|
The way to stop BPL
Heres the solution to the BPL problem, it makes you wonder why someone hasnt
done it yet. First stop messing with FCC, these Clowns have all ready made up there minds. Look at the Present Dumbing Down, which as been brought to us VIA the FCC Morrons. So believe me they could care less about Hams. And stop waisting your time sending in your comments to the FCC. If anybody in there right mind thinks they care about 1800 comments you kidding yourself. The solution is Simple, go to there Bosses, I dont mean anybody in the FCC I mean the FCCs Bosses. Tell them how you plan on Voting the next time out if this passes. Be sure and bring up Homeland Security in your comments. This is the only thing that will stop this. If you dont think so, remember the Head Man at the FCC recently got his hands slapped and told he would change another screw up he recently made. |
"WA8ULX" wrote:
Heres the solution to the BPL problem, it makes you wonder why someone hasn't done it yet. First stop messing with FCC, these Clowns have all ready made up there minds. Look at the Present Dumbing Down, which as been brought to us VIA the FCC Morrons. So believe me they could care less about Hams. And stop waisting your time sending in your comments to the FCC. If anybody in there right mind thinks they care about 1800 comments you kidding yourself. The solution is Simple, go to there Bosses, I dont mean anybody in the FCC I mean the FCCs Bosses. Tell them how you plan on Voting the next time out if this passes. Be sure and bring up Homeland Security in your comments. This is the only thing that will stop this. (snip) It hasn't been done because it won't work, Bruce. First of all, we're (ham operators) only a speck on the political spectrum. Even if we all voted exactly the same (not very likely), we don't have enough numbers to effect elections in any significant way. On the national level, our numbers are about equal to the voting block of a single mid-sized city (in a country with hundreds of cities). On the local level, the hams in a single state are rarely enough to change an election there. Finally, we don't contribute any great amount of money to elections. In other words, taken all together, we don't have any political muscle to throw around. As for the 1800 comments, have you read those comments? Most are opinions without solid facts. In other words, they lack substance. Only a very small number have anything firm to support the anti-BPL position. Compare that to the technical materials and studies provided by BPL supporters. I warned about this problem weeks ago. We're not giving the FCC enough to hang it's hat on to oppose BPL. If we want them to oppose BPL, we have to give them a solid reason to do so (a reason they can demonstrate to others). As for homeland security, we're not doing a whole lot when it comes to homeland security. If you talk about that, are you prepared to explain what we're doing and who we're doing it for? What government agency do we work for while participating in homeland security activities? Who in the government is in charge of our homeland security operations? What are we specifically doing for homeland security? As much as I'm opposed to BPL, I don't see how we can stop it at this point. We should have started our efforts two or three years ago. We should now have solid, preferably long term, studies to back up our claims. We should have technical materials showing the real impact on specific frequencies and on specific radio services. I'm afraid it's too late to start all of this now. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
WELL said Dwight.
If you look at the core error in WA8ULX's reasoning, as you have pointed out, you'll see the core reason they are losing the testing debate as well. It's really sad, the one I agree with and the other I do not- that is to say, on the one argument I am on the opposite side of the fence than they but on the other we share sentiments... however, as you pointed out, they refuse to change tactics and keep with a warplan that is little more than just a static in the ear of the FCC. I myself came into the BPL story too late as well.. And when you consider the mega bucks i'm sure the exploiters of the BPL are going to be willing to shell out in terms of legal fights & retained lawyers, political contributions *ahem*, etc., I think we were are on the losing downhill end of it now. As you said, things may have been different a long time ago if a more factual, logical approach had been taken. The same way they are losing the testing debate. Clint KB5ZHT -- -- Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one -- |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message hlink.net... big clip You know very well, or you should, that the ARRL send it a very comprehensive report on that subject. Both the initial comments and the latest round. The ARRL is the best, and only, organization that can do a thing to help us against BPL at this time. Its all we have. And I think they are doing a fine job. The FCC is staffed with a bunch of pro business lawyers. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. They don't have a clue of what they are doing. If you want to change the thinking at the FCC. Then writting your congressman is the ONLY way to do it. Since the congress controls their purse strings. The only other alternative would be to take it to court. Make use of the green peace bunch to sue for the destruction of a natural resource, the HF spectrum. etc.. Any port in a storm. Dan/W4NTI I agree that the ARRl is doing a decent job on this issue. My fears regarding BPL go along these lines: 1) Business wants it. This means that the Republicans, in general, are for it. It certainly means the FCC Powers-That-Be are for it. 2) Providing broadband access to as many as possible, as cheaply as possible, is an issue that appels to Liberals. This means, in genral, that the Democrats are for it. 3) The ARRL has a fairly small percentage (what is it, about 33%?) of registered U.S. hams as members. This reduces its effectiveness. 4) I doubt that many politicians see BPL as a make-or-break issue for their ham constiuants. That is, how many hams would vote for (or against) someone based on votes relating to BPL? How much money (soft and hard dollars) would increase (decrease) solely based on votes on BPL? If my assumption is true, then the ham community's voice is further reduced in effectiveness. 5) The power companies have done a fine job of defining the issue in a way beneficial to themselves: Which is more important: Cheap, widespread access to broadband or a hobby playground for hams? To tell the truth, if that were the issue, I would support BPL. 6) The ham community's voice, weak enough already, is further reduced by fights over secondary issues. As is: BPL is good because it will serve the No-Coders right. I don't think the power companies could say it better. To win this issue, we need to try to redefine the issue. We need to be saying: Cheap Broadband for everyone is EXTREMELY important and we will do nothing to stop it. Here is how to best achieve this...... BPL, in addition to interfering with long time and important users of the HF spectrum, suffers from the following technical problems which makes it ineffective as a broadband solution .... Paul AB0SI |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... It hasn't been done because it won't work, Well good then lets just consider it a done deal and forget about it. As far as In concerned I dont care, I think its a just reward for all the New NO-CODE HF users. Sour Grapes. |
Sour Grapes.
Sour Grapes, they didnt work for it, and this is what they get. |
Dick Carroll mentioned that some AM broadcast stations were virtually
obliterated in Allentown, Pa. In that case, everyone noticing interference on broadcast band (AM) stations should complain to the stations involved. Believe me, commercial broadcasting (especially since the FCC allowed a few powerful groups to buy up most of the broadcast stations) has much deeper pockets than amateurs and would likely not hesitate even a moment to bring lawyers and Congress into the mess. Don't complain as a ham operator, however; complain that you can't hear some particular programs from the station due to all of this "interference". Let 'em figure it out :) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "WA8ULX" wrote in message ... Heres the solution to the BPL problem, it makes you wonder why someone hasnt done it yet. First stop messing with FCC, these Clowns have all ready made up there minds. Look at the Present Dumbing Down, which as been brought to us VIA the FCC Morrons. So believe me they could care less about Hams. And stop waisting your time sending in your comments to the FCC. If anybody in there right mind thinks they care about 1800 comments you kidding yourself. The solution is Simple, go to there Bosses, I dont mean anybody in the FCC I mean the FCCs Bosses. Tell them how you plan on Voting the next time out if this passes. Be sure and bring up Homeland Security in your comments. This is the only thing that will stop this. If you dont think so, remember the Head Man at the FCC recently got his hands slapped and told he would change another screw up he recently made. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/03 |
Ah-HA!
"I had to do it, so should YOU!" It's too easy. Clint KB5ZHT -- -- Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one -- "WA8ULX" wrote in message ... Sour Grapes. Sour Grapes, they didnt work for it, and this is what they get. |
Ah-HA!
"I had to do it, so should YOU!" It's too easy. Clint KB5ZHT No I dont think its to easy, I think they should give them away in Ceral Boxes |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
I hope the FCC shows more respect for the *opinions* of this particular "constituency." As I explained in my first paragraph, we simply don't have the numbers. Therefore, we're not going to be able to go around screaming we're a constituency with the hopes that alone will convince the FCC to support us. We're going to have to provide cold hard facts and I've seen little of that in the opinions I've read. ARES, and they're usually coordinated with local OEM. Sorry, I haven't found a thing ARES is doing related to homeland security. If you're aware of anything, please let me know so I cite that when talking to others. Do nothing and nothing will certainly result. I'm not saying do nothing. Instead, I'm saying what we're doing is probably not going to be enough. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"WA8ULX" wrote: As far as In concerned I dont care, I think its a just reward for all the New NO-CODE HF users. We already know that, Bruce. More likely, you probably posted this subject in an attempt to start another code/no-code debate. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
I'm not saying do nothing. Instead, I'm saying what we're doing is
probably not going to be enough. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) No Question about it, this is a DONE DEAL Thats why I loaded up on some BPL stock this thing is going to ROCK. |
We already know that, Bruce. More likely, you probably posted this
subject in an attempt to start another code/no-code debate. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) If the truth was known I could care less about the CW thing. The NO- CW thing is coming, no QUESTION about it. The No Written Test will follow. As I predicted when the 1st No-Code thing passed, there would 3 Steps to converting Ham Radio into CB. The 2nd step is almost here. The third step will follow shortly. Good Luck CBplusser, I sure hope you enjoy your BPL HF privilages. |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net... "WA8ULX" wrote: As far as In concerned I dont care, I think its a just reward for all the New NO-CODE HF users. We already know that, Bruce. More likely, you probably posted this subject in an attempt to start another code/no-code debate. I don't believe that... I honestly think that the feelings of many people on his side of the debate run so deep and in such a sour vein that he was honestly just speaking his mind. And that's sadder. Clint KB5ZHT -- -- Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one -- |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net... "Bert Craig" wrote: I hope the FCC shows more respect for the *opinions* of this particular "constituency." As I explained in my first paragraph, we simply don't have the numbers. Therefore, we're not going to be able to go around screaming we're a constituency with the hopes that alone will convince the FCC to support us. We're going to have to provide cold hard facts and I've seen little of that in the opinions I've read. ARES, and they're usually coordinated with local OEM. Sorry, I haven't found a thing ARES is doing related to homeland security. If you're aware of anything, please let me know so I cite that when talking to others. Do nothing and nothing will certainly result. I'm not saying do nothing. Instead, I'm saying what we're doing is probably not going to be enough. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ I agree, I don't know of any actual ARES/Homeland security happenings at all. But I do know of MARS and Homeland security and the SHARES organization. And last time I checked to be in MARS you had to have a ham license. Dan/W4NTI |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote: You know very well, or you should, that the ARRL send it a very comprehensive report on that subject. Both the initial comments and the latest round. And I applaud them for that effort (that's why I'm a member). However, it is one report in a pile of reports submitted by various companies, all showing exactly the opposite conclusion. And they're all demonstrably lying thru their teeth. Ya can drive a Kenworth thru the holes in their explanations of how BPL "won't hurt nobody". The ARRL didn't give the FCC a thing to hang their hat on (a single "ah-ha" that proves those other reports wrong). Instead, it simply contradicts them. The ARRL submission is the *only* by-the-numbers engineering study on record so far and it has the BPL proponents in a royal snit. They're *not* brushing it off by any means, they're vigorously attacking it, they know they have a battle on their hands so don't underestimate the ARRL's ability to be a spoiler far out of proportion to it's political and/or financial clout. David did take out Goliath, etc. Technical submissions are not over either, the NTIA is gonna weigh in eventually which could very well be the slam dunk BPL killer. If you want to change the thinking at the FCC. Then writting your congressman is the ONLY way to do it. Since the congress controls their purse strings. Oh, I just wish it was that simple. The only other alternative would be to take it to court. Make use of the green peace bunch to sue for the destruction of a natural resource, the HF spectrum. etc.. Any port in a storm. A resource controlled by the federal government, which means very few courts would likely to step in. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ w3rv |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Jim Hampton wrote: Dick Carroll mentioned that some AM broadcast stations were virtually obliterated in Allentown, Pa. In that case, everyone noticing interference on broadcast band (AM) stations should complain to the stations involved. Believe me, commercial broadcasting (especially since the FCC allowed a few powerful groups to buy up most of the broadcast stations) has much deeper pockets than amateurs and would likely not hesitate even a moment to bring lawyers and Congress into the mess. Don't complain as a ham operator, however; complain that you can't hear some particular programs from the station due to all of this "interference". Let 'em figure it out :) Here's an article on the BPL issue that appeared in the Allentown PA newspaper.... http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...904.story?coll Dick 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 - wk3c |
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 - wk3c Yea for Karl the savior of HAM RADIO. I hope you told him you are a CBplusser, and not a REAL HAM. |
"Brian Kelly" wrote:
The ARRL submission is the *only* by-the-numbers engineering study on record so far and it has the BPL proponents in a royal snit. They're *not* brushing it off by any means, they're vigorously attacking it, they know they have a battle on their hands so don't underestimate the ARRL's ability to be a spoiler far out of proportion to it's political and/or financial clout. David did take out Goliath, etc. (snip) I truly hope you're right, Brian. I really do. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"
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 -- |
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 - |
|
OH, there are some code test-o-philes that will forever HATE you for
saying that. :) Clint "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... 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.) |
They'll get over it!
Ryan KC8PMX PCTA member "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ... OH, there are some code test-o-philes that will forever HATE you for saying that. :) Clint "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Yeah... and PCTA could also stand for Post Code Testing Agenda as well! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com