Clint, that's something that I agree with you 110% on.

This type of attitude is not productive, and does nothing to further
the cause of the hobby.

Hoping that BPL will destroy Amateur Radio to spite the 'no coders' is
a nonsensical position to take. Sour grapes, I believe, is the term
for this type of thinking!

73, Leo

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:12:44 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:

"
Your EXACTLY right, those are my true feelings. I think its just perfect
for
all the No-Coders. Not only will they be able to get there No-Code Extra,
and
all of HF, but the beauty of it is, they will have so much noise to deal
with,
they will not have any one to talk to. What a just reward for all there
WHINNING. I cant wait.

And the PCTA crowd wonders why they aren't being met with a warmer
reception from the newbies wanting to enter the hobby.

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one

And the PCTA crowd wonders why they aren't being met with a warmer
reception from the newbies wanting to enter the hobby.

You got to be Kidding, we dont need no WARM RECEPTION from you CBPLUSSERS

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Clint, that's something that I agree with you 110% on.

This type of attitude is not productive, and does nothing to further
the cause of the hobby.

Hoping that BPL will destroy Amateur Radio to spite the 'no coders' is
a nonsensical position to take. Sour grapes, I believe, is the term
for this type of thinking!

73, Leo


It's like taking off your nose to spite your face... I love this hobby,
it's a blast; it has so many avenues to pursue and so many different
ways to enjoy it. I even like it because it adds to my shortwave
listening pleasure!

Why wish it destroyed? How horrible! The very reason I state the
feelings I have to the controversial issues that are posted is because
I feel, ultimately, that I would like to see as many potential hams
come into this hobby as possible.

I think a lot of people are constantly worried about the
low calibur class of people that would flood the hobby; some, I think,
are people that simply don't want just anybody coming into the hobby,
but would rather see a small slice of the population that meets thier
criteria join and nobody else. Both are negative for ham radio, because
i'm sad to say, the first group I mentioned still wouldn't be willing to
try to pass a written test and probably wouldn't be able to; as for
the second group of potential hams I listed, well, there just won't
be enough of them to keep ham alive.

What do you have if you allow ham radio to stagnate? And leo,
of this i'm serious.... you have a hobby that loses what little
clout it has with the FCC because of DROPPING membership,
and thus, we'll see MORE of our bands taken away that are
above 30 megs (I am STILL ****ed off that we lost 220! And
I understand that the U.P.S., that petitioned successfully to
steal 220-222 megaherts away from the hams, don't even
use it anymore!)

God, let's work together and keep this going.
You and I and many people in here may have our differences,
but we're both ham operators and enjoy our hobby.

Hell, leo, meet me on HF sometime and we'll have a ball.

Clint
KB5ZHT

one of the two factions fighting over the code testing issue.

PCTA = Pro Code Testing Agenda ...
NCTA = No Code Test Agenda

The former wants to continue testing mores code
profeciency as a means of judging whether or not
you can recieve a ham radio license.

The latter want to remove the last vestiges of
morse code testing, the 5 wmp code test.

Anything past that is debatable, as to what they
really want or believe, but those are the basics.

Clint
KB5ZHT


--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--
"William Warren" wrote in message
linux.org...
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

And the PCTA crowd wonders why they aren't
being met with a warmer reception from the
newbies wanting to enter the hobby.

Please tell me what "PCTA" means. TIA.

Bill

(Filter the qrm for direct replies.)

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:40:02 -0500, "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net wrote:

"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
Clint, that's something that I agree with you 110% on.

This type of attitude is not productive, and does nothing to further
the cause of the hobby.

Hoping that BPL will destroy Amateur Radio to spite the 'no coders' is
a nonsensical position to take. Sour grapes, I believe, is the term
for this type of thinking!

73, Leo


It's like taking off your nose to spite your face... I love this hobby,
it's a blast; it has so many avenues to pursue and so many different
ways to enjoy it. I even like it because it adds to my shortwave
listening pleasure!

Same here - I started out listening to shortwave too, and had this
urge to go further with it, to talk back to the DX...it still amazes
me!

Why wish it destroyed? How horrible! The very reason I state the
feelings I have to the controversial issues that are posted is because
I feel, ultimately, that I would like to see as many potential hams
come into this hobby as possible.

Thinking such as our WA8 friend displays is not going to do the hobby
any good at all. If the regulators get the idea that this isn't
important to us, and with the pressure that the power companies are
putting on them, it might just happen...

I think a lot of people are constantly worried about the
low calibur class of people that would flood the hobby; some, I think,
are people that simply don't want just anybody coming into the hobby,
but would rather see a small slice of the population that meets thier
criteria join and nobody else. Both are negative for ham radio, because
i'm sad to say, the first group I mentioned still wouldn't be willing to
try to pass a written test and probably wouldn't be able to; as for
the second group of potential hams I listed, well, there just won't
be enough of them to keep ham alive.

Both sides of the argument seem to share the desire to bring in new
people to the hobby. Quality of the new operator, though, is a major
concern - I really don't believe that the standards up here are tight
enough right now (theoretical testing, forgetting the Code part for a
moment...) - as I mentioned, I had a licence, a bunch of radio stuff
that I bought at hamfests and hooked up - and no real idea what to do
next. Some feel that CW is the answer - some want to see more theory.
All (with some exceptions ) love the hobby as much as we do, maybe
more, and want to preserve and protect it. Explains why some of the
discussions are so - uh - passionate....

What do you have if you allow ham radio to stagnate? And leo,
of this i'm serious.... you have a hobby that loses what little
clout it has with the FCC because of DROPPING membership,
and thus, we'll see MORE of our bands taken away that are
above 30 megs (I am STILL ****ed off that we lost 220! And
I understand that the U.P.S., that petitioned successfully to
steal 220-222 megaherts away from the hams, don't even
use it anymore!)

That is unfortunate indeed, and demonstrates the power of industry.
We still have the 220 MHz band up here, Amateur exclusive - not sure
if that will change, but it does highlight what can happen if we don;t
work together as a team. Big business has great influence over
government up here - and I suspect there too!

So, if you still have your 220 rig, come on up and visit - it's still
good here!

God, let's work together and keep this going.
You and I and many people in here may have our differences,
but we're both ham operators and enjoy our hobby.

Fully agreed - we got off to a bit of a bad start (!), but it ends
here......

Hell, leo, meet me on HF sometime and we'll have a ball.

Deal. You know, if we can work things out this calmly, there just
might be hope yet! I think that, in many ways, you and I are
coming from the same place!

Now, if we can all just focus on some of the things that threaten the
hobby...there's a hell of a lot of work to do!

55, 73 Leo


Clint
KB5ZHT

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

Interesting to note that Dick just couldn't bring himself to mention
that I was the one who took the reporter out and demonstrated
the interference to him ... but I'm not surprised.

Carl, you've noted that we should stick together on this one.

Perhaps "we" doesn't include Dick?

There was no insult toward you in his post, and I would note that he
posted the link to the article, which no doubt he read, and no doubt saw
that you were a part of the article.

If we are to get together and fight this thing, it might be worth
pointing out that not only should those who support Morse testing try to
get along with those who don't - but the opposite is also true.

- Mike KB3EIA -

There was no insult toward you in his post, and I would note that he
posted the link to the article, which no doubt he read, and no doubt saw
that you were a part of the article.

The problem is simple, Capt Karl thinks hes the best thing that ever happened
to Ham Radio, and hes just looking for someone to say thank you Karl for saving
Ham Radio.

On 30 Sep 2003 03:11:28 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote:

Leo wrote:

Hoping that BPL will destroy Amateur Radio to spite the 'no coders' is
a nonsensical position to take. Sour grapes, I believe, is the term
for this type of thinking!



Leo, I don't want to see *anything* destroy, or even further damage,
ham radio. That includes lowering the licensing standards so much
that the license is virtually given to anyone and everyone who
even the most mild and fleeting interest. History has clearly
shown where that leads.

Dick, I don't for a moment believe that you (or anyone on this group
with few exceptions) want the hobby to be downgraded or destroyed.
The comment that I was referring to most assuredly does not reflect
that of the majority of Hams (and, coming from an Extra, doesn't lend
much credence to either CW or advanced testing keeping out the
yahoos... )

Looks to me like the bulk of the disagreement here centers around the
fact that, if and when code goes, what should replace it? Several
schools of thought are clear:

One group believes that it should simply be dropped (like most of the
countries who have removed CW testing have done). There is a problem
with this strategy, or at least a perception here in the group, that
doing this would be bad for the hobby as it will admit many folks who
don't have to put in any extra effort over and above the current
written exam.

Another group believe that CW should be retained - it has great
historical significance, is an excellent operating mode under adverse
conditions, and takes effort to learn - perhaps demonstrating the
commitment of the applicant. CW inherently imposes a civility on
conversation that straight voice does not - it is slower (at least for
me...) than speech, uses standard telegrapher's abbreviations bor
brevity, and does not convey emotion like voice does. It's harder to
have a heated arguement using CW - can be done, but harder
Perlaps in this way the LID-factor is minimized. And sure, it's an
antiquated method of communication in an Internet-wired world - but
voice comminication is much older

Yet another group would like to see CW replaced with other testing,
again if and when CW is retired. I'm in this category (though not
passionate about retiring CW). Additional testing on radio operating
practices relating to HF, Smith charts, additional theory or even
practical operating tests in various modes have been proposed. This
may be the best compromise in ensuring that those who join the hobby
are prepared and qualified to do a good job when they get on the air,
and well represent the caliber of people in the Amateur Radio ranks.

One obvious problem with the two approaches above (keep CW, add more
testing if it goes) is with reciprocal operating agreements with other
countries - if the requirements don't align, we could have a situation
where foreign amateurs visiting North America would have reduced
privileges during their stay here. All global agreements would
require renegotiation - a massive task!

There are also several folks here (the WA8xxx initiator of the "hope
BPL kills the hobby for the CBPlussers" crap, and hey, Big Al!) whose
only purpose it to stir the pot and start fights - and are best
ignored.

I'll close with a quote from Clint's post to me last night - something
that no one here can argue with, and I wish I had said so well:

"I love this hobby, it's a blast; it has so many avenues to pursue
and so many different ways to enjoy it."

Now THAT's the spirit of Amateur Radio!

73, Leo

Dick

Yeah... and PCTA could also stand for Post Code Testing Agenda as well!



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
one of the two factions fighting over the code testing issue.

PCTA = Pro Code Testing Agenda ...
NCTA = No Code Test Agenda

The former wants to continue testing mores code
profeciency as a means of judging whether or not
you can recieve a ham radio license.

The latter want to remove the last vestiges of
morse code testing, the 5 wmp code test.

Anything past that is debatable, as to what they
really want or believe, but those are the basics.

Clint
KB5ZHT


--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--
"William Warren" wrote in message
linux.org...
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

And the PCTA crowd wonders why they aren't
being met with a warmer reception from the
newbies wanting to enter the hobby.

Please tell me what "PCTA" means. TIA.

Bill

(Filter the qrm for direct replies.)

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

snippage

That's a rather lofty goal, Mike, when considering that folks like

DICKhead,

Larry, and lately, you, act the way you do. Think about it. Most of

the

people to whom sheer disrespect is aimed at are the folks that have no
problem at all with those of you who love, appreciate and admire CW as a
mode and even the fact that you wish it to remain as a part of the test
requirement. But the lack of tolerance displayed by people such as
DICKhead, Larry, you, Dan/W4whatever, and others is overwhelmingly
despicable and beyond being able to "join" together for the cause. The

only

common ground that may be found is that we are all amateurs. And, I

doubt

you'll even admit that.

Whoa there. Kim. Point out what exactly I have done that is so
despicable. Is this some sort of thing where I stand up for Dick, then I
am the same as him? I don't agree with everything he does. I don't care
for him calling people names. I don't care for Larry doing that, I don't
care for Steve and his Lennie stuff either. I've had discussions with at
least Larry and Steve about it.



It's more what you haven't done, Mike, although some of even what you have
done. You can't nudge "this one" in the side, wink at that one over there,
and pat this one on the back and then stand in the middle of the street
suggesting to everyone that we "should all get along."

I most certainly can. I haven't taken you to task for the names you
call Dick, or the recent post to Hans with the PH*****G stuff in it -
and note that I *have* taken Hans to task for it. Changing the spelling
does not change the meaning or intent.

And I'm not going to respond to every post I find inapropriate.

I, for one--and maybe the only one--don't trust people like that. You sit
on the fence. I'm waiting to get spike by the barbed wire.

Sure. I can't be reliably depended on to take the "party line". I make
up my own mind. Many people don't like that at all.


Sorry that you feel that way about me Kim.

Why? I hardly think it's going to have any impact one way or the other on
your every day doings. We don't even know each other.

No, its not going to affect me. But I'm still sorry you feel that way.
I could apologize for feeling that way too, but that would start a
feedbak loop.

- Mike KB3EIA -