be agreeing with a post from "Avery Fine"... !
! !

Actually, I am beginning to think this is just Lennie arguing
with his darker alter ego in a public forum!

73

Steve, K4YZ

AveryFine

August 13th 03 12:08 PM

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

writes:

(AveryFine) wrote in message
...
(Len Over 21)

Were you ever in a country
where a war was going on?

Naaaah...He was CLOSE to one once, and since a bunch of guys he
didn't know got killed in it, he just used THIER share of war stories
to make up the difference.

Well, there you have it.

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Stuff it, Colonel Klunk.

"YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis."

Guess who said that?

Perhaps you should
take your own advice, Len.

Never thought I'd be agreeing with a post from "Avery Fine"... !
! !

Why not?

Actually, I am beginning to think this is just Lennie arguing
with his darker alter ego in a public forum!

I am not "Lennie". Nor am I Len Anderson. I am just someone
who writes here when the mood strikes me.

Is that wrong?

Mike Coslo

August 13th 03 04:35 PM

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert
Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the
situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Back to now...

After such a change, lots of different ideas come out of the woodwork
to replace the vacuum left by the probable disappearance of the Morse
code test. Some ideas are good, some make me shudder.

But the fact is that since if the test disappears and nothing else
happens, it very well does mean that it is a reduction in knowledge
required to get a ticket. All arguments on what constitutes "knowledge"
in these regards is kind of like defining "is". You have to learn less,
no possible dispute without looking pretty silly.

All this means that those who believe that requirements for a ticket
should be lowered have the upper hand.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is
a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

I am very disappointed that the winners in this one do not seem to have
any plan at all. All we hear are their personal thought on how *they*
don't support some of what is being proposed. That's nice, but Doggonit,
That doesn't cut it! They have to be darn active in seeing that things
don't fall apart around us. The ball is in their court now, and it seems
they don't know what to do with it. I don't really care what they
personally think, I want to see what they are going to do. And so far.......

Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.

Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

Probably not. Those who do advance the art are a small core of
technical adroit's, who come up with techniques that must not only
advance the art, but must be adapted by enough people to make them
viable. After all, it isn't much fun to have the newest cool method of
communication if there is only a couple people to communicate with.

If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away? I'd bet a cup of coffee on that one. It is a pity when you
lose someone to blame, eh?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

August 13th 03 09:59 PM

(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Because I do not well tolerate pathological liars. Lennie is a
pathological liar. He also grossly misrepresents Amateur Radio in
such a way as to bring discredit upon it. Poking the obvious holes in
his rants is sport.

Never thought I'd be agreeing with a post from "Avery Fine"... !
! !

Why not?

Why?

Actually, I am beginning to think this is just Lennie arguing
with his darker alter ego in a public forum!

I am not "Lennie". Nor am I Len Anderson. I am just someone
who writes here when the mood strikes me.

Is that wrong?

Nope. Did I say it was...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Len Over 21

August 13th 03 11:16 PM

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

What I wrote was precisely relevant.

Radio gods have the irritating habit of stating that only THEIR
viewpoints are "relevant." :-)

You wrote of someone's having not
been alive when something took place. I pointed out that you weren't
alive during some of the things which you've pontificated on in this
venue.

Now, now, Kolonel...you're busy trying to divert attention to someone
else by saying you are "relevant" and anyone disbelieving such a
godlike statement is "irrelevant."

You are worse than the other whiny PCTAs who want to "win" old
arguments that they LOST in here.

Try reading a BOOK on the REST of the world of radio instead of what
if spoon-fed you by the little publisher in Newington.

"YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis."

--Leonard H. Anderson

...and you still don't have any of that authority, divine radio god.

What the hell are you prattling about?

...about a whiny radio god (yourself) getting all hot and bothered
by negative criticsm and not being able to argue any subject without
attempting misdirection into personalities.

Did you have a point?

Yes. But, like Reverend Jim, you can't accept it even though everyone
else (except fellow PCTAs) can see it for what it is. :-)

You certainly wrote a large number of diversionary words to cover your
gaffe. There was no boom of Japanese ham gear in the 1960's. Is it
clear now?

Again, you refuse to accept what was happening in the markets for
amateur radio equipment.

The Japanese companies were already IN the ham radio marketplace
in the USA then and they've occupied the prime position ever since.

Why no, Len, not as a school boy. I certainly have more governmental
communications experience during the cold war.

Any more tales of wondrous radio pioneering from the International
Cashew Nut exporting capital of the world? :-)

No doubt you were awarded an Intelligence Star for your James Bomb
duties getting the goods on nearby commies in other countries. :-)

It doesn't take a regulator to truthfully state that you weren't
involved and are not involved in amateur radio.

You mean NOT LICENSED. That's ALL you can claim. :-)

Keep up with that "charge," big radio god. It seems about the only
valid statement you can make.

Don't tell me what I am to amateur radio.

No problem. You do that constantly about yourself. :-)

I'm a licensed ham and have been for decades.

Which only proves that you've been able to renew that license
periodically and within the legal time. :-)

You should also describe the stamping on your hide from the FDA.

You, quite truthfully are not involved at all in amateur radio.

Well then, HAM RADIO magazine made some dreadful errors in
personnel, did it? :-)

You ought to bring up outright charges of fraud and misrepresentation.
Psycho pSteve does that periodically. Of course, he can't understand
any of the article's technical things so he just says they are "forgeries."

You aren't a judge of what hams do or have done.

Real hams sometimes contain unsafe amounts of Escherichia coli
O157:H7. Be careful of infecting others when spouting off in here.

You are not a regulator.

Neither are YOU, big radio god.

Now tell us, great big four-decade experienced AMATEUR radio god,
what have YOU ever done to "advance amateur radio?!?"

No, I don't believe I will, Len.

I don't believe you CAN. :-)

Show us your patents, your marvelous discoveries, all your
important technical contributions.

Still have your patent fetish?

Never had any "fetish." But, I DO have a patent in radio.

You've had FORTY YEARS of amateurism
and all you can come up with is trying to put down folks in an amateur
newsgroup?!?

Folks? Well, there's you.

You don't hesitate one bit to put down ANYONE who doesn't worship
your statements or ideals. That's clearly evident in this newsgroup
and available on Google.

Then again, you aren't a ham. You're just a groupie.

"Ham is the butchered meat of swine."

I'm just advocating the elimination of the morse code test for ANY
US radio license examination.

You've got it wrong, Len. I have a license and have had it for decades.

You get a nice gold star for renewing your license periodically.

Other than that, what can you claim?

I make contacts via amateur radio daily.

I make contacts with switches and relays. Break those contacts, too.

Daily. :-)

I'm a participant in amateur radio.

Well, that proves the radio god's "validity." One can't get IN amateur
radio without ALREADY being IN amateur radio. Know the morse code.
Worship morse code. It is the key to GREATNESS!

I don't issue catcalls from the sidelines.

You have a "license" to catcall from inside the lines?

Of course you do. "Authority" from the US government!

Your license grant "authorizes" you to be a horse's ass to anyone not
in league with your godlike opinions, statements, and general personal
insults.

No problem. Everyone sees that.

Get a better life.

I'm quite happy with this one, Len. Yours seems to be a little lacking
in light of your ham radio envy.

What "envy?"

I'm just advocating the elimination of the morse code test for radio
license examinations.

You seem to think that anyone doing that is committing some kind of
heresy or blasphemy.

You seem to think that ALL in this newsgroup MUST have a valid
amateur radio license to participate. You don't have any validity in
that demand so all you do is attempt individual personal insults.

You are still under the misconception that a valid amateur radio license
is required to participate in here.

This newsgroup isn't "ham radio." It is supposed to be about talking
policy matters for that. In the United States all us citizens have the
absolute RIGHT to free speech under our Constitution. You won't
accept that, thus you are acting unconstitutionally.

Radio gods are like that. Mere earthly laws don't apply to them.

LHA

Dave Heil

August 14th 03 06:48 AM

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

What I wrote was precisely relevant.

Radio gods have the irritating habit of stating that only THEIR
viewpoints are "relevant." :-)

Why, you've habitually dismissed the viewpoints of others with a brusque
"irrelevant" and have stubbornly clung to your own views. Does that
mean that you're a radio god? :-)

You wrote of someone's having not
been alive when something took place. I pointed out that you weren't
alive during some of the things which you've pontificated on in this
venue.

Now, now, Kolonel...you're busy trying to divert attention to someone
else by saying you are "relevant" and anyone disbelieving such a
godlike statement is "irrelevant."

Not at all, Mr. Bluster. I wrote nothing about MY being relevant. You
chastised another for making a statement about something which took
place in the distant past. You make similar statements quite
frequently.

You are worse than the other whiny PCTAs who want to "win" old
arguments that they LOST in here.

Which old arguments were lost? Why are you attempting diversion just
after trying to paint another's comments as a diversion. Do you ever
practice what you preach? :-) :-)

Try reading a BOOK on the REST of the world of radio instead of what
if spoon-fed you by the little publisher in Newington.

"YOU have NO authority to call anyone anything, demean them,
make fun of them, or anything else...yet YOU continue to do so.
That indicates the perversity of your control-freak psychosis."

--Leonard H. Anderson

...and you still don't have any of that authority, divine radio god.

But somehow--maybe you view it as manifest destiny--you have such
authority. You're pathetic.

What the hell are you prattling about?

...about a whiny radio god (yourself) getting all hot and bothered
by negative criticsm and not being able to argue any subject without
attempting misdirection into personalities.

You're all about misdirection and personalties, Len. Your bluster isn't
going to accomplish much.

Did you have a point?

Yes. But, like Reverend Jim, you can't accept it even though everyone
else (except fellow PCTAs) can see it for what it is. :-)

Everyone else? We haven't heard from everyone else. Are you claiming
*chortle* prescience?

You certainly wrote a large number of diversionary words to cover your
gaffe. There was no boom of Japanese ham gear in the 1960's. Is it
clear now?

Again, you refuse to accept what was happening in the markets for
amateur radio equipment.

I refuse to accept your claim because it is incorrect. You don't know
what you're talking about.

The Japanese companies were already IN the ham radio marketplace
in the USA then and they've occupied the prime position ever since.

There were a very few Japanese transmitters and receivers in the very
late 1960s. There was no boom of Japanese equipment in the 1960's. The
Japanese weren't even in the "prime position" in the mid-1970's.

Why no, Len, not as a school boy. I certainly have more governmental
communications experience during the cold war.

Any more tales of wondrous radio pioneering from the International
Cashew Nut exporting capital of the world? :-)

Why? Are you folks in the International Nut capital of the world in the
market for more? :-) :-)

No doubt you were awarded an Intelligence Star for your James Bomb
duties getting the goods on nearby commies in other countries. :-)

Then again, you wouldn't be in a position to know anything about it. :-)

It doesn't take a regulator to truthfully state that you weren't
involved and are not involved in amateur radio.

You mean NOT LICENSED. That's ALL you can claim. :-)

I mean "not involved". You have nothing to do with amateur radio.

Keep up with that "charge," big radio god. It seems about the only
valid statement you can make.

Don't tell me what I am to amateur radio.

No problem. You do that constantly about yourself. :-)

Actually I haven't done much of that here but I'd be entitled to do so.
I am, after all, a licensed radio amateur. I'm a part of amateur radio.
You, on the other hand... :-)

I'm a licensed ham and have been for decades.

Which only proves that you've been able to renew that license
periodically and within the legal time. :-)

I've passed four different written exams and morse exams at three
speeds. I took and passed all the exams they had, Len. You've not even
attempted the most basic, despite your "decades-long interest".

You should also describe the stamping on your hide from the FDA.

You write some pretty peculiar things.

You, quite truthfully are not involved at all in amateur radio.

Well then, HAM RADIO magazine made some dreadful errors in
personnel, did it? :-)

How long has it been since there was such a magazine? Yes, I agree that
HAM RADIO magazine made at least one dreadful error in personnel.

You ought to bring up outright charges of fraud and misrepresentation.
Psycho pSteve does that periodically. Of course, he can't understand
any of the article's technical things so he just says they are "forgeries."

I don't know about fraud but you've certainly been guilty of
misrepresentation here on a number of occasions.

You aren't a judge of what hams do or have done.

Real hams sometimes contain unsafe amounts of Escherichia coli
O157:H7. Be careful of infecting others when spouting off in here.

Nice dodge.

You are not a regulator.

Neither are YOU, big radio god.

I have no need to be. I'm quite happy to be active as a licensed radio
amateur. I'm one-for-two. You're oh-for-two.

Now tell us, great big four-decade experienced AMATEUR radio god,
what have YOU ever done to "advance amateur radio?!?"

No, I don't believe I will, Len.

I don't believe you CAN. :-)

I'm sure it'd be something like your line about Steve: You wouldn't be
capable of understanding. :-)

Show us your patents, your marvelous discoveries, all your
important technical contributions.

Still have your patent fetish?

Never had any "fetish." But, I DO have a patent in radio.

It sure seems like a fetish. I can Google up a number of occasions
where you bring up the existence of your patent while asking others, "Do
YOU have a patent"?

You've had FORTY YEARS of amateurism
and all you can come up with is trying to put down folks in an amateur
newsgroup?!?

Folks? Well, there's you.

You don't hesitate one bit to put down ANYONE who doesn't worship
your statements or ideals. That's clearly evident in this newsgroup
and available on Google.

I don't require worship, nor do my ideals. That's another
misrepresentation on your part. That is clearly evident without a trip
to Google.

Then again, you aren't a ham. You're just a groupie.

"Ham is the butchered meat of swine."

Then you're in the wrong newsgroup.

I'm just advocating the elimination of the morse code test for ANY
US radio license examination.

You've never "just" advocated. You've always done the things of which
you frequently accuse others. You want a minimum age requirement for
entry into amateur radio. When others have argued that no age limit is
needed, you've come close to apoplexy and the capital letters fly as
you've typed "CHILDREN" As to the elimination of morse testing: What's
it to you?

You've got it wrong, Len. I have a license and have had it for decades.

You get a nice gold star for renewing your license periodically.

Other than that, what can you claim?

I can and do claim that 1) you don't hold such a license 2) you aren't a
part of amateur radio 3) that your credibility here on the code test
issue is almost non-existent.

I make contacts via amateur radio daily.

I make contacts with switches and relays. Break those contacts, too.

I'll bet you could break anything.

Daily. :-)

I'm a participant in amateur radio.

Well, that proves the radio god's "validity." One can't get IN amateur
radio without ALREADY being IN amateur radio. Know the morse code.
Worship morse code. It is the key to GREATNESS!

One can get in quite easily. You haven't taken the first step toward
obtaining an amateur radio license of any class. You can't blame others
for your own inertia.

I don't issue catcalls from the sidelines.

You have a "license" to catcall from inside the lines?

I'm in the game, not on the sidelines. I'll be happy to dish out all
the catcalls you can handle.

Of course you do. "Authority" from the US government!

Not from the sidelines. If you'd develop a more positive outlook, you
could be one of our cheerleaders.

Your license grant "authorizes" you to be a horse's ass to anyone not
in league with your godlike opinions, statements, and general personal
insults.

Which simply makes you an unlicensed horse's ass.

No problem. Everyone sees that.

Everyone? You have an ARRL study guide in your pocket?

Get a better life.

I'm quite happy with this one, Len. Yours seems to be a little lacking
in light of your ham radio envy.

What "envy?"

You know. Your envy.

I'm just advocating the elimination of the morse code test for radio
license examinations.

Naw. You know in your heart of hearts that it just isn't so.

You seem to think that anyone doing that is committing some kind of
heresy or blasphemy.

Not at all. I don't think you know the first thing about it.

You seem to think that ALL in this newsgroup MUST have a valid
amateur radio license to participate. You don't have any validity in
that demand so all you do is attempt individual personal insults.

I don't think that at all. You've commented here for years. You've
dropped road apples of insults on numerous individuals who don't happen
to agree with you. Then you get sore when the insults come your way.
You tell others about how tough newsgroups can be but you, the little
old pirhana, can't take it.

You are still under the misconception that a valid amateur radio license
is required to participate in here.

You are still under the misconception about what I believe.

This newsgroup isn't "ham radio." It is supposed to be about talking
policy matters for that. In the United States all us citizens have the
absolute RIGHT to free speech under our Constitution. You won't
accept that, thus you are acting unconstitutionally.

More road apples. I'd give you some oats but you're the wrong end.
The constitution does not require my silence or force any deference
toward your views. It does not prohibit my laughing at you or my
sarcasm directed toward you. You may unwrap the flag and stand down
from your soapbox.

Radio gods are like that. Mere earthly laws don't apply to them.

You can't even make up your mind if I'm a god or not.

Dave K8MN

N2EY	August 14th 03 06:38 PM

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert
Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

Sounds pretty familiar.....

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the
situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

Back to now...

After such a change, lots of different ideas come out of the woodwork
to replace the vacuum left by the probable disappearance of the Morse
code test. Some ideas are good, some make me shudder.

Such as?

But the fact is that since if the test disappears and nothing else
happens, it very well does mean that it is a reduction in knowledge
required to get a ticket. All arguments on what constitutes "knowledge"
in these regards is kind of like defining "is". You have to learn less,
no possible dispute without looking pretty silly.

Sure. But that's been going on for decades now. Some folks would even
say it is justified because a ham doesn't have to know as much today
to get on the air and avoid breaking the rules.

For example: How many hams do you know who use barefoot rigs that
require tuneup in order to operate properly? (Not the ATU - the rig
itself). Besides me, that is.

How many do you know who regularly use 100% homebrew stations?

Etc.

All this means that those who believe that requirements for a ticket
should be lowered have the upper hand.

Been that way for decades.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is
a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

Not by everyone.

Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it. Or even most of it. The repeater expert
may be in the dark about wire antennas. The digital folks may be
helpless with power supplies. And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

I am very disappointed that the winners in this one do not seem to have
any plan at all.

Actually, some of them do. For instance, here are some gems from Fred
Maia, W5YI:

- Outlaw all forms of amateur bulletins and one way information
transmissions, INCLUDING CODE PRACTICE, below 30 MHz (1995 petition to
the FCC)

- Reduce the entry level license to a 20 question written and include
voice privileges on the bands above 20 meters

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

You get the idea.

All we hear are their personal thought on how *they*
don't support some of what is being proposed. That's nice, but Doggonit,
That doesn't cut it! They have to be darn active in seeing that things
don't fall apart around us. The ball is in their court now, and it seems
they don't know what to do with it. I don't really care what they
personally think, I want to see what they are going to do. And so far.......

What you're seeing is what I call the "Zen method of design", where
they will never tell you what they want, only what they don't want.

Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.

Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

Probably not. Those who do advance the art are a small core of
technical adroit's, who come up with techniques that must not only
advance the art, but must be adapted by enough people to make them
viable. After all, it isn't much fun to have the newest cool method of
communication if there is only a couple people to communicate with.

BINGO!

Which means that the advance must be publicized, affordable, and offer
hams something they want.

Example: Cecil, W5DXP, used to rave about PACTOR-2. I started to look
into it, and discovered that (at the time) implementing it required
not just a shack computer but a $600 dedicated PACTOR 2 box. Which
explains why so few hams use the mode, compared to, say, PSK-31.

If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

I'd bet a cup of coffee on that one. It is a pity when you
lose someone to blame, eh?

'zactly. But you'll never sell that one.

Meanwhile, the real challenges don't get the spotlight. Like CC&Rs -
what good are licenses if we cannot put up effective antennas?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21

August 15th 03 10:51 PM

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert

Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

Sounds pretty familiar.....

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the

situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

Unless that was YOUR twisted "mantra."

It could be...you equate morse code with amateur radio so strongly
that you can't separate them, even in your imagination.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is

a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

Not by everyone.

The VEC Question Pool Committee is open to input. They are the ones
who ORIGINATE questions and answers.

Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

"Interest and drive." :-)

That equates to "laziness" and other negative moral/ethical things?

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it.

You aren't an "expert" in radio-electronics?

Gosh, and you "DO electrical engineering." With a Masters degree, too!

... And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

HARF!!! :-)

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

Yeah...let's hear it for all those "mature" 6-year-olds on the air
wiith the "big gun contesters."

Wow, that 14-year-old arbitrary limit sure must have stung you!

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

Blasphemy! Morsemen DESERVE elitism and their own private
spectral playpen!

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

Horrors! Remove the STATUS-TITLE-RANK-PRIVELEGE?!?!?

Can't have that!

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

The OLD system - the one in which you triumphed - is ALWAYS
the BEST!!!

You get the idea.

Absolutely. Keep your elite morseman status and titles...after all
you are in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

What you are FOR is to keep your rank-title-status-privilege and you
don't want that "contaminated" by large-scale changes.

Meanwhile, the real challenges don't get the spotlight. Like CC&Rs -
what good are licenses if we cannot put up effective antennas?

What good are you that can't give in to new ideas, progressive ideas,
that intefere with your standards and practices of the 1930s?

LHA

Len Over 21

August 15th 03 10:51 PM

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Not at all, Mr. Bluster. I wrote nothing about MY being relevant.

That's true. You are NOT relevant to any subject in here except
your over-prideful nonsense and trying to put down others who
won't worship you. Pfaughhh.

LHA

Dave Heil

August 16th 03 11:17 AM

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

N2EY wrote:

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the

situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

About real thought? posting ideas? the mantra? eliminating the code test
solving everything?

Unless that was YOUR twisted "mantra."

That couldn't be correct, Len. Why would someone who supports continued
morse testing have a mantra about the removal of morse testing solving
everything?

It could be...you equate morse code with amateur radio so strongly
that you can't separate them, even in your imagination.

How would you be in a position to know that?

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it.

You aren't an "expert" in radio-electronics?

He has answered the same question from you a couple of times.

Gosh, and you "DO electrical engineering." With a Masters degree, too!

Does that irk you?

... And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

HARF!!! :-)

Okay, HARF clueless.

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

Yeah...let's hear it for all those "mature" 6-year-olds on the air
wiith the "big gun contesters."

I really appreciate your confirming what I wrote about your minimum age
requirement just a couple of days ago.

Wow, that 14-year-old arbitrary limit sure must have stung you!

Apparently not nearly as much as the blanket rejection of your idea for
instituting a minimum age requirement.

Blasphemy! Morsemen DESERVE elitism and their own private
spectral playpen!

Horrors! Remove the STATUS-TITLE-RANK-PRIVELEGE?!?!?

Can't have that!

The OLD system - the one in which you triumphed - is ALWAYS
the BEST!!!

Absolutely. Keep your elite morseman status and titles...after all
you are in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

What you are FOR is to keep your rank-title-status-privilege and you don't want that "contaminated" by large-scale changes.

What good are you that can't give in to new ideas, progressive ideas, that intefere with your standards and practices of the 1930s?

Maybe Schuler will give you a guest preaching shot at the Chrystal
Cathedral. If so, you can introduce your Improbability Thinking to the
world.

Remember, Len, none of this need concern you. You aren't remotely
involved in amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil

August 16th 03 11:25 AM

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Not at all, Mr. Bluster. I wrote nothing about MY being relevant.

That's true. You are NOT relevant to any subject in here except
your over-prideful nonsense and trying to put down others who
won't worship you. Pfaughhh.

I can claim interest in any of the topics dealing with amateur radio and
to some of those which take slide off into the field of professional
radio. The fact is, I am actively involved in amateur radio and you are
not. That aside, I wrote nothing about MY relevance to the material you
conveniently snipped. You got it wrong.

I have no need for others to worship me, Len. I haven't even asked for
your quiet veneration after correcting your erroneous comment about the
Japanese equipment boom of the 1960's.

You have yet to provide a definition of "over-prideful".

Dave K8MN

Brian

August 16th 03 11:32 PM

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...

I am not "Lennie". Nor am I Len Anderson. I am just someone
who writes here when the mood strikes me.

Is that wrong?

Nope. Did I say it was...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, meet Dave. Dave, meet Steve.

Brian

August 17th 03 07:07 PM

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Because I do not well tolerate pathological liars.

You don't tolerate anonymous posters, either.

Or do you?

Steve Robeson, K4CAP

August 17th 03 09:26 PM

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Because I do not well tolerate pathological liars.

You don't tolerate anonymous posters, either.

Or do you?

Since I know who it is, he is not anonymous.

Steve, K4YZ

WA3IYC

August 18th 03 02:43 AM

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

What WILL be the end of ham radio is a lack of significant
growth ...

Let's get it straight - is dropping Element 1 going to give us lots
more
growth or not?

I don't understand a few of the things Carl says here. That we will
dissapear unless we get "significant growth".

There are more US hams today than at any time in the past.

What exactly is that? a 100 percent increase in a day? increase at 1
percent over population increase?

That's what I've been asking.

I'd like to know the advances they will bring.

Similar to what newcomers have always brought.

I want to hear how those who oppose the ending of the Morse code
requirement are keeping ham radio from marching forward.

Time for the roadmap to the future to be laid out.

Don't hold yer breath waiting;-)

Or is this like the last scene in "The Candidate"?

Refresh my memory on that one, Mike.

The Candidate is a pretty good film about an idealistic fellow, (Robert

Redford) the son of a former Governor, who gets caught up in running for
office after being prodded by the local political machinery. Along the
way, he compromises most all of his values (all that is not relevant to
the case at hand. But in the end, after being elected to office, amongst
the victory celebration, he looks to his campaign manager (Peter Boyle -
Haw) completely confused, and asks "What do we do now?" He was
completely lost and didn't know what to do.

Sounds pretty familiar.....

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the

situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN.

About what?

Unless that was YOUR twisted "mantra."

Nope. Not mine.

It could be...you equate morse code with amateur radio so strongly
that you can't separate them, even in your imagination.

My main interest in amateur radio is HF Morse/CW operation, and designing,
building, aligning, maintaining and restoring equipment to do so. I have other
interests in amateur radio, too.

Others have different interests in amateur radio than I. They do their thing, I
do mine.

But we are all radio amateurs.

You, Len, are not a radio amateur. Nor have you ever been one. Your sole
interests seem to be in a few newsgroups.

Those who do not believe that, that is to say that a Morse code test is
a desirable thing, or those who want the writtens to be reflective of a
fair degree of competence, have an uphill battle, and at the moment are
regarded as the losers.

Not by everyone.

The VEC Question Pool Committee is open to input. They are the ones
who ORIGINATE questions and answers.

Anyone can originate questions and answers for the pools, and submit them to
the QPC.

However, changes the syllabus, testing methods, or other requirements require
FCC rules changes that are beyond QPC authority.

Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

"Interest and drive." :-)

Yes, interest and drive. Those are good things, Len.

That equates to "laziness" and other negative moral/ethical things?

Nope. Laziness is the opposite. Laziness is not a good thing.

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it.

You aren't an "expert" in radio-electronics?

Nope. I don't claim to be an expert at anything. I challenge you to find a post
where I have called myself an expert.

Gosh, and you "DO electrical engineering."

Yep. For a living. Since at least 1976.

With a Masters degree, too!

That's right. BSEE from the University of Pennsylvania, MaSEE from Drexel
University.

Where is our degree from, Len?

... And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

HARF!!! :-)

Do try to control yourself.

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

Yeah...let's hear it for all those "mature" 6-year-olds on the air
wiith the "big gun contesters."

Your behavior here is often less mature than that of a typical six-year-old,
Len ;-)

Can you name any problems caused by the licensing of young children in the ARS?
Violations by them?

Wow, that 14-year-old arbitrary limit sure must have stung you!

Not me. I'm 49.

Did you know that the 1996 READEX survey commissioned by the ARRL showed that
the age group that was most procodetest was the 24-and-younger group? 85%
procodetest, 15% nocodetest. The hams of the future...

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

Blasphemy! Morsemen DESERVE elitism and their own private
spectral playpen!

Sounds good to me. I say the FCC should make at least the lower 15% of each HF
amateur band CW-only.

Right now, the only amateur CW-only subbands are on VHF.

Would you rather eliminate the CW/data subbands, Len?

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

Horrors! Remove the STATUS-TITLE-RANK-PRIVELEGE?!?!?

Can't have that!

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

The OLD system - the one in which you triumphed - is ALWAYS
the BEST!!!

Where do you get that idea?

You get the idea.

Absolutely. Keep your elite morseman status and titles...after all
you are in the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service!

No, I'm in the Amateur Radio Service. Since 1967.

You are not. You never have been.

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

What you are FOR is to keep your rank-title-status-privilege and you
don't want that "contaminated" by large-scale changes.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Meanwhile, the real challenges don't get the spotlight. Like CC&Rs -
what good are licenses if we cannot put up effective antennas?

What good are you that can't give in to new ideas, progressive ideas,
that intefere with your standards and practices of the 1930s?

I don't give in to bad ideas. And my standards and practices are those of
today.

You live too much in the past, Len.

N2EY

Brian

August 18th 03 03:01 AM

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(AveryFine) wrote in message ...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP)

Why do you let Len Anderson's postings here bother you, Steve Robeson? Have you
not noticed that his pattern of behavior is designed to elicit angry responses
from you?

Because I do not well tolerate pathological liars.

You don't tolerate anonymous posters, either.

Or do you?

Since I know who it is, he is not anonymous.

Steve, K4YZ

You can thank me for the introduction anytime.

73, Brian

Mike Coslo

August 18th 03 07:54 PM

N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
some snippage

My point is that I see a close relationship between that ending and the
situation we have here. No real thought has been given to the aftermath
of the ending of the Morse code test.

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

Back to now...

After such a change, lots of different ideas come out of the woodwork
to replace the vacuum left by the probable disappearance of the Morse
code test. Some ideas are good, some make me shudder.

Such as?

Okay. Carl's (NCI's?) approach sounds reasonable and should work okay -
even though I disagree with it.

On the other end of the spectrum, the proposal to turn everyone into HF
weenies is just plain stupid in my book.

But the fact is that since if the test disappears and nothing else
happens, it very well does mean that it is a reduction in knowledge
required to get a ticket. All arguments on what constitutes "knowledge"
in these regards is kind of like defining "is". You have to learn less,
no possible dispute without looking pretty silly.

Sure. But that's been going on for decades now. Some folks would even
say it is justified because a ham doesn't have to know as much today
to get on the air and avoid breaking the rules.

The times do change, no doubt. It all comes back to my thinking we can
be as adroit as we want to be. On that spectrum, it varies from no test
whatsoever - proven by the many CB'ers who run power amps, to those who
think that a person needs to be an EE to get on the air.

What do WE want? I want the ham to have enough knowledge to get on the
air safely, to realize that he or she can do some nasty things to
themselves and others if they aren't careful. I want the ham to be able
to read instructions and comprehend them. I want them to know at at
least a superficial level just what their rigs are doing. I want the ham
to know where to look up things like band edges and allowable powers on
a band. I want the ham to know that they are expected to act like they
learned manners at some point. I want the ham to know basic theory such
as Ohms law, and very simple antenna design.

Oh, and BTW, I want the ham to know how to communicate at what I
consider the base mode - CW.

This is just my opinion.

For example: How many hams do you know who use barefoot rigs that
require tuneup in order to operate properly? (Not the ATU - the rig
itself). Besides me, that is.

How many do you know who regularly use 100% homebrew stations?

Personally, just you.

some snippage

Looking back on the history, however, shows that license requirements
are only one factor - and probably not as major a factor as some would
have us believe. What really matters is the interest and drive of the
person involved. Some people will learn just enough to pass the test
and then shut down, forgetting most of what they "learned" in a short
time. Others will go far beyond the test levels. It's all a choice.

True. That is one of the reasons that I like the idea of having a bit
of challenge to the tests. I'd wager that those who are willing to put
forth extra effort are more likely to be an asset to the ARS than those
who aren't. All this is on average, and does not apply to the individual
ham.

"Radio" and "electronics" are such wide-ranging subjects that nobody
can be an expert at all of it. Or even most of it. The repeater expert
may be in the dark about wire antennas. The digital folks may be
helpless with power supplies. And even the most knowledgeable "radio
professionals" can be utterly clueless about the practical aspects of
amateur radio.

And how! The idea that we are going to get EE's in here is essentially
meaningless. It should be changed to RF engineers.... and of course the
ones who want to have their hobby also be their vocation. It takes a
special person indeed.

I am very disappointed that the winners in this one do not seem to have
any plan at all.

Actually, some of them do. For instance, here are some gems from Fred
Maia, W5YI:

- Outlaw all forms of amateur bulletins and one way information
transmissions, INCLUDING CODE PRACTICE, below 30 MHz (1995 petition to
the FCC)

Booooring! And I know why too. Well, I oculd be wrong too. Was W1MAN
transmitting back then?

- Reduce the entry level license to a 20 question written and include
voice privileges on the bands above 20 meters

It's good to see he "retired" as a VEC. He really wanted that job to be
easy.

Here are some others I've seen, by various others:

- Institute an age requirement of 14 years as the minimum for any
class of amateur license

- Eliminate all subbands-by-mode

- Reduce the number of license classes to one all-privs license.

- Reduce the number of license classes to two - entry and all-privs.

You get the idea.

All we hear are their personal thought on how *they*
don't support some of what is being proposed. That's nice, but Doggonit,
That doesn't cut it! They have to be darn active in seeing that things
don't fall apart around us. The ball is in their court now, and it seems
they don't know what to do with it. I don't really care what they
personally think, I want to see what they are going to do. And so far.......

What you're seeing is what I call the "Zen method of design", where
they will never tell you what they want, only what they don't want.

And howaboddit! they don't like whatever I come up with.

Gloat time is over. Your time has come. You now have the chance to
prove that you were right. And browbeating the losers isn't a very good
start.

Maybe we'll see a lot of newcomers and technoadvances after the code test goes.
And maybe we won't. Personally, I don't think we'll see either.

Probably not. Those who do advance the art are a small core of
technical adroit's, who come up with techniques that must not only
advance the art, but must be adapted by enough people to make them
viable. After all, it isn't much fun to have the newest cool method of
communication if there is only a couple people to communicate with.

BINGO!

Which means that the advance must be publicized, affordable, and offer
hams something they want.

Example: Cecil, W5DXP, used to rave about PACTOR-2. I started to look
into it, and discovered that (at the time) implementing it required
not just a shack computer but a $600 dedicated PACTOR 2 box. Which
explains why so few hams use the mode, compared to, say, PSK-31.

Haw! I wonder how many hams use that mode, any stats? It sounds like
some of the EME frequencies noted in QST where they name off all six of
the people who use it!

If that happens, what will be blamed for the ARS' perceived problems??

The PCTA's, because of their being so negative, and scaring the new
people away?

"Negative"? We're not "negative" - we're FOR something!

I'd sure think so.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Brian

August 18th 03 11:37 PM

(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.

The Mantra has always been that:

1. The Code always gets thru
2. The Code will keep out the riff-raff
3. The Code requires just the right amount of suffering to prove ones devotions

Aaron Jones keeps the other 47 Mantras.

DickCarroll

August 19th 03 03:24 AM

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.

What??? No "Hoops"??? No "unnecessary requirements"?? No
"Unjustified bogus BOHICA thingies"?? No "Morsedits" holding
back the intelligentsia?? No "If it wasn't for that dastardly
Morris code test I'd take my rightful place on HF??

No Mantra???? Get back to your village!

Brian

August 19th 03 01:41 PM

(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

Some of us have given it real thought, and have posted ideas. But the
mantra has always been that eliminating the code test would solve
everything.

No-code isn't a religion. No Mantra.

What??? No "Hoops"??? No "unnecessary requirements"?? No
"Unjustified bogus BOHICA thingies"?? No "Morsedits" holding
back the intelligentsia?? No "If it wasn't for that dastardly
Morris code test I'd take my rightful place on HF??

No mantra.

No Mantra???? Get back to your village!

You miss me?

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 AM.

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page