In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but why do you think it's
necessary for Len to *always* pepper his replies with personal insults. A
character flaw of some kind, maybe?

Some people can't do any better than that. Nothing like strong words
for weak arguments.

Let's see..."strong words" like "PUTZ!" for example (a nice little Yiddish
epithet for "dickhead").

"Strong words" like "you are ignorant, don't know anything!"

"Strong words" like implying all those opposed to the writer's opinion
is a child.

Then there's the "strong IMPLICATION" that someone "always" says
something to ruffle another's feathers. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Michael, as a moderator, you DO have a serious problem at times with
hypocrisy.

Good luck on this one now...

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here, but why do you think it's
necessary for Len to *always* pepper his replies with personal insults. A
character flaw of some kind, maybe?

Just following your own style, Ah-nold... :-)

That's what we all like about DICK...his calm, rational, civilized
approach
to discussion and debate...

:-)

or lack thereof.

If you want to retreat into some magic fantasyland, by all means shut
out
all discourse on subjects which go against your opinions.

Wearing blinders and doing the ostrich thing is denial, and rather
egotistically arrogant in such subjectivity.

My point exactly; you described my thoughts to a word.
I just wonder what those hams out there that haven't made up thier
mind on the matter yet think when they read how the people on
THAT side of the issue behave? Denial & hypocrisy interspersed
with social outlooks that are as static as an oil painting. Yea, that's a
REAL good way to attract support for a controversial issue, isn't it?

Generally those on sinking ships look for lifeboats and lifevests
instead of trying to see what the quickest route to the bottom of
the ocean is.

Clint

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Regardless of one's stance on the code, reviewing
the history of the FCC shows that they are NOT
necessarily concerned with what's best for the ARS.
If they were, BPL would never have gotten as far
as it has.


Let me put it another way. I think the FCC is concerned about the best
interests of the ARS, within the confines of reality. We have to remember
the ARS is not the only pot on the stove - the FCC deals with many other
services and has to balance the needs of each service against the others
(and that includes the ARS). That means we're not always going to exactly
what we want, exactly when and how we want it. But that certainly doesn't
mean the FCC is not concerned with the best interests of the ARS or, as
some
have suggested, has an agenda against it. We have a massive amount of
frequencies to play with. We have more modes to play with than most radio
services. We have more freedoms (to build or modify out own equipment and
so
on) than most radio services. When you look at the whole picture, it's
fairly hard to complain too much.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Yeah but if we are not in there doing the "squeaky wheel" bit, they might
decide we are adequately served with less and less.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

There are no FCC-mandated
subbands on 160, and that band hasn't exactly turned into a mess
without such regulations.


160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

There are no FCC-mandated
subbands on 160, and that band hasn't exactly turned into a mess
without such regulations.



160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the
room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.




Actually you can. One that I found worked quite well on 160 was the
Alpha-Delta DX-A Sloper, actually a double sloper, which also works well
on 80 and 40.

A full size 1/2 wave dipole is of course another matter at ~250 feet.

Dick

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Ah but how "well" is well. And keep in mind that there are a fair number
who can't manage anything decent on 80 or even 40. I had a nice long,
random wire (about 250') but could only get it about 10 feet off the ground.
While I was able to work stations in Kansas during the 160 meter contest, I
could get California. Yet I heard East Coast stations who were working
those West Coasters that I couldn't hear.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

There are no FCC-mandated
subbands on 160, and that band hasn't exactly turned into a mess
without such regulations.



160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the
room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.




Actually you can. One that I found worked quite well on 160 was the
Alpha-Delta DX-A Sloper, actually a double sloper, which also works well
on 80 and 40.

A full size 1/2 wave dipole is of course another matter at ~250 feet.

Dick

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Ah but how "well" is well. And keep in mind that there are a fair number
who can't manage anything decent on 80 or even 40. I had a nice long,
random wire (about 250') but could only get it about 10 feet off the
ground.
While I was able to work stations in Kansas during the 160 meter contest,
I
could get California. Yet I heard East Coast stations who were working
those West Coasters that I couldn't hear.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Hate it when I skip a word typing. It should read "...I could not get
California..."

Good point, actually - I suppose you have room for a 262.47 foot long
dipole in your back 40, pardner?

Of course, it would be shorter if you built it 1/4 wave.... ;)

Leo

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:30:18 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:



160 meters will never be a problem. Very, very few amateurs have the room
to put up an effective 160meter antenna.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Good dodge.

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Clint" wrote in part ...

Add to the list of names and phrases you gave the following... "jerk",
"moron" and "dumb ****".
__________________________________________________ ______________

Look up my posts for the last four years and see how many times I have used
a personal insult toward *anyone* on this NG. IOW, I reserve that for
people who truly deserve it. Like you.

Arnie-
KT4ST

Ah, another "calm, rational, civilized" PCTA heard from... :-)

In other posts he has requested that people "bend over..."

Fairly typical of a faction that doesn't hold itself to very high
standards (obviously) when it comes to anything outside of
morse code.

"Len Over 21" wrote:

That's really not the point. I think both of you realize
this. :-)

Roll's constant repetitions of old Maxims in here and
the few personal barbs he throws in are just his way of
trolling for those to respond to in the newsgroup. He
seems to live by such "responses" which are little more
than cut and paste from five years ago.


Ah, but there is the old maxim about a lie repeated often enough. At some
point, Larry's messages must have a response, if for no other reason other
than to address the false impressions he leaves. As for the rest of your
(fairly accurate) message, I usually (though not always) tend to keep any
opinions, formed as a result of psychoanalyzing Larry, to myself. The poor
boy is in bad enough shape without all of us adding to his obvious mental
anguish. In fact, I probably wouldn't even have said that if the anguish was
not so obvious. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Tsk, tsk, tsk..."tangents?" I was handling sines, cosines,
and tangents back in high school of 1950. Trigonometry
not a problem...always got maximum marks in such subjects.


Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Clint" wrote ...

Thanks for the admission to your hypocrisy.
______________________________________________

I take it from your response that you are just too busy writing witty
retorts to do a simple search? Doesn't surprise me a bit. After all, you
are the same person that called Dee D. Flint a guy in at least two posts,
right? A true 'Master' of the facts we have here, folks.

Arnie -
KT4ST

"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On 23 Sep 2003 05:34:27 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Dwight:

I hate to sound like a scratched CD, but that reply is unresponsive. If the
above were true, then the very second radio amateurs started using modes
other than CW, the code testing requirement should have been dropped,
for all the same reasons given by the NCTA today. However, it wasn't.
In fact, in the late '60's, over a half-century after the need for military and
commercial stations to be able to shoo-off "those damn hams" from
their frequencies, the Morse code testing requirement was increased
as part of the now lamented "Incentive Licensing" scheme.

Obviously a mistake, then...so what is your rationale for compounding
that mistake by continuing to perpetuate it any longer?

Some history on "incentive licensing" is in order here...

Before 1951, there were three classes of license, two written tests
and one code test speed - 13 wpm. All hams had all privileges except
that you needed a Class A to work HF 'phone on the ham bands between 3
and 25 MHz. Class A required a years' experience and another written
test, but no additional code speed.

In 1951, FCC reorganized the whole system into 6 classes - Novice,
Technician, General, Conditional, Advanced, and Extra. Old Class B
became General old Class A became Advanced. Old Class C became
Conditional.

The new Extra required 2 years experience as Conditional or higher, 20
wpm code and a written that was even more advanced than the old Class
A/Advanced.

FCC also announced that at the end of 1952 they would stop issuing new
Advanceds. And it would take an Extra or Advanced to work HF 'phone on
the ham bands between 3 and 25 MHz.

You can imagine the rush to get an Advanced before Dec. 31 1952.

But at the last minute FCC reversed themselves and gave all operating
privileges to all hams except Novices and Techs.

FCC figured that hams would go for the Extra "because it was there"
and because one could get a 1x2 call after 25 years as an Extra, or
some such.

But by 1963 there were only about 4000 Extras out of a quarter-million
US hams.

So FCC asked ARRL for a plan to get more hams to upgrade. ARRL
responded with a simple plan: reopen the Advanced to new issues and
require an Advanced or Extra in order to work HF 'phone on the ham
bands between 3 and 25 MHz.

Simple, huh? No more code test unless you wanted the 1x2.

Then FCC asked for comments, got a big pile (over 6000 letters) and
incorporated all sorts of things that made the whole thing much more
complicated.

Incentive
Licensing was an ARRL initiative,

No, it wasn't. It was FCC's idea.

and it was done to ensure that the
Morse/CW mode would continue to be used in spite of the increasing
popularity of SSB and digital modes.

Wrong again. The main concern of FCC was their perceived stagnation in
amateur technical matters. They were unhappy that so few hams had gone
for the Extra, and also that homebrewing had declined sharply and
"appliance operating" increased. Personally, I think it was also
partly "Sputnik fever".

Another obvious mistake...let's deliberately restrict progress in the
ARS by clinging to archaic technology like koala bears. Real astute
leadership from the League there...NOT!

The League did not propose more code testing - just more written
testing. FCC was hot for the 20 wpm code test.

In fact, at one point (1965), FCC proposed demoting all 40,000
then-existing Advanceds to General, and creating a new "Amateur First
Class" license that would require 16 wpm code and a new written test.
(imagine - 5, 13, 16 and 20 wpm code tests). ARRL and others fought
*against* that move, and it was eventually abandoned.

It was actually a very brilliant plan,

Actually it was a very stupid plan, as shown by the test of time.

Depends on what you expected the plan to do, and which plan you look
at.

but was spoiled by the resentment caused by the lack of full
"grandfathering" of the existing Generals to the new Amateur Extra
class. If only that had been done, we may not be having this debate
today.

That was proposed but FCC would have none of it.

To say nothing of the resentment caused by deciding in the face of
rapidly advancing communications technology to remain rooted in an
anachronism left over from before the dawn of the 20th century.

You mean voice communications? How old is the wired telephone?

If
only that had not been done, the brightest young technological minds
of two full generations might have been drawn to amateur radio instead
of computers and the landline BBSes and finally the Internet, and
there would be no need for this silly debate because the ARS would
have stayed on the cutting ege of communications technology instead of
having made the decision to allow itself to be left in the dust.

HOW?

As far back as 40 years ago, US hams were buying instead of building.
Even EE hams. As affluence increased, equipment miniaturized and
became more complex, fewer hams felt qualified to build their gear.


During the last ARRL 10-Meter Contest, I worked over 160 QSO's on
10-meters, using only CW. This is on 10-meters, a band famous as a
repository for the 5 WPM Novice/Techs exercising the whole of their HF
phone privileges! During contests covering all HF bands, such as the
November Sweepstakes (CW), it is not possible to work all of the CW
stations participating.

It is not possible to work all of the phone stations participating in
the phone portion of Sweepstakes, either. The question is, did you
work a Clean Sweep?

The ultimate question is "what are the trends in participation"? Check
out the scores in the ARRL 160 meter contest - and then realize it is
all CW.

Well, at least not for me, with my minimal station
in a highly antenna-compromised apartment QTH. However, in spite
of my operating challenges, the CW mode provides endless potential
to make points. During the November SS (Phone) last year, my
club station (W3DOV) was also operating under "marginal" conditions
at the QTH of Mark, KE3UY. Using literally the same power and
antennas as I would at my home QTH, we worked a lot fewer stations
than we could have on CW.

That's what you get for wasting all that time pounding brass instead
of learning some phone operating skills. :-)

HAW!

It's as simple as that. And, excluding
contests, the CW segments are very alive and full of stations all the
time, largely thanks to FISTS and the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper.

Excluding contests, the phone segments are also very alive and full of
stations - no thanks to FISTS or to the old CW-geezers chasing all
that paper....and no thanks to the code test, for that matter.

Partly because most new hams already know how to talk...

And while we're developing radio operators who have proficiency with
an operating mode that nobody but hams uses, we're failing to devlop
operators proficient in the skills that might actually be useful out
there in the real world.

Like what?

And how could that development be encouraged?

Yet, old-timers lament the fact that these
days, having a ham license won't get you a job bagging groceries, let
alone any meaningful work in a communications-related field. Small
wonder, when the ARS itself decided to stay rooted in 19th century
technology, eh?

All we have left is a 5 wpm code test. Is that such a problem?

The FCC has stated repeatedly that whether or not it will have an
interesting in the "continued use of this mode" depends upon a
consensus of the amateur radio community itself.

They tossed that idea out five years ago.

Half of which, as no-code Techs, has already voted, by deciding not to
join the PCTAs in deluding themselves about the usefulness of an
anachronistic, 19th-century operating mode.

You mean the telephone?

As far as the FCC is concerned, it is now
just one more operating mode among the many used within the Amateur Radio
Service. There is no sufficient argument to support the continued existence
of a code testing requirement. As such, the code testing requirement should
be eliminated.

As already stated by N2EY, this particular logic could then be applied to
testing for knowledge of any of the requirements for technical knowledge,
since radio amateurs no longer have the ability to design, build, and repair
state-of-the art communications gear unless they possess professional-
grade technical knowledge, skills, and facilities.

That's NOT what I wrote, however.


Interesting, isn't it, to note that this separation between
professional-grade technical knowledge and that available in the ARS
started shortly after the ARS decided to remain in the Dark Ages while
the rest of the world took off on the Technology Boom. We stayed in
the Morse age while the rest of the world entered the Information Age.
Yeah, incentive licensing was a great idea. Personally, I'd rank it
right up there with sending troops to Vietnam.

First get the story straight about what incentive licensing was all
about and whose idea it was.

And, since this is the
AMATEUR Radio Service, that is an unreasonable expectation.

Of course it is! Now, an example of a *reasonable* expectation would
be to expect proficiency in a method of communications that is about
150 years old and that nobody else uses anymore.

How old is talking?

All we have is a 5 wpm code test. That's not proficiency, it's basic
entry-level skill.

That *really*
encourages people to become part of the ARS and be a part of the
supposed advancement of the radio art that the Basis & Purpose portion
of Part 97 says we're supposed to be all about, doesn't it?

Guess when those B&P got added to Part 97?

Therefore,
if code testing *is* eliminated, then we may as well also go to a simple
license application process, with, at most, an open-book test on rules and
regulations. That would then serve the needs of the dumbed-down
licensing process you would seem to prefer.

Come on, Larry. There are guys who can do 30, 40, or 50 wpm that can't
even *program* a modern transciever, let alone fix the damned thing
when one of the surface-mount components fails that is too small for
many of us to even *see* let alone solder one onto a PC board.

Exactly.

And the same thing can be said of many amateurs of any license class.
Including the techno-types that the nocodetest Tech was supposed to
attract.

These
rigs have been designed so the owners *can't* fix them, so that they
have to be dragged back to the dealer or shipped to the factory for
service, with appropriate outlay of cash since naturally the component
isn't going to fail until, oh, I dunno, about 6.2 seconds after the
warranty expires. Chances are that the "factory service" involves
removing the board the failed component is on and replacing it with a
brand new one because it isn't cost--effective to do component-level
repairs on mass-produced PC boards.

Exactly. So why have all that theory stuff in the writtens? It's
keeping out the doctors and lawyers and regular folks who just want to
talk on the radio, not build one.

Following this, the rig gets packed up and shipped back to its owner,
who opens the package, curses a blue streak when he sees the bottom
line on the invoice, makes a New Years' Resolution to become a boat
anchor fanatic, then unpacks the rig and puts it back on the desk in
his shack. It really doesn't matter if the guy doing the unpacking can
copy at 50 wpm or doesn't know a dit from a dah, the result is going
to be the same because that's how the manufacturer designed it. If you
must blame somebody for that, Larry, then I respectfully suggest that
you place the blame not on the NCTAs, but on the design engineers at
YaeComWood, where it rightfully belongs - and remember that some of
them are hams, who apparently have professional-grade technical
knowledge, skills, and facilities, whether they ever passed a code
test or not.

And some of us won't buy any rig we can't fix. Some of us still build
from scratch.

Guess what mode is most popular among the scratch-builders and
rig-repairers.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

Ham radio simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't solidly based in
mathmatical principles.

Arnie -
KT4ST

w3rv

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

My college Calc II prof called math the ultimate religeon. He said it
was one of the very few things one could put all their faith in and
just about never be disappointed. "Obey the rules and it'll never let
you down."

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Tsk, tsk, tsk..."tangents?" I was handling sines, cosines,
and tangents back in high school of 1950. Trigonometry
not a problem...always got maximum marks in such subjects.

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.

Heh, I have to admit that, in undergraduate classes on Calculus I, II, and
III, my grades were A, B, and barely C, respectively. A problem with
night classes and working all day yet still trying to maintain contact with
other people. :-)

In looking back at all I was required to do in actual, working electronics
design details, I NEVER had to use any math more complicated than
simple algebra and trigonometry to get all the hardware data and parts
selection. Some low-level calculus was used LATER for project reports,
on a suggestion to make the determinations "look better" for higher-
level staff who never got their hands dirty on the hardware. That
suggestion was from another higher-level staff person who DID get his
hands on the hardware whenever he could.

There's an analogy to code testing ("back to basics") and the rampant
credentialism amongst the PCTA ("have to have the certificate to be
able to do 'complicated' things)...namely this: The PCTA's "back to
basics" is like looking up log and trig values in 5-place tables and
"doing things the hard way" (to "show" something to others apparently).
I got my HP-35 scientific calculator in 1971 so that I didn't have to
waste all that time on look-ups of only 5-place values; the HP-35 came
up with 10-place values in an eyeblink. Spot-checking against the NBS
AMS 55, "Handbook of Mathematical Functions," showed that the HP
values were indeed correct to 10 places.

That same NBS monograph also explained the mathematical
approximations used to derive the original 5-place numeric values as
well as many more places. Each modern CPU in a PC or Mac has a
numeric coprocessor section that uses one of those mathematical
approximations internally...and accurate to 14 decimal digit accuracy,
not just 3 (as on a slide rule) or 5 (in 5-place tables).

An ardent PCTA devotee will now make some half-assed comment about
"it doesn't apply to HAM radio." Not directly. Having to know morse
code for a hobby activity involving radio regulation by licensing is much
more PRIMITIVE than sitting down and doing a series equation to
obtain a logarithm or other transcendental numeric value.

No doubt the ardent Credentialists in here will come up with some kind of
BS about "needing degrees" to understand it all. :-)

Len Anderson
retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person
...and never needed to assume any fake identity in here to state an opinion

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

That's really not the point. I think both of you realize
this. :-)

Roll's constant repetitions of old Maxims in here and
the few personal barbs he throws in are just his way of
trolling for those to respond to in the newsgroup. He
seems to live by such "responses" which are little more
than cut and paste from five years ago.

Ah, but there is the old maxim about a lie repeated often enough. At some
point, Larry's messages must have a response, if for no other reason other
than to address the false impressions he leaves. As for the rest of your
(fairly accurate) message, I usually (though not always) tend to keep any
opinions, formed as a result of psychoanalyzing Larry, to myself. The poor
boy is in bad enough shape without all of us adding to his obvious mental
anguish. In fact, I probably wouldn't even have said that if the anguish was
not so obvious. ;-)

I think that many failed to note a subtle bit of wordplay I did.

Larrah apparently thinks he is a Hiram Percy Maxim reincarnate since
he drags out the 1920s boilerplate "Maxims" that St. Hiram wrote in
early issues of QST when Kode was King in New England.

Hence "Maxims" with a capital M.

Too subtle for most of the personality assassins in here. I'll have to
"dumb down" to their low level. :-)

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Hence "Maxims" with a capital M.

Too subtle for most of the personality assassins
in here. I'll have to "dumb down" to their low level. :-)


Well, since I missed it, you'll have to include me in that category also.
Since I was rushing through the messages, I wasn't paying attention enough
to catch fine details like that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Arnie Macy" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes,
but had to struggle every single step of the way.
In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close
to an expert on it. Perhaps I need to do what
most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math.
And not unlike you, I tried to avoid it as much as
possible.


Well, I haven't openly tried to avoid it yet. I can get it done, but I
have to seriously think about it before I remember how to get where I need
to go.


But for some reason, the light came on when I entered
college. (snip)


That light never came on for me. Like I said, I still have to work at it.
And things are certainly not getting better as I grow older - I've clearly
forgotten a lot of what I once knew.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Heh, I have to admit that, in undergraduate classes
on Calculus I, II, and III, my grades were A, B, and
barely C, respectively. A problem with night classes
and working all day yet still trying to maintain contact
with other people. :-)


I never got an "A" in math. I did get an "F" once and had to take the
class over. However, the remainder of my math grades were "B" and "C," and I
was darn thrilled to get that "B" occasionally. I did just fine in all my
other classes.


(snip) Having to know morse code for a hobby activity
involving radio regulation by licensing is much more
PRIMITIVE than sitting down and doing a series equation
to obtain a logarithm or other transcendental numeric value.

No doubt the ardent Credentialists in here will come up
with some kind of BS about "needing degrees" to
understand it all. :-)


You won't get any argument from me. I probably wouldn't touch most math
today without a calculator (and most others wouldn't either). And code is a
primitive way of communicating. If that's one's cup of tea, there's
absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it is fairly absurd to continue to
require it of everyone else.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

Arnie -
KT4ST

I think that a lot of people who imagine themselves to be "poor" at
math are actually the result of poorly written math books and
less-than-stellar math teachers.

I had the good fortune to have an *exceptional* math teacher in high
school. He taught algebra and trigonometry. I was in his 9th and 11th
grade classes.

His attitude was simple: *Anyone* who could be in high school could
get an A in his class if they knew how to add, subtract, multiply and
divide. All the rest was practice and understanding a few definitions.
Most of all, he made you believe you could do it. "Can't" simply did
not exist in his classes.

Typical test: 40 to 60 problems in a 45 minute class. Sometimes as
many as 80. Problems like factoring polynomials, simplifying complex
trigonometric expressions, etc. And yes, some of us got perfect
scores. Not often, but often enough to know it was possible for us.

We thought he must have been some sort of math genius because he would
do things like multiplying two four-digit numbers in his head, and get
an answer that was either spot-on or very close. In a few seconds. But
when we researched his education, it turned out that he was an English
major! His real skill was not in math at all, but in communicating
clearly. And this was in a working-class school with 40-some teenage
kids.

One day he derived a rather odd looking formula on the board. "Lads",
he said, "this is the quadratic formula, which can be used to solve
any quadratic equation expressed in standard form. I expect all of you
to know it like your name. Can you do that?" We all nodded.

And the lesson continued with how to use the formula.

Next day he walks in, points to a kid and says "What's you're name?"

Kid stands up and says "Bill Gallagher"

"Sit down!" He points to another kid, same question, similar answer.

Finally a third kid gets the idea and kind of stammers through "umm,
negative b minus..."

"Sit down!"

Of course none of us could rattle it off - and he called on every
single one of us.

"Lads", he said "I'm shocked and disappointed. You were supposed to
know that formula like your name."

You can bet that the next day we all knew it.

And to this day, if anyone who had that teacher encounters another of
his students, we will be able to rattle off the formula *and use it*
with no problem. And that's not just those of us who went into
engineering or science or math, but the kids who became lawyers,
doctors, businessmen and policemen, etc.

That's the power of a good teacher. Imagine if they were all that
good.

Of course, I had a bit of an advantage. I'd learned the elements of
trigonometry (sines, cosines, and a few other things) and some very
basic algebra on my own, in order to understand what was in the ARRL
Radio Amateur's Handbook, build my radios and get my Advanced class
license at the age of 14 - before I ever set foot in high school.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at
computron dot net writes:

I live in texas where there is plenty of room to do anything
you want... and yes, my yard has plenty of room to stretch
a 160m dipole if I wanted to... but if somebody wanted
to get on 160m and hasn't the realestate, they could always
hang a loop sky wire that only require 1/4 wave on any
given side instead of 1/2 of horizontal space; i.e., half
the area needed.

Let's see - a 160 meter square loop is about 140 feet on a side. Many hams
don't have enough room for a full size 80 meter dipole......

The loop will also be a cloud-warmer unless it is very high up. Much better off
with an inverted L.

In article , (N2EY)
writes:


Learn to live with it graciously.

Set us an example

You first.

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:


Learn to live with it graciously.

Set us an example

You first.

Don't you know how?

I thought you were the expert and professional, Len.

Show us poor ignorant amateurs how it's done. '-)

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

OK, fine. Now, then, precisely which OTHER radio
services currently require Morse code testing???


Already answered, Larry. I have no desire to talk in circles, repeating
everything I say because you fail to understand it the first time. And I
also have no desire to participate in your attempts to twist this (other
services and code testing) into something that doesn't fit the reality of
history or the truth.

Dwight:

Well, that's quite a roundabout way of admitting that you don't know
what you're talking about when you insist that other radio services
which don't use Morse/CW have some relevance to the ARS. And
since you can't logically support your position, it's easier for you to
bail out. I understand. Just keep in mind that you've single-handedly
demolished one of the NCTA's favourite arguments.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

OIC. So, you can't answer the question, then.


No, I've already answered the question and don't intend to waste time
doing so again. If your memory is really that bad, do a Google search for
our past discussion about this.

Not necessary, Dwight. I was right the first time.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

heh heh....tell 'im you'll get back to him when he
has something intelligent to say. I told Larry that
a couple of weeks ago and, except to tell him I
wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in meeting
him or most others in this newsgroup, I've not
posted a thing to him since. I just can't find the
"intelligent" part of his posts.


He does have the habit of trying to twist things when the discussion
doesn't go his way and I simply don't have the time for that nonsense.

Dwight:

Yeah, in a way, you're right. In order to remove the usual NCTA spin
placed on everything you post, I guess I do have to "twist" things in
the right direction.

If he
doesn't want to discuss the issue seriously, he can discuss it with himself.

Sooo, you, like Kim, are going to admit defeat as well?

Kim says my posts lack intelligence. I guess, from her POV, that may
be true. She obviously defines "intelligence" as being in agreement with
her, or supporting whatever she says or does. I can, therefore, understand
why she would want to avoid further debate with someone with whom she
would have to make an effort to defend herself. I'll say one thing for Kim --
she knows how to look into a mirror and see a lost cause.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Don't look now, Clint, but welfare programs are "handouts" that give
away valuable assets as if the recipient were entitled to them simply
by virtue of being there with his/her hand out.

Correct. Therefore, code testing isn't a welfare program, it's a
government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Well, that's YOUR opinion, John. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You have a right to be wrong.

What are you saying then? That it *is* a welfare program after all?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT

I've already answered that question many times, but the short form is
that without code testing, there is no incentive for radio amateurs to
learn the code at all.

bzzzt

substituting your opinion for facts.
logic says that if this case is true, then all cases must be true; no ham
would learn ANY mode if not forced to be profeciency-tested on
it first.

Just don't take it personally and get vendictive and beligerant on the
air when the remove the testing.

Clint
KB5ZHT

No, you and Clint said that code testing was a "welfare program," and
you're both wrong.

73 de Larry, K3LT


well, if you listen to fellow PCTA types then the only conclusion
is that it IS a governement subsidation.... JUST like the farm subsidies
where the government artifically keeps the prices of food propped up
by buying all the excess crop that isn't sold at a given price instead
of letting the free market determine it.

In terms of ham radio, when the PCTA types say "it's the only
incentive to get people interested in CW, therefore we have to
make people learn it" you are essentially saying "if that product
(morse code) isn't purchased willingly at market price (as
to whether or not the individual is INTERESTED in learning it
in the first place) then the governement (FCC) will subsidize it
by purchasing the excess that doesn't sell (make the remainder
of the hams who don't want to learn it do so against thier will).

Pretty clear analogy.

If you look at it as a welfare program, then all the same it is
equally deserving of criticism.... if a system can't make it's own
way and sell itself and perpetuate itself, you never do it any
good by artificially keeping it alive, it'll never stand on it's own
two feet proverbially speaking.

The government, by the way, STILL buys insande amounts
of helium due to the strategic value of blimbs & derigables
and pumps it underground in northern texas. Yes, you read
that right.. WWI technology is being subsidized due to the
fact that it was ONCE useful, but since it's STILL on the
books as a government hand out, it's STILL purchased in
mass quantities

Cite: Martin L. Gross, "Washington Racket: Government
Waste from A to Z"

Clint
KB5ZHT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) In fact, I would dare say that if there is any
"mental anguish" in this forum, it would seem to have
been expressed almost exclusively by the NCTA's,
who, after all, started all this (snip)


Too bad Google doesn't go back that far. It would be interesting to see
who really "started all this" in these newsgroups. Of course, I suspect it
was a member of the pro-code crowd - since the FCC started dropping code
years ago, the no-code crowd would have had little reason to even bring the
subject up. The pro-code crowd, on the other hand, started complaining
before the FCC even changed the rules (the rumor of a rule change was
enough).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

(snip) Sooo, you, like Kim, are going to admit defeat
as well? (snip)


There is no defeat to admit to, Larry. I presented the facts. You were
unable to respond without twisting the truth. That pretty much ended the
discussion. However, I'm more than willing to continue if you have something
worthwhile to say. Of course, you don't really have to say anything
intellegent, just something worthy of even a passing reply.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Well, that's quite a roundabout way of admitting that
you don't know what you're talking about when you
insist that other radio services which don't use Morse/
CW have some relevance to the ARS. And since you
can't logically support your position, it's easier for you
to bail out. (snip)


Trying to twist what I said again, Larry? I never said anything about the
other radio services having any relevance beyond the fact that many once
used code (which was relevant to the ARS at the time) and their present lack
of code use (which has relevance today). If you choose to ignore that past
and present relevance, that's certainly your prerogative. However, by doing
so, your position has simply lost touch with reality.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
No, Larry, he didn't say that. You misquoted him. He
said, "...nobody ELSE uses CW..."

Ah HA!!! So, the fact that amateur radio operators DO
use CW *is* relevant to the code testing debate, and the
fact that that the other radio services which don't, isn't!
Thanks for finally clearing that up.


Huh? What the heck are you talking about, Larry? I beginning to think
you're finally lost your mind.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

I'm asking why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS or
FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single operating mode
(it's
the only mode specifically skill tested)?

....because the communication mode must be subsidized in order to
continue to exist, as many PCTA'rs have admitted "if people aren't
forced to learn it, they won't and it'll disappear"... so you wonder
how they can also question our use of the term "archaic" or "outdated",
saying "have you listened to that half of the band? there's PLENTY
of CW!" .... if that's so, then how could the mode disappear if not
forced upon people?

very contradictory terms, like most PCTA arguments.

"I had to be tested on it, therefore so should YOU!"

Too bad Google doesn't go back that far. It would be interesting to see
who really "started all this" in these newsgroups. Of course, I suspect it
was a member of the pro-code crowd - since the FCC started dropping code
years ago, the no-code crowd would have had little reason to even bring
the
subject up.

BINGO, just as i've said many times.... the PCTA accuses the NCTA of doing
all the crying and whimpering and flame war starting, but WHY would the
NCTA have to do that since the tide of events in on thier side? It can only
be logically concluded that the PCTA'rs were screaming against what
they see as an injustice (in thier view of things).

Facts are, a person is FAR more likely to call a dealership and complain if
he feels the car he just bought was a lemon, than to call it and compliment
them
if the car they just bought was a real bargain and exceeded thier
expectations.

The pro-code crowd, on the other hand, started complaining
before the FCC even changed the rules (the rumor of a rule change was
enough).


What's WORSE is that most of them won't debate anymore after starting
the crying fits, they put the people on ignore that try to discuss the
matter with them..... how's THAT for reasonable?

Just imagine how bad it's going to get when the last vestiges of it are
removed entirely.

Clint
KB5ZHT