|
You must have been upset too when states eliminated mandatory testing on manual gearbox autos and allowed testing to be done using any car. Not me, just the folks filing their insurance claims and/or licking their wounds after someone who didn't know how to negotiate the clutch AND the brake pedal simultaneously rear-ended them at a red light. ....and, just as in CW... if people get on a cw band without learning cw, they will have a hard time navigating around and knowing what's going on. Those who don't want to, though, won't have any problem.... just as only those who tried to use a manual transmission but were only tested for an automatic had problems. Stick with what you learned. There was no reason to force anybody to learn how to drive a standard if they were going to drive an automatic. Again I repeat; i'd have no problem with requiring a cw test if you wanted to use cw on the cw portion of the band. But, that's out of the question, isn't it? we're going to stay in the past and not keep up with progress and force even people who will forever plan to use automatic transmissions to learn how to run a standard. Clint KB5ZHT, living in reality and modern times. |
"shephed" wrote
If you are a retarded mouth breeding NCI member, then never mind, it's a Ham Radio thing. You would not understand. Hey, gutless anonymous twit, I have several "First Place ARRL CW Sweepstakes" certificates with my name on them, I don't breed with my mouth, and I'm a member of NCI. Damn, doncha just hate it when somebody spoils your troll? With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- SOC # 291 FISTS # 7419 NCI # 4304 |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion... especially in light of the entire international community endorsing the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement? Well, I wouldn't condider it a lock. The FCC was recently spanked by both the Supremes and the Senate. They may be reluctant to send anything new along for a while. In addition, the US has shown a reluctance to go along with what the rest of the world is thinking. The US already endorsed ending mandatory morse when we voted to do so at the WRC confernece. Seems pretty self evident to me. Finally, we haven't ratified all that many treaties lately have we? We don't have to ratify the treaty at all. The OLD treaty is dead and buried...there is, as of 7/5/03, no ITU mandated morse requirement even if the USA never ratifies the new treaty. So while it might happen, I'm not going to do any betting on it. It will happen, the only thing at issue is the timing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion... especially in light of the entire international community endorsing the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement? Well, I wouldn't condider it a lock. The FCC was recently spanked by both the Supremes and the Senate. They may be reluctant to send anything new along for a while. In addition, the US has shown a reluctance to go along with what the rest of the world is thinking. Finally, we haven't ratified all that many treaties lately have we? So while it might happen, I'm not going to do any betting on it. Then when the retired head of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of the FCC states in his comments to the NCVAEC petition, the writing of which he was a party, that it simply is an oxymoron that an Extra Class ham should be allowed to *not* be proficient in Morse when he is considered an expert at ham radio, you might take that as some sort of a clue to thinking in high places... The guy's retired and no longer a member of any "high places". See also the latest from IARU. IARU Says "Remove Code", Excerpted from ARRL Letter "The focus was on the future when the International Amateur Radio Union Administrative Council met September 6-7 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. In the aftermath of WRC-03, the council urged IARU member-societies to call to the attention of their administrations "the desirability of adopting specific changes in their domestic regulations for the amateur and amateur-satellite services, so that they will be consistent with the revised Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations." In that vein, the IARU governing body called for the removal of Morse code as an examination requirement to operate on HF. The council reiterated its stance first taken in 2001 that Morse code proficiency "as a qualifying criterion for an HF amateur license is no longer relevant to the healthy future of amateur Radio." "IARU policy is to support the removal of Morse code testing as a requirement for an amateur license to operate on frequencies below 30 MHz," the IARU Administrative Council resolved. At the same time, the council's resolution recognized Morse code as "an effective and efficient mode of communication used by many thousands of radio amateurs." It also took into account ITU-Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Recommendation M.1544, which sets down the minimum qualifications of radio amateurs. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Clint wrote: Has anyone come up with that WOW argument that will justify the need for morse testing? So far, nothing new has been offered by PCTAs at all. Bill K2UNK well, no..... all the arguments being given to keep the code testing are easily broken down into thier base, most center-core reason... "I HAD TO DO IT, SO THEY SHOULD HAVE TO!!!!!" And that just falls flat on its face. Clint yoiu'e been reading way too much NCI propaganda for far too long. So long in fact that YOU have fell flat on your face, or maybe the other end. I am capable of passing any sort of radio traffic by way of radiotelgraphy, which I learned as a requirement of my licensure as a ham radio operator. There is no reason for you to be exempted from the same. That argument/claim found no favor in the past. The reality is that neither the FCC nor almost every emergency preparedness organization/operation has no desire or need for morse in their plans. Individual hams may make the claim, but they aren't executing the claim in the vast universe of RACES, ARES and other amateur emergency operations. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Do you really think the FCC has or will have a change of opinion... Maybe - maybe not. Right now there are several petitions under consideration, and almost certainly more on the way. Lots of comments, etc., to be considered. Everyone can have their say and then FCC will do whatever FCC wants, based on whatever FCC thinks is the best thing to do. And no matter what FCC does, some folks will think it's the wrong thing. But at least we can have our say. especially in light of the entire international community endorsing the end of mandatory code testing as an ITU requirement? "entire international community"? I think not! Just those few who get to decide policy. They are the only ones that count. For example, a poll of German hams found them overwhelmingly in favor of keeping code tests. Didn't matter. As well it shouldn't since this isn't a matter determined by popular vote only by already licensed hams. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... You must have been upset too when states eliminated mandatory testing on manual gearbox autos and allowed testing to be done using any car. Not me, just the folks filing their insurance claims and/or licking their wounds after someone who didn't know how to negotiate the clutch AND the brake pedal simultaneously rear-ended them at a red light. 73 de Bert WA2SI P.S. My first drivers license was "manual shift endorsed." ggg How long ago was that. I was first licensed in NY state in 1958 and took my test on an automatic and then taught myself in a short time (30 minutes or so) to drive a stick. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Clint" wrote in part ...
you are mad simply because something that you had to do that was very difficult has been removed for the most part, and may be totally removed finally due to it's archaic irrelavence. __________________________________________________ ___________ Very difficult? Oh please. I passed all three tests (5, 13, 20) with 10 of 10 right on the written and solid copy for each. Passed all five writtens first time out every time. Hmmmm ... I guess it must be you. As to CW being archaic, well let's have your expert thoughts on those outdated and archaic modes known as Single Side Band, Amplified Modulation, and RTTY. I've noticed that the written exams still include material on each of them. Surely you would be in favor of eliminating that irrelevant nonsense as well, right? Arnie - KT4ST |
"Clint" wrote in part ...
KB5ZHT, living in reality and modern times. __________________________________________________ __________ Now that's just too funny. Arnie - KT4ST |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in part ...
So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you accept that action as supporting the FCC position that morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?" Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license class? __________________________________________________ ______________ I believe that a person who aspires to be an Amateur Extra Class *should* be able to send/receive Morse Code at a minmum level. You and I both know that even if testing for CW goes away, the mode will remain a very popular one in the ARS for a very long time. To me, at least, it just makes sense that a person holding the highest class of license should have a working (practical) knowledge of the second most popular mode we have. Arnie - KT4ST |
"Clint" wrote in part ...
Yet another voice of reason. And there are more of them out there on this side of the argument than the PCTA's. __________________________________________________ __________________ Unfortunately, Clint you are not one of them. I find the vast majority of your arguments to be without merit whatever. |
"Clint" wrote in part ...
I remember on the local VHF frequencies once I got in an argument on the air about (guess what???) cw testing... and the fellow I was arguing with (oviously several years my elder) tried to belittle and detract from the factual approach of my argument by referring to me as "young man".... you know, "let me tell you what, YOUNG MAN, ...... etc etc..." so I had the PERFECT come back. I told him "okay, we'll end the debate right here; you are judging the accuracy of the debate and, thus, who wins, solely on who's older, not who's more correct. I'll go find my friend [not included here for discreetness], who just celebrated his 82'nd birthday; i'll let him talk on my behalf and just feed him the lines to say, and since he's OLDER than YOU, that means i'm automatically right, even if he, vicariously through me, claims the moon is made out of green cheese, right?" as I recall, not too much was said after that. it's so easy. __________________________________________________ _________________ Gee, Clint -- I'm impressed. You sure did show that "old" guy a thing or two. Without knowing him, I'll wager that he has forgotten more about Ham radio than you and I will ever learn. Good going, sport. Why don't you just alienate all the elmers out there while your at it? Arnie - KT4ST |
"N2EY" wrote
Then answer this question: Why should people who are not interested in building or fixing their radios have to learn all that theory stuff for the written tests? Why are all hams tested on all sorts of stuff they are not interested in? Because the terms of their license make them responsible for the quality of their radiated signal(s). Without demonstrating some familiarity with the basic underlying science, it would be irresponsible of the regulators to allow an applicant to establish a radio transmitting station on the public airways. Familiarize yourself with the concept "tragedy of the commons". 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote ... That argument/claim found no favor in the past. The reality is that neither the FCC nor almost every emergency preparedness organization/operation has no desire or need for morse in their plans. Individual hams may make the claim, but they aren't executing the claim in the vast universe of RACES, ARES and other amateur emergency operations. __________________________________________________ _________________ Where did you get your information, Bill? In seing the overall preparation, drills, etc of vaious ARES/RACES which don't include morse at all. I have found the opposite to be true. Almost every EMA that I have contact with, has Morse code capability. My own agency has four HF sets and *each* one is Morse capable. Having Morse code capability is an asset to the EM package -- just one more tool available. Having almost any HF rig made would include CW capability. That does not, however, indicate morse is being used or otherwise integrated into the emergency planning. Even so, ending morse testing in no way stops you or anyone else from learning morse, using morse or making your emergency plans that might include morse. Why in the world would anyone be against that? No one, certainly not me nor NCI is against anyone USING morse if that suits your purpose. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote in part ... So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you accept that action as supporting the FCC position that morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?" Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license class? __________________________________________________ ______________ I believe that a person who aspires to be an Amateur Extra Class *should* be able to send/receive Morse Code at a minmum level. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want. You and I both know that even if testing for CW goes away, the mode will remain a very popular one in the ARS for a very long time. Which is just another reason there is no NEED for any morse testing at all. To me, at least, it just makes sense that a person holding the highest class of license should have a working (practical) knowledge of the second most popular mode we have. How about knowing Spanish, Chineese, etc...two of the most popular languages used on the air after English? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes: "Bill Sohl" wrote in part ... So far the UK, Netherlands and several other countries have done exactly that. Once all code testing is ended by the FCC will you accept that action as supporting the FCC position that morse isn't needed to be a "fully qualified ham?" Additionally, I don't recall anywhere seeing any FCC reference to the concept of a "fully qualified ham". Is that a new license class? _________________________________________________ _______________ I believe that a person who aspires to be an Amateur Extra Class *should* be able to send/receive Morse Code at a minmum level. Explain why a TEST is necessary. You and I both know that even if testing for CW goes away, the mode will remain a very popular one in the ARS for a very long time. "Very long" is very subjective. It is as "long" as the extremes of the actuarial tables. If OOK CW is already so damn popular, why are you so insistent that a TEST for it MUST BE KEPT? To me, at least, it just makes sense that a person holding the highest class of license should have a working (practical) knowledge of the second most popular mode we have. It only "makes sense" when considering YOU are one. If everyone else is of the same class, then you aren't either "special" or "superior" anymore. You seem to NEED the status, rank, title, and privileges of Amateur Extra more than what all those privileges allow you to do. All you do is "work CW?" Everyone else has to do as you did...because... LHA |
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes: "Clint" wrote in part ... you are mad simply because something that you had to do that was very difficult has been removed for the most part, and may be totally removed finally due to it's archaic irrelavence. _________________________________________________ ____________ Very difficult? Oh please. I passed all three tests (5, 13, 20) with 10 of 10 right on the written and solid copy for each. Passed all five writtens first time out every time. Hmmmm ... I guess it must be you. Of course it "must be everyone else." Doesn't the Communications Act of 1934 state that the abilities of US radio amateurs shall be founded on the abilities of Arnold Macy? As to CW being archaic, well let's have your expert thoughts on those outdated and archaic modes known as Single Side Band, Amplified Modulation, and RTTY. Morse code was first used commercially in 1844. Absolutely NOTHING about single side band (sic), amplified modulation (sic) and RTTY until the 1900s. There were some attempts at TTY in landline use but those did not become viable until around 1880. "Radio" was first acknowledged as a communications medium in 1896 in both Italy and Russia. The only CW radio transmitters of 1900 were the rotary alternators that could sustain a reasonably pure sine wave at radio frequencies with a minimum of harmonic content. Amateurs at the previous turn of the century (1900) could afford only the damped-wave oscillator sources known as "spark." "Spark" is FAR from a Continuous Wave source, being a combination AM-FM-PM of highly variable and rather unstable RF which can ONLY be modulated by on-off keying. "Spark," that paragon of once-viable technology among amateurs, is no ILLEGAL. I've noticed that the written exams still include material on each of them. When did the "amateur expert" Arnie Macy last take an amateur radio test? I can't find any VEC QPC questions on "spark" transmitters. Are you still using a "spark" transmitter for amateur communications? Remember that "spark" was once "viable technology." Surely you would be in favor of eliminating that irrelevant nonsense as well, right? I think you can eliminate all your irrelevant nonsense about trying to keep US amateur radio DUMBED DOWN to 1930s standards and practices. Now, why in the hell aren't you OUT THERE as an EM person getting ready for Isabel's destructive landfall? We can't read about Macy's marvelous savings of the day through ham band OOK CW on the ARRL news page if you don't get off the Internet and be ready for all those disasterous emergencies. LHA |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Clint wrote: Has anyone come up with that WOW argument that will justify the need for morse testing? So far, nothing new has been offered by PCTAs at all. Cheers, Bill K2UNK well, no..... all the arguments being given to keep the code testing are easily broken down into thier base, most center-core reason... "I HAD TO DO IT, SO THEY SHOULD HAVE TO!!!!!" And that just falls flat on its face. Clint yoiu'e been reading way too much NCI propaganda for far too long. So long in fact that YOU have fell flat on your face, or maybe the other end. Poor baby. Can't admit that so few like your favorite radio mode? Seems like everyone is daft except those that believe in your fantasies. I am capable of passing any sort of radio traffic by way of radiotelgraphy, which I learned as a requirement of my licensure as a ham radio operator. You are also quite capable of passing gas. We can smell it in here. There is no reason for you to be exempted from the same. IF YOU HAD TO DO IT, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE! We all knew that, DICK. LHA |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Well you can keep a close watch on developments and keep your fingers crossed... but whether or not the code test requirement is dropped, it's still your opinion. Nothing more. My "l;iking" has nothing to do with it, Clint, just as yours similarly does not.. If a ham doesn't know Morse code, and can't operat it on the air, there's no simply way he can be considered a fully qualified ham, and certainly not an expert. THE WAY YOU HAD TO DO IT IS HOW EVERYONE ELSE MUST DO! The Extra class is named as the Expert clase of radio amateur. So that's just how it is. Has nothing whatever to do with either your or my opinion. Tsk, tsk, tsk...self-promoting definition time again? :-) That "clase" is called 'Amateur Extra' in the rules, DICK. Nothing at all about the extra being "expert." Note that the FCC specifically identifies that "clase" as AMATEUR Extra. That "clase" has the most privileges of any of the three license "clases," DICK. That's all, nothing more. The remainder of the "expertise" is in your fantasies. Happy dreaming. LHA |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Then when the retired head of the Amateur and Citizen's Division of the FCC states in his comments to the NCVAEC petition, the writing of which he was a party, that it simply is an oxymoron that an Extra Class ham should be allowed to *not* be proficient in Morse when he is considered an expert at ham radio, you might take that as some sort of a clue to thinking in high places... Oh, my, an "authority" on CW! About as much "authority" as your SINGLE example of GMDSS never, ever going to work in maritime distress and safety! Why don't you work with the FCC to make the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Service an alternate reality? LHA |
In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes: "Len Over 21" wrote in part ... Well, that's how it goes. Every amateur must know morse in order to save the next Titanic or something. Morse is used "countless times" in national emergencies. It is the next most basic radio communications thing, etc. ["countless" is apt because the number of actual emergency comms done by on-off-keying modes is zero, zilch, nada...unless the self-promoters think that Health and Welfare messages are "emergencies."] _________________________________________________ ________________ My EM Agency has multiple sets of HF gear and every one of them is manned by an ARS operator that is CW capable -- and we'd be foolish not to include that capability in our EM package. Absolutely...nothing gets through like morse code. Amateur use of morse code will always save the day. Amateur radio will save/rescue untold numbers of hurricane victims. Now, don't get me wrong, I just love the new technology. Anything invented/discovered after 1930 must be "new technology" to you. As a part of that, we have FM trunked radios, laptop computers, closed network capability, VTC Scotties, and SATLinks. IOW, we use *all* of the tools available to us. But, more importantly, MORSE CODE SKILL is a NECESSITY for emergency communications, right? Of course it is. You MUST require all amateurs to KNOW morse code. Morse code gets through when nothing else will. That's why all amateurs are SUPERIOR to professsional communications people. "Real" amateurs KNOW morse code, therefore they are superior. Why not just admit that CW does have a place in the EM package -- or are you just so dug into your position that you can't see the sky anymore? I'm not "dug in," just covered with all that bull**** shoveled by the PCTA. IMO, it's not necessary to throw out the older viable technology in order to embrace the future. Newflash: "Spark" (damped wave oscillation) was once a "viable technology." No longer. It is outlawed in the USA. Don't worry...your crystal set will still receive signals. No electric power required. Are you properly equipped with "viable technology" of crystal sets? If that were the case, none of us would ever use a hard-wired phone again. According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 100 million cellular telephone subscribers in the USA. There are over 150 million "hard-wired" telephones in the USA. What is the point of your little "viable technology" diatribe? And why in the hell aren't you OUT THERE being ten kinds of EM manager with impending doom/disaster from Isabel? LHA |
"Dick Carroll" wrote I am capable of passing any sort of radio traffic by way of radiotelgraphy, I'd like to see you pass a weather satellite photo fax via radiotelegraphy.... which I learned as a requirement of my licensure as a ham radio operator. There is no reason for you to be exempted from the same. Well, at least you finally admit that it's "I had to do it, you should too." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003 |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in part ...
"FCC nor almost every emergency preparedness organization/operation has no desire or need for morse in their plans." __________________________________________________ _________________ I ask because you wrote the above. Why do you think the EM planners have "no need" for Morse? Any tool available should be considered for use in the EM package. Not only is our equipment capable of Morse, but we have CW capable operators for each. We've used it in the past and I strongly suspect that will do so in the future as well. Arnie - |
"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...
Absolutely NOTHING about single side band (sic), amplified modulation (sic) and RTTY until the 1900s. That would make those modes about 103 years old, Len. At what point do we start to consider them outdated? When did the "amateur expert" Arnie Macy last take an amateur radio test? Since I'm a VE -- I looked at the current material about a week ago. Now, why in the hell aren't you OUT THERE as an EM person getting ready for Isabel's destructive landfall? We can't read about Macy's marvelous savings of the day through ham band OOK CW on the ARRL news page if you don't get off the Internet and be ready for all those disasterous emergencies. Well, I must say that I have been quite busy for the past two weeks. The initial track of the storm was not looking very good for the SE United States. Fortunately for us, we were able to miss the bullet on this one. Of course you know that we *did* use that old stand-by Morse Code when Floyd came calling in 1999. SSB (you know, that 103 year old technology) was just not cutting it, so we went to CW until the condx improved. It's kinda hard to talk with someone 250 miles away on a handi-talkie. Arnie - |
"Len Over 21" wrote ...
Macy, almost ALL your arguments are superfluous, denigratory, and without a shred of merit in here. All you do is promote myths of "CW" as if this was still the 1930s. __________________________________________________ _______ Are you Clint's Daddy? I was hoping that *he* would answer the question. I will say this, though. He sure does admire you. Are you sure y'all aren't related? Arnie - |
"Bill Sohl" wrote ...
How about knowing Spanish, Chinese, etc...two of the most popular languages used on the air after English? __________________________________________________ ___________ Wow, now that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Arnie - KT4ST |
"Len Over 21" wrote ...
I believe that a person who aspires to be an Amateur Extra Class *should* be able to send/receive Morse Code at a minmum level. Explain why a TEST is necessary. To demonstrate that minimal ability You and I both know that even if testing for CW goes away, the mode will remain a very popular one in the ARS for a very long time. "Very long" is very subjective. It is as "long" as the extremes of the actuarial tables. As long as people use, it will survive. SSB is a good example of that. 103 years old and still going strong. If OOK CW is already so damn popular, why are you so insistent that a TEST for it MUST BE KEPT? Not *if* CW *is* the second most popular mode in the ARS. To me, at least, it just makes sense that a person holding the highest class of license should have a working (practical) knowledge of the second most popular mode we have. It only "makes sense" when considering YOU are one. It's my opinion, Len. I think I made that pretty clear. If everyone else is of the same class, then you aren't either "special" or "superior" anymore. I could care less if everyone was an Extra Class. I just think if they hold that class of license, they should also possess a minimum level of CW proficiency. You seem to NEED the status, rank, title, and privileges of Amateur Extra more than what all those privileges allow you to do. All you do is "work CW?" Everyone else has to do as you did...because... I don't need any status or rank. I worked my way up the ladder like thousands before me. That doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone. It just means I was motivated to succeed -- and I did. Arnie - KT4ST LHA |
I am capable of passing any sort of radio traffic by way of radiotelgraphy, which I learned as a requirement of my licensure as a ham radio operator. yep. well, there is no longer a 13 or 20 wpm requirement for a license, and soon there will no longer be a 5 wpm cw testing requirement. Then, people will get ham radio licenses and be ham radio operators WITHOUT having done it. what's your point? There is no reason for you to be exempted from the same. in your opinion. However, the opinion that counts is that of the fcc body itself, not you... and, eventually, just like with 13 and 20 wpm testing, they'll drop the 5. THAT is what will count. |
"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...
You KNOW all elmers personally, right? Why don't YOU continue to alienate and denigrate all the others who have been on HF much longer than you, who have worked HF comm 24/7 longer than you've been alive? Since you aren't out getting ready for emergency work on Isabel, why don't you start a petition for an RM with the FCC to make the 'ARS' the Archaic RadioTELEGRAPHY Service. __________________________________________________ _______________ What in the world are you talking about, Len? Have you been into the sauce again? I have nothing but respect for the Elmers in the ARS. I might not always agree with them, but I sure would never get in an argument over a repeater with one. That's just pure disrespect. BTW, thanks for mentioning Isabel. We *have* been working very hard tracking her and making preliminary preparations for a possible evacuation. Fortunately, we didn't have to implement them this time around. But thanks for caring about my job. It's touching, really. Arnie - KT4ST |
DICK, what was past is past. My grandfather (God rest his soul, he passed away 7 years ago) lived to the ripe old age of 87. Every now and then he'd get really drunk on vodka, and then go into a past-recalling delirium where he'd keep talking about the need to have a horse and buggy give you a ride if you wanted to make it back into his neck of the woods all the way from the main road. The next morning he'd sober up and find himself back in the modern day era. The horse and buggy were long gone. Clint KB5ZHT |
I have this hilarious vision of elementary school students on a
field trip to the local museum in the not to distant future... and they see a strange gismo on a table on the other side of a purple-fuzzy rope thing, covered with dust and cobwebs.... the museum director has to kindly explain to them, "that's a morse code key. It was used to send morse code signals many decades ago back when it was used as a means of communication.." and a student raises his hand and says, "morse WHAT?" Clint KB5ZHT |
Very difficult? Oh please. I passed all three tests (5, 13, 20) with 10 of 10 right on the written and solid copy for each. AH, so it's EASY? SIMPLE? hah, proof then there's no point. Other hams kept saying it was a discipline of selftraining, and you just said it was as breeze. Well, if it's a natural as breathing air, then, no need to test it. End of discussion. It's SO easy :) Clint KB5ZHT |
Why don't you
just alienate all the elmers out there while your at it? I don't see a problem in that, if they are going to be so condescending as to treat young people as though it's not possible for them to know anything simply because they haven't lived for 233 years. Clint KB5ZHT |
"Len Over 21" wrote in part ...
I snipped theother droll parts, but this I found interesting According to the US Census Bureau, there are over 100 million cellular telephone subscribers in the USA. There are over 150 million "hard-wired" telephones in the USA. What is the point of your little "viable technology" diatribe? And why in the hell aren't you OUT THERE being ten kinds of EM manager with impending doom/disaster from Isabel? __________________________________________________ _________________ My point exactly, Len. Why waste all that money on hard-wired technology when we have nearly as many wireless phones already. Put that archaic technology to bed, right? Isn't that your mantra? And once again, I really do appreciate your concern for my job performance. I'll make sure to tell my boss that you asked. :-) Arnie - KT4ST |
"Clint" rattlehead@computronDOTnet wrote in message ... Very difficult? Oh please. I passed all three tests (5, 13, 20) with 10 of 10 right on the written and solid copy for each. AH, so it's EASY? SIMPLE? hah, proof then there's no point. Other hams kept saying it was a discipline of selftraining, and you just said it was as breeze. Well, if it's a natural as breathing air, then, no need to test it. End of discussion. It's SO easy :) The scary bit is if you keep applying logic to this argument, it just keeps getting wierder. One of 'em rebutted the "I had to do it, so should you" argument by basically saying, uhm..."I had to do it, so should you." --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003 |
"Clint" wrote ...
you find the idea of wanting to keep your conscience and life in the modern day era? sounds like you suffer from dementia. __________________________________________________ ___________ Now, that was even funnier. Not even a cogent sentence. Arnie - |
you find the idea of wanting to keep your conscience and
life in the modern day era? sounds like you suffer from dementia. Clint KB5ZHT You No-Code Kooks keep throwing the words "modern day era" out. What is that supposed to me? |
"Clint" wrote ...
I don't see a problem in that, if they are going to be so condescending as to treat young people as though it's not possible for them to know anything simply because they haven't lived for 233 years. __________________________________________________ _________________ I'm not surprised by your answer at all, Clint. Someone calls you "son" and you get all bent out of shape and have to 'show them a thing or two'. The only problem -- you will have missed out on a plethora of knowledge because of that attitude. Too bad, really. Arnie - KT4ST |
In article ilgate.org, "Hans
K0HB" writes: "N2EY" wrote Then answer this question: Why should people who are not interested in building or fixing their radios have to learn all that theory stuff for the written tests? Why are all hams tested on all sorts of stuff they are not interested in? Because the terms of their license make them responsible for the quality of their radiated signal(s). Without demonstrating some familiarity with the basic underlying science, it would be irresponsible of the regulators to allow an applicant to establish a radio transmitting station on the public airways. Familiarize yourself with the concept "tragedy of the commons". That's very incorrect, Hans Kohb. Everyone knows that "CW" gets through when nothing else will, so all that is required for amateur radio is to demonstrate on-off keying morse code ability and that will suffice. Right? LHA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com