|
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: "Kim" wrote: (snip) the real reason is for the desire of CW testing to stay around: these folks believe in its power to filter out folks who act just like them. I quoted this part because I wanted to make sure everyone read it. When it comes to at least a few of those on the pro-code side, I think you hit the nail right on the head with this, Kim. I am reminded of an old line usually credited to Groucho Marx: "I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member".... Said years ago. Amazing how little things change over time. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote:
It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument undoubtedly seems quite childish. This argument has been going on so long, I don't think most even remember what it is exactly about anymore. Sadly, I suspect the argument will continue on even after code testing itself is a distant memory. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
Here, try this one: "All else being equal, a radio amateur who has Morse Code skills is more experienced, more qualified, and has more radio communications options available than a radio amateur with no Morse Code skills." Without a desire to communicate with Morse Code, there is no truth to that statement at all. Even with that (the all being equal aspect), there is no truth to the "more experienced" or "more qualified" when it comes to absolutely anything beyond Morse Code. Therefore, those two have no place in that paragraph without Morse Code, not the radio amateur, specified as the "more" being discussed. Therefore, only the "more radio communications options" has any significant ring of truth to it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Without a desire to communicate with Morse Code, there is no truth to that
statement at all You just hate the truth dont you, for you that ability is not available, so there you are not a REAL HAM. |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:51:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: "Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:23 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: Now, then...once the government has stopped subsidizing the manufacture and testing of CW operators by eliminating the code test, how do you think we should reallocate the Novice subbands? Well since there are still people who hold Novice licenses, we ought to keep them as is. Otherwise the current Novices (who can renew until they die) will be losing privileges. Not necessarily. Normally rule changes attempt to be done in such a manner that current licensees neither gain nor lose privileges other than those very specific to the rule being changed. That's true, of course. Again, though, refarming the Novice subbands doesn't necessarily mean that Novices lose the privileges to operate at those frequencies. It all depends on how you do the refarming. I.e. dropping the code test would not eliminate the Novice or any other class. I'm nitpicking now, of course, but I think it would, in a way - it would eliminate the Tech-Plus, which, although it's no longer shown in FCC's database, is still for all intents and purposes a license class, in that any Technician who's passed a code test receives the operating privileges that were associated with that license class when the words were still being printed on licenses (and any Tech-Plus who hasn't renewed yet still has the words on the license). If the simplest approach is taken to this change (simply dropping the code requirement), we would actually have an immediate increase in people with access to the Novice subbands as all Techs, not just Techs with code, would now be able to operate there. So this should increase the need to keep these bands allocated to the Novice/Technician groups. I think it will create a need for even *more* spectrum to be allocated to those groups - and bear in mind it's not an exclusive allocation; General, Advanced and Extra licensees can operate there as well, as long as they stay at 200 watts or less - but the question is, how many of them are going to be using CW absent a code testing requirement, and how many will be on other modes? We're told by some PCTAs that once the test is eliminated, the stock of CW operators in the ARS is going to dry up - to hear them tell it, like a wet lawn on a sunny day in July. If they're correct (and with the way some of those folks toss around insults I have to admit that if I was a Technician the last thing I'd be interested in doing is learning code just so I could get on the air and work the same guy who just raked me over the coals in this NG), there's going to be a need for more space for all the new phone ops the PCTAs seem to be fearing the arrival of. Meanwhile, CW is already authorized on any frequency where an amateur has operating privileges, so why continue to have subbands at all? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:30:16 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote: I happen to think it's a case of turf defending...the PCTAs feel they must defend their exclusive little slices of the RF spectrum at all costs, regardless of what harm is done to the ARS in the process. They'll kill the mother to save the baby. What is a permitted method of expression, John? - Mike KB3EIA - Ummm...you lost me there somewhere, Mike. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On 30 Sep 2003 19:36:57 -0700, (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote: Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . .. With all this talk about children vs. adults and superior vs. inferior, I can't help observing that insistence upon getting one's way regardless of the consequences to themselves or others is a personality trait that is generally observed in, shall we say, less mature individuals. I know what you mean, John. Why, not too long ago I knew a fellow who "owned" an e mail reflector that would grandiosly "ban" people from his list that didn't share HIS specific opinions on things. If it's the person I think it is, the reflector in question was one where the list owner had to approve all requests to subscribe to the group. This is not that uncommon with reflectors. In fact, I'm currently subscribed to five reflectors where subscriptions must be approved by the list owner first. There were only two subscriptions to that particular list that were ever turned down by the list owner, and they were from two persons whose behavior on Usenet gave the list owner reason to believe that the two individuals in question were not likely to contribute anything worthwhile and, in fact, would probably behave the same way they did on Usenet. Thus, he did not grant them access to the reflector. The terms of service agreement with the server operator expressly granted the listowner that right, and he exercised it. Some way to get in the last word, huh...??? The bottom line in this matter is that reflector listowners, moderators on moderated Usenet newsgroups, and even Internet Service Providers - and before that moderators on FidoNet and sysops on landline BBSes, have been blocking access by undesirables and troublemakers since personal computers first started popping up on household desktops. Anyone whose access is thus blocked remains free to start their own reflector/newsgroup/echo/BBS/ISP and spout whatever drivel he or she sees fit on their OWN time...not on someone else's. It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument undoubtedly seems quite childish. Since this forum is about Amateur Radio FOR Amateur Radio operators (realizing that it IS an open, unmoderated forum, of course), it is irrelevent as to what "non-hams" think. That strikes me as a rather shortsided view that fails to take into account how the rest of the radio hobby view hams and the amateur radio service. Since the non-hams who read this and other public forum where ham radio is discussed by hams retain the right to vote for the politicians who make the laws that affect us - antenna restrictions, to name one important one - the perception of hams and the ARS by non-hams most certainly *is* relevant to ham radio. Why make enemies when it isn't necessary? No one, regardless of thier position on ANY subject, "owes" it to anyone who is NOT a licensed and participating operator, to explain each and evry reason for ANY opinion. The FCC commissioners aren't licensed hams, Steve. Yet, when you filed your comments on restructuring, you probably did a lot of explaining with respect to your opinion on the topic of the proceeding. If you are not experienced in a specific pursuit you shouldn't insult those who are. In general, I agree. I also feel that those who are experienced in a specific pursuit generally shouldn't insult those who are not. I say "in general" and "generally" because some people merely get what they ask for. For example I would not be found in a NASCAR fan-club forum, nor in one dedicated to gardening...at least as anything other than a passive reader. Unless you are ASKING for help, it's a matter of common courtesy. Well, as you said, this forum is about Amateur Radio, and is for Amateur Radio operators, and as a licensed ham, I do have some experience in this specific pursuit. I can also remember back to when I was not yet a licensed ham, and I recall that this debate about code testing was going on back then, and to me as a non-ham it looked quite a bit like a bunch of kids arguing over who was going to bat first in a sandlot baseball game. It wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as an observation that this is a public forum that can be read by anyone and that perhaps we ought to be more aware of the way we present ourselves and the ARS in such a forum - and the comment was especially aimed at the minority of regular participants here who routinely find it necessary to toss around insults like candy on halloween. I guess it's one of those instances where if the shoe fits, wear it, if not, then forget about it...frankly, I think the only people who might be offended by what I said would be the ones who are "guilty as charged." 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
On 30 Sep 2003 19:44:33 -0700, (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote: Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . .. The wake will undoubtedly be held here in rrap, where many will call it the end of ham radio...(SNIP) Actually it will only be the end of an era. The .0003% of the Amateur community that espouse any opinion to the contrary will go thier own way, and the other .0003% who constantly deride them for THIER opinions will go thier way too. And Amateur Radio, just like it has for the last 80+ years already past, will go on. Steve, K4YZ That's pretty much what I expect, too. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
"N2EY" wrote:
Here's one answer: How many hams do you know who have designed, built and operate homebrew stations? Not kits, not partly home-made, not with homebrew accessories, but 100% built-from-scratch amateur radio receivers, transmitters, transceivers, antennas, power supplies, etc.? One of the oft-repeated claims has been that the code tests kept out "technically inclined" individuals. At least one NCTA (Vshah101) has claimed that "no self-respecting EE would use CW". Etc. (snip) If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see a lot more homebrew HF stations? Lets face it, homebrewing just isn't very popular today, in any license class. Part of that is due to changing radio technology. It's fairly hard to homebrew a radio today capable of competing with even the most basic commercial product. Most are simply choosing to buy rather than build. Those who are interested in electronics mainly focus their efforts on things outside ham radio. For example, I'm currently interested in robotics. At the same time, I'm doing almost nothing (electronics related) in ham radio itself. A friend, also a ham, is obsessed with security devices. Likewise, I don't see him doing much in ham radio. But, of course, most I've met have no interest in electronics at all, or limit that to kit building or very simple projects. So, to answer your question, I don't think we're going to see a lot more homebrew HF stations, with or without a change in the code testing requirement. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com