ROTFLMAO....


Go ahead and LYAO WIMP

On 07 Sep 2003 23:55:21 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

No actually I don't. Keep going, I'm forwarding all of this to
so that they can get a good laugh out of it too.


Oh I see, when someone gets the best of you, you go crying, Im going to report
you.
Do you usually Whine and cry for everything you have ever gotten in life, you
little WIMP. Tak your little WIMPY ASS Report and stick it.

ROTFLMAO....

On 08 Sep 2003 00:00:15 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

ROTFLMAO....


Go ahead and LYAO WIMP

Why do you feel the sudden need to change the subject? Do you posts
violate yous ISP's TOS? Would you be the same way about operation in
the ham bands if you were really licensed to operate there?

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On 07 Sep 2003 23:03:13 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

And, for goodness sake again--don't *even* be affected by anything Dick
Carroll, Waddles (WA8ULX or whatever), Larry Roll or even Dave Heil
says.
They're humorous, at best. They all remind me of drunken old rambling
men.

Kim W5TIT

Your TITs Draggin on the ground are not humorous

Nor is you lack of basic knowledge regarding antennas.


Hey, Bob? Just a suggestion. Just filter out this nitwit. Also, I've got
it set so that anything with WA8ULX@aol, WA8ULX, ULX, Brucie, or Bruce
doesn't come through. So, I miss most of whatever it is he posts. Can't
say I miss most of whatever it is he "says" because he doesn't say
anything...LOL

Anyway, just a suggestion. I've also done that with Dan, now, too. He's
another one that isn't even fun to play with and I hate take advantage of
anyone but Larry and DICK.

Kim W5TIT

Why do you feel the sudden need to change the subject?

What subject you Dip

Do you posts
violate yous ISP's TOS?

I dont know, and I dont care, do you?

Would you be the same way about operation in
the ham bands

Of course

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE.

Sure Dan, come along and spoil the fun! And Bob thinks I'm a dummy! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

On 06 Sep 2003 11:22:30 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 5 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
...
On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:


I think that they should know what all those nifty buttons
actually do.

That's a problem, because many rigs have so many features and menus that almost
nobody knows *all* of them. But if you're talking about basic operation and
operating practice, there's no reason it couldn't be done.

They should know how to enter into a conversation. A
list of "critical tasks" and "non-critical tasks" should be developed
and a person not be licensed until they can actually show competence
in those tasks. Those are the types of issues that I'd like to see
the ham community discussing rather than the endless code/no-code
debate that detracts from everything else.

Actually, this very idea was discussed here over 5 years ago. Here's what I
proposed:


(BEGIN QUOTE):

It seems to me that just dropping the code test would remove the last vestige
of skills testing from the licensing process. Perhaps the code test should be
replaced by a real practical operating test.

Such a test could work like this:

Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or
hear each other. The rigs are connected to dummy loads which are located
adjacent to each other. (The idea is to permit a "contact" from one rig to the
other, without putting much of a signal on the air). The testee and a VE sit at
one rig, and another VE sits at the other. The testee is given a sealed
envelope and a few minutes to get familiar with the operation of the rig. (The
operating instructions for the rig would be available at any time).

When the actual test begins, the testee opens the sealed envelope and a timer
is started. Inside the envelope are a set of instructions telling the testee to
go to a specific frequency and call the VE at the other rig, make contact, and
send the enclosed formal message. The VE at the other end has a similar sealed
envelope, but with a different message, which is to be received by the testee.

The idea is to test the actual radio operating skills of the testee under
controlled conditions. There would be a time limit, too. (That's what the timer
is for). The testee would have the choice of CW, voice or a digital mode for
the test.

Time limits and exact instructions would vary with the mode and the class of
license being tested. Higher class tests could have shorter time limits, longer
messages, and more complicated instructions, such as having to change frequency
at a certain point in the contact, having to pick the frequency from a list
that includes "wrong choices", etc.

Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing
or misspelled, that's a mistake. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are
used, each deviation is a mistake. If the time limit is exceeded, each minute
over the limit is a mistake. Exceed a certain number of mistakes and the test
is failed. Asking for a repeat of a missed word would NOT be a mistake.

Typical exams (but not the exact exams themselves) would be available as study
guides. Audiotapes of typical tests could be used for study as well.

Yes, it's a bit more complex than a straight code receiving test, and requires
some equipment and two VEs to conduct it. (Perhaps the VE at the testee's
position isn't really needed). But it could be done quite easily, and in such a
way as to test real operating skills. The rigs used need not have lots of
features, and QRP power levels would be more than adequate. Or a "rig
simulator" that's really a gussied-up intercom could be used.

Is there any real reason such testing could not be done? Is it expecting too
much that a prospective ham be able to pass such a test? I think not!

(END QUOTE)

That description was part of a longer post from June 19, 1998. For the
original, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...892%40ladder03.
news.aol.com&output=gplain

Note that one of the features of the test is that the person being tested gets
to choose the mode used. Those who like Morse best can be tested using that
mode, etc.

I reposted the idea a few times but always got the same response from the
nocodetest folks: Opposition to the idea of ANY form of practical skills test.

Well, I guess I'm an exception to the rule. I'd support exactly
something along those lines. Have them set up a very simple radio
into dummy loads and actually have a conversation.


All of the name calling and false accusations from both sides makes us
look silly to those who read it.

That's true.

I'm really glad that it will be ending soon.

You know something we don't? FCC has been extremely slow in acting on various
proposals over the past few years. The 2000 restructuring took almost two
years, start-to-finish.

Frankly, given the FCC's words in the Report and Order to 98-143 (the
restructuring), I'm surprised that Element 1 is still in place. FCC said there
was "no regulatory purpose" for code testing *except* meeting the treaty
requirement. Treaty requirement is gone. Based on its own logic, FCC now has no
reason at all to keep Element 1. Yet they are going through the whole NPRM
cycle again. Why? Could it be they have changed their minds?

However the issue is decided, I doubt that all of the name calling and false
accusations will stop. You should see some of the names I've been called for
daring to disagree with some folks, and for pointing out their mistakes in
fact, logic and math.

Perhaps then, we can move on to more important issues.

Maybe - but given the resistance to my idea of 5+ years ago, I doubt it.

I don't know. Although the posts to the ng haven't changed over the
years, people and positions do change. I've had a few people post
dissatisfaction with the knowledge level of the current testing and
they seem to agree that the current tests allow people to be licensed
that don't know protocols or even how to set up and operate the
equipment. Your proposal sounds like a step in the right direction.

I'm sure that not everyone will agree with performance based testing
in addition to a written test.

That's an understatement. Google up the responses I got from the above post.
Some of 'em aren't pretty.

However, perhaps a consensus could be reached.

Even if that happens, the FCC then has to be sold on the idea.

If a consensus was reached in the ham coumunity that testing was
inadequate at its current level, would selling the idea to them really
be that hard? Afterall, it hams who would have to bear the burden of
administering the additional test requirements. I don't think that
anyone wants to see people licensed to operate radios who don't know
the basics of setting them up and using them within established
protocols.

So, how would we go about starting a movement towards perfromance
based testing? I would be willing to do what I could to help.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 09:12:21 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:43:32 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


To use Hans' spelling: for crying out phucking loud, Bob. Either you
literally have just decided to pop in and don't read any other time; or
you
really are just trolling. This newsgroup runs several, *several* topics
at
any given time. You can choose whatever ones you would like and even
create
your own. But, you aren't going to change the debate on CW and no one
ever
will. I just laughed hysterically at another post of yours, where you
said,
"thank goodness it will all be ending soon." That's ludicrous. You're
either young or blissful if you think the CW debate is going to end or go
away.

Anyone who can read the news knows which way code testing is going to
go. The only real question is when. I see that Oz has decided that
they don't have to wait until 2005 to dump it. Gee...what a suprise.


Bob. You're young, aren't you? I can almost tell that by your optimistic
attitude about the CW issue. You have to realize, Bob, that the CW issue
for the drunken-type ramblers is not a CW issue at all. It's a value
issue--that they value some mysterious talent they see in their ability and
desire to use CW. It isn't about regulations, it isn't about the FCC, it
isn't about whether it is a testing element or not. In their eyes, they
will always be above anyone else not of their ilk. We know that's wrong.
Others who have far more logic and brains and the capacity to think straight
know that's wrong. But, they do not. So, their incessant whining and
arguing and condemning and blaming will go on into eternity, while the rest
of ham radio--the real part--moves on, has fun, helps out, and grows.

I'm pushing 50, but I like to convince myself that I'm still young.
Once the decision is made, all that will be left will those who
reminice about the good ole days when you couldn't talk on HF if you
didn't know how to not talk on HF.

I have to be pretty darned "professional" during the day
and getting down to another level sure is great fun!

Oh, I come and go. I have many more parts to my life that are more
pressing sometimes than ham radio or the newsgroup, but I won't go
into them. It sounds like the serious hams who want to discuss real
ham things have lives too.


Absolutely. The only reason I happened upon the newsgroup again is I've
been designing and building an MS Access application for use by a company.
I am on the computer so much at work that it really isn't a draw here at
home. When I was on before, we'd actually just gotten the internet
connection, and a second computer so we didn't have to "share" :GRIN: and I
would load up the newsgroup while I was cruising around. For this project
that I did here, we went out and bought a new computer with Office XP Pro,
Office Pro, TurboCAD, Dreamweaver, and Crystal Reports. This MS Access
application turned into an all-out total package for the company and it's
challenged some of my abilities--which I really dig because it's meant
growing some new knowledge and that's never bad!

At any rate, the project is now winding down, save some tweaks and mods. I
don't know if I'll keep coming to the newsgroup. I don't have much to do on
the computer at home; I'm much more an outside or home decorating person
than I am a internet junkie (hubby's the internet junkie). And, heck--now
we're looking at new homes so that's bound to keep me distracted. But, like
I said, after the shock that there are people who act the way they do here
in this newsgroup, it becomes nothing but fun and entertainment to draw them
out--well, except for DICK who can't directly respond to anyone who's
smarter than he--into a tirade of emotion. The occasional
half-serious-to-serious discussion is great.


BTW, the last time that I read anything is this ng was when you posted
your goodbye to the group way back when. You see, this is a newsgroup
that you can leave for months or years and come back exactly where you
left off because the same things are being said over and over again.


Oh yeah. You got that right. For those folks whom you depict above, all
one need do is imagine the local bar-and-grill/pub, where Johnny and Drake
and Chuck have hung forever. One walks in, could be 15 years later, and
there they a still on the same stool, slumped over, arguing the same
damned things they've argued for years. Pathetic, I know, but it's no
different than watching a car race, not for the winner but to see what
accidents we can see.


Personally, I kinda like your callsign. I hope that you can live up
to it.


I couldn't care less whether you like it or not, Bob. I don't care if
anyone else likes it or not. It's personal between and a group of friends
and the rest of the world be damned.


And that debate has been had and made many times here; and it's coming up
again--Winter is coming.

Kim W5TIT

So, basically you're saying that the ng is stuck and useless except
for a distraction.


Absolutely. The only folks you'll ever see in any half-way decent debates
in this newsgroup are Jim/N2EY; Brian Kelley; Hans--once in a while; and the
occasional visitors who'll bring up something happenstance into this
newsgroup and figure out real quick that there's so few serious participants
that it's just not worth it.


That's a shame, but I tend to agree with you.


Oh, I don't think it's a shame...'least not any more. I kinda like it. I
don't know where you work or what have to do for a living but I get plenty
of serious, mentally challenging, stressful distractions at work. I think
the transition I used to look for here was a
seriuos-but-not-mentally-challenging exchange. Well, that's not going to
happen so I just shed all the "stuff" and decide to be as basal as I can
possibly be--unless there's something that I can contribute to an
intellectual discussion. And, let's face it, I'm just not into ham radio
for the intellectualism of it so most of those discussions go way up over my
head and I am bored to tears with the idea of learning enough about whatever
is that's being discussed...!! Reading those discussions is like just
looking at the cover of that mag that ARRL puts out--the Techie one.


Still though, I think that if a few hams wanted to discuss stuff that
is actually policy related with regards to enforcement, policy, etc.
it could become a useful group with a lot of filtering.


That possibility is insidiously redundant, i.e., can happen anywhere.
There's nothing stopping you from doing that right here--a new thread--and
completely ignoring the posts to it that have nothing to do with the topic
and everything to do with one's being on top of their imaginative mountain.
You could also start it--well, anywhere.

I think I'll thy here for awhile.

No, but you may...


Oh I see you have the day off.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 22:38:34 -0400, Bob Brock
wrote:

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:49:04 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

Hey, Bob? Just a suggestion. Just filter out this nitwit. Also, I've got
it set so that anything with WA8ULX@aol, WA8ULX, ULX, Brucie, or Bruce
doesn't come through. So, I miss most of whatever it is he posts. Can't
say I miss most of whatever it is he "says" because he doesn't say
anything...LOL

Anyway, just a suggestion. I've also done that with Dan, now, too. He's
another one that isn't even fun to play with and I hate take advantage of
anyone but Larry and DICK.

Kim W5TIT


If I get the feeling that he and his ISP thrive on attention, I'll
filter him. I'm not there yet though.

OK...I've changed my mind about wa8... I may have to go to a plonk
with prejuduce mode for awhild. So far there seem to be less than a
dozen posters here that I would care to talk to on radio. As I said,
I've got the kid to take to school, animals to feed, and I'm in the
middle of a move, so I really don't have a lot of time to play with
twits who have nothing productive to say about radio within the
confines for the ng charter.

I've been in rougher ng's and I've found that with proper filtering,
one can usually talk to those who want to carry on sincere
conversation with proper filtering.