N2EY wrote:

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'?

That's a real good example! We have a whole spectrum of people with a
whole spectrum of opinions in here. And some are too busy stereotyping
to actually find out what anthers true opinion is.


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 find that not ever responding to their posts works pretty well!!


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 next one makes one.

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.

This is what my whole argument comes down to, Jim. There is ample
evidence that a person, even one who is less clever than most, can put
up a station, run some serious power, and come to no harm. People do it
on the 11 meter band all the time.

Even on the Ham bands, a person can buy a modern rig, pay people to
erect his or her antenna, and be on the air without doing anything but
reading the manual.

Things are not what they used to be.

That some people like to homebrew can be considered as irrelevant now
as the fact that some people like to use Morse Code CW. A person can use
the argument that "If a person likes to build their own equipment,
that's fine, but a person shouldn't have to be forced to test for
electronic theory. Why should a person have to know Ohms law when they
just want to run SSB or computer soundcard modes"?

In fact, modern radios could simply not allow themselves to transmit
out of band, (some may already do so) so who needs to know band edges?
Another thing not needed to test for.

Nothing is a foolproof filter, but the tests serve as one, both written
and Morse proficiency tests.

While some decry this as an elitist thing, it is no more so than any
testing regimen. We take tests to get into schools, graduate, drive a
car, and do many things in life.

I'm not talking about the Morse code test specifically - for the
purpose of the argument, throw it out and to hell with it.

What I am talking about is that we are at a juncture where we can go
one of both ways. We can toss the whole thing, and actually just have
people buy their licenses, or we can have some sort of minimal testing,
or we can have some meaningful testing, where the person demonstrates
some sort of proficiency and interest and has to put in some sort of
work to get their ticket. Some might also want the prospective ham to be
the equivalent of an RF engineer.

It's a whole spectrum of opinions.


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.

Oh the horror!!! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -