|
|
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: The way you have used the word conforms to usage number 2. Therefore, you have stated that public service is required even though that may not be what you meant to say. The way you've kept on and on and on with this sub-thread makes it sound like you MUST have the Last Word. :-) LHA |
In article , "KØHB"
writes: "Bert Craig" wrote I personally believe that *one of* the valid cases in favor of retaining Element 1 is that it requires an individual to demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline that is not achieved by cramming a published Q&A pool. I looked and looked and looked and looked and nowhere in 97.501, 97.503 nor anywhere in S25 did I find any regulatory requirement to "demonstrate a certain level of self-discipline" as part of the qualification procedures. Is this another of those "test of worthiness" things that occasionally floats to the surface around rrap? Hang around here long enough, and you will see someone write something like: " A really tough written test would surely separate those who really have an interest in the hobby.", or.. " Other, more relevant, methods can establish an applicant's dedication to the service.", or.. " I think it is effective at minimizing the undesirables.", or.. " ..... the key to maintaining the quality of hamming is making it something to work for.", or.. . "My opinion is that any obstacle you put in the way to any achievement guarantees that only those with dedication and strong interest will get there." All of the above quotations, gathered from rrap threads, were made by serious and well-intentioned licensees who want the best for the Amateur Radio Service. All of the above quotations also completely miss the mark, in that they suggest that the examination process is the key to ensuring that "the right kind of people" (those who are "worthy") become licensed and, by extension, that "the wrong kind of people" get filtered out. First, the testing procedure is an "entrance" exam, not a "graduation" exam. Second, while "interest", "dedication", and "hard work" might be hallmarks of good amateurs, the FCC and ITU regulations do not specify levels of interest, dedication, hard work or other measures of "worthiness" as requisites for a license. Therefore it is not the function of the examination process to determine (even if it could) if an applicant is "worthy" but rather to determine if he/she is QUALIFIED to use the spectrum assigned. There should be no "dumbing down", but neither can there be a requirement that the examination process screens out applicants who lack "commitment". Don't get me wrong here, folks. I believe that the examination process ought to be rigorous enough to determine proper knowledge and skills so that a new licensee does not inadvertently trash the bands, hurt themselves, or harm other users/uses of the spectrum. I am not even suggesting that Morse testing is a "good thing" or a "poor idea". But I have no expectation that ANY examination can filter out "unworthy" applicants who lack the proper dedication or motivation. Sounds eminently reasonable to me... Even if it could, who then would become the arbiter of "worthy"? Heh heh heh heh...EVERY self-righteous person who insists that all MUST do as they did...:-) :-) :-) :-) The regulars in here already have done that... LHA |
"N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "N2EY" wrote How much Spanish do you hear on the ham bands being used by US hams? A lot. Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB Most of the Spanish I hear are Mexican, Central American, and South American hams not US hams. De nada... :-) WMD |
In article t, Dwight Stewart
says... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: Your usage is still incorrect. There is nothing in Part 97 that assigns authority to hams to do public service either. I've read part 97 from beginning to end. (snip) Then you either cannot read or cannot understand what you've read. Regardless, if you truly feel Part 97 does not authorize us to do public service, then I simply don't have the time to convince you otherwise. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ Isn't that special, a vanity call for a no code dummy. |
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. Excellent point. There are a total of 4,661 documents on the ECFS for those 14 petitions mainly concerned with code testing. That's more than was gathered on NPRM 98-143 by close to 2K. Happy Y3K, I think that should be "Y1K" considering the Reverend's love of the past... Just a thought. WMD |
K0HB, the perfect argument against code.
KØHB wrote: "N2EY" wrote Which I sense is a process that Hans wants to avoid, because there are bound to be both supporting and opposing comments. Avoid????? What a strange thought process, coming from someone who seems to be familiar with my participation here on rrap. Do I appear bashful about stating my ideas, and avoiding reactions to them? The field is currently crowded with at least 14 petitions, and ARRL will likely make it 15. Would you like a petition of yours to be buried in that noise level? Timing, Jim, is EVERYTHING, and introducing another petition at this time would NOT be a way of gaining any significant mindshare from the rulemakers. Happy Y3K, de Hans, K0HB |
LHA
You are a bitter little person and do not play well with others. Perhaps you need something of a higher level in you life. Try Jesus instead of all of this negative stuff. So much energy needs to be focused on getting you to Heaven instead of bothering these nice people. JEP (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Subject: Why You Don't Like Ham's Who Can't Accept Change. From: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) Date: 8 Jan 2004 08:32:16 -0800 (Len Over 21) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: It's certainly not true in MY case, and just one more example of how you feel free to take liberties with the truth. Tsk, tsk, tsk...role-playing in a fantasy land is not "reality" nor is it "truth." There's only one "role-player" here, Lennie. Almost everyone else here HAS an Amateur Radio license and PARTICIPATES in teh "Real McCoy". "teh ?" :-) Getting ANGRY again, are you? There are several "McCoys" in electronics. Which one are you referring to? Walter Brennan? YOU are the outsider here. This newsgroup isn't "amateur radio." This newsgroup is all about lets-pretend fish-story-tellers trying to put down lots of other amateurs. All amateurishly. I'm all for eliminating the morse code test from any radio license examination. That's all. You are the one on an extended field trip into fantasyland. I never claimed to be an engineer...But I did provide numerous references from that job that proved you WRONG on numerous occassions. Never once did you "prove" anything. Your imagination tells only you that you were "right." Your imagination is WRONG. Sure I did. Starting with simple assertions about the "engineering community"...You said that there was "no such thing" and I provided you with an immediate quote from one of the periodicals that cited that very concept. Where is this "engineering community" located? Have you been there? :-) Is it part of a Kibbutz? A collective farm? Does it have fancy alphabets like ASME? Where did you read this? Or, rather, who read it to you from some printed reference? Your therapist? Go for it, EX purchasing agent... And you further went on to say "real engineers" didn't need/use Amateur Radio...I gave you the callsigns of not only 13 engineers, but three of them were PhD's. Of course you did...right after you accepted the Presidential Medal of Freedom for keeping Homeland Security safe through ham radio. In other words, in your MIND, sweetums. I'm still a Life Member of the IEEE and a former member of the ACM, both professional organizations. None of their many, many publications have had "news" about Ham Radio Saving The Day! But, in your mind, you know "lots" of PhDs, and other smart folks who all LOVE ham radio and cherish, honor, obey morse code.... I guess that had to hurt, knowing a "non-engineer" had access to references that took a bite out of your rants... "Hurt?" Only my sides from laughing. "References" from a weekly newspaper from Podunk Hollow, TN, hardly counts for anything... They were hardly from "Podunk Hollow", Lennie. They were professional journals and periodicals. Yeah, like a little few-page weekly is on par with the New York TIMES. Paris Review on a bad day maybe. St. Louis Post-Dispatch or the Washington Post would hardly have such, would they? George didn't have such, neither did Time, Life, Newsweek. Maybe it was in People (which I only read in dentist offices). TV Guide? Not in IEEE Proceedings or the monthlies from ComSoc (Communication Society, a group within IEEE). ComSoc wants me back as a member. It wasn't in EDN, or Electronic Design, or RF Design, or Microwaves & RF. I don't bother with EE Times anymore. Maybe PET (Power Engineering Technology)? (Squirm a bit harder, Scummy...) Only if the mosquitos are biting. You WANT to but haven't gotten any penetration yet... Again with the "1930's" rant, Lennie? Call it "transistorized 1930s," Stebe. I call it your "1930's rant", Lennie...It's not truthful, nor even representitive of anything associated with MODERN Amateur Radio. Of course, Mr. PhD...MODERN amateur radio...extolling morse code modes on HF as "always getting through when nothing else will..." MODERN HF amateur radio: "What was good in the 1930s is still good in 2000s!" "Real ham radio is working DX on HF with CW." Standards and Practices remain the same as 70 years ago. Imagination of Public Service and self-serving glory are still the same. If ARRL writes it, all MUST believe, for their words are sacred. No, they don't. But if you NEED to believe that in order to sleep well at night, please, be my guest... :-) Not even close, Mr. Hotellier or Mr. Innkeeper. :-) Quit trying to be a Host, sweetums. The only "host" you can be is of a communicable disease. Go get some therapy. LHA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com