If Ham radio were invented today........
 

Here is a hypothetical situation:

Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

What should the testing regimen be?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Could have very well happened, if not for the ARRL. Or, amateur radio could
have been legislated out of existence at one of the radio conferences in the
early 1920s. But fortunately it didn't happen.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

Whoa there! How could that happen?

And if it somehow did, what spectrum, power and modes would be allowed? What
services would give up spectrum?

What should the testing regimen be?

Depends entire on what the "new" service in this alternate-history line is
like, don;t you think?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.


Could have very well happened, if not for the ARRL. Or, amateur radio could
have been legislated out of existence at one of the radio conferences in the
early 1920s. But fortunately it didn't happen.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.


Whoa there! How could that happen?

And if it somehow did, what spectrum, power and modes would be allowed? What
services would give up spectrum?

Aww, don't make me define too much Jim! Okay, lets say that in the
rebirth, fueled by concerns for homeland security, that a a loosely
organized group of non-professional communication savvy people that
might be able to respond to disasters or the is made.

Assume that it is decided that this group should have some technical
abilities, so that if need be, they might stand a chance of getting a
station operational under adverse conditions.

The philosophy is that these people would pursue the service as a
hobby, working for enjoyment while honing operational skills.

Let's say that amateurs are allocated some frequencies. I'll assume
that the bands I not will be similar in width to what we have now:

2 meters
10 meters
20 meters
40 meters - or nearby, away from broadcasting frequencies
80 meters

The various frequencies are chosen to take advantage of propagation
characteristics.

No UHF or above, no 160 meters.

What should the testing regimen be?


Depends entire on what the "new" service in this alternate-history line is
like, don;t you think?

Work with me a little bit, Jim! This can be a fun exercise. See what
you can come up with based on what I gave you so far.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Here is a hypothetical situation:


----------------------------------------------------------------------

97.1 To get an Amateur Radio license, you are required to pass
a technical test to show that you understand how to build simple
equipment which meets spectral purity specifications of (.....blah,
blah, blah). You will be issued a license and callsign when you
pass the test. Transmit your call sign once every 10 minutes when
on the air.

97.2 Your power limit is 1.5KW to the antenna.

97.3 Here are your bands. Stay inside of them.

97.4 Your are encouraged to tinker and experiment and communicate
and do public service and talk to strangers in far away lands and
launch communications satellites into space and any other cool
technical "radio stuff" you may think up. The government doesn't
care what mode you use for any of this, except that 10 years from
today, all non-digitized modes will be retired.

97.5 Play nice. We'll try to keep the CBers out of your hair.
Deliberate interference, unresolved dirty signals, or other asinine
behavior on your part will cause Riley Hollingsworth to come and
permanently kick your ass off the playground. Have fun.

Love always,
/signed/ FCC

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just as the amateur service thrived on the challenge of being "banished" to
the
shortwaves back 80 years ago or so, I think another "challenge" is needed to
revitalize the spirit of experimentation and invention. We need to be
kicked
out of our comfort zone.

Give us the authority to freely tinker, explore, innovate, and generally be
"hams" again. That's how we "colonized" the electromagnetic spectrum,
"proved
it in", and "made it safe for commerce". As long as we don't spill out of
our assigned segments, let us play without technical micro-management.
Who knows what we might develop!

73, de Hans, K0HB

Mike Coslo wrote in message t...
Here is a hypothetical situation:

Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

What should the testing regimen be?

- Mike KB3EIA -

It wouldn't be amateur radio.

Amateur radio derives from that time and place where radio began.
It was there before there were rules, or most of the technology that
came later. It also came before there was much clue about what
the new technology could be used for, and before there were well defined
radio services.

Anateur radio exists because hams staked out the territory before
most people knew about radio. Amateur radio did not see others
making use of the technology and then claim they needed space;
they put the technology to use, and helped push the technology
and the applications that came later.

For something to start now, one has to wonder what the purpose
would be? It's certainly not about getting in on emerging technology.
Without the history of radio behind it, then there is no way it
would be the same sort of service. Even things like contesting
derive from those early days, when being able to reach further
and further was a reflection of the effort put into the equipment
and antennas, and the contests were a means of testing it, or
testing radio itself. Witness the TransAtlantic Tests in December
of 1921; a form of contest yet the whole point was to see if
those useless shortwave frequencies where hams had been relegated
once rules were set in place could actually be used to span the
Atlantic.

People are forever saying that amateur radio can't compete with
today's technology, when everyone can get a cellphone or an FRS
transceiver, and use the internet. Put in those terms,
there is no point to amateur radio. And anything created
today would take that into consideration.

A very important part of amateur radio is it's history, because
it's an important history, not just to the hobby but to radio
itself. Take that away, and it could not be anything close
to what it is now.

Michael VE2BVW

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:50:25 GMT, Mike Coslo wrote:

Work with me a little bit, Jim! This can be a fun exercise. See what
you can come up with based on what I gave you so far.

Based on what you gave so far, those volunteers would be sworn in as
members of the Sheriff's Radio Reserve and given assigments to use
commercial equipment and departmental procedures on those frequencies,
similar in a lot of respects to CAP and MARS operation.

The local Sheriff's Deparment tried to do that when we (AREC/RACES)
approached them to be a "served agency". Because we were organized
and operational before that, we could tell them to play another tune
on their trombone because we report to the Emergency Management folks
some of whom are hams anyhow.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

In article ,
(Michael Black) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
et...
Here is a hypothetical situation:

Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back
their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

What should the testing regimen be?

- Mike KB3EIA -

It wouldn't be amateur radio.

Amateur radio derives from that time and place where radio began.
It was there before there were rules, or most of the technology that
came later. It also came before there was much clue about what
the new technology could be used for, and before there were well defined
radio services.

Anateur radio exists because hams staked out the territory before
most people knew about radio. Amateur radio did not see others
making use of the technology and then claim they needed space;
they put the technology to use, and helped push the technology
and the applications that came later.

For something to start now, one has to wonder what the purpose
would be? It's certainly not about getting in on emerging technology.
Without the history of radio behind it, then there is no way it
would be the same sort of service. Even things like contesting
derive from those early days, when being able to reach further
and further was a reflection of the effort put into the equipment
and antennas, and the contests were a means of testing it, or
testing radio itself. Witness the TransAtlantic Tests in December
of 1921; a form of contest yet the whole point was to see if
those useless shortwave frequencies where hams had been relegated
once rules were set in place could actually be used to span the
Atlantic.

People are forever saying that amateur radio can't compete with
today's technology, when everyone can get a cellphone or an FRS
transceiver, and use the internet. Put in those terms,
there is no point to amateur radio. And anything created
today would take that into consideration.

A very important part of amateur radio is it's history, because
it's an important history, not just to the hobby but to radio
itself. Take that away, and it could not be anything close
to what it is now.

Every word of that bears repeating.

For once I can't think of anything to add except "WELL SAID"

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Michael Black) writes:


Mike Coslo wrote in message
. net...

Here is a hypothetical situation:

Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back

their

access to the airwaves after WW1.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

What should the testing regimen be?

- Mike KB3EIA -

It wouldn't be amateur radio.

Amateur radio derives from that time and place where radio began.
It was there before there were rules, or most of the technology that
came later. It also came before there was much clue about what
the new technology could be used for, and before there were well defined
radio services.

Anateur radio exists because hams staked out the territory before
most people knew about radio. Amateur radio did not see others
making use of the technology and then claim they needed space;
they put the technology to use, and helped push the technology
and the applications that came later.

For something to start now, one has to wonder what the purpose
would be? It's certainly not about getting in on emerging technology.
Without the history of radio behind it, then there is no way it
would be the same sort of service. Even things like contesting
derive from those early days, when being able to reach further
and further was a reflection of the effort put into the equipment
and antennas, and the contests were a means of testing it, or
testing radio itself. Witness the TransAtlantic Tests in December
of 1921; a form of contest yet the whole point was to see if
those useless shortwave frequencies where hams had been relegated
once rules were set in place could actually be used to span the
Atlantic.

People are forever saying that amateur radio can't compete with
today's technology, when everyone can get a cellphone or an FRS
transceiver, and use the internet. Put in those terms,
there is no point to amateur radio. And anything created
today would take that into consideration.

A very important part of amateur radio is it's history, because
it's an important history, not just to the hobby but to radio
itself. Take that away, and it could not be anything close
to what it is now.


Every word of that bears repeating.

For once I can't think of anything to add except "WELL SAID"

73 de Jim, N2EY

Sure it is. The whole situation is hypothetical, and yes, the hobby
would be different, especially if it started up again today after a long
long absence.

Okay, I give up. This was an attempt to get people to use their
imaginations, but other than Hans, no one want to play.

Let's get back to debating Morse code!! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

I didn't get very far with this concept when I tried to introduce it a
few months back either. I thought at the time that it might at least
get some out-of-the-box thinking going, and remove the bonds of
history and tradition which so often form the basis of reason for
discussions in this forum -- but alas, it met a simlilar fate......

Ironicaly, one of the responses that you received was, with respect to
the history of amateur radio, "Take that away, and it could not be
anything close to what it is now". Say, wasn't that the whole point
of the discussion? :)

Good try, though!

73, Leo

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:08:49 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:
snip

Okay, I give up. This was an attempt to get people to use their
imaginations, but other than Hans, no one want to play.

Let's get back to debating Morse code!! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:

Mike,

I didn't get very far with this concept when I tried to introduce it a
few months back either. I thought at the time that it might at least
get some out-of-the-box thinking going, and remove the bonds of
history and tradition which so often form the basis of reason for
discussions in this forum -- but alas, it met a simlilar fate......

Ironicaly, one of the responses that you received was, with respect to
the history of amateur radio, "Take that away, and it could not be
anything close to what it is now". Say, wasn't that the whole point
of the discussion? :)

Good try, though!

Hey Leo, Good to see you on my screen again! Tell you what. I'll start
with what I think would happen, and if you like, you can join in. Maybe
we can P**s off someone that they might comment..........;^)

Okay, here goes:

With a new service coming into play, a major mode would be digital
voice. Repeaters will be allowed, and these repeaters on the 144 mHz
band will also be digital FM, as will HT's. Repeaters and the HT's would
be allowed to send images as well as voice.

Digital non-voice modes would include a PSK mode for typewritten
material, and a high speed packet network would be allowed (remember
that it takes some time to get these things going, and although allowed,
would not happen for some time.

Small portions of each band would be set aside for experimentation, and
here is the place where unusual methods of communication could be used.
This would include things like OOK Morse or other encoding schemes or SSB.

Testing would be quite different that today. The most obvious
difference is that there would be a lot more digital material covered in
the tests. I would envision the basic digital building blocks tested. In
addition, there would be the basic electrical theory and of course those
questions about the various bands. (of course this would be a lot
easier, since there would be less bands to cover) There would also be
questions regarding proper operating etiquette.

A newly formed group, the Radio Readiness Association for Preparedness
(RRAP) is formed, and sets up the first contest/practice run in this
year. Sorry - I couldn't resist! 8^)

One license, one class. 1KW maximum. No Morse code test.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the
transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense!
I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played
with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right
there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed.

I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of
the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless
messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would
probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and
built-in cameras, for example.

I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those
who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the
golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups
would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting
though antiquated protocols. However, truly outmoded forms of
communication common today would not exist at all, such as the
repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even
think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the
public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator.
No more personal phone calls, though!).

Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc.
equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these
modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular
in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In
addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway),
would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with
software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem,
digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)?

I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance
with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to
automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would
allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious
operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a
built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and
when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be
mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory
transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And,
as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to
do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with
homebuilt equipment, though?

With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and
operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually
their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions
to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on
interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security.

There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio
net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise
that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this
valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the
priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a
mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various
emergency management agencies, upon governmental request?

I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence
levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to
perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved
transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator
of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing
more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater
commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which
would remove these restrictions.

Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes,
with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence
levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure
competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and
operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power
output equipment.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group
dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY
testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote
:)

Please add or subtract from this list at will!

73, Leo


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:45:52 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

snip

Okay, here goes:

With a new service coming into play, a major mode would be digital
voice. Repeaters will be allowed, and these repeaters on the 144 mHz
band will also be digital FM, as will HT's. Repeaters and the HT's would
be allowed to send images as well as voice.

Digital non-voice modes would include a PSK mode for typewritten
material, and a high speed packet network would be allowed (remember
that it takes some time to get these things going, and although allowed,
would not happen for some time.

Small portions of each band would be set aside for experimentation, and
here is the place where unusual methods of communication could be used.
This would include things like OOK Morse or other encoding schemes or SSB.

Testing would be quite different that today. The most obvious
difference is that there would be a lot more digital material covered in
the tests. I would envision the basic digital building blocks tested. In
addition, there would be the basic electrical theory and of course those
questions about the various bands. (of course this would be a lot
easier, since there would be less bands to cover) There would also be
questions regarding proper operating etiquette.

A newly formed group, the Radio Readiness Association for Preparedness
(RRAP) is formed, and sets up the first contest/practice run in this
year. Sorry - I couldn't resist! 8^)

One license, one class. 1KW maximum. No Morse code test.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the
transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense!
I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played
with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right
there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed.

I thought I replied to this post, but maybe not. I think that Digital
voice takes up more BW than SSB, so there will probably be a wait for
future developments.


I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of
the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless
messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would
probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and
built-in cameras, for example.

Probably. Ham/Internet functions would probably be a lot better than
what they are now, and people like me, that don't think that the
Internat is Ham radio would not have time to form their biases.

I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those
who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the
golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups
would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting
though antiquated protocols.

I agree about the CW. That would probably come about as a minimalist
thing, kind of like QRP is now, but with extremely simple equipment.

I don't think that RTTY would come about. I think amateurs got started
on RTTY after getting surplus writers. There probably wouldn't be many
of them left today. And the encoding scheme wouldn't likely be adopted


However, truly outmoded forms of
communication common today would not exist at all, such as the
repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even
think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the
public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator.
No more personal phone calls, though!).

Agreed.

Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc.
equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these
modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular
in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In
addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway),
would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with
software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem,
digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)?

I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance
with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to
automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would
allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious
operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a
built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and
when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be
mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory
transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And,
as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to
do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with
homebuilt equipment, though?

hmmmm. not sure if I like that!


With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and
operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually
their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions
to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on
interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security.

There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio
net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise
that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this
valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the
priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a
mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various
emergency management agencies, upon governmental request?

I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence
levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to
perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved
transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator
of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing
more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater
commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which
would remove these restrictions.

Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes,
with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence
levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure
competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and
operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power
output equipment.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group
dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY
testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote
:)


HAR!!

- mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

Thanks for your comments - mine are below:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:52:25 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:



Leo wrote:
Very insightful, Mike! Especially the use of digital voice, and the
transmission of images on 144 MHz repeaters. That does make sense!
I'm surprised that digital voice in particular is not being played
with much today on HF - that may well be the future of radio right
there, based on the direction the commercial broadcasters are headed.

I thought I replied to this post, but maybe not. I think that Digital
voice takes up more BW than SSB, so there will probably be a wait for
future developments.

True, but maybe one of the roles of the 'new' amateur service would be
to serve as a testbed for new technologies like this one. With all of
the new licensees concentrating on playing around with it, and no old
low-tech stuff to impede them :), improvements may come more quickly
than in our current scenario.


I would also expect to see much more emphasis on the convergence of
the Internet with amateur radio - IRLP, e-mail servers, wireless
messaging and similar concepts, for example. Handheld radios would
probably have many cellular-like features - text messaging and
built-in cameras, for example.

Probably. Ham/Internet functions would probably be a lot better than
what they are now, and people like me, that don't think that the
Internat is Ham radio would not have time to form their biases.

Make that one 'us' - I don't consider any Internet-linked radio system
to be a 'real' radio - more like a telephone, at best. But, you are
absolutely correct, this bias of ours would not exist at all! Folks
who grew up in the age of the 'Net may see the new Radio service as an
extension of it.

I am positive that CW would be rediscovered and resurrected by those
who wished to experiment with a historic signalling method used in the
golden days of long distance communication. Special interest groups
would spring up, as they would for RTTY, SITOR and other interesting
though antiquated protocols.

I agree about the CW. That would probably come about as a minimalist
thing, kind of like QRP is now, but with extremely simple equipment.

I don't think that RTTY would come about. I think amateurs got started
on RTTY after getting surplus writers. There probably wouldn't be many
of them left today. And the encoding scheme wouldn't likely be adopted

I was thinking more of those folks who had been monitoring some of the
commercial RTTY utility broadcasts (like the Canadian Army's aviation
forecasts out of Halifax, NS at a blistering 75 Baud, for example),
and who would want to try it out for themselves. With a PC, encoding
schemes are relatively simple to create and play around with - maybe
some nut would do it just to see if they could? (Maybe even this
nut..... :) )



However, truly outmoded forms of
communication common today would not exist at all, such as the
repeater phone patch (in an era of cheap cellphones, who would even
think up this one?) For emergency use, a similar interface to the
public network would be provided, perhaps directly to a PSTN operator.
No more personal phone calls, though!).

Agreed.

Without the legacy of all of the current AM, CW, SSB, RTTY etc.
equipment from years gone by, the requirement to fully support these
modes on the new bands would not exist. What modes would be popular
in equipment produced to meet the demands of the amateur service? In
addition to standalone radios (at least for handheld service anyway),
would we see black boxes designed to interface to PC and antenna, with
software to run all manner of digital communication (high speed modem,
digital voice, image transmission, low-res full motion video, etc.)?

I would also anticipate that, in the interest of ensuring compliance
with regulations, that each commercial radio may be designed to
automatically transmit a unique identifier over the air, which would
allow authorities to trace back faulty, out-of-band or malicious
operation to a particular unit. This feature could be coupled with a
built-in GPS receiver, to further aid in localizing the radio if and
when necessary. This may well raise privacy concerns, but it could be
mandated as part of the operating licence, just as mandatory
transmission of the operators' call sign at intervals is today. And,
as we are assuming a brand new service, it would be relatively easy to
do - with no older units to retrofit. What would happen with
homebuilt equipment, though?

hmmmm. not sure if I like that!

Me either - concepts like this scare the heck out of me. But, the
potential for some unsavoury character or terrorist to acquire a radio
with the capability to communicate globally (and stealthily - pretty
hard to find one, especially if it transmits on a random schedule!!)
and use it for whatever nefarious purpose may prompt the government
who created the 'new' amateur service to build this in right from the
start. It's very technically possible, and cheap and practical if
done en masse right from the beginning. (after all, who ever thought
that an innocuous little computer in your car could be used to produce
data to nail you in court over an accident?? Hmmmm. That wasn't in the
Owners Manual....)

Included as a discussion point......we'll see if anyone else shares
this view / concern.


With respect to testing, I would anticipate that the regulatory and
operating etiquette sections would continue to exist in virtually
their present form. Along with the addition of more Digital questions
to the theoretical portion of the tests, we may well see questions on
interconnection to the Internet, firewalling and network security.

There may be a new test section on emergency traffic handling, radio
net and message relay operations - this being the most likely premise
that we would be able to convince anyone to hand over all of this
valuable radio spectrum to us in the first place! And given the
priority of national security in our post-9/11 world, there may be a
mandate for the amateur service to link very closely with the various
emergency management agencies, upon governmental request?

I would envision a requirement for perhaps two different licence
levels, though - one for the basic equipment operator, limited to
perhaps 100 or 200 watts, commercially built and type-approved
transmitting equipment only, not permitted to act as control operator
of repeaters. A higher level licence would be granted upon passing
more stringent testing on RF safety and high power operation, repeater
commissioning, internetworking and advanced electronic theory, which
would remove these restrictions.

Either licence level would have full access to all bands and modes,
with no restrictions other than those listed above. The licence
levels are not intended to be incentive based, but to ensure
competence and safety (both personal and public) when installing and
operating multi-user automated-access, internetworked or high RF power
output equipment.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that a Usenet group
dedicated to the endless (and animated!) discussion of whether RTTY
testing should be discontinued might crop up - hopefully very remote
:)


HAR!!

Yup - the seeds are already sown for "NORTTY International".....I can
hear 'em growing from here! :)

- mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Mike,

It looks like no one else is interested in continuing this
thread....in fact, other than the Teletubbies-esque new rule set that
Hans proposed, nothing else has been posted other than our starter
discussion points. Time to take it off of life support?

(sigh)...Oh well - back to the endless Morse code testing discussion!

73, Leo

"The best way to predict the future is to create it."
-Thomas Edison


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 05:45:52 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Hey Leo, Good to see you on my screen again! Tell you what. I'll start
with what I think would happen, and if you like, you can join in. Maybe
we can P**s off someone that they might comment..........;^)

Leo wrote:
Mike,

It looks like no one else is interested in continuing this
thread....in fact, other than the Teletubbies-esque new rule set that
Hans proposed, nothing else has been posted other than our starter
discussion points. Time to take it off of life support?

(sigh)...Oh well - back to the endless Morse code testing discussion!


Well, no one can say we didn't give them the chance. Too bad too, since
it allows us to form some new ideas. Not every idea is practical, but
one comes along every once in a while that gives you a Eureka moment.

If we don't want to talk about the Morse code test, maybe Kim's
callsign? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike,

Heh - I have carefully avoided that discussion so far, as it seems to
be taking on a life of its own.....aw, OK, if you insist......

For the record - and staying well away from the current "who edited
whose post, was that ethical and did they intend t make it look like
the original author did it?" debacle - my personal view of the "Kim's
Call Sign" issue is as follows (and directed at no particular person
or whacko in particular) :

- W5TIT is a valid and legal call sign issued by the US Government,
via the FCC - if they believed that it was inappropriate, they could
have removed it from the list of available suffixes just like the
Motor Vehicle Licensing folks do with certain (ahem) words and
acronyms

- she earned the right to it by becoming licensed, just like every
other Amateur

- she has the right to pick any vanity call sign that she chooses, so
long as the FCC has not prohibited it for whatever reason. Why that
particular call? That's nobody's business except hers!

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

- in Ontario, VA3TIT is available - VE3TIT is in use (by a gentleman
named Neil - would someone like to censor him too? :) ).
Apparently, just like the US, the Canadian government sees nothing
wrong with this suffix either. (and neither does Neil, I suppose...)

- the thing that really needs to be censored here is the sophomoric
behaviour, boorishness and tittering (sorry - couldn't resist) of a
few sadly immature folks here in the group.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

and, lastly

- Kim is definitely braver than me - I choose not to use my call sign
on the Usenet groups, to limit the number of crazies that have access
to my snail mail info, where she is willing to deal head on with
whomever, whenever in defense of her rights as detailed above.

In summary - you go, girl!

73, Leo


On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:54:30 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

If we don't want to talk about the Morse code test, maybe Kim's
callsign? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:

Mike,

Heh - I have carefully avoided that discussion so far, as it seems to
be taking on a life of its own.....aw, OK, if you insist......

For the record - and staying well away from the current "who edited
whose post, was that ethical and did they intend t make it look like
the original author did it?" debacle - my personal view of the "Kim's
Call Sign" issue is as follows (and directed at no particular person
or whacko in particular) :

- W5TIT is a valid and legal call sign issued by the US Government,
via the FCC - if they believed that it was inappropriate, they could
have removed it from the list of available suffixes just like the
Motor Vehicle Licensing folks do with certain (ahem) words and
acronyms

- she earned the right to it by becoming licensed, just like every
other Amateur

- she has the right to pick any vanity call sign that she chooses, so
long as the FCC has not prohibited it for whatever reason. Why that
particular call? That's nobody's business except hers!

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

- in Ontario, VA3TIT is available - VE3TIT is in use (by a gentleman
named Neil - would someone like to censor him too? :) ).
Apparently, just like the US, the Canadian government sees nothing
wrong with this suffix either. (and neither does Neil, I suppose...)

- the thing that really needs to be censored here is the sophomoric
behaviour, boorishness and tittering (sorry - couldn't resist) of a
few sadly immature folks here in the group.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

What you say is true, anyone has the right to exercise bad taste.

On 01 Jan 2004 08:56:39 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Could have very well happened, if not for the ARRL. Or, amateur radio could
have been legislated out of existence at one of the radio conferences in the
early 1920s. But fortunately it didn't happen.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

Whoa there! How could that happen?

And if it somehow did, what spectrum, power and modes would be allowed? What
services would give up spectrum?

What should the testing regimen be?

Depends entire on what the "new" service in this alternate-history line is
like, don;t you think?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Yeah but, following this new "history" of amateur radio, technology as
we know it today might not be the same. There might be no other
"services" to give up spectrum, seeing as how amateur radio has
pioneered much of the technology that people these days take for
granted.

73 de Keith
--
KC8TCQ
ARRL Member - ARES
SKYWARN

Keith Hosman wrote:
On 01 Jan 2004 08:56:39 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Let's say that for one reason or another that Hams never got back their
access to the airwaves after WW1.

Could have very well happened, if not for the ARRL. Or, amateur radio could
have been legislated out of existence at one of the radio conferences in the
early 1920s. But fortunately it didn't happen.

Fast forward to January 1, 2004. In 2003, amateur radio was reborn,
with testing and privileges to commence on this first day of 2004.

Whoa there! How could that happen?

And if it somehow did, what spectrum, power and modes would be allowed? What
services would give up spectrum?


What should the testing regimen be?

Depends entire on what the "new" service in this alternate-history line is
like, don;t you think?

73 de Jim, N2EY




Yeah but, following this new "history" of amateur radio, technology as
we know it today might not be the same. There might be no other
"services" to give up spectrum, seeing as how amateur radio has
pioneered much of the technology that people these days take for
granted.


Well, Keith, UR free to contribute what you think it *might* be like!
It was an exercise in imagination.

As for things being different, no kidding!!!!! That was the idea! What
would happen? What would the new amateurs use in the way of modes and
the like?

Use of imagination is seen in things like the few posts that Leo and I
made on likely modes and licensing methods.

Lack of imagination is shown in posts just saying "things would be
different, so there is no use speculating".

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

- Kim is definitely braver than me - I choose not to use my call sign
on the Usenet groups, to limit the number of crazies that have access
to my snail mail info, where she is willing to deal head on with
whomever, whenever in defense of her rights as detailed above.

Well, "Leo", maybe you have an offensive call; maybe you don't. It is
your perogative to keep us in the dark.

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.

Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.


- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there....... :)

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

Not the required thing, Dave - the courteous thing. Considerate, even
- like the Amateur's Code says:

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

You can read the whole thing if you like at the following address:

http://www.arrl.org/acode.html

Friendly is in there too. Worth a read sometime.


- Kim is definitely braver than me - I choose not to use my call sign
on the Usenet groups, to limit the number of crazies that have access
to my snail mail info, where she is willing to deal head on with
whomever, whenever in defense of her rights as detailed above.

Well, "Leo", maybe you have an offensive call; maybe you don't. It is
your perogative to keep us in the dark.

Thanks!

Personally, I don't suffer from some Freudian thing that causes me to
find call signs offensive. People can be offfensive, but not call
signs - it's just a license number, Dave......


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

"Leo" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.


Actually it is quite easy to QSO someone without using their call sign.
Except when 3rd party traffic is involved, the FCC rules only require that
we give our own call on the air. We do not have to give the other
station's. For example in working a pileup, we throw in our call. The DX
station manages to pick it out of the mess, responds, and gives a report.
We repeat our call sign and give our report. Many times we do not say the
DX station's call just to keep things moving.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:27:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

Good point, Dee - I'm not a contester, and was unaware of this mode of
operation. I'm more familiar with the one-on-one ragchew session, or
the 'net' scenario, where you identify the particular station that you
want to speak to, and go from there.

Now, if we can convince these two that Texas is DX from West Virginia,
maybe we can get them talking! :)

73, Leo


"Leo" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.


Actually it is quite easy to QSO someone without using their call sign.
Except when 3rd party traffic is involved, the FCC rules only require that
we give our own call on the air. We do not have to give the other
station's. For example in working a pileup, we throw in our call. The DX
station manages to pick it out of the mess, responds, and gives a report.
We repeat our call sign and give our report. Many times we do not say the
DX station's call just to keep things moving.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either :) )

Fixed header and post below - sorry, Dee!

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:53:13 GMT, Leo wrote:


Good point, Dee - I'm not a contester, and was unaware of this mode of
operation. I'm more familiar with the one-on-one ragchew session, or
the 'net' scenario, where you identify the particular station that you
want to speak to, and go from there.

Now, if we can convince these two that Texas is DX from West Virginia,
maybe we can get them talking! :)

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:27:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

"Leo" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.


Actually it is quite easy to QSO someone without using their call sign.
Except when 3rd party traffic is involved, the FCC rules only require that
we give our own call on the air. We do not have to give the other
station's. For example in working a pileup, we throw in our call. The DX
station manages to pick it out of the mess, responds, and gives a report.
We repeat our call sign and give our report. Many times we do not say the
DX station's call just to keep things moving.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

No problem. Anyway just to continue, there are other occasions that people
don't give both call signs. Take a net for example. The individuals in the
net may end up never stating the net control's call sign. For example, I
might finish my turn and say "Back to net control, this is N8UZE". It
varies depending on the customs of that particular net. However, in a rag
chew, it would be difficult to completely avoid the other station's call
sign. You will probably say it at least once just to insure that you have
it correct.

I find the constant repetition of both call signs that some people do a bit
irritating actually. Once I've established the contact in case of a rag
chew, I simply use the person's name and then give my own ID as required
under the 10 minute rule. If I've got someone longwinded or am working CW,
I'll give mine each time I turn it over to them just in case they run long
enough that I might not make the 10 minute ID.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


"Leo" wrote in message
...
Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either :) )

Fixed header and post below - sorry, Dee!

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:53:13 GMT, Leo wrote:


Good point, Dee - I'm not a contester, and was unaware of this mode of
operation. I'm more familiar with the one-on-one ragchew session, or
the 'net' scenario, where you identify the particular station that you
want to speak to, and go from there.

Now, if we can convince these two that Texas is DX from West Virginia,
maybe we can get them talking! :)

73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:27:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

"Leo" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so
chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call. Wouldn't it?
You bet.


Actually it is quite easy to QSO someone without using their call sign.
Except when 3rd party traffic is involved, the FCC rules only require
that
we give our own call on the air. We do not have to give the other
station's. For example in working a pileup, we throw in our call. The
DX
station manages to pick it out of the mess, responds, and gives a
report.
We repeat our call sign and give our report. Many times we do not say
the
DX station's call just to keep things moving.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

I'm sure you'd rather just respond to French out-of-banders on 6M.

Leo wrote:
Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either :)


HOWL!!!!! Looks like the thread is not dead after all, Leo! 8^). It has
just mutated into another version of the never-ending debate of Kim's
callsign.

So I think that we can come to the inescapable conclusion that if Ham
radio was invented today, it would consist mostly of debating the
relative merits of the callsign W5TIT.

So be it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Hmmm - Mike, you have raised a couple of good points there :)

LOL! es 73, Leo


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:39:14 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

Leo wrote:
Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either :)


HOWL!!!!! Looks like the thread is not dead after all, Leo! 8^). It has
just mutated into another version of the never-ending debate of Kim's
callsign.

So I think that we can come to the inescapable conclusion that if Ham
radio was invented today, it would consist mostly of debating the
relative merits of the callsign W5TIT.

So be it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
Hmmm - Mike, you have raised a couple of good points there :)

LOL! es 73, Leo

Good one, Leo!

- Mike KB3EIA -






On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:39:14 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:


Leo wrote:

Revision to Post:

Um, operator error - looks like I started typing on the wrong line,
just under Dee's header - this made the post look like it came from
Dee. (It also looks like Dee is replying to Dee......that ain't right
either :)


HOWL!!!!! Looks like the thread is not dead after all, Leo! 8^). It has
just mutated into another version of the never-ending debate of Kim's
callsign.

So I think that we can come to the inescapable conclusion that if Ham
radio was invented today, it would consist mostly of debating the
relative merits of the callsign W5TIT.

So be it.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

I'm sure you'd rather just respond to French out-of-banders on 6M.

How could you be sure of that, Brian? Did you have a point about Kim's
callsign?

Dave K8MN

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:27:42 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

Good point, Dee - I'm not a contester, and was unaware of this mode of
operation. I'm more familiar with the one-on-one ragchew session, or
the 'net' scenario, where you identify the particular station that you
want to speak to, and go from there.

Now, if we can convince these two that Texas is DX from West Virginia,
maybe we can get them talking! :)

Maybe on 2m SSB or CW it's DX. I've already worked Texas on 2m and can
live without a QSO with "W5 Tacky In Texas".

Dave K8MN

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there....... :)

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Not the required thing, Dave - the courteous thing. Considerate, even
- like the Amateur's Code says:

Kim wasn't being considerate of the views of others in choosing that
particular call, was she?

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.


Personally, I don't suffer from some Freudian thing that causes me to
find call signs offensive. People can be offfensive, but not call
signs - it's just a license number, Dave......


Actually, I have only one number in my call. The rest are letters. I
have had a couple of calls which had two digits. I've never referred to
any past or present calls as license numbers.

Dave K8MN

Leo wrote:


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

Neither can good taste, as Kim proves, but we can expect it.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there....... :)

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep :)

Not the required thing, Dave - the courteous thing. Considerate, even
- like the Amateur's Code says:

Kim wasn't being considerate of the views of others in choosing that
particular call, was she?

I don't know, Dave. She picked a callsign, and the FCC granted it to
her. Was that inconsiderate somehow?

If she uses it in an incosiderate way, it would be. But that's not
what began this discussion. In this case, it was stated that the
callsign is "inappropriate". Which, by itself, it is not. It's
just a callsign, Dave.

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?


Personally, I don't suffer from some Freudian thing that causes me to
find call signs offensive. People can be offfensive, but not call
signs - it's just a license number, Dave......


Actually, I have only one number in my call. The rest are letters. I
have had a couple of calls which had two digits. I've never referred to
any past or present calls as license numbers.

I'm sorry, Dave - my error. It's a license alphanumeric. :)


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

- no one other than the FCC has the right to prevent or censor her
use of it in any way (say, this might be the first legitimate use of
the 'Free Speech' thing here on the group!) Would those who refuse to
spell out her dreaded call here in the group refuse to say it on the
air as well? Jeez, seek help, your inhibitions just might be taking
over your life!

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

I'm sure you'd rather just respond to French out-of-banders on 6M.

How could you be sure of that, Brian?

I can be sure of that because of three of your postings.

1. You posted saying that you worked French amateurs where they have
no 6M authorizations.

2. You later stated that you would continue to do so because you have
no responsibility for where bootleg French hams want to operate.

And 3. You stated that you'd be happy to tune right by a legally
licensed American amateur because your're not required to respond.

That is how I can be sure.

Did you have a point about Kim's
callsign?

Yes. It is legal and valid, but you show a preference for out of band
Frenchmen.

Is there anything else?

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

You certainly wrote "annoy the holder of a call". If Kim has the
potential to be annoyed by someone's choice not to use her call, I can
certainly be annoyed by her use of it.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo".


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there....... :)

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep :)

My identity isn't hidden, "Leo". I don't know that your name is Leo. I
don't know your call. I don't even know that you're a radio amateur or
that you're in Canada. As far as Kim being honked at Jim's refusal to
use her call in a newsgroup post, you're simply wrong.

"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

You may operate or not operate. You may respond to a call by a station
or not. If three stations call after a CQ, you may legally and morally
discriminate by answering one over the others. You may choose to not
answer all of them. That looks like a fairly flexible standard to me.

Dave K8MN

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

I'm sure you'd rather just respond to French out-of-banders on 6M.

How could you be sure of that, Brian?

I can be sure of that because of three of your postings.

1. You posted saying that you worked French amateurs where they have
no 6M authorizations.

Not exactly correct, is it, Brian? I wrote that French amateurs had
called me and that I'd worked them below 50.200.

2. You later stated that you would continue to do so because you have
no responsibility for where bootleg French hams want to operate.

I have no responsibility to ensure that any station I work is entitled
to use the piece of spectrum he occupies. The responsibility for being
where he's supposed to be lies entirely with the individual operating.
How is it that you find the concept difficult?

And 3. You stated that you'd be happy to tune right by a legally
licensed American amateur because your're not required to respond.

Having read and memorized Part 97, can you quote the portion requiring
us to call any station or to respond to a call from another station?

That is how I can be sure.

You had only three things to add up. You still arrived at the wrong
answer.

Did you have a point about Kim's
callsign?

Yes. It is legal and valid, but you show a preference for out of band
Frenchmen.

Kim's call is legal but in poor taste.

Is there anything else?

There is much else. Keeping searching for knowledge.

Dave K8MN

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.


Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

You certainly wrote "annoy the holder of a call". If Kim has the
potential to be annoyed by someone's choice not to use her call, I can
certainly be annoyed by her use of it.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!


If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I :)


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there....... :)

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep :)

My identity isn't hidden, "Leo". I don't know that your name is Leo. I
don't know your call. I don't even know that you're a radio amateur or
that you're in Canada.

Speaking of personal prerogatives - that one is mine. I don't need
you analyzing my call to see if it meets your standards of decency,
"Dave"....

Sorry to add to the list of things that you don't know.


As far as Kim being honked at Jim's refusal to
use her call in a newsgroup post, you're simply wrong.

You think? :)

Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.


"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....:)
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.


That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

You may operate or not operate. You may respond to a call by a station
or not. If three stations call after a CQ, you may legally and morally
discriminate by answering one over the others. You may choose to not
answer all of them. That looks like a fairly flexible standard to me.

That ain't the standard that I referred to, Dave. Here it is again,
in case you missed it the first time:

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....
That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

Flexible as in yours to choose to adhere to at your own
convenience........


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Leo wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 16:45:13 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:30:15 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:24:42 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

- she deserves to be addressed by her call sign if she so chooses - I
assume that in Texas, she may have it on her vehicle licence plate
too!

She can use it any time she likes. I'm not required to use it.

Absolutely not. But she still deserves to be addressed by it if she
so chooses (it would be kinda hard to QSO with Kim without using it!)
You are of course free to refrain from using it if you choose - but it
would be rude to do so in a manner that is intentionally designed to
discriminate against or annoy the holder of the call.

She deserves? On what basis? If Kim believes that I am discriminating
against her because I disapprove of her callsign, she's right. If it
annoys her--well, I find Kim's callsign to be inappropriate. She should
stop annoying me.

On the basis that it is her legal callsign, Dave.

I'm under no obligation to use Kim's legal callsign here or even on the
air.

Hoo boy.

Dave was under no obligation to work those out of band French hams, but he did.

Sorry, I don't understand this one at all, Dave - how is Kim annoying
you? By simply existing, or by having a "bad taste" callsign. or ?

You certainly wrote "annoy the holder of a call". If Kim has the
potential to be annoyed by someone's choice not to use her call, I can
certainly be annoyed by her use of it.

Wouldn't it?
You bet.

I see you already have an answer for your question so I needn't weigh
in.

I'm glad that we agree on this point, Dave - it would indeed be rude
to do so.

The only point we've agreed on is that you answered your own question.
If you already had an answer you liked, you aren't asking me a question,
you're making a statement.

I see. Huh?

I wasn't asking you anything, Dave - you jumped in on a post to
Jim....that question was for him.


Common courtesy cannot be mandated, Dave. Just expected.

I think Kim owes amateur radio a little common courtesy. Don't you?

My point (again...) was that the callsign itself cannot possibly be
"objectionable" - it's a callsign. If dirty thoughts enter your own
mind whever you see it, that ain't Kim's problem.

Naw, "Leo", that won't wash. I don't have dirty thoughts about Kim's
call. I just think "tacky" when I see Kim's call.

I'm sorry, Dave - in ayour post to Dwight you refer to Kim's call as
vulgar. Here, though, you are saying that it's tacky.

I don't see the link between tacky and vulgar. Dave - please clarify!


If Kim chooses to use her call in an objectionable manner, that would
be a different issue. Please feel free to start your own thread if
you wish to debate this point.

Feel free to step in the middle of something and start directing, "Leo"

No thanks, I'll leave that to you, "Dave". Your much better at it than
I :)


Sure, I'd be happy not to use Kim's call on the air. If I hear Kim on
the air, I'll be happy to tune right by. If she calls me, I'm not
required to respond.

Now that's a friendly and considerate thing to do! The True Spirit Of
Amateur Radio right there....... :)

I don't find Kim's call to be in the true spirit of amateur radio.
Where's my obligation to reward bad taste?

So long as the callsign is used only as a callsign, where is the bad
taste? It's a callsign, Dave. Letters and numbers. W5TIT.

And all because of a call sign? Really. That's one scary call sign,
huh? Wow.

I'm not afraid of Kim's callsign. I disapprove of it.

And no one is denying your right to do so, Dave. That isn't the point
of this discussion.

Certainly it is, "Leo". You've already told Jim that he should use it
to avoid damaging Kim's self esteem.

Do take the time to reread my comments carefully, Dave - that ain't
quite what I said!


- if Kim interprets the intentional omittance of her callsign from
newsgroup posts as disrespectful towards her personally, then she and
I have something in common - so would I!

Please point out the requirement for anyone posting here to use Kim's
callsign.

The point was the omission of just W5TIT's call sign in the list of
all the other calls, Dave. That would not be the courteous thing to
do. Revising the list so that only first nams were listed, removing
the problem of the 'inappropriate' call, would be.

You know, "Leo", Kim's choice of calls wasn't a very courteous thing to
do, was it? Kim doesn't seem bothered by her lack of decorum. I'm not
going to let the fact that she's honked over her call not being written
by someone cause me a lack of sleep.

Missed the point, "Dave". Again. That ain't what she's "honked" over
- said so herself a while back. Get some sleep :)

My identity isn't hidden, "Leo". I don't know that your name is Leo. I
don't know your call. I don't even know that you're a radio amateur or
that you're in Canada.

Speaking of personal prerogatives - that one is mine. I don't need
you analyzing my call to see if it meets your standards of decency,
"Dave"....

Sorry to add to the list of things that you don't know.


As far as Kim being honked at Jim's refusal to
use her call in a newsgroup post, you're simply wrong.

You think? :)

Perhaps I misinterpreted her objection, Dave - please clarify.


"CONSIDERATE...never knowingly operates in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others."

I have news for you, "Leo". I'm living up to that line from the
Amateur's Code. I'm not operating in such a way as to lessen the
pleasure of others. Right now, I'm not operating at all. I'm posting
in Usenet.

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....

Wanna talk about interesting concepts? How about using part of the
"Amateur's Code" which says "never knowingly operates" to discuss
something where we're not operating? If I'm talking to someone on the
air, I shall to be friendly. I'm not obligated to work any station just
because that station calls me. I won't be working Kim on the air. That
is my perogative.

To the first point - that's just funny, Dave. You are a paragon of
ham virtue with a microphone in your hand, but give you a keyboard and
all of that goes out the window. LOL!

To the second - you sure have no problem working her here, Dave....:)
- in front of thousands of fellow amateurs, world wide......

But it is indeed your prerogative to not work any station that you
choose not to. Duh.

Except that those out of band French hams were sooooo irresistable.

That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

You may operate or not operate. You may respond to a call by a station
or not. If three stations call after a CQ, you may legally and morally
discriminate by answering one over the others. You may choose to not
answer all of them. That looks like a fairly flexible standard to me.

That ain't the standard that I referred to, Dave. Here it is again,
in case you missed it the first time:

You mean you consider it appropriate for an amateur to behave
inconsiderately or in an unfriendly manner when so long as he/she is
not on the air? Interesting concept.....
That must be one of those 'flexible' standards, huh?

Flexible as in yours to choose to adhere to at your own
convenience........

Like working out of band French hams...