On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 04:28:46 GMT, K HB wrote:

Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than
before?

What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted
language of rrap is English.

Yeah - to quote one of my favorite lines from the defunct "Amos and
Andy" TV show "speak to the man in Algebra, Andy"

Perhaps you can rephrase the question in the stone-furlong-fortnight
system of measurement. Perhaps it needs a Yaenkel coordinate transform
from reality to surreality.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote


Are you aware of what the GERATOL net is all about?


Yes, I'm aware what it's about and 25 years ago I was a member (#515 if
you
care to check). Now it has devolved into an inbred group of about 50
people
who meet every night on 75 meters and "exchange numbers". Some
"difficulty"!

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!! !!

73, de Hans, K0HB

The Geratol net fired up right on top of the DX window of 80 meters back in
the 70s. I called them and they told me to get lost, they didn't work DX.
I was DA2LJ and operating from Germany at the time. Just a bunch of losers
in my book.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

Perhaps it needs a Yaenkel coordinate transform
from reality to surreality.

With the untimely loss of N0BK, somebody's gotta pick up the slack...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Oops sorry, I accidentally posted without comment


How dare you? :-)


HAH! I knew that one was coming! ;^)

- mike KB3EIA -

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:


Perhaps it needs a Yaenkel coordinate transform
from reality to surreality.


With the untimely loss of N0BK, somebody's gotta pick up the slack...


Whoah!! Something happened to Dick?? 8^(

- Mike KB3EIA -

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.

The ONLY way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't
true, but you could say it.

You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your
interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that
they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner.

You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but
if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you
aren't an aviator.

Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur
radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation
in which you take no part.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.

The ONLY way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't
true, but you could say it.

I haven't. I don't.

The only way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

To you it doesn't count at all that "interest in radio" can result in
a half century of professional work...including design in radio.

To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics
can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing,
designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio).

No, FIRST one "must" get an AMATEUR license according to
Herr Robust.

You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your
interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that
they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner.

I've been into "gardening" for over 40 years. At this same address.

No amateur license required. No LICENSE required to garden.

Not a problem. I can discuss gardening with any neighbor and they
don't take offense. We share ideas, experiences, help each other
out.

In here, the arrogant officious ones DICTATE as to how all shall
behave according to their holy rules.

You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but
if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you
aren't an aviator.

I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive.

I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not
even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd
Class Restricted permit necessary.

An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies,
is it?

I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on
and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz
band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and
even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the
plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant
in that some time ago.

Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur
radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation
in which you take no part.

Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions
contrary to your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly,
beligerantly go after any person who can stand up to you and show
where your ideas aren't valid.

The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust.
They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments.
I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness,
but that IS true.

I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you
address others. Good luck on that one now!

LHA

Subject: Why I Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/23/03 12:00 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics
can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing,
designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio).

But to be a Radio Amateur, as defined by the Federal Communicaitions
Commission, one must be a licensee.

You can call yourself a "radio hobbyist", radio afficionado, CBer, or
whatever else may fit. But "Radio Amateur" is not one of them.

You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but
if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you
aren't an aviator.

I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive.

But..but...but...LENNIE!

YOU have been the one flaunting his copious retirement holdings and
telling us how grand it is to be you!

Are you now telling us you can't afford it...?!?!

The average cost of obtaining a Private Pilot's license in 1974 (when I
finished up my ticket) was around $2700. Todays it's just a bit over $3500.

I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not
even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd
Class Restricted permit necessary.

Yes, Lennie...When you were a "student pilot" (snickering under my breath
here!!!!!) a permit was required to operate the radios...One is STILL required
if you intend to operate across an international boundry.

Your "first phone" was not acceptable for operating an aircraft radio.
The FAA did not accept ANYTHING except the Restricted Radiotelephone Permit as
late as the 1980's.

An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies,
is it?

Only you keep suggesting that "someone" suggests it is.

I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on
and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz
band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and
even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the
plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant
in that some time ago.

Then at one time you were required to have a station license for your Part
95 (Subpart C) operations. No...one is not required now. However YOU suggest
that it was not required "40+" years ago.

Again, you are in error, "Mr. Radio Professional".

Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur
radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation
in which you take no part.

Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions
contrary to your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly,
beligerantly go after any person who can stand up to you and show
where your ideas aren't valid.

So far, Your Putziness, you ahve FAILED to make any argument that suggests
Dave's "ideas aren't valid".

You HAVE demonstrated your gross ignorance on a great number of radio
topics, and an even far greater number of issues (all, actually) relating to
Amateur Radio.

The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust.
They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments.
I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness,
but that IS true.

Again...YOUR assertion rings hollow. An error. A falsehood.

I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you
address others. Good luck on that one now!

Dave! Did you forget to bow in deep reverence to His Radio Holiness, Sir
Anderscum the First?

I am soooooooooo (NOT!) ashamed of you!

Steve, K4YZ

On 23 Dec 2003 15:38:59 GMT, Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:

Your "first phone" was not acceptable for operating an aircraft radio.
The FAA did not accept ANYTHING except the Restricted Radiotelephone Permit
as late as the 1980's.

One could not hold an RP and a higher grade of radiotelephone
operator license (which WAS valid for aircraft use) at the same time.
It was the Radiotelephone Third Class Permit with Broadcast
Endorsement that was not valid for aircraft operation.

The solution was the License Verification Card, the same shape and
color as the RP, attesting to the fact that the holder held an FCC
radiotelephone or radiotelegraph First or Second operator license.
The FAA was quite aware of this situation.

We were asked about that many times by student pilots who held First
or Second Class Radiotelephone operator licenses in that era and never
got any feedback that the FAA wasn't accepting it in lieu of the RP.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"N2EY" wrote

It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should
sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?

Yes, sometimes I think it IS a good idea. That sort of activity is
often
called leadership.

Other times I think it's NOT a good idea.
The mark of a good leader is determining the difference.
73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans,

You and I are on the same frequency on this one ... you said it
clearer than I did the first time, but hopefully my explanation was
better in response to Jim's question.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl, that's the one aspect that I have found the most disappointing
about the ARRL leadership, they "governed" - like Clinton - with
polls.

Their big poll was one of the most poorly constructed polls I've ever
seen. Even worse is that they paid an outside agency to do it - with
our dues money. The fact that -I- helped pay for that poll and I
didn't even receive a questionaire was just icing on the cake.

But even if the poll was well done it ONLY shows a snapshot of opinion at
that time. Given the prior (several years prior) almost universal
opposition to droppping code and then seeing a significant shift
from that 90% or more support to something closer to 1/2, one
could easily conclude the shift was not going to stop and eventually
more hams would support ending all code testing than keeping it.

I never saw the ARRL vision of the future as anything other than old
men in Western Union garb tapping away at their keys. That should be
their vision of the past, not the future. Repeating the past over and
over again gets the ARS where? One more tube regen receiver article
will likely put me over the edge.

I know the ARRL is a superb watchdog concerning legislation that
affects the ARS. They are also the best publishing house on radio
related material. Their lab reviews are unrivaled. And their
operating activities are lots of fun. Thus, I continue to support the
ARRL.

Agreed. I'm ARRL also.

But with respect to the future, just about any decision is better than
no decision.

Agree also.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK