|
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in message t... Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate a tad more effort and dedication than passing written exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The 5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require some serious studying effort over approx two or three weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual serious about earning HF privileges. For those who are not, the no-code Technician license is available. It's really quite simple. that's true until the rules are changed and CW testing is taken out. Clint Sadly correct, Clint. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate a tad more effort and dedication than passing written exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The 5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require some serious studying effort over approx two or three weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual serious about earning HF privileges. For those who are not, the no-code Technician license is available. It's really quite simple. Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated effort, challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so on) is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS. Ok, Dwight. Very easy. It's not. While the FCC is the regulatory body to whom we answer, they are definitely NOT the sum total of who or what defines OUR hobby/service. We, as amateurs radio operators, are a big part in retaining those element that define our rules, tradition, and culture. This is why the NCTA's battle cry is "well, the FCC doesn't think so" and/or "it serves no regulatory purpose." Sure, the FCC defines the rules and regs to which we're beholden, but as rar as basis and purpose goes...we ourselves have more say in that than you or some other NCI folks appear willing to acknowledge. Calling the 5-wpm exam a barrier is just plain silly and in the end, this crusade to eliminate the test will have a negative effect on the overall quality (NOT quantity) of AR. Frankly, I have much more respect for someone with the stones to just admit that they're too lazy or insufficiently motivated to bother meeting the requirements than all this "regulatory" mumbo jumbo. These are exams for a recreational activity with some serious underpinnings. You seem to want to turn those exams into a litmus test form of torture focused mainly on CW. The 5-wpm exam..."a form of toture," Dwight? Surely you jest. By the way, didn't you openly oppose the across the board 5 wpm code exam? If so, then why now is it suddenly "sufficient enough of a challenge?" Because it beats a blank. BTW, were you one of those who said that the VHF and up privies of your license were sufficient for your needs? How long after Element 1 is dropped can I address you as W5NET/AE, hmm? Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Vry 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article k.net, "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".... 73 de Jim, N2EY BINGO! It only filters out those who are unwilling to TRY. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: WHO is doing the name calling? Both sides. it's not the NCTA group calling the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. it's not the PCTA group calling the NCTA "elitist", "arrogant", "luddite", "stuck in the past", "jackbooted thugs", "stoked on morsemanship", and an assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. Like "nazis". I think you'll be told "That's different". Somehow, some way, some people are convinced that since they are "right" that civil behavior is not necessary. Problem is not one of our positions is right or wrong. Its all opinions. But then it is easier to just lump everyone together into two groups. Then dehumanize them, so that whatever you do is okay, and ends justify means. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: What about thier constant use of the term "CBplusser" and so forth... There is only one person who uses that term. He also claims to be 305 years old. What is it with the application of one person's pejorative to everyone? I've never called anyone a name here, and yet you and I are assigned the infamous "they" and "their". I don't know if THEY have kept up to date on ham radio violation records, but the vast majority of code & rule violaters are hams who've been in the hobby for many many years, have advanced licenses (advanced, extra) and thus have passed morse code testing. Your source, please? I read the "FCC enforcement letters", and there seems to be a wide distribution of experience, license classes, etc. One thing is quite obvious, though: the vast majority of enforcement actions are against hams using voice modes. When's the last time a ham using CW in the CW/data subbands was the target of an FCC enforcement action? I did a little research project on this a year or so ago. No vast majority of any license class as far as perps go. There were a bit more of the higher classes, but not significantly so. Techs were real close, and then there were the unlicensed. I'd have to say there was no significant difference in the license class as far as rule violations go. The hams I have met personally that came out of 11 meters were the best hams I ever met. WHY? Because they KNEW where they came from, how nice it is up here, and have thus a respect for the advancement into a more serious hobby. Some of the best and the worst hams I have known came from 11 meters. The foulest mouths i've ever heard were on 75 meters ssb, and one ham who's call I won't mention was denied advancement by hollingsworth HIMSELF (you can look it up on ARRL records).. he lived at the time in conroe, texas.... he use to get just slobbering drunk on the radio and really raise hell; cussing, insulting, playing music, everything. And what mode was he using? He passed the code requirements and written exam to advance to an even higher license, but recieved a letter from Hollingworth saying "you are not being given your upgrade, and furthermore, never will until I recieve a written letter from you explaining why you feel you DESERVE one." Was he using CW to do all that? THAT ham was a long time veteran ham who had already passed a CW test. Therefore, any argument brought up that CW testing is a "yahoo filter" as they call it is wrong. It doesn't stop any such thing. He'd also passed several *written* tests on regulations and operating practices. Those written tests didn't stop his behavior either. Shall we dump the writtens because they are not a "yahoo filter" either? No test can be a perfect "filter". And never will be. There are incompetent and even evil doctors. And yet they have one of the most rigorous entry requirements there are. No requirements are needed to operate a transciever on HF. We have to decide how much knowledge is needed. My only wish is that the requirements are enough that I know that the person is highly interested in the service. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:21:07 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: Y'know what? Speaking of words. The whole CW issue is defended (by many) as being the defense of some premier communication mode and that is usually enhanced by some submission of why the mode should be revered. However, aside from that--when the meat and potatoes of the argument (not debate) comes into play--the only defensible reasoning that is issued from there is that it "dumbs down" the ARS not to have the CW test, or that "lids" will come into the ARS, or that....well, you know them all. 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. I submit, again, that the hidden among the fervor for the appreciation of CW is the main idea that CW is a filter (no pun intended) to keep people out of the ARS. While this may be true, FCC didn't buy that argument from the PCTAs with respect to lowering the code test speed to 5WPM during the last restructuring, and I highly doubt that FCC will buy it this time around, either. Now...try asking the PCTAs about refarming the Novice subbands once there aren't any more Novices around to use them, and make sure you've got your asbestos pantyhose on when you do it. :-) There's two reasons that's bunk. One: no one should be kept out of the ARS--let them get their license and stand or fail on their merit. I think there are definitely people who should be kept out of the ARS, including some who are already licensed. However, I also think that the proper way to keep them out is through the self-policing that the ARS is well known for, along with appropriate enforcement efforts on the part of FCC - rather than through the use of a testing requirement that also causes many potentially excellent operators to turn away from amateur radio. Two: it's quite obvious that just because someone's passed a CW test--indeed beyond that: that someone operates CW at high speed even--it does nothing for proof of being a good ham, more technical ham, or intelligent ham. Again, FCC did not buy this particular PCTA argument the last time around. The Commission's response to this, in its Report & Order on Docket WT 98-143, read as follows: " We do not concur with the comments alleging that the passing of a telegraphy examination is an indication of the examinee's good caracter, high intelligence, cooperative demeanor, or willingness to cmply with our rules. These traits are also found in individuals who have not passed a telegraphy examination rather that being exclusive to those who have passed such a test." Basically, when the "dumbed down" rhetoric is puked back up--we all know what 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. Or to filter out folks who don't act like them, and thus do not contribute to the task of holding on to their "turf" in the RF spectrum. What really sticks in their collective craw is that if you go back and re-read the comments in the Report & Order that I quoted from above, the writing is already on the wall for the elimination of code testing pursuant to the petitions for rulemaking that have already been filed with FCC - or should I say, the writing is already on the FCC website: "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a tchnical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service." The same document also cites the international requirements as the basis for retaining code testing in Part 97: "When considering the issue of telegraphy as an examination requirement to obtain an amateur radio operator license, we begin with a number of general principles. First, the Radio Regulations contain certain requirements that an applicant for an amateur radio license must satisfy. With regard to the telegraphy requirement specifically, the Radio Regulations require that persons seeking a license to operate an amateur radio station must prove that they have the ability to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear texts in Morse code telegraphy signals. The Radio Regulations also provide that this requirement may be waived only for an operator of a station transmitting exclusively on frequencies above 30 MHz. In order to comply with the Radio Regulations, our rules require that every class of amateur radio operator license that authorizes privileges below 30 MHz has, as one of the examination elements that an applicant is required to pass or otherwise receive credit for, a telegraphy examination element. The other principles that we consider relevant to examination requirements are that those requirements pertain to the privileges the operator license authorizes and that they constitute the minimum requirements necessary to demonstrate that the control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that station." The Radio Regulations referred to no longer contain this requirement. As for the other two principles that FCC states it considers relevant, Technicians are already authorized full amateur privileges on all the bands above 30 MHz, with no code test required - so apparently the code test is not necessary to demonstrate that the control operator of a station can ensure the proper operation of that station - and to the extent that the requirements pertain to the privileges the license authorizes, FCC already authorizes Technicians to operate in CW mode on the bands above 30 MHz sans any code testing. I'd find this mighty discouraging if I were on the PCTA side of this particular discussion, but since I'm not, I'll leave the whining and crying and gnashing of teeth to the PCTAs. :-) 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:45:17 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote: Perhaps you think those that know/use Morse are superior to you. I don't ever recall seeing anyone that advocates Morse saying they felt superior. Perhaps you have a short memory, then, Dan. A search of Google or some other UseNet archive would, I'm sure, turn up at least one thread from circa July of this year where at least three of the PCTAs in this NG were claiming exactly that. In fairness, I'll admit that I don't recall you being one of them. Nevertheless, the attitude does exist among some of the PCTAs who regularly post here. I know I don't feel that way. However I do feel those that don't play on CW are missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having a amateur license. But thats their loss not mine. I feel that those who don't participate in public service work are missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having an amateur license. However, I don't go around advocating that hams be required to do so, or that they be tested on their ability to do so as a requirement of obtaining a license. If you thank that is imparting a superior attitude, I say Dwight that you have the problem, not us. As this pertains to yourself, perhaps. As it pertains to several others in this NG? Hmmm...not quite, sir. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:29:05 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote: No he didn't, it only found agreement with the a few other PCTA members such as yourself, but he didn't prove anything more than what I said was true. Clint KB5ZHT Ummm...Clint...the person you are referring to as "he" happens to be female. Not that this has any bearing on the discussion, but it just looks funny calling Dee "he" rather than "she" which is the appropriate pronoun until such time as Dee decides to have a gender change operation (probably a highly unlikely event). Just thought I'd try to set the record straight... 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:49:01 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote: I'm not talking about references or analogies, Clint. I'm talking about Larry's specific use of the word "superior" to describe those with code skills and the word "inferior" to describe those without such skills. Since none of the pro-code crowd objected to his position, I now trying to see how many others share the same opinions. Dick Carroll and WA8ULX are two others who come to mind as having exhibited that attitude. Thinking back a few years, I can think of at least one other who I haven't seen posting here lately...definitely an improvement to rrap! On the other hand, and in all fairness, there are PCTAs who come to mind who have not exhibited this attitude that I recall. Arnie Macy is one - and I give Arnie credit because I really don't get the sense that Arnie's position with respect to code testing is rooted in anything other than a genuine love of the mode and a desire to see its use continued in the ARS. With many of the other PCTAs in here, I get the sense that there are some other agendas underlying what they post. Whether I agree with someone's opinion or not, I can respect that opinion if I feel that the person expressing it truly believes that they're doing what they think is best for amateur radio. It's the hams that are taking mean-spirited potshots at fellow hams over this issue who I have difficulty respecting the opinions of, especially when their statements on the subject give me the impression that there are other motives afoot and that they could really care less about what's best for the ARS as long as they get their way. 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. It should also be noted that, to non-hams, this whole argument undoubtedly seems quite childish. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:36:04 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote: Do me a favor, John, and tell that to K2RSK next time you see him! Who? Larry was referring to Peter Liaros, K2RSK, a gentleman who both Larry and myself know personally. Peter happens to be a rather gifted CW operator - this is a guy who can and does operate 40m mobile CW and who is good enough at it that he can do it while driving and not be a hazard to other drivers. Peter undoubtedly would quickly disagree with the notion that *nobody* uses CW anymore, and he would, of course, be absolutely correct. However, Larry's comment ignored the fact that what I posted was that nobody *else* makes much use of CW anymore - i.e. within government, commercial, military radio use, or anywhere else outside of the ARS...which is also absolutely correct. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:42:19 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote: I guess what Im saying, and trying to be polite to the detractors (dummies to lazy to learn Morse code) is don't confuse them with the facts, the are to stupid to learn....and like I always like to say. Ya just cain't fix stupid. Dan/W4NTI This from the guy who just claimed he doesn't claim to be superior to the no-coders? Does that mean you also consider yourself a dummy, lazy, and stupid too? BTW, not all detractors are people who haven't learned the code. Stupid *can* be fixed - through education. The problem that you seem to have, on the other hand, remains a challenge to science. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:26:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: OK, Hans. I forgot how the pholks like you need such phucking (HansTM) pictures drawn for them. Here you go: No one should be kept out of the ARS who is willing to meet the requirements that are in current use at the time they begin entry into the service/hobby. Which (unfortunately) currently includes a code test. :-( And the whole damned comment as a defense against the idea of those who believe CW testing is a great way to filter out people from the ARS. Quit being so stupid. Personally, I understand what you were trying to say, and I agree with your underlying premise; however, you could have done a better job of expressing it more clearly. Me too. I hope you phinally phucking phigured that out. Good phucking grief. Kim W5TIT LOL...Kim, you musta had a bad today today. I've never seen you phreak out like this over a relatively minor thing. :-) 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:59:17 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote: Actually, once code testing is gone, the pro-testing crowd is not going to have much to say. I'm sure they're going to continue complaining about the new operators, but even that is going to have increasing irrelevance as their numbers continue to go down and new operator numbers continue to go up. Sadly, the pro-coders don't even seem to realize that all this is their own doing - their own behavior is responsible for their declining numbers (and perhaps, to some extent, even the removal of code testing). You can call it sad if you want, Dwight. I call it poetic justice for those who chose to value their own selfish interests rather than what is in the best interests of the ARS. After talking to some of the pro-coders in this newsgroup, very few new operators are exactly inspired to continue talking to them (on the CW frequencies or elsewhere). By driving new operators away, they have insured their own decreasing numbers. And those decreasing numbers have seriously undermined support for code testing. I'm not sure that the majority of CW users in the ARS shares the zealousness that some of the PCTAs in here do. Unfortunately for amateur radio, though, just as the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so too do the most vocal among us tend to be the ones who are noticed by the rest of the hobby radio community - and equally unfortunate for the ARS is the fact that...well...shall we say, certain disgusting substances...splatter when thrown at a specific target, causing what the military refers to as "collateral damage." The code test will soon vanish, and then hopefully we can get around to the business of repairing the collateral damage that's been done to the ARS in the process. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 08:22:21 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net... Actually, once code testing is gone, the pro-testing crowd is not going to have much to say. Do you honestly think so? I disagree.... at least for a stretch of time, anyway. It IS human nature, depending on each man's capacity and staying power, that is, outright fortitude, to eventually back off when they see that they have lost or are paddling up stream... and the time this takes, as I said, depends on the nature of each person's character... So, in the long run, I agree with you; they'll drop off in staggered two's and three's and dozens.. but for a while it'll be pretty nasty and, quite frankly, since the issue will be over I wouldn't see much point in continueing to debate them. You only think they're getting vicious and nasty NOW, just wait until they find thier security blanket has been taken from them in the name of "grow up, you're not a child anymore". Obviously, you weren't a regular participant in this NG back in 1999-2000 when the FCC eliminated the 13WPM and 20WPM code tests. If you go back and read their Report & Order from that action, you can see that the writing has been on the wall for a complete removal of code testing ever since. The last three years of quoting and requoting the same drivel - on both sides of the issue - has been nothing more than a diversion for its participants, myself included. The fact is that unless FCC does a complete 180 on it this time around (and there's really no reason to expect that it will), the code test is already dead and is just waiting for the doctor to sign the death certificate so that the undertaker can wheel the corpse away for the wake and subsequent burial. The wake will undoubtedly be held here in rrap, where many will call it the end of ham radio (at least half a dozen other significant FCC actions over the past 50 years were also termed to be "the end of ham radio") and will continue to flame everybody in sight, especially the newcomers to the hobby and the people who will upgrade from no-code Techs to General and Extra without the hindrance of a code test. No matter how many no-code HF ops make DXCC, they'll continue to read the same "Know Code, Know Ham -- No Code, No Ham" crap that's been posted on UseNet since the dawn of personal computers. Childish? Yes, certainly...and the temper tantrums thrown by children who sense they aren't about to get their way is usually nothing compared to what happens when that suspicion is confirmed. Fortunately, there are many others who have cooler heads and who will continue to value their participation in the ARS whether it has a code testing requirement or not. In time, their actions will influence most of the tantrum-throwers to wipe the tears from their eyes and see the light, and then ther majority of hams will return to the time-honored practice of extending appropriate respect to fellow hams regardless of license class or particular interests within the hobby...because in the final analysis, whether you're talking CW, phone, PSK31, SSTV, or operating model RC cars and airplanes with black flags on 'em, it's all ham radio. Sadly, the pro-coders don't even seem to realize that all this is their own doing - their own behavior is responsible for their declining numbers (and perhaps, to some extent, even the removal of code testing). After talking to some of the pro-coders in this newsgroup, very few new operators are exactly inspired to continue talking to them (on the CW frequencies or elsewhere). By driving new operators away, they have insured their own decreasing numbers. And those decreasing numbers have seriously undermined support for code testing. I'm sure this applies to many, in this NG and out. In fairness, I must say that I don't think it applies to all, or even to a majority. If I did think that, I'd be tempted to return my license for cancellation rather than to give the impression of being a part of it. Bottom line though - I think most hams (on both sides of this debate) are above the nonsense that you refer to...and that's definitely a good thing, because I think the ARS is going to need the leadership of those with the cooler heads if we see a significant influx of newcomers to the hobby as a result of the elimination of the code test (and I think there's a very good chance that we will see such an influx). Those who are willing to accept them as fellow hams and welcome them into the fold and pass along the knowledge they'll need to help them grow in the hobby will be doing what ought to be done. Those who talk down to the newcomers, referring to them with the same variety of derogatory names that we see used here in rrap, well, I hope they won't act that way on the air too...I hope they'll think about what's best for the ARS and set a better example than that for the newcomers to follow. And on that point i'll agree with you totally, 100%. Within this newsgroup, as you said, they not only do NOT inspire any sort of good will feeling or give forth the same warm fuzzy glow feeling that the new hams found or thought to have found when they entered the community. One even posted "i'm appalled", saying he/she felt that what was SUPPOSE to have been a community of "friendly and cooperative hams" had quite it's fair share of conflicting personalities and ideology. Well, that strikes me as perhaps a little bit of naivety (sp?) at work there, because common sense dictates that if you get any sizable enough group of people together, you're going to have people of widely varying ideology and personalities in the mix. One should not be surprised to find this to be the case. What should be considered surprising is that any ham, regardless of his/her personal interests or license class, should value amateur radio so little as to stoop to placing their own selfish agendas ahead of what is in the best interests of the ARS. On the other hand, since I'm the one who keeps repeating that common sense isn't really so common, perhaps I shouldn't find this so surprising either. It's very sad. If the old gaurd hasn't understood or seen by now that the mentality of "you're a child and stupid, you need to do what we say" (and, in so many words, this is exactly what the collective thinking of the PCTA has been) isn't going to attract new hams, then they also don't realize the fundamental error that is resident within them, and that is THIS... a continued agenda such that they uphold will do far more to destroy ham radio than any change in testing requirements OR indirect problems (such as the current BPL controversy) will EVER do. Well...in some cases that's just it, they don't want to attract new hams, because new hams means more competition for the use of the exclusive slices of the RF spectrum that the "old guard" you refer to enjoys the use of. This certainly does not apply to everyone - I know some guys who literally have been licensed hams longer than I've been alive, and I don't think they have that attitude - but I agree that every ham who does display that attitude is doing a disservice to the ARS and to those of us in the hobby who try to look out for what is in the best interests of ham radio, even if it means we sometimes have to compromise what's best for ourselves. I have tried my darndest do continue to post, for the benifit of the undecideds and the new hams that don't quite know where thier ideological compass points to in this hobby yet that the problem isn't the mode of operation itself. I have even stated that my first many QSL cards were covering contacts made in CW. The newbies and undecides see now that the problem resides in the PCTA, for the PCTA will not argue the true debate but attempt to spin and twist it into something different... like many who support an erroneous idea, they attemp at ever turn in the road to turn the argument on it's axis and aim the very people instead of the issue. My honest feeling, due to my personal beliefs about human beings and thier psychology, is that the newbies will react (and have been doing so) toward this in a negative way (as far as the PCTA crowd's interests) and, in so many bloated but passionate words I have repeated just what you have. The PCTA have themselves to blame. Only the ones who do so for their own selfish reasons, rather than doing it because they honestly believe it to be the correct thing to do. This does not, and is not meant to, excuse insulting fellow hams (especially in a public forum such as UseNet that is open for perusal by hams and non-hams alike)...I simply mean to say that it's one thing for someone's beliefs to differ from another person's, but it's entirely another thing for someone to ignore what they know is right because there's more benefit in it for themselves to go that route. Often in life, what we say is less important than the way we say it. There's plenty on both sides of this debate who are, or have been, guilty of failing to recognize that. There are also folks on both sides of the debate who've been able to resist the temptation to get frustrated with the folks on the other side and open fire with both barrels. While I must disagree with their opinions, I can at least respect them as fellow hams and tip my hat to 'em for keeping it on an appropriate level. As for those who can do no better than to hurl insults and derogatory names at anyone who doesn't share their own views, I can only take solace in the fact that their own actions will most likely preclude them from ever becoming leaders in the amateur community...and as far as I'm concerned, that's definitely a good thing, because leadership like that we can do without! My $.02 worth And I, for one, thank you for it, Clint...you catch a lot of BS from some corners in rrap because people here like to trip others up on the least little error, but I think you're heart is in the right place, and that's the most important thing. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
|
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:03:02 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote: Well, it just doesn't stand the light of reason to say that those opposing the code testing were the first to raise hell when it was quite obvious that the tide of events were going thier way. Originally, they didn't. The first proposal to institute a no-code class of license (that could have been debated on a computerized network such as Fido) was the Communicator Class license back in the mid-1970's. That proposal was shot down, largely on opposition from ARRL, and we didn't get a no-code license in the ARS until 15 years or so later, by which time two generations of technically inclined young people had found other things to do for a hobby instead. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York |
|
Do you follow your own advice, Bruce? If so, you must be wearing some
really foul smelling shoes at this very moment because that would be the only shoes that fit you. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) WRONG DWIGHT, YOU ARE JUST WISHING YOU COULD BE AS GREAT AS I. |
We had this discussion before, Bruce. Remember? We decided in that
discussion you had no clue what a real civilized human is. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Wrong again Dwight, we never had such conversation. |
The 5-wpm exam..."a form of toture," Dwight? Surely you jest.
When you are Mentally challended like Dwight it is a big blocker |
Dick Carroll and WA8ULX are two others who come to mind as having
exhibited that attitude. Its not an attitude its a FACT, we are superior |
Is that what passes for an intelligent contribution to a discussion
down in Louisiana these days, Bruce? Or is that just another example of you showing us how smart you aren't? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ I thought you had me on Ignore? |
"Kim" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: "Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying "NO ONE should be denied a drivers license". see why the PCTA is accused of slant and spin? Nope. I am pretty sure that the phrase "who passes the tests required by contemporary modern society" was implied. Wasn't clear at all. If not, the part about "get thier license" pretty much removed any remaining "grey area" or misunderstanding. The word is spelled "THEIR", Clint. Turn on your spellchecker if you can't remember it. Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test) SHOULD be kept out of the ARS. 73, de Hans, K0HB that's what kim said. No, she didn't. And, btw, what makes you think Hans is "PCTA"? Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that the part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am... Oh well... Musta caught me at an inference-compromised moment, Kim. It wasn't clear to me when I read it. However, you have since rectified the ambiguity, so that the statement would now read something like: "NO ONE who has passed the required tests should be kept out of the ARS" How's that? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... : .....phucking .... phinally phucking ....Good phucking I love it when you talk romantic. 73 Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte -- "All persons, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and should not be construed." |
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 - |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:23 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: 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. Ahem...kindly re-read the quoted material. Clint called it a welfare program. I called it a (all together now, class): government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism. by that logic, most of the General and Extra written exams are also "government-subsidized life-support system for an anachronism" and/or "a welfare program". Clint has subsequently elaborated on his comment, citing government subsidizing of the agricultural industry as one example, demonstrating that this is in fact what he had in mind as well. What major industry in this country is *not* subsidized in some way? 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? Reallocate them as special digital experimental subband. Allow any documented digital mode that will fit in the subbands to be used there. Including digital voice, image, and yes, Morse Code/CW. No arbitrary limits on occupied bandwidth or symbol rate as long as the signal fits inside. If somebody wants to run "PSK-3100" and they can document it for FCC, fine, let 'em have at it. Meanwhile, give the Novices and Tech Pluses more HF space than those four little slots. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: WHO is doing the name calling? Both sides. it's not the NCTA group calling the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. it's not the PCTA group calling the NCTA "elitist", "arrogant", "luddite", "stuck in the past", "jackbooted thugs", "stoked on morsemanship", and an assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. Like "nazis". I think you'll be told "That's different". Of course. Somehow, some way, some people are convinced that since they are "right" that civil behavior is not necessary. As demonstrated by Bruce, Len and a host of others on both sides. Problem is not one of our positions is right or wrong. Its all opinions. I disagree. Some positions *are* simply wrong. For example, polluting the electromagnetic spectrum with BPL noise when many other, better technologies exist is simply *wrong*. Other positions, like the code test thingie, are really all about opinions and nothing more. But then it is easier to just lump everyone together into two groups. Sure. "Us" and "Them". Then dehumanize them, so that whatever you do is okay, and ends justify means. And the answer is to refuse to play that game. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: What about thier constant use of the term "CBplusser" and so forth... There is only one person who uses that term. He also claims to be 305 years old. What is it with the application of one person's pejorative to everyone? You mean like the person who called us 'nazis'? I've never called anyone a name here, and yet you and I are assigned the infamous "they" and "their". Of course. In fact, if you really want to get certain people mad, *don't* call them a name. I don't know if THEY have kept up to date on ham radio violation records, but the vast majority of code & rule violaters are hams who've been in the hobby for many many years, have advanced licenses (advanced, extra) and thus have passed morse code testing. Your source, please? I read the "FCC enforcement letters", and there seems to be a wide distribution of experience, license classes, etc. One thing is quite obvious, though: the vast majority of enforcement actions are against hams using voice modes. When's the last time a ham using CW in the CW/data subbands was the target of an FCC enforcement action? I did a little research project on this a year or so ago. No vast majority of any license class as far as perps go. There were a bit more of the higher classes, but not significantly so. Techs were real close, and then there were the unlicensed. I'd have to say there was no significant difference in the license class as far as rule violations go. Remember too that HF violations are usually audible over a much wider area than VHF/UHF violations. The W6NUT machine is a local/regional problem, while 3950 and 14313 are much more widespread. How many of the enforcement actions were against hams using CW in the CW/data subbands? The hams I have met personally that came out of 11 meters were the best hams I ever met. WHY? Because they KNEW where they came from, how nice it is up here, and have thus a respect for the advancement into a more serious hobby. Some of the best and the worst hams I have known came from 11 meters. The foulest mouths i've ever heard were on 75 meters ssb, and one ham who's call I won't mention was denied advancement by hollingsworth HIMSELF (you can look it up on ARRL records).. he lived at the time in conroe, texas.... he use to get just slobbering drunk on the radio and really raise hell; cussing, insulting, playing music, everything. And what mode was he using? Ahem... He passed the code requirements and written exam to advance to an even higher license, but recieved a letter from Hollingworth saying "you are not being given your upgrade, and furthermore, never will until I recieve a written letter from you explaining why you feel you DESERVE one." Was he using CW to do all that? THAT ham was a long time veteran ham who had already passed a CW test. Therefore, any argument brought up that CW testing is a "yahoo filter" as they call it is wrong. It doesn't stop any such thing. He'd also passed several *written* tests on regulations and operating practices. Those written tests didn't stop his behavior either. Shall we dump the writtens because they are not a "yahoo filter" either? No test can be a perfect "filter". And never will be. There are incompetent and even evil doctors. And yet they have one of the most rigorous entry requirements there are. Exactly. No requirements are needed to operate a transciever on HF. ?? I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence. We have to decide how much knowledge is needed. My only wish is that the requirements are enough that I know that the person is highly interested in the service. Hard to measure "interest". Fun fact: a few years back, the FCC modified a General class ham's license as part of an enforcement action so that he was limited to using CW only. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for and passing Element 1 requires one to demonstrate a tad more effort and dedication than passing written exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The 5-wpm is sufficient enough of a challenge to require some serious studying effort over approx two or three weeks, but not enough to discourage any individual serious about earning HF privileges. For those who are not, the no-code Technician license is available. It's really quite simple. Okay, now all you have to do is show where all that (demonstrated effort, challenge, earning privileges, a two to three week study effort, and so on) is listed in the FCC rules, or furthers the goals and purposes of the ARS. Exactly. Bert's comment underscores the core of many who don't give a hoot about having requirements that make sense...they only want requirements which, by their measure, constitute a "show of effort" on the part of all applicants. Sorry...but such a desire isn't any part of FCC's Part 97 Purpose. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:
It occurred to me that if, at any point during the events leading up to the first punch being thrown, either one of the two boys had decided he was above this sort of thing and walked away from it, neither of them would have ended up smelling like dog dung. Too bad for them that neither of them was smart enough to do that, or at least to suggest that they pick a cleaner lawn to fight on. Since neither of them did, they both share the responsibility for the fact that they both came up looking and smelling like s**t, no matter which of them tossed the original smart remark that started it all. Perhaps you grew up in a different area, John. When I was a kid, we moved to a different little town. I was getting picked on by some of the kids, a lot of it in places where I *couldn't* walk away. My parents always told me that it "took a bigger man to walk away from a fight". In a backward way, they were right, as I had to be pretty brave to get my dose of punches, kicks and rock dodging every day. Then one day, I decided *no more*, and shall we say, surprised the first kid that came after me. It cost him and myself an expulsion, but I made enough impression on the bullies that I had no more trouble from them. I don't think the Bully analogy is quite apt. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... N2EY wrote: In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net writes: WHO is doing the name calling? Both sides. it's not the NCTA group calling the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. it's not the PCTA group calling the NCTA "elitist", "arrogant", "luddite", "stuck in the past", "jackbooted thugs", "stoked on morsemanship", and an assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. Like "nazis". I think you'll be told "That's different". Of course. Somehow, some way, some people are convinced that since they are "right" that civil behavior is not necessary. As demonstrated by Bruce, Len and a host of others on both sides. Problem is not one of our positions is right or wrong. Its all opinions. I disagree. Some positions *are* simply wrong. For example, polluting the electromagnetic spectrum with BPL noise when many other, better technologies exist is simply *wrong*. Okay, I'll amend that. I was thinking of test requirements. I'd agree that BPL is technically bankrupt and an idea of dubious "smarts". Other positions, like the code test thingie, are really all about opinions and nothing more. But then it is easier to just lump everyone together into two groups. Sure. "Us" and "Them". Then dehumanize them, so that whatever you do is okay, and ends justify means. And the answer is to refuse to play that game. Pretty much. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Jim, I am really, really surprised that you failed to understand that the part about meeting test requirements was implied. I really am... Oh well... Kim W5TIT It is the fact that people think certain things are "implied" that keeps the lawyers mighty busy. These days, if something isn't stated, it isn't considered part of the meaning or intent of the passage. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com