|
"N2EY" wrote Well, I simply disagree. Most people in the USA don't really know what Morse code is. I suppose that depends on what 'is' really is. If I walk up to 100 random people over the age of 10 in a shopping mall and ask them "what is the Morse code", I'm sure every one them would give me an answer. You'd get answers like: "The alphabet in dots and dashes". "Those clicks they used to send telegrams in the cowboy movies." "SOS" "Those beeps and boops I used to hear on my SW receiver." "A barrier to entry into HF amateur radio." [The devil made me say that.] etc., etc., etc. My point is that most people in the USA have at least a passing familiarity with *what* Morse code is, even if they can't recite the code for each letter/numeral. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit though. Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the current license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out because of "life happens" events like education and family. Its just too long. Is it really too long, particularly considering the two-year experience requirement? One of the problems with the old 1 and 2 year Novices was that if a new ham ran into "life happens" situations, their upgrade schedule would be seriously disprupted. Example: A few weeks after a teenager gets the Novice license his folks inform him that the family is moving across the country. New house isn't quite ready so they'll be living in temporary quarters for a while. Meanwhile most of their stuff is in storage. "A while" becomes "a few months".. Finally they get into the new house and there's a flurry of activity to get set up - and the parents say ham radio isn't a top priority. By the time Our Hero is back on the air, there's not much time left on his one-year license. Look how long it's taken some *adults* (alleged adults, anyway) in this NG to upgrade, or even get licenses. The license renewal period would just be another number by that time, since the new A license would be forever. I'm busy as all gitout, and it took me something over a week of hard study to get ready for the Extra. Very true! Plus I can't figure out what can make a person qualified to operate on day 3652 of their licensing period and unqualified on day 3653. The same principle that makes a General or Advanced class ham qualfied to operate on 3526 kHz but not on 3524 kHz. The same principle that makes a Tech Plus ham qualified to operate a transmitter of 1500 W output using any authorized mode on 6 meters but not 10 meters. I don't agree there Jim! True enough, its an arbitrary thing, but what you are talking about is power limits and sub-bands, and I am talking about the qualifications to operate *at all*. the other folks simply operate within the limitations of their licenses, and the 10 year and 1 day class B ham is no ham at all anymore. It takes a lot less time than that to understand RF safety - the only real reason I can think of for the second class license, so if we're going to do this, it should make some timing sense. There's a lot more to it than RF safety. I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A. BTDT. Not sure about BTDT. Been There, Done That Another thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control op at field day (or operate lower power) Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*. I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals. We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade would have to have a control op. Why? If he/she is operating 50 Watts, they are outside their priveliges. As long as the power level is less than 50 W, that Class B ham could operate any freq, any mode, as the control op. Ahh, but now we have to set up a special low power station. The low power ghetto I was talking about. For good or bad, my club runs high power during Field Day. I'm taking my reference of "Class B Ghetto" from experience with the GOTA station. The first year our GOTA station operated, many of the people operating it called it a "toy station". They could op one of the high power stations, park on a frequency, and rack up points, and the lowly GOTA station has to hunt and pounce. It wasn't until I put PSK31 on the GOTA station that it took off. note: I'm not suggesting that newbies use high power. Just the opposite in fact. Hunt and pounce at low power builds competence in the new ham. But its so hard to compete with power when you're working like crazy to get a QSO, and the guy in the next tent is racking them up at a high rate. We have hams what operate now at field day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking myself or another Extra away from a station) Not at all! Existing hams would retain their existing privs under Hans' proposal. I'm saying that I'm sitting with the guy as a control op and not operating myself. Of course the second class ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output - or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of low power ghetto. You mean you folks operate 1500 W on FD? (that's "full output") Actually we operat @1kW. My bad. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good Try QRP some time ;-) Nothing wrong with QRP. I'm just noting possible problems as outlined above. If you're going QRP then everyone is operating at less than 5 watts. The fact is that if a non-Extra wants to operate FD, there has to be a control op present whenever the non-Extra exceeds his-her subband restrictions. That's a lot more onerous than turning down the power to 50 W. I stayed in my bands when I was a General at FD. Wasn't a problem. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP, 50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC. Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade. (or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV. There's another option: Change the rules so that different power levels could be used for different stations in the same multi setup. (It used to be this way!) This might work well enough, but I still don't care for relegating the class B to the ghetto, or to remove an Extra or class A from operating to be a control op. I know that the others I work with on field day wouldn't be too wild about that sort of thing either. These are people that love working high power, and enjoy racking up points. Inexperienced users can get working with us, but adding another station (and putting us in another class) for a 50 watt station isn't going to be too popular with them - and after all, they and myself are the ones doing the setup and teardown, so as long as we are within the rules, we should be allowed to do this. I just don't think that the proposed setup will be both newbie friendly and experienced friendly at the same time. Note I'm not saying things couldn't work. I'm saying that every time I turn around, this proposal is bumping into something else, and not necessarily in a good way. It starts out prety simply, but then we have to do all kinds of things to shoehorn it into the real world. So we end up changing this so can coexist with the thing we changed before in order to avoid messing that up which came about as a result of modifying the rule that contradicted........... |
"Mike Coslo" wrote Ahh, but now we have to set up a special low power station. No you don't. At worst you need to put a wattmeter in the transmission line, and maybe a neon-orange sign reading "Observe the power limits of your operators license." with an arrow pointing to the "Pwr" knob on the radio. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Kim W5TIT" wrote: (snip) Fact is, though, you did open yourself up with the statement, "Few people today (especially boys and men) have not learned code, or at least played around with it, at some point in their lives." (snip) Is that sentence what this is all about, Kim (and Dee)? If so, lets forget about debate rules and discuss how to write instead. I wrote a paragraph which contained a lead, supposition or hypothesis, and a conclusion. The "fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph is in the conclusion of that paragraph, not in any single sentence leading up to that conclusion. The sentence quoted above is supposition leading to the conclusion. The conclusion of that paragraph, and the "fact" mentioned in the lead of that paragraph, is, "...most adults today are familiar enough with code to know whether they have any real interest in it." Based on what I wrote in that paragraph, and in subsequent messages, I do believe that conclusion to be fact. And the conclusion of this message is, if that sentence is indeed the root Dee's objection, we've spent several days arguing over two entirely different things - that sentence in Dee's case and the overall conclusion in my case. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Well, I am actually *supposing* that is what it is that Dee is basing the major part of the discussion on. Dee? (PS--it doesn't matter a whoot for me, I think I'm not so driven by statements as I am concepts). Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message nk.net... I based that on the fact that Morse code has been widely featured in movies (Titantic to War Movies), television (Hogan's Heros to Westerns to Sci-Fi), books, children's toys, the military decades ago, youth organizations, and so on. So, again, I do think it is a fact that most people in this country today know about Morse code. They may not know what it's called, how to do it, or whatever, but only a truly isolated person would not know at least something about it. That is especially true for anyone interested in radio (shortwave listeners, potential new hams, and so on). Such exposure doesn't give anyone sufficient information to make an informed decision. You haven't provided anything beyond your own opinion to dispute any of that. Instead, you assault my choice of words and then insist, even if true, that is not enough - that one must have practical experience to truly make a choice. Of course, that's nonsense. One does not have to murder someone to know that murder is not something one would particularly like to do. Indeed, we make choices in our lives each day without personal experience to back it up. Your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's ability to make their own choices. Again you are NOT reading my words. I've repeatedly stated that one can make judgments based on risks, dangers, and harm even if they have not experienced it. Murder does serious harm and therefore does not need to be experienced. However where such detrimental effects don't come into play, it is not possible to say one does or does not like something unless they have experienced it. One may think they won't like it but they truly do not have the tools to do other than make an assumption. I refrain from forming opinions on things I've never tried. There will be things that I will never form an opinion on. For example my fear of the risks of skydiving will never allow me to try it. So I do not know whether I would like it or not and refrain from making a judgment on it. I've never had occasion to eat frog legs or squid so I refrain from judging whether or not I would like these foods. And so on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Such exposure doesn't give anyone sufficient information to make an informed decision. Of course, that's just an opinion, isn't it? You're not an expert on the human decision making process and there are no studies to show whether it is or isn't sufficient, right? If not, your opinion is no more valid than mine. Again you are NOT reading my words. I've repeatedly stated that one can make judgments based on risks, dangers, and harm even if they have not experienced it. Murder does serious harm and therefore does not need to be experienced. However where such detrimental effects don't come into play, it is not possible to say one does or does not like something unless they have experienced it. (snip) Again, we make decisions each day without personal experience to necessarily back it up. This includes who we associate with, who we date, what we eat for lunch, what books we buy, what shows we watch on television, whether we marry, and the list goes on virtually forever. And, again, your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's ability to make their own choices. I refrain from forming opinions on things I've never tried. There will be things that I will never form an opinion on. (snip) I find that very difficult to believe, Dee. Did you try actual marrage before actually getting married? Did you try driving on the highway before deciding to get a license? Did you try your job before actually taking it? Again, there are many things we choose to do or not do without actually trying them first. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
KØHB wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote Ahh, but now we have to set up a special low power station. No you don't. At worst you need to put a wattmeter in the transmission line, and maybe a neon-orange sign reading "Observe the power limits of your operators license." with an arrow pointing to the "Pwr" knob on the radio. At worst...... So we operate class one while operating 50 watts. Another bump. All this is not insurmountable, but far reaching. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote So we operate class one while operating 50 watts. Another bump. Lifes a bitch, and then you die and they give away your call sign! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: I don't oppose a time limit per se. I don't like a ten year time limit though. Why? It's my understanding that the 10-year idea is based partly on the current license term and partly on the idea that we don't want to force anyone out because of "life happens" events like education and family. Its just too long. Is it really too long, particularly considering the two-year experience requirement? One of the problems with the old 1 and 2 year Novices was that if a new ham ran into "life happens" situations, their upgrade schedule would be seriously disprupted. Example: A few weeks after a teenager gets the Novice license his folks inform him that the family is moving across the country. New house isn't quite ready so they'll be living in temporary quarters for a while. Meanwhile most of their stuff is in storage. "A while" becomes "a few months".. Finally they get into the new house and there's a flurry of activity to get set up - and the parents say ham radio isn't a top priority. By the time Our Hero is back on the air, there's not much time left on his one-year license. Look how long it's taken some *adults* (alleged adults, anyway) in this NG to upgrade, or even get licenses. The license renewal period would just be another number by that time, since the new A license would be forever. I'm busy as all gitout, and it took me something over a week of hard study to get ready for the Extra. Very true! Plus I can't figure out what can make a person qualified to operate on day 3652 of their licensing period and unqualified on day 3653. The same principle that makes a General or Advanced class ham qualfied to operate on 3526 kHz but not on 3524 kHz. The same principle that makes a Tech Plus ham qualified to operate a transmitter of 1500 W output using any authorized mode on 6 meters but not 10 meters. I don't agree there Jim! True enough, its an arbitrary thing, but what you are talking about is power limits and sub-bands, and I am talking about the qualifications to operate *at all*. the other folks simply operate within the limitations of their licenses, and the 10 year and 1 day class B ham is no ham at all anymore. Just like the old Novices when their licenses ran out. Point is, that hypothetical Class B had a window of 8 *years* to upgrade to Class A. You said it took you all of a week to get ready for Extra. It takes a lot less time than that to understand RF safety - the only real reason I can think of for the second class license, so if we're going to do this, it should make some timing sense. There's a lot more to it than RF safety. I support a time in grade, even though I would be frustrated (read teased) by a two year stint before I could get the class A. BTDT. Not sure about BTDT. Been There, Done That Another thing, which would be a little strange would be having to have a control op at field day (or operate lower power) Why would that be strange? It's the rule *today*. I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals. We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade would have to have a control op. Why? If he/she is operating 50 Watts, they are outside their priveliges. OK. So turn down the power. As long as the power level is less than 50 W, that Class B ham could operate any freq, any mode, as the control op. Ahh, but now we have to set up a special low power station. The low power ghetto I was talking about. For good or bad, my club runs high power during Field Day. Most clubs don't. And if the power levels were restructured, the points from a 50 watt station could make more difference than those from a 1500 W station. I'm taking my reference of "Class B Ghetto" from experience with the GOTA station. The first year our GOTA station operated, many of the people operating it called it a "toy station". That's *their* problem. They could op one of the high power stations, park on a frequency, and rack up points, and the lowly GOTA station has to hunt and pounce. It wasn't until I put PSK31 on the GOTA station that it took off. So? They're used to being Big Guns. Anybody who wants to be a Big Gun could just get a Class A and be done with it. note: I'm not suggesting that newbies use high power. Just the opposite in fact. Hunt and pounce at low power builds competence in the new ham. But its so hard to compete with power when you're working like crazy to get a QSO, and the guy in the next tent is racking them up at a high rate. That's part of the experience requirement. Part of the plan. And remember the power multiplier idea. If the 50 watt station is hunt/pecking 20 per hour but has a 3.5 multiplier, they're making more points than the Big Gun doing 60 per hour. We have hams what operate now at field day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking myself or another Extra away from a station) Not at all! Existing hams would retain their existing privs under Hans' proposal. I'm saying that I'm sitting with the guy as a control op and not operating myself. If they're existing hams (say, Generals) they could still do what they've always done. If they're unlicensed, or not licensed for the freq/power/mode in use, they still need a control op today. And one of the *best* ways for them to learn is to work with an experienced op. Of course the second class ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output - or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of low power ghetto. You mean you folks operate 1500 W on FD? (that's "full output") Actually we operat @1kW. My bad. FD rules can be changed, y'know. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good Try QRP some time ;-) Nothing wrong with QRP. I'm just noting possible problems as outlined above. If you're going QRP then everyone is operating at less than 5 watts. Only if the current rules are kept. The fact is that if a non-Extra wants to operate FD, there has to be a control op present whenever the non-Extra exceeds his-her subband restrictions. That's a lot more onerous than turning down the power to 50 W. I stayed in my bands when I was a General at FD. Wasn't a problem. It's been so long since I had to worry about such things.....;-) Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP, 50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC. Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade. (or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV. There's another option: Change the rules so that different power levels could be used for different stations in the same multi setup. (It used to be this way!) This might work well enough, but I still don't care for relegating the class B to the ghetto, or to remove an Extra or class A from operating to be a control op. Then let the Class Bs keep a log or feed the generator or cook weenies. Or, heaven forbid, take the Class A test. Is it gonna kill 'em? I know that the others I work with on field day wouldn't be too wild about that sort of thing either. These are people that love working high power, and enjoy racking up points. Uh-huh. How many points did they make per transmitter last year? Inexperienced users can get working with us, but adding another station (and putting us in another class) for a 50 watt station isn't going to be too popular with them - and after all, they and myself are the ones doing the setup and teardown, so as long as we are within the rules, we should be allowed to do this. I just don't think that the proposed setup will be both newbie friendly and experienced friendly at the same time. Then the rules need some refining. Note I'm not saying things couldn't work. I'm saying that every time I turn around, this proposal is bumping into something else, and not necessarily in a good way. So does any other proposal. FD is once a year. It's supposed to be a learning experience, last time I checked. It starts out prety simply, but then we have to do all kinds of things to shoehorn it into the real world. So we end up changing this so can coexist with the thing we changed before in order to avoid messing that up which came about as a result of modifying the rule that contradicted........... Then what's *your* solution, Mike? I don't agree with all of Hans' ideas, but at least he's put forth a coherent proposal. I'd have three license classes, all renewable, minimum 1 year in each class experience required, power levels 100W, 400W, 1500W, subbands-by-license-class on HF/MF, and better writtens. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... snippage I don't agree there Jim! True enough, its an arbitrary thing, but what you are talking about is power limits and sub-bands, and I am talking about the qualifications to operate *at all*. the other folks simply operate within the limitations of their licenses, and the 10 year and 1 day class B ham is no ham at all anymore. Just like the old Novices when their licenses ran out. Point is, that hypothetical Class B had a window of 8 *years* to upgrade to Class A. You said it took you all of a week to get ready for Extra. Granted, I had a head start, and didn't need as much time as some, but I find it hard to argue that 10 years is a good time limit when it isn't needed. Anyone that takes ten years to upgrade to Extra is probably not going to upgrade to Extra. Ooops, class A. I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals. We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade would have to have a control op. Why? If he/she is operating 50 Watts, they are outside their priveliges. OK. So turn down the power. Sigh... our club has a group of guys and gals that make a big production out of FD. It isn't what everyone does, but its what we do. We don't want to run 50 watts. The first year I went to field day, I was a Technician. I got to run a high power station with a control op logging. It was great, and was what really got me interested in getting my General. then I logged while he opped. Then next year, when I had my General, I could op by myself, discovering the joy of overnight operation. My points are two. We worked in this rank beginner from a technician up, and didn't interfere with the station operation, and it worked well. No adjustments needed. And I was part of the group from the git-go. As long as the power level is less than 50 W, that Class B ham could operate any freq, any mode, as the control op. Ahh, but now we have to set up a special low power station. The low power ghetto I was talking about. For good or bad, my club runs high power during Field Day. Most clubs don't. We do. And if the power levels were restructured, the points from a 50 watt station could make more difference than those from a 1500 W station. Another "if-then" situation. Gaw, were getting a lot of them. I'm taking my reference of "Class B Ghetto" from experience with the GOTA station. The first year our GOTA station operated, many of the people operating it called it a "toy station". That's *their* problem. And it becomes *our* problem then. Since then, I have worked hard to make the GOTA operators feel like part of the group. move that tent nearer the big tent. Keep more people than just myself and the person at the mic there. I'm a little surprised, Jim. All that I'm talking about is making these potential hams and inactive hams feel like maybe we *want* them there. Your arguments sound a little like some of the old cranks I hear once in a while. They could op one of the high power stations, park on a frequency, and rack up points, and the lowly GOTA station has to hunt and pounce. It wasn't until I put PSK31 on the GOTA station that it took off. So? They're used to being Big Guns. Anybody who wants to be a Big Gun could just get a Class A and be done with it. After two years. note: I'm not suggesting that newbies use high power. Just the opposite in fact. Hunt and pounce at low power builds competence in the new ham. But its so hard to compete with power when you're working like crazy to get a QSO, and the guy in the next tent is racking them up at a high rate. That's part of the experience requirement. Part of the plan. And remember the power multiplier idea. If the 50 watt station is hunt/pecking 20 per hour but has a 3.5 multiplier, they're making more points than the Big Gun doing 60 per hour. "if-then" We have hams what operate now at field day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking myself or another Extra away from a station) Not at all! Existing hams would retain their existing privs under Hans' proposal. I'm saying that I'm sitting with the guy as a control op and not operating myself. If they're existing hams (say, Generals) they could still do what they've always done. If they're unlicensed, or not licensed for the freq/power/mode in use, they still need a control op today. And one of the *best* ways for them to learn is to work with an experienced op. Of course the second class ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output - or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of low power ghetto. You mean you folks operate 1500 W on FD? (that's "full output") Actually we operat @1kW. My bad. FD rules can be changed, y'know. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good Try QRP some time ;-) Nothing wrong with QRP. I'm just noting possible problems as outlined above. If you're going QRP then everyone is operating at less than 5 watts. Only if the current rules are kept. The fact is that if a non-Extra wants to operate FD, there has to be a control op present whenever the non-Extra exceeds his-her subband restrictions. That's a lot more onerous than turning down the power to 50 W. I stayed in my bands when I was a General at FD. Wasn't a problem. It's been so long since I had to worry about such things.....;-) Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP, 50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC. Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade. (or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV. There's another option: Change the rules so that different power levels could be used for different stations in the same multi setup. (It used to be this way!) This might work well enough, but I still don't care for relegating the class B to the ghetto, or to remove an Extra or class A from operating to be a control op. Then let the Class Bs keep a log or feed the generator or cook weenies. Or, heaven forbid, take the Class A test. Is it gonna kill 'em? I know that the others I work with on field day wouldn't be too wild about that sort of thing either. These are people that love working high power, and enjoy racking up points. Uh-huh. How many points did they make per transmitter last year? We were 3A W3YA + W3GA (GOTA) did 7362 points - I don't have the breakdown for each transmitter. We don't get any power multiplier at all, so what you see is what we get. Inexperienced users can get working with us, but adding another station (and putting us in another class) for a 50 watt station isn't going to be too popular with them - and after all, they and myself are the ones doing the setup and teardown, so as long as we are within the rules, we should be allowed to do this. I just don't think that the proposed setup will be both newbie friendly and experienced friendly at the same time. Then the rules need some refining. Note I'm not saying things couldn't work. I'm saying that every time I turn around, this proposal is bumping into something else, and not necessarily in a good way. So does any other proposal. FD is once a year. It's supposed to be a learning experience, last time I checked. It starts out pretty simply, but then we have to do all kinds of things to shoehorn it into the real world. So we end up changing this so can coexist with the thing we changed before in order to avoid messing that up which came about as a result of modifying the rule that contradicted........... Then what's *your* solution, Mike? I don't agree with all of Hans' ideas, but at least he's put forth a coherent proposal. I gave mine a while back, and I'll give it again. Technician General Extra Same rules as now. Tests expanded for General and Extra. Minimum impact, and there ya go. Question pool change. I'd have three license classes, all renewable, minimum 1 year in each class experience required, power levels 100W, 400W, 1500W, subbands-by-license-class on HF/MF, and better writtens. And I'm still a little surprised, Jim. Perhaps I shouldn't point out any problems that will happen under Hans' proposal? I get the impression from your answers - "so what" "that's their problem" "Uh Huh" and the like, that you must think my objections are as Hans describes me sometimes - "novel". What the heck? Perhaps it's better if I just keep the old yap shut? Anytime things are changed, things are impacted. We can point them out before hand, or run into them blind. You might not think my concerns are valid, but I can tell you that I know plenty of people that have the same concerns. We are all novel I guess! 8^) Maybe I point out small facts - but I've pointed out a pretty fair number of them, and I'm not looking very hard. Any small fact is insignificant by itself, but when a lot of them come up..... - Mike KB3EIA - |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Mike Coslo" wrote So we operate class one while operating 50 watts. Another bump. Lifes a [female canine expletive deleted] and then you die and they give away your call sign! Maybe not! If Hans' "no expiration date" Class A is adopted by FCC, they *won't* give away your call sign unless somebody proves to FCC that you're really, truly, stone cold dead. Probably require a close family member to send in the papers - and if you've left instructions not to, your survivors could keep your call out of circulation for a long time. Aren't GROLs issued "for life"? If so, there's your precedent for a non-expiring FCC license..... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote If Hans' "no expiration date" Class A is adopted by FCC, they *won't* give away your call sign unless somebody proves to FCC that you're really, truly, stone cold dead. ALRIGHT!!!!!! You **CAN** take it with you! Hey, I like my plan more and more all the time. Sunuvagun, I bet Dwight is gonna really spin up his rotors when he thinks about this. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "I called them mad and they called me mad, but damn it, they outvoted me." |
"N2EY" wrote in message
m... Aren't GROLs issued "for life"? 73 de Jim, N2EY Never thought about that. What happens to my GROL when I become a SK? How would they know? 73 de Bert WA2SI |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote So we operate class one while operating 50 watts. Another bump. Lifes a bitch, and then you die and they give away your call sign! Don't know why, Hans, but that one made me howl! 8^) odd justification tho'. But thanks, I needed that today...... - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote If Hans' "no expiration date" Class A is adopted by FCC, they *won't* give away your call sign unless somebody proves to FCC that you're really, truly, stone cold dead. ALRIGHT!!!!!! You **CAN** take it with you! bwaahaahaaa! Did you not realize that particular consequence of the non-expiring Class A, Hans? Hey, I like my plan more and more all the time. Me, too! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote in :
N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... snippage I don't agree there Jim! True enough, its an arbitrary thing, but what you are talking about is power limits and sub-bands, and I am talking about the qualifications to operate *at all*. the other folks simply operate within the limitations of their licenses, and the 10 year and 1 day class B ham is no ham at all anymore. Just like the old Novices when their licenses ran out. Point is, that hypothetical Class B had a window of 8 *years* to upgrade to Class A. You said it took you all of a week to get ready for Extra. Granted, I had a head start, and didn't need as much time as some, but I find it hard to argue that 10 years is a good time limit when it isn't needed. Anyone that takes ten years to upgrade to Extra is probably not going to upgrade to Extra. Ooops, class A. I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals. We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade would have to have a control op. Why? If he/she is operating 50 Watts, they are outside their priveliges. OK. So turn down the power. Sigh... our club has a group of guys and gals that make a big production out of FD. It isn't what everyone does, but its what we do. We don't want to run 50 watts. The first year I went to field day, I was a Technician. I got to run a high power station with a control op logging. It was great, and was what really got me interested in getting my General. then I logged while he opped. Then next year, when I had my General, I could op by myself, discovering the joy of overnight operation. My points are two. We worked in this rank beginner from a technician up, and didn't interfere with the station operation, and it worked well. No adjustments needed. And I was part of the group from the git-go. As long as the power level is less than 50 W, that Class B ham could operate any freq, any mode, as the control op. Ahh, but now we have to set up a special low power station. The low power ghetto I was talking about. For good or bad, my club runs high power during Field Day. Most clubs don't. We do. And if the power levels were restructured, the points from a 50 watt station could make more difference than those from a 1500 W station. Another "if-then" situation. Gaw, were getting a lot of them. I'm taking my reference of "Class B Ghetto" from experience with the GOTA station. The first year our GOTA station operated, many of the people operating it called it a "toy station". That's *their* problem. And it becomes *our* problem then. Since then, I have worked hard to make the GOTA operators feel like part of the group. move that tent nearer the big tent. Keep more people than just myself and the person at the mic there. I'm a little surprised, Jim. All that I'm talking about is making these potential hams and inactive hams feel like maybe we *want* them there. Your arguments sound a little like some of the old cranks I hear once in a while. They could op one of the high power stations, park on a frequency, and rack up points, and the lowly GOTA station has to hunt and pounce. It wasn't until I put PSK31 on the GOTA station that it took off. So? They're used to being Big Guns. Anybody who wants to be a Big Gun could just get a Class A and be done with it. After two years. note: I'm not suggesting that newbies use high power. Just the opposite in fact. Hunt and pounce at low power builds competence in the new ham. But its so hard to compete with power when you're working like crazy to get a QSO, and the guy in the next tent is racking them up at a high rate. That's part of the experience requirement. Part of the plan. And remember the power multiplier idea. If the 50 watt station is hunt/pecking 20 per hour but has a 3.5 multiplier, they're making more points than the Big Gun doing 60 per hour. "if-then" We have hams what operate now at field day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking myself or another Extra away from a station) Not at all! Existing hams would retain their existing privs under Hans' proposal. I'm saying that I'm sitting with the guy as a control op and not operating myself. If they're existing hams (say, Generals) they could still do what they've always done. If they're unlicensed, or not licensed for the freq/power/mode in use, they still need a control op today. And one of the *best* ways for them to learn is to work with an experienced op. Of course the second class ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output - or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of low power ghetto. You mean you folks operate 1500 W on FD? (that's "full output") Actually we operat @1kW. My bad. FD rules can be changed, y'know. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good Try QRP some time ;-) Nothing wrong with QRP. I'm just noting possible problems as outlined above. If you're going QRP then everyone is operating at less than 5 watts. Only if the current rules are kept. The fact is that if a non-Extra wants to operate FD, there has to be a control op present whenever the non-Extra exceeds his-her subband restrictions. That's a lot more onerous than turning down the power to 50 W. I stayed in my bands when I was a General at FD. Wasn't a problem. It's been so long since I had to worry about such things.....;-) Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP, 50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC. Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade. (or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV. There's another option: Change the rules so that different power levels could be used for different stations in the same multi setup. (It used to be this way!) This might work well enough, but I still don't care for relegating the class B to the ghetto, or to remove an Extra or class A from operating to be a control op. Then let the Class Bs keep a log or feed the generator or cook weenies. Or, heaven forbid, take the Class A test. Is it gonna kill 'em? I know that the others I work with on field day wouldn't be too wild about that sort of thing either. These are people that love working high power, and enjoy racking up points. Uh-huh. How many points did they make per transmitter last year? We were 3A W3YA + W3GA (GOTA) did 7362 points - I don't have the breakdown for each transmitter. We don't get any power multiplier at all, so what you see is what we get. Inexperienced users can get working with us, but adding another station (and putting us in another class) for a 50 watt station isn't going to be too popular with them - and after all, they and myself are the ones doing the setup and teardown, so as long as we are within the rules, we should be allowed to do this. I just don't think that the proposed setup will be both newbie friendly and experienced friendly at the same time. Then the rules need some refining. Note I'm not saying things couldn't work. I'm saying that every time I turn around, this proposal is bumping into something else, and not necessarily in a good way. So does any other proposal. FD is once a year. It's supposed to be a learning experience, last time I checked. It starts out pretty simply, but then we have to do all kinds of things to shoehorn it into the real world. So we end up changing this so can coexist with the thing we changed before in order to avoid messing that up which came about as a result of modifying the rule that contradicted........... Then what's *your* solution, Mike? I don't agree with all of Hans' ideas, but at least he's put forth a coherent proposal. I gave mine a while back, and I'll give it again. Technician General Extra Same rules as now. Tests expanded for General and Extra. Minimum impact, and there ya go. Question pool change. I'd have three license classes, all renewable, minimum 1 year in each class experience required, power levels 100W, 400W, 1500W, subbands-by-license-class on HF/MF, and better writtens. And I'm still a little surprised, Jim. Perhaps I shouldn't point out any problems that will happen under Hans' proposal? I get the impression from your answers - "so what" "that's their problem" "Uh Huh" and the like, that you must think my objections are as Hans describes me sometimes - "novel". What the heck? Perhaps it's better if I just keep the old yap shut? Anytime things are changed, things are impacted. We can point them out before hand, or run into them blind. You might not think my concerns are valid, but I can tell you that I know plenty of people that have the same concerns. We are all novel I guess! 8^) Maybe I point out small facts - but I've pointed out a pretty fair number of them, and I'm not looking very hard. Any small fact is insignificant by itself, but when a lot of them come up..... - Mike KB3EIA - I have a proposal of my own. Here it is. All General and above become Class As, everyone else becomes a Class B. Class As get all privileges. Class Bs get 80, 40, 15, 10 and everything above that, i.e. everything any one of the equivalent licence classes had before but whole bands, not just subbands. Only Class As could be VEs, and I would limit Class Bs to 200W, i.e. Novice power level. No other limits, restrictions, etc. of any kind. The only losers would be Techs who could no longer run 1500W. I suspect that few do, and that those who do would have no difficulty passing a Class A test. I think that this has the virtue of being more politically acceptable than Hans' version. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:59:22 GMT, Bert Craig wrote:
Never thought about that. What happens to my GROL when I become a SK? How would they know? A GROL has no expiration date and the serial number is never reissued anyhow. Your ghost/incarnation/whatever will retain the operating privileges. It may do a better job of operating than several allegedly "live" commercial operators that I have run across. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Alun wrote:
I have a proposal of my own. Here it is. All General and above become Class As, everyone else becomes a Class B. Class As get all privileges. Class Bs get 80, 40, 15, 10 and everything above that, i.e. everything any one of the equivalent licence classes had before but whole bands, not just subbands. Only Class As could be VEs, and I would limit Class Bs to 200W, i.e. Novice power level. No other limits, restrictions, etc. of any kind. The only losers would be Techs who could no longer run 1500W. I suspect that few do, and that those who do would have no difficulty passing a Class A test. I think that this has the virtue of being more politically acceptable than Hans' version. Eeek! Your proposal almost makes it if we were to adoopt a systems such as what Hans proposes. But I don't think those Technicians would like losing their licenses after ten years - if they didn't upgrade, of course. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: Such exposure doesn't give anyone sufficient information to make an informed decision. Of course, that's just an opinion, isn't it? You're not an expert on the human decision making process and there are no studies to show whether it is or isn't sufficient, right? If not, your opinion is no more valid than mine. Again you are NOT reading my words. I've repeatedly stated that one can make judgments based on risks, dangers, and harm even if they have not experienced it. Murder does serious harm and therefore does not need to be experienced. However where such detrimental effects don't come into play, it is not possible to say one does or does not like something unless they have experienced it. (snip) Again, we make decisions each day without personal experience to necessarily back it up. This includes who we associate with, who we date, what we eat for lunch, what books we buy, what shows we watch on television, whether we marry, and the list goes on virtually forever. And, again, your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's ability to make their own choices. I refrain from forming opinions on things I've never tried. There will be things that I will never form an opinion on. (snip) I find that very difficult to believe, Dee. Did you try actual marrage before actually getting married? Did you try driving on the highway before deciding to get a license? Did you try your job before actually taking it? Again, there are many things we choose to do or not do without actually trying them first. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Poifect!!!!!!!! Kim W5TIT |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
N2EY wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in message ... snippage I don't agree there Jim! True enough, its an arbitrary thing, but what you are talking about is power limits and sub-bands, and I am talking about the qualifications to operate *at all*. the other folks simply operate within the limitations of their licenses, and the 10 year and 1 day class B ham is no ham at all anymore. Just like the old Novices when their licenses ran out. Point is, that hypothetical Class B had a window of 8 *years* to upgrade to Class A. You said it took you all of a week to get ready for Extra. Granted, I had a head start, and didn't need as much time as some, but I find it hard to argue that 10 years is a good time limit when it isn't needed. We don't really know what the effects of a nonrenewable license would be today, because it's been so long since such a thing existed. Anyone that takes ten years to upgrade to Extra is probably not going to upgrade to Extra. Ooops, class A. We don't know that for sure either, because for so long it's been a "round tuit" thing. No deadline, no pressure, upgrade when you feel like it. Changing to an "up or out" system would set up a very different environment. Maybe better, maybe worse. I keep drawing parallels between the second class license and Generals. We try to get people out to operate on field day, and you can get some pretty strange setups. First a Ham with less than 2 years time in grade would have to have a control op. Why? If he/she is operating 50 Watts, they are outside their priveliges. OK. So turn down the power. Sigh... our club has a group of guys and gals that make a big production out of FD. It isn't what everyone does, but its what we do. We don't want to run 50 watts. OK, fine. You want to protect the way things are because they permit your club to do what it does. Nothing wrong with wanting to keep it that way! The first year I went to field day, I was a Technician. I got to run a high power station with a control op logging. It was great, and was what really got me interested in getting my General. then I logged while he opped. Under those circumstances your license didn't matter because he was the control op. Then next year, when I had my General, I could op by myself, discovering the joy of overnight operation. You joined the "Order of Boiled Owls", IOW. My points are two. We worked in this rank beginner from a technician up, and didn't interfere with the station operation, and it worked well. No adjustments needed. And I was part of the group from the git-go. Sure! And all that Hans' proposal would do is require another year of in-training status with a control op. That's a downside of *any* experience requirement. As long as the power level is less than 50 W, that Class B ham could operate any freq, any mode, as the control op. Ahh, but now we have to set up a special low power station. The low power ghetto I was talking about. For good or bad, my club runs high power during Field Day. Most clubs don't. We do. I guess it comes down to "do we make the rules for the few or the many?" And if the power levels were restructured, the points from a 50 watt station could make more difference than those from a 1500 W station. Another "if-then" situation. Gaw, were getting a lot of them. All I'm saying is that the rules (both FCC and FD) can change. In fact, I think the FD rule of "all QSOs count at the power level of the highest power rig" should definitely be changed because it homogenizes the FD experience too much. I'm taking my reference of "Class B Ghetto" from experience with the GOTA station. The first year our GOTA station operated, many of the people operating it called it a "toy station". That's *their* problem. And it becomes *our* problem then. I mean that the folks who call it a "toy" station have a problem. Since then, I have worked hard to make the GOTA operators feel like part of the group. move that tent nearer the big tent. Keep more people than just myself and the person at the mic there. All good stuff. If nothing else, points is points, no matter how ya make 'em. One of my tricks for many years was to bring along a WW2 surplus ARC-5 receiver and dynamotor, plus a hank of wire. A few minutes before 10 AM, while everyone was either setting up or sidewalk superintending, I'd toss the wire in a tree and hook the dynamotor to my car's battery. Tune in W1AW and copy the special FD bulletin (CW, of course) for 100 bonus points - the first 100 points of the club score. Just the looks on people's faces were worth it. I'm a little surprised, Jim. All that I'm talking about is making these potential hams and inactive hams feel like maybe we *want* them there. And that's a good thing! I'm all for it! Your arguments sound a little like some of the old cranks I hear once in a while. All I'm saying is that there are good and bad things that will result from Hans' ideas (if adopted). I think the good may outweigh the bad. YMMV. They could op one of the high power stations, park on a frequency, and rack up points, and the lowly GOTA station has to hunt and pounce. It wasn't until I put PSK31 on the GOTA station that it took off. So? They're used to being Big Guns. Anybody who wants to be a Big Gun could just get a Class A and be done with it. After two years. Yup. Whether that's a problem or not is really an opinion question. note: I'm not suggesting that newbies use high power. Just the opposite in fact. Hunt and pounce at low power builds competence in the new ham. But its so hard to compete with power when you're working like crazy to get a QSO, and the guy in the next tent is racking them up at a high rate. That's part of the experience requirement. Part of the plan. And remember the power multiplier idea. If the 50 watt station is hunt/pecking 20 per hour but has a 3.5 multiplier, they're making more points than the Big Gun doing 60 per hour. "if-then" Sure. We have hams what operate now at field day that would suddenly have to have a control op (therefore taking myself or another Extra away from a station) Not at all! Existing hams would retain their existing privs under Hans' proposal. I'm saying that I'm sitting with the guy as a control op and not operating myself. If they're existing hams (say, Generals) they could still do what they've always done. If they're unlicensed, or not licensed for the freq/power/mode in use, they still need a control op today. And one of the *best* ways for them to learn is to work with an experienced op. Of course the second class ham could operate a 50 watt or less station, but that would mean that either we change our setup - all stations except GOTA are full output - or set up a special station just for the second class hams, a sort of low power ghetto. You mean you folks operate 1500 W on FD? (that's "full output") Actually we operat @1kW. My bad. FD rules can be changed, y'know. Heck, the GOTA station can run more power. Maybe this is no problem for you, but for others it isn't so good Try QRP some time ;-) Nothing wrong with QRP. I'm just noting possible problems as outlined above. If you're going QRP then everyone is operating at less than 5 watts. Only if the current rules are kept. The fact is that if a non-Extra wants to operate FD, there has to be a control op present whenever the non-Extra exceeds his-her subband restrictions. That's a lot more onerous than turning down the power to 50 W. I stayed in my bands when I was a General at FD. Wasn't a problem. It's been so long since I had to worry about such things.....;-) Back in the late '60s and early '70s, there were *four* FD power levels: QRP, 50 W, 150 W, and the legal limit, IIRC. Could be. But if we went back to that, the clubs could be forced to make a decision to either run what they would like to run, take control ops away from available stations for those who don't have time in grade. (or the proper upgrade) or make that little ghetto for the second class Hams. I really don't think that is a good way to welcome new people. YMMV. There's another option: Change the rules so that different power levels could be used for different stations in the same multi setup. (It used to be this way!) This might work well enough, but I still don't care for relegating the class B to the ghetto, or to remove an Extra or class A from operating to be a control op. Then let the Class Bs keep a log or feed the generator or cook weenies. Or, heaven forbid, take the Class A test. Is it gonna kill 'em? I know that the others I work with on field day wouldn't be too wild about that sort of thing either. These are people that love working high power, and enjoy racking up points. Uh-huh. How many points did they make per transmitter last year? We were 3A W3YA + W3GA (GOTA) did 7362 points - I don't have the breakdown for each transmitter. We don't get any power multiplier at all, so what you see is what we get. Not exactly. Your setup made 4696 QSOs (!!). CW and digital modes are worth 2 points, and there were bonuses for independence of mains and other things I'm sure your setup had. And the GOTA station didn't add to your class of operation. 7362 points with three transmitters works out to 2454 points per transmitter. If we count the GOTA station as, say "half a transmitter", that drops to 2104 points per transmitter. On that same weekend, I operated 1B-1 battery/QRP and made 2480 points. Inexperienced users can get working with us, but adding another station (and putting us in another class) for a 50 watt station isn't going to be too popular with them - and after all, they and myself are the ones doing the setup and teardown, so as long as we are within the rules, we should be allowed to do this. I just don't think that the proposed setup will be both newbie friendly and experienced friendly at the same time. Then the rules need some refining. Note I'm not saying things couldn't work. I'm saying that every time I turn around, this proposal is bumping into something else, and not necessarily in a good way. So does any other proposal. FD is once a year. It's supposed to be a learning experience, last time I checked. It starts out pretty simply, but then we have to do all kinds of things to shoehorn it into the real world. So we end up changing this so can coexist with the thing we changed before in order to avoid messing that up which came about as a result of modifying the rule that contradicted........... Then what's *your* solution, Mike? I don't agree with all of Hans' ideas, but at least he's put forth a coherent proposal. I gave mine a while back, and I'll give it again. Technician General Extra Same rules as now. Tests expanded for General and Extra. Minimum impact, and there ya go. Question pool change. Works for me! But we have toi remember that outfits like NCVEC are working in the opposite direction. I'd have three license classes, all renewable, minimum 1 year in each class experience required, power levels 100W, 400W, 1500W, subbands-by-license-class on HF/MF, and better writtens. And I'm still a little surprised, Jim. Perhaps I shouldn't point out any problems that will happen under Hans' proposal? No, you definitely should. I get the impression from your answers - "so what" "that's their problem" "Uh Huh" and the like, that you must think my objections are as Hans describes me sometimes - "novel". Nope. I just don't think they're as big a deal as you do, that's all. What the heck? Perhaps it's better if I just keep the old yap shut? Nope. Not at all. Anytime things are changed, things are impacted. We can point them out before hand, or run into them blind. Exactly! You might not think my concerns are valid, but I can tell you that I know plenty of people that have the same concerns. We are all novel I guess! 8^) Maybe I point out small facts - but I've pointed out a pretty fair number of them, and I'm not looking very hard. Any small fact is insignificant by itself, but when a lot of them come up..... All I'm saying is that whether the good outweighs the bad is a matter of opinion. And opinions vary all over the place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Alun
writes: I have a proposal of my own. Here it is. All General and above become Class As, everyone else becomes a Class B. IOW, free upgrades for everyone except Novices and Techs. History repeating itself - almost exactly the same thing was announced 51 years ago this month. Class As get all privileges. Class Bs get 80, 40, 15, 10 and everything above that, i.e. everything any one of the equivalent licence classes had before but whole bands, not just subbands. Only Class As could be VEs, and I would limit Class Bs to 200W, i.e. Novice power level. No other limits, restrictions, etc. of any kind. Well, it sure would be interesting! The only losers would be Techs who could no longer run 1500W. I suspect that few do, and that those who do would have no difficulty passing a Class A test. Could also do a "keep your old license docs and you can run full power" thing, as "Techs-with-HF" do now. I think that this has the virtue of being more politically acceptable than Hans' version. Probably! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net... "Bill Sohl" wrote Not the same since there are distinct privileges with those licenses which differentiate them from the others. IF the FCC had made Advanced privileges exactly the same as Extra, then I fully believe they would have just changed all Advanced to Extra when they were individually renewed. From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional, General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. We all used the same frequencies with the same authorized power, and from our call sign you couldn't tell one from the other. Life was good. But that was 35+ years ago and times have changed. I'd bet the FCC won't do that again and has, to a certain degree already shown its mindset with the lack of differentiation between tech and tech+...even though there is a difference in operating bands permmitted. Then some dump huck social-engineering gummint dudes, cheered on by a radio club in West Hartford, CT., decided to set up a bunch of arbitrary exclusive band segments as 'rewards' for advancing amongst the various classes, and then later drove wider wedges between the classes with the 'reward' of distinctive call signs for the higher licenses. Whatever good came of this is long since lost in the damage caused by 'class wars' which still rage. My proposal is based first on the notion that there should be two classes of license --- "Learners Permit" and "Fully Qualified", and second on the notion that those learners should operate in the mainstream with experienced hams, not segregated off into little ghettos populated with mostly other learners. Other than my beliefs at how FCC would likly treat existing licenses...I generally agree with your proposal. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message ink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: Such exposure doesn't give anyone sufficient information to make an informed decision. Of course, that's just an opinion, isn't it? You're not an expert on the human decision making process and there are no studies to show whether it is or isn't sufficient, right? If not, your opinion is no more valid than mine. Again you are NOT reading my words. I've repeatedly stated that one can make judgments based on risks, dangers, and harm even if they have not experienced it. Murder does serious harm and therefore does not need to be experienced. However where such detrimental effects don't come into play, it is not possible to say one does or does not like something unless they have experienced it. (snip) Again, we make decisions each day without personal experience to necessarily back it up. This includes who we associate with, who we date, what we eat for lunch, what books we buy, what shows we watch on television, whether we marry, and the list goes on virtually forever. And, again, your demand for more here shows a serious lack of respect for people's ability to make their own choices. I refrain from forming opinions on things I've never tried. There will be things that I will never form an opinion on. (snip) I find that very difficult to believe, Dee. Did you try actual marrage before actually getting married? Did you try driving on the highway before deciding to get a license? Did you try your job before actually taking it? Again, there are many things we choose to do or not do without actually trying them first. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Again you are not reading what I wrote. I stated that I avoided forming opinions about whether I would like something without experiencing it. I did not say that I avoided making decisions. For example, I got a driver's license not because I wanted to drive but because in the area that I lived it was necessary. Mass transit was not an option. I continue to drive because of the convenience of it even though I now live in an area that does have mass transit.. However I absolutely HATE driving. The benefits of driving exceed my dislike of driving. Since I am not independently wealthy, I have to work and therefore must select a job regardless of whether I can "try it" or not. One weighs the interview results, the benefits, the location, etc and make a selection and then makes a selection on the available data. Sometimes you get one you end up liking and other times you get one that keeps you inspired to make sure your resume is up to date and in circulation. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Again you are not reading what I wrote. I stated that I avoided forming opinions about whether I would like something without experiencing it. I did not say that I avoided making decisions. Actually, I did read what you wrote, Dee. And, since we all try to look into a subject before forming opinions, and then make decisions based on those opinions, the only difference between our two views is the matter of degree. Unlike you, I don't believe one has to personally experience everything before forming an opinion about it. In fact, I don't think it is even possible. Regardless, when it comes to code, I suspect most newcomers to ham radio today are a lot like me when I first started - listened to code on the radio, tried a few code training programs, maybe played around with code translation software, and so on, before even beginning to study for that first license exam. While that alone is certainly not enough to make them an expert on code, it is enough to allow them to start forming opinions about it. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
On 15 Dec 2003 09:58:07 -0800, N2EY wrote:
But while the Novice was an instant hit, the Tech didn't get a lot of takers until first 6 and then 2 meters were added. A lot of us (including me) used the Tech as an incremental stepping-stone to the General after our Novices ran out - the closest thing to a CSCE before the VE system got approval to use the latter. I kept mine for 10 years before I got my General (but several things like undergrad and graduate school and finding a steady job needed my attention more than practicing Morse). Techs on 2 were very active in NY and LA in the very early 60s. Southern California even had 2-m repeaters by then (AM, of course). -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional, General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. No, that's not exactly correct. The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951. Whatever. Point is, FCC spent years developing the new structure, announced it on 1951, but then just when the tough part of the new rules (requiring an Extra for amateur HF phone on 80 thru 15), they dumped those rules and gave everybody except Novices and Techs everything. You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the license class, but that was about all. Unless someone told you their license class, there was no way of knowing. There was no 'QRZ.COM' to go check, the CallBook didn't show license class, and all you could tell by their call sign was where their station was located. We all played together in the ether as equals. Except for Novices, whose distinctive callsigns were unmistakeable. Except for Techs.who had no HF at all and originally no 6 or 2 meters either. And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were going? As early as 1958, FCC wanted to know why there were so few Extras. They asked again in 1963 and made it clear they wanted to bigtime changes. Personally, I think it was "Sputnik fever". They, like many others in the USA, were spooked by the early Soviet achievements in space (first artificial satellite, first animal in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon, first man in space, first woman in space.....the list goes on and on) and perceived the USA to need "incentive" in all things technological. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. Not necessarily. Since we all got a new call sign everytime we moved, we might trade an 'old' call in Minnesota (W0ABC) for a 'new' call in Virginia (WA4ABC). Not only couldn't you tell how long we'd been licensed, but you couldn't tell our license class (except for Novices with KN, WN, or WV prefixes). My mentor, W0VDI, was licensed at a Tech in 1952 and went SK 50 years later with the same call and the same Tech license. My call was a re-issue, I received a K prefix call while my friends who received calls about the same time got WA and WB prefix calls. One had received his WA call sometime before I got the K call. |
"N2EY" wrote And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. Not necessarily. Since we all got a new call sign everytime we moved, we might trade an 'old' call in Minnesota (W0ABC) for a 'new' call in Virginia (WA4ABC). Not only couldn't you tell how long we'd been licensed, but you couldn't tell our license class (except for Novices with KN, WN, or WV prefixes). My mentor, W0VDI, was licensed at a Tech in 1952 and went SK 50 years later with the same call and the same Tech license. If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were going? It wasn't the FCC who was unhappy. The unhappy folks were a few resentful and vocal OT's who felt disenfranchised because a nubby new guy could operate phone on 20M, not having first passed the old class A exam like he had to. The march to disincentive licensing moved to the beat of drum being banged up in West Hartford, CT. I know it's hard for you to accept that, given that history is written by the victors. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -- Bokonon |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional, General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. No, that's not exactly correct. The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951. Whatever. Point is, FCC spent years developing the new structure, announced it on 1951, but then just when the tough part of the new rules (requiring an Extra for amateur HF phone on 80 thru 15), they dumped those rules and gave everybody except Novices and Techs everything. You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the license class, but that was about all. Unless someone told you their license class, there was no way of knowing. There was no 'QRZ.COM' to go check, the CallBook didn't show license class, and all you could tell by their call sign was where their station was located. We all played together in the ether as equals. Except for Novices, whose distinctive callsigns were unmistakeable. Except for Techs.who had no HF at all and originally no 6 or 2 meters either. And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were going? As early as 1958, FCC wanted to know why there were so few Extras. They asked again in 1963 and made it clear they wanted to bigtime changes. Personally, I think it was "Sputnik fever". They, like many others in the USA, were spooked by the early Soviet achievements in space (first artificial satellite, first animal in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon, first man in space, first woman in space.....the list goes on and on) and perceived the USA to need "incentive" in all things technological. I agree with Jim on the "Sputnick fever" reaction. My Earth Science teached just about went off his rocker when Sputnick went up. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"JJ" wrote in message ... KØHB wrote: "N2EY" wrote And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. Not necessarily. Since we all got a new call sign everytime we moved, we might trade an 'old' call in Minnesota (W0ABC) for a 'new' call in Virginia (WA4ABC). Not only couldn't you tell how long we'd been licensed, but you couldn't tell our license class (except for Novices with KN, WN, or WV prefixes). My mentor, W0VDI, was licensed at a Tech in 1952 and went SK 50 years later with the same call and the same Tech license. My call was a re-issue, I received a K prefix call while my friends who received calls about the same time got WA and WB prefix calls. One had received his WA call sometime before I got the K call. And even while some folks were getting K2 calls, the FCC would occasionally issue someone a W2 call that had gone unassigned for some time period. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. Not necessarily. That's why I wrote "usually". Since we all got a new call sign everytime we moved, we might trade an 'old' call in Minnesota (W0ABC) for a 'new' call in Virginia (WA4ABC). Only if you moved to another district *and* the corresponding call wasn't available. Not only couldn't you tell how long we'd been licensed, but you couldn't tell our license class (except for Novices with KN, WN, or WV prefixes). My mentor, W0VDI, was licensed at a Tech in 1952 and went SK 50 years later with the same call and the same Tech license. Same sort of thing around here. In fact, until recently there was a 1x2 in the third call district with a Tech license. If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were going? It wasn't the FCC who was unhappy. Then why did they start the ball rolling with all the changes, both in 1951 and 1958/63? The unhappy folks were a few resentful and vocal OT's who felt disenfranchised because a nubby new guy could operate phone on 20M, not having first passed the old class A exam like he had to. You mean like W2OY of "no kids no lids no space cadets" fame? Note also that FCC had upped the ante in the 1951 restructuring. After the end of 1952 they would no longer issue Advanceds, so anybody who didn't have an Advanced by that date would have had to get an Extra just to work HF phone on 80 thru 15. Then, just before Christmas 1952, FCC completely reversed itself and gave all hams except Novices and Techs full operating privileges. Why the sudden about-face? Nobody seems to know, and the literature of that era only briefly mentions the change. The march to disincentive licensing moved to the beat of drum being banged up in West Hartford, CT. And a majority of members wanted it. A very slim majority, to be sure. I know it's hard for you to accept that, given that history is written by the victors. And your source for this is? I know you were a ham then, Hans, but where does this info come from? Or is it just an opinion? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article . net, "KØHB" writes: "N2EY" wrote From 1951 till 1968 the privileges for four license classes, Conditional, General, Advanced, and Extra were all exactly the same. No, that's not exactly correct. The period described started in February of 1953, not 1951. Whatever. Point is, FCC spent years developing the new structure, announced it on 1951, but then just when the tough part of the new rules (requiring an Extra for amateur HF phone on 80 thru 15), they dumped those rules and gave everybody except Novices and Techs everything. You could, however, usually tell the oldtimers from the newbies by the license class, but that was about all. Unless someone told you their license class, there was no way of knowing. There was no 'QRZ.COM' to go check, the CallBook didn't show license class, and all you could tell by their call sign was where their station was located. We all played together in the ether as equals. Except for Novices, whose distinctive callsigns were unmistakeable. Except for Techs.who had no HF at all and originally no 6 or 2 meters either. And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were going? As early as 1958, FCC wanted to know why there were so few Extras. They asked again in 1963 and made it clear they wanted to bigtime changes. Personally, I think it was "Sputnik fever". They, like many others in the USA, were spooked by the early Soviet achievements in space (first artificial satellite, first animal in space, first pictures of the far side of the moon, first man in space, first woman in space.....the list goes on and on) and perceived the USA to need "incentive" in all things technological. And what a short-lived phenom that was! Now at the university level at least, the Techies and Engineers to a large extent are not from the US, while our kids are busy getting MBA's and becoming lawyers! - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:44:52 GMT, Bill Sohl wrote:
I agree with Jim on the "Sputnick fever" reaction. My Earth Science teached just about went off his rocker when Sputnick went up. You should have seen what went on inside my then-employer, Ramo-Wooldridge, the system managers for the USAF ICBM program. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:36:08 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote:
And what a short-lived phenom that was! Now at the university level at least, the Techies and Engineers to a large extent are not from the US, while our kids are busy getting MBA's and becoming lawyers! - Mike KB3EIA - Ya' go where the money is! Engineering is great, but the law, and management is greater if you're talking from a money angle. Engineers are workers. They should probably have a division in the UAW, 'cuz sure as you're born, if you're a worker (employee), you're going to get abused. Those doing the abusing are the guys with the MBAs. There are no longer enough jobs to be had to simply leave if you get abused, you mostly have to take it. If you do leave, chances are you'll just get abused by different people. Lawyers hang out a shingle and charge what the traffic will bear. They don't have someone else setting their pay rates, nor screwing around with their health insurance, making them sign away their rights to anything they might be able to think up and patent, etc. Look at what's happened to programmers. Their livelihood has been destroyed both by importation of cheap labor (H1B visas) and export of the work entirely to places like India, Russia, etc. If you move the needle on the idiot meter at all, you may just get into programming school. Then you can figure significantly in the unemplyoment statistics, or the "working poor" statistics. You mostly can't export what an MBA does, nor can cheap foreign labor be imported to do it. Ditto for the law practicioners. So, no need to wonder why the kids aren't falling all over themselves to get in line to be abused. I think the kids today are smarter than we were... Dave Head |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote And the alphabetic order of license told who was an OT and who was a newbie. W3ABC was an OT compared to W3YIK. W3YIK was an OT compared to K3NYT. K3NYT was an OT compared to WA3IYC. Etc. Usually, anyway. Not necessarily. Since we all got a new call sign everytime we moved, we might trade an 'old' call in Minnesota (W0ABC) for a 'new' call in Virginia (WA4ABC). Not only couldn't you tell how long we'd been licensed, but you couldn't tell our license class (except for Novices with KN, WN, or WV prefixes). Hans, that was the old pecking order stuff. I foresee a new ARS where if you want to know how long an amateur has been licensed, you simply ask him. And if you want to know the amateur's achievements, you don't look at how short his call sign is, you look on the air, the www, and to the journals and see who is doing what. No Merit Badge system required, but I guess we could move toward hash marks on the sleeves if need be. My mentor, W0VDI, was licensed at a Tech in 1952 and went SK 50 years later with the same call and the same Tech license. Absolutely no shame in that, though some would think so. Wonder if he put up with 50 years of "encouragement" to "upgrade?" If everything was so nice, why was FCC so unhappy with the way things were going? It wasn't the FCC who was unhappy. The unhappy folks were a few resentful and vocal OT's who felt disenfranchised because a nubby new guy could operate phone on 20M, not having first passed the old class A exam like he had to. The march to disincentive licensing moved to the beat of drum being banged up in West Hartford, CT. I know it's hard for you to accept that, given that history is written by the victors. 73, de Hans, K0HB One ARS, One license (class). |
Dave Head wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:36:08 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote: And what a short-lived phenom that was! Now at the university level at least, the Techies and Engineers to a large extent are not from the US, while our kids are busy getting MBA's and becoming lawyers! - Mike KB3EIA - Ya' go where the money is! Engineering is great, but the law, and management is greater if you're talking from a money angle. Engineers are workers. They should probably have a division in the UAW, 'cuz sure as you're born, if you're a worker (employee), you're going to get abused. Those doing the abusing are the guys with the MBAs. There are no longer enough jobs to be had to simply leave if you get abused, you mostly have to take it. If you do leave, chances are you'll just get abused by different people. Lawyers hang out a shingle and charge what the traffic will bear. They don't have someone else setting their pay rates, nor screwing around with their health insurance, making them sign away their rights to anything they might be able to think up and patent, etc. Look at what's happened to programmers. Their livelihood has been destroyed both by importation of cheap labor (H1B visas) and export of the work entirely to places like India, Russia, etc. If you move the needle on the idiot meter at all, you may just get into programming school. Then you can figure significantly in the unemplyoment statistics, or the "working poor" statistics. You mostly can't export what an MBA does, nor can cheap foreign labor be imported to do it. Ditto for the law practicioners. So, no need to wonder why the kids aren't falling all over themselves to get in line to be abused. I think the kids today are smarter than we were... I doubt it! Capitalism is a grand thing, but it destroys the people who practice it if they don't have a guiding principle beyond pecuniary accumulation. Want to know what happens to us when we are all MBA's and lawyers and the rest of the world is doing all the manufacturing and the things too *low* for us? It isn't going to be pretty! - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 19:17:21 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Head wrote: On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 00:36:08 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote: And what a short-lived phenom that was! Now at the university level at least, the Techies and Engineers to a large extent are not from the US, while our kids are busy getting MBA's and becoming lawyers! - Mike KB3EIA - Ya' go where the money is! Engineering is great, but the law, and management is greater if you're talking from a money angle. Engineers are workers. They should probably have a division in the UAW, 'cuz sure as you're born, if you're a worker (employee), you're going to get abused. Those doing the abusing are the guys with the MBAs. There are no longer enough jobs to be had to simply leave if you get abused, you mostly have to take it. If you do leave, chances are you'll just get abused by different people. Lawyers hang out a shingle and charge what the traffic will bear. They don't have someone else setting their pay rates, nor screwing around with their health insurance, making them sign away their rights to anything they might be able to think up and patent, etc. Look at what's happened to programmers. Their livelihood has been destroyed both by importation of cheap labor (H1B visas) and export of the work entirely to places like India, Russia, etc. If you move the needle on the idiot meter at all, you may just get into programming school. Then you can figure significantly in the unemplyoment statistics, or the "working poor" statistics. You mostly can't export what an MBA does, nor can cheap foreign labor be imported to do it. Ditto for the law practicioners. So, no need to wonder why the kids aren't falling all over themselves to get in line to be abused. I think the kids today are smarter than we were... I doubt it! Capitalism is a grand thing, but it destroys the people who practice it if they don't have a guiding principle beyond pecuniary accumulation. With 30 million people in this country laboring at equal to or less than the $8.25 / hr wage that the government defines as poverty level, that would pretty much say that, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Want to know what happens to us when we are all MBA's and lawyers and the rest of the world is doing all the manufacturing and the things too *low* for us? It isn't going to be pretty! All we have to do is wait - we'll find out. Doesn't matter if its Democrats or Republicans, nobody's gonna do anything for workers any more. It has to do with the waning of union power, I think, and the mistake that "tech" people including engineers make that they don't need a union. If you're an employee, you need a union. Period. But the IT bunch won't join one, and look what happened to them. Engineers are next. Even people at the top of the pay scale - pro ball players, actors, etc - have unions. Why do techs think they're so indispensible as to not need one? Dave Head - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:18:03 GMT, Dave Head wrote:
Engineers are workers. They should probably have a division in the UAW, 'cuz sure as you're born, if you're a worker (employee), you're going to get abused. There have been engineer's unions for at least the last 50 years in the aircradt industry. Having worked one year as an engineer for an airplane company at the beginning of my career, I can see why. Real professionals look down on unionizing. Those doing the abusing are the guys with the MBAs. Read it not as ab-using, but as con-fusing. Lawyers hang out a shingle and charge what the traffic will bear. They don't have someone else setting their pay rates, nor screwing around with their health insurance, making them sign away their rights to anything they might be able to think up and patent, etc. HAH! Talk to any associate at any decent-sized law firm and get an education otherwise. As for going solo - did it, been there, got the T-shirt, and I wouldn't do it again. I love to do law - I hate to run a business. You mostly can't export what an MBA does, Give it time, my man - they used to say the same thing about engineers. nor can cheap foreign labor be imported to do it. Ditto for the law practicioners. Wanna bet? The top two guys in my law school class were from India, and that was many years ago. One is also an MBA and CPA and runs his family's extensive business interests in the 'States, and the other is one of the top immigration lawyers in California. It's easy to make such generalities. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Retired and loving every minute of it.... Work was getting in the way of my hobbies |
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:52:34 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote: On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:18:03 GMT, Dave Head wrote: Engineers are workers. They should probably have a division in the UAW, 'cuz sure as you're born, if you're a worker (employee), you're going to get abused. There have been engineer's unions for at least the last 50 years in the aircradt industry. Having worked one year as an engineer for an airplane company at the beginning of my career, I can see why. Real professionals look down on unionizing. Real professional actors, football players, baseball players, etc. don't seem to look down on unionization. My guess is that the airplane engineers get screwed less, and have more secure jobs, save the periodic downturns in the aircraft industry itself. Those doing the abusing are the guys with the MBAs. Read it not as ab-using, but as con-fusing. Lawyers hang out a shingle and charge what the traffic will bear. They don't have someone else setting their pay rates, nor screwing around with their health insurance, making them sign away their rights to anything they might be able to think up and patent, etc. HAH! Talk to any associate at any decent-sized law firm and get an education otherwise. I bet, but then there's that "organization" thing. Work for an organization (be an employee) and... you need a union. As for going solo - did it, been there, got the T-shirt, and I wouldn't do it again. I love to do law - I hate to run a business. I'd hate it too, I think. You mostly can't export what an MBA does, Give it time, my man - they used to say the same thing about engineers. MBA's are performing a service where they have to be present. They're not going to offshore the pizza delivery guy, either - he has to be here to do the work, too. Of course, entire corporate headquarters have moved off-shore I guess, so apparently it is possible. nor can cheap foreign labor be imported to do it. Ditto for the law practicioners. Wanna bet? The top two guys in my law school class were from India, and that was many years ago. One is also an MBA and CPA and runs his family's extensive business interests in the 'States, and the other is one of the top immigration lawyers in California. I suppose if they are educated here... sure. But growing up in India, Russia, Korea, and learning Indian, Russian, or Korean law won't do you any good in the USA. The problem with engineering and IT is that the laws of physics, and the principles of good software design and construction, are universal. What works in India, Russia, and Korea works here, and vice-versa. It's easy to make such generalities. The generality that holds is: If you are an employee, you need a union. I think exceptions are pretty rare. Again, the number of people, 30 million, in poverty-level wage jobs (= $8.25 / hr) pretty much says that this is right. All those people would likely do much better with a union. I'm a government engineer. I work for the Navy. Don't need a union, right? Wrong! In the 1980's, the OPM illegally capped the across the board raises of engineers on the advanced engineering pay scale. Who should step up to the plate but the Treasury Employee's Union, and sued the socks off the government for 2 decades. Finally won the case last year. Last week I got a check as partial payment for compensation for that misdeed - $1090.95. Unions don't have to strike to get results, even if the results come later. Maybe the OPM will realize eventually that even tho they're the government, they're not omnipotent, and have to play by the rules, like everyone else. Anyway, I'm better off because of a union. Without a resurgence of union power, I think this country is headed for a third-world model society, where there are the very rich, and the very poor, and nobody in between. The people slinging code and designing/building bridges won't be on the "very rich" side, either. They'll be the ones that are willing to work for $8.00 / hr, side-by-side with the Indians, Mexicans, Russians, etc. that will be quite happy with that amount. Its a matter of how far in the future that is... I guess about 50 years. What's your guess? Dave Head |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com