Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , Leo

writes:

in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon
request to persons with appropriate Professional license
qualifications.

In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses
left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter
because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer
required).

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you should look again. But, that's not "amateur
radio" is it? :-)

An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows:

It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is
radio operation,

Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast
transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so.

I don't know of any TV transmitter sending RTTY.

I don't know of any amateur sending live television of 160 meter
wavelength either.

Precisely. By golly, you might be getting the hang of things, Leonard.


They
must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to
do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-)

Thank you for admitting some truth, however hollow it rings.

Whoosh! Right over your head...


But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of
the
amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't.

Why in the world would professional engineer licenses in the USA
have ANYTHING about amateur radio?

Precisely. You ARE getting the hang of it.


Agreed! But at least it still exists.

Yes. Seven year olds can pass it.

Leonard the Fox: "Those grapes are probably sour."

What does that say about your vaunted federal merit badge?

It says that a mere child is one up on you. She has the badge. You
don't.


Dave K8MN

On 07 Feb 2004 03:13:57 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On 6 Feb 2004 15:18:39 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message
...
On 06 Feb 2004 14:54:40 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo

writes:

in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon
request to persons with appropriate Professional license
qualifications.

In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses
left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter
because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer
required).

An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows:

It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is
radio operation,

Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV
broadcast
transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so.

Of course not - operating RTTY on the Amateur bands is dead easy -
connect the transmitter to your sound card, install a software
program, make a couple of tests and adjustments, and away you go!

Are those "tests and adjustments" covered in the "professional"
license tests?

Are the amateur frequencies where RTTY is allowed, and what types of
RTTY are allowed, covered in the professional license tests?

Well, the Canadian bandplans are not mandated by IC - they are
voluntary, and developed by the amaueur community themselves.

Not talking about bandplans.

Uh - you were, Jim - those would define the frequencies where RTTY is
allowed, no?


Therefore, not covered on the Amateur exam. Neither was RTTY, as I
recall - that was learned later, after licensing!

Band edges. Power limits. Amateur operating practices. Requirements to
ID. Content limitations. All different for hams. Not covered in commercial
license exams.

True, but I guess that our Government trusts those who have achieved a
commercial licence to look these things up before going on the air.

Or are you aware of specific instances where this policy has caused a
problem?


And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week
to get it running, so what?

Depends on the mistake.

Well, other than operating out of band, there ain't much that a
"sorry" wouldn't cover!

So when somebody decides to run ten or twenty times the legal power,
a "sorry" is supposed to cover it? Or when somebody uses ham radio
for commercial purposes, or music, etc.. a "sorry" is supposed to cover it?

Sorry, that's not good enough.

Those aren't mistakes, Jim - they are violations of law. Commercial
licensees operate within similar limitations...

You're experimenting, and that's what
amateur radio is all about.

Then why have any ham radio tests or licenses at all? You're arguing
for the end of all testing for a ham license, Leo.

Not at all -

Yes, you are. If a "sorry" can cover most violations, there's no need for most
of the tests.

How so? Are you suggesting that a testing plan capable of being
passed by 7-year olds ensures that these violations do not occur?

That's silly, Jim. I've heard different on the bands....


I'm suggesting that (many of) the radio skills acquired
in the acquisition of a commercial license are directly applicable to
the Amateur service. Transferrable skills.

Maybe. But most of what a ham needs to know is not covered by a
commercial license test.

And can easily be looked up - it ain't that hard!


Now, make a couple of mistakes and knock WNEP-TV off the air for a
couple of minutes - you might be an unemployed professional!

Which acts as an incentive to know what you're doing.

Yup!

Does WNEP-TV change frequency, or have to listen first before
transmitting?

That is a pretty simple skill - I'm sure the broadcast engineers could
figure it out rather quickly :)

I don't think so. They're used to doing all the talking and none of the
listening.

Hmmm - you don't happen to work there, do you? :)


and the Pros have made a career of it

All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen
on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of
something
most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession).

Politicians? :)

Some say politicians are a subset of the oldest profession. ;-)

Fully agreed! :)

So we should listen to those professionals?

Coming from a guy with a BSEE and an MSEE, Jim, that sounds a bit
silly - would you not consider yourself to be educated far in excess
of the Amateur requirements? Perhaps even a pro yourself?


Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their
profession,
don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not
question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They
must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to
do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-)

I'll take your word for it, having no personal experience with the
profession that you are referring to. If you say they're good, Jim,
then they're good! :)

I wouldn't know - I'm only an amateur in that field too.

Generally speaking, though, professionals are more knowledgable than
lay people because they are involved in their field full time, and are
held to standards of conduct and proficiency set by not only the
regulators but by their employers.

Generally speaking. However, commercial radio and amateur radio are
different fields. Being a "professional in radio", by itself, is no
indication of qualification to operate an amateur radio station, and
even less of an
indication of qualification to determine amateur radio policy.

Two different concepts.

That's right. Amateur radio and commercial radio are two different concepts.

Creative reading, Jim !


Being a licensed professional in radio implies a knowledge of radio
theory and concepts - many of which are tranferrable from one area
(commercial) to another (amateur).

Some. Not many.

Electronics is the same in both areas - the rest is regulations ad
protocol, which can be learned quite easily. Most folks I know have
had the most trouble with the electronics theory - not learning the
regs or operating procedures!



By nature, amateur activities have
much greater margins for error than professional ones - they are hobby
based, after all!

Then why have licenses at all?

Duh.


Amateur radio policy, on the other hand, is made by legislators, none
of whom require any knowledge of radio to carry out the
responsibilities of their office.

They need to understand certain concepts of radio in order to do the job.
Doesn't mean they all do.

Yup. Most are politicians, though, not radio people.


And, rather than just sounding like
experts, they are expected to demonstrate their proficiency - that's
what they get paid for! 'Stay current or move out' is the rule of the
technically-oriented workplace.

Current with what? Most TV stations are still broadcasting NTSC
signals, based
on a mode that's at least 50 years old. If you don't care about color,
a 1946
NTSC TV (if you can find one that works) is still usable. Then there's
FM
broadcasting which is about as old and good old MW AM, which goes back
to the
1920s.

With equipment that is vastly more complex than what the average
amateur is using, though.

So what? They don;t have to buy it with their own money, nor take
care of it with their own money in their spare time. Amateurs do.
Makes all the difference in the world.

Really? That's the most ridiculous statement I believe that I have
ever heard! The tech working on a $500,000 base station is less
committed or less competent than an amateur operator because he did
not buy it with his own money?

It's his career, Jim. Vastly more important than a hobby.


If you get the opportunity, have a look
inside a cellular base station sometime - all of the equipment in
there is computer controlled

Which means no licensed operators are needed at all.

Absolutely correct - those licenses are no longer issued for most
radio professions, Jim - you told me that!


Elimination of operators has been a major goal of commercial and
military radio services for years. One less warm body to pay. Just
like the railroads eliminated most block operators years ago, and the
telephone company went to dial equipment, and the airlines went to
planes that can be flown by two, not three.

- nothing even resembling a piece of
radio gear to be seen.

Only if you don't know what it looks like ;-)

You bet I do, after 15 years in the field. Looks more like a
mainframe computer than a radio. What sort of equipment do you work
with, Jim?


The signal out, though, is Hertzian, and as old as the universe....

If it's as old as the universe, it existed before Hertz.

But Hertzian, all the same - named after him, you know.

- and invested
considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than
would be possible for most hobbyists.

Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back

when
the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most
to be
at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone.

But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing
of
the
amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't.

Of course not - they don't teach professional photographers how to
take amateur pictures either....

Then they are not qualified.

But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily

Then there's no problem with requiring them to take a test
for an amateur license.

Sure, but according to IC, that isn't a concern!

IC is just wrong.

I'll take your expert opinion under advisement, sir.


And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters
and put
them
on the air without any certification?

Nope - this is what the Amateur bands are for (type approval not
required, unlike the commercial frequencies).

Then the "pros" aren't necessarily qualified in that area, either.

In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim,
even though our bands permit it.

I can, and have.

I know - but they just ain't making them like you anymore!

Yes, they are. There are plenty of hams like me around, building,
operating, using Morse code....That sort of thing really bothers
some people.

Not many, sad to say. Less every day.


Passing any one of the current ARS
tests does not require that sort of undestanding of electronics
anymore. Not like when you first got involved - it has changed a lot
since then.

It was not required when I got started either. The US tests went to
all-multiple-choice in 1960. Pick enough right answers on the written
tests and you pass, regardless of whether you understand the material
or not.

Canada may be different. But I don't live there.

Same, actually. 100 questions, 60 correct gets you a basic license.

60% passing? At least here it's ~74%.

Yup - we have asked IC to raise the bar considerably on the tests.


After all, it would be pretty
silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf
Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards!

After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy
to pass, even without a formal education in electronics.

Agreed! But at least it still exists.

Sort of, in vestigial format.

You seem to be arguing that such licenses aren't really needed
anymore.

No - I'm arguing that they are becoming meaningless - simple memory
work that a child can do.

If they're meaningless they aren't needed.

Agreed. Either make 'em meaningful, or drop the charade.


Has the licensing of young children caused any problems for the ARS?
Are they making a mess of the bands?

Don't think so!


btw, Canada used to have an age requirement of 15 for any class of
amateur license. Would you have them put that requirement back?

No - I fully support children becoming involved with Amateur Radio.
What I don't support is testing for the highest levels of
qualification made so simple that 7-year olds can memorize their way
through!


The USA never had an age requirement for a ham license, but at
least one frequent poster here petitioned the FCC to add an age requirement
of 14 years. Fortunately the FCC did not do so.

Too easy, I'd say,

The FCC disagrees.

Unfortunately.

They're PROFESSIONALS, Leo! They have to "keep current or move out",
right?
It's their JOB to know what's needed, right? Who are we poor dumb old
broken
down amateurs to question them? ;-)

They are regulators and politicians, actually....

They're still PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO. Who are you or I to question them? ;-)

Say what? Nice twist, Jim!


Must not question the professionals. Their egos can't take it.

Well, I'm sure that if you asked a holder of a first class radio
license who has worked in the field for years a radio theory question,
they'd probably get it right! :)

I've seen them get it wrong. Some don't even know what firmware is.

heh - Software that resides in non-volatile memory, usually EEPROM.
This one does! :)


IC has been advised of this under the recommendations that the RAC
made to them following WRC-03 - I sincerely hope that they listen!

Me too.

but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass
exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and
complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2
syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....)

And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public
info,
too.

True, but if one did that, they'd have a tough time staying employed
with it - employers have a nasty habit of asking their staff to
demonstrate their abilities empirically, on a frequent basis!

How often does the average employee at WNEP have to demonstrate
knowledge
of calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers?

The receptionist - never. The hands-on technical people - rarely -
but they would need it to complete their formal education in radio
theory, I'd reckon.

Is formal education necessary for the license?

Not to my knowledge! But i think that someone would have a difficult
time passing a commercial test without some training - there is no
"Now You're Talking" book for the GROL......


Rote memorization was what my point was about, though - and I'm sure
that was the case.

How do you know for sure?

I don't - but I'd say the odds are pretty heavily in my favour. :)

They are - but you wrote as if there were no other possibility.

I really don't believe that there is. Of course, if I was the type
who believed that holding an Extra ticket was the epitomy of amateur
radio knowledge, I'd want to believe that the girl was extremely
bright and well above average intelligence and capabilities for her
age.

Say....you don't know anyone like that, Jim - do you?


Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether
or
not she's qualified or knows how to do the required math?

Well, if she can, she certainly is a prodigy alright. Grade 11 math
in Grade 2 - that is impressive! I'd say highly unlikely.

Not Grade 11 stuff. Squares are 4th grade stuff around here. Logs
maybe
6th grade. Complex numbers probably 9th or 10th.

Not Grade 2, though :)

Nope. But not grade 11 either.

It is here - complex numbers are on the Grade 11 curriculum.


As I recall, Grade 2 was time for "Fun With Dick And Jane", not "Fum
With Maxerll And Hertz".

"Fun with Dick And Jane" is long gone.

So are Maxwell and Hertz, for that matter - you forgot to point that
out! :)

It was "Dick and Jane" when we were ther, though - remember?

And, whatever it is today - it is still primary education - not
electronics, math and regs.


The 7 year old in question is homeschooled, btw.

Ever talk to a 7-year old kid, Jim?

At least daily.

Listen often too?

At least daily.

How about you?

Daily, for a year. Twice. Then they hit 8 :)


They just don't operate at that level.

Some of them do. It depends on the child and the environment. Ever had
a
barely-7-year-old read "Watership Down" to you, and not miss a single
word? I have.

Yup - I have yet to meet one who could read a schematic, or calculate
impedance though - no wonder the watership went down!

You obviously never read the book.

I did - twice, out loud. Just humour, Jim - you should try it
sometime! :)

As I recall, the book involved a bunch of rabbits looking for a home,
and avoiding danger. Perhaps, in your edition of the book, the
rabbits learned about electromagnetism and current flow and morse code
and band edges and operating protocols and Q-codes and mathematics and
perhaps a smattering of quantum mechanics along the way.

In the version I read to my kids, there were a bunch of rabbits
looking for a home.......and avoiding danger......the end.


Good memories, though - like a sponge!

Much of what's on the test (band edges, regs) is pure memory stuff.

Thought the Extra was more theoretical than regulation based?

None of them are heavy on theory. Not anymore.

I see. Good thing too, for the young kids....


She is an Extra, though - I'll just bet she could build her own
transmitter from scratch (forgetting for a moment that 7-year olds
generally have enough trouble making neat letters with a pencil, let
alone operating a soldering iron....)

The 7 year olds I know write and draw quite well. Also use computers
and do math.

In one local second grade class, one of the first week's assignments
was to
write what you did over the summer. Expectation was 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
pages after
editing. (The kids are expected to do a rough draft, edit and final.
By the end of third grade it's outline, rough draft, edit, final). One
7 year old turned in a 31 page story (after editing) in the required
time. It was quite readable, legible, accurate and had all the
required elements.

I built my first transmitter at age 13. From junk parts. Worked quite
well. Of course I had previously built a couple of receivers and used
them
to learn the Morse code off the air.

There is a huge difference between 7 and 13, Jim. Big difference.

Sure. But the point is that simple transmitter building isn't that hard. And
there's no requirement that a ham build anything.

If you mean building a kit, I agree. If you mean building from
scratch (which is the first level that I consider a project of mine to
be homebrew), that's quite a bit harder.....


Since then I've homebrewed-from-scratch at least 7 transmitters,
8 receivers, 3 transceivers, and their related power supplies, antenna
tuners, control systems, accessories, test equipment, antennas and
shack
furniture.

The above does not include kits built and rebuilt, old gear restored
to
operation, military surplus converted to ham use, repairs and
adjustments,
and stuff done for other hams. Of which I've done plenty...

It's easy and fun. Too many hams don't know what they're missing.

Absolutely.

But you're not 7!

I'm not 13 either.

You were when you were building radio stuff - say, why didn't you get
off your behind and get your Extra at 7 like that bright little girl
did, Jim?

It took you 9 more years than her to get that ticket, Jim - you were
at least as smart as her, weren't you?

Or maybe it's pretty darn easy now, by comparison, eh?

Hmmm.


- unlike the chief engineer at
your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field
:)

He probably doesn't have a license and probably never built a
transmitter.

Is that a requirement for an Amateur license? Wasn't on my test....

Then why does it matter?

I don't know, Jim - you brought it up!


You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great
accomplishment for Amateur Radio.

It points out that the tests aren't that hard. Which some of us have
been saying for years.

Agreed.

And I applaud the little girl's
dedication to memorizing the material and passing all of the required
tests. That took a lot of effort on her part.

But it is a clear indication that the testing procedure is far too
easy - IMHO. It can be memorized, which removes any requirement to
comprehend the material. Do you believe that a 7-year old can
comprehend the theories of complex numbers as they relate to impedance
in a resonant circuit?

I'm sure some can.

Sure, Jim.

There are plenty of older hams who can't do it either. Would you take their
licenses away?

Of course not. That would be silly.


The whole point of putting that on the test was to encourage people to
learn technical material, not memory walk through it.

Hasn't worked, has it? It's just a hoop most hams have to jump through, isn't
it?

Bull.

Horse.

Fully agreed - the animal is irrelavant, it's still poop....


Have you ever been around really bright children whose talents are
recognized and supported, Leo? They're capable of far more than
many adults give them credit for.

Complex numbers are simply a way of dealing with a pair of related
electrical quantities. There's no need to have a detailed
understanding of that whole
field of math just to do some LCR calculations.

Agreed - and any idiot can learn to plug numbers into a formula.

Why such a nasty tone? "Idiots"?

Not nasty at all - any idiot can plug numbers into a formula. It
takes education to understand the root concepts. Like when you took
your Masters....


The idea was to learn the root concepts and theories!

Hasn't worked, has it?

It has in the commercial world!


And there is *no* requirement that *any* ham understand complex
numbers.

There is, if he really wants to figure out why his 50 ohm antenna has
an SWR of 2.6 to 1......

Not at all.

How so? That's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.....


And why would a 50 ohm antenna have such a high SWR if it's 50 ohms?

Do the math!


A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of
professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the
US?

No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited
because they were essentially the same in both services.

The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in
the USA
that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge
of
amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not
qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license
test
alone.
And that's still the case.

With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone
who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional
qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges
when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this
arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas?

No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests
include
the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in
its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact.

IC disagrees. But I'll ask them to take your opinion under advisement
:)

Wrong is wrong. But the IC are professionals, aren't they?

Yep - professional regulators. Them who makes the rules!

PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO!!!

No - Professionals In Government.


Personally I'd think, for example, that the guy who sits in a control
tower accurately vectoring planes all over our busy airspace is far
better equipped to carry on a two-way conversation on 2-meters than
the average amateur who passed a relatively simple test!

Maybe. But there's no requirement that he have any sort of radio
operator's license. He doesn't need to know how the radios work.
Complex numbers?

They aren'r required - you just told me that....

Exactly. Nor band edges, or power limits, etc.

All of which can easily be looked up. And memorized. By children.


He could
learn all of the operating procedures that he needs by reading a
couple of sections of the RAC study guide....a couple of nights would
be all it would take. And, in a real emergency, that's the guy that I
would want to see on the radio, coordinating things!

maybe - if he knows the environment.

Not the guy with
the mag mount 2-meter antenna on his callsigned baseball cap at the
local hamfest.....(I swear he goes to every hamfest in the world -
you've seen him at yours, haven't you? :) )

No. I'm too busy looking at rigs and parts.

Look up - he's there, along with the guys who look like the local
homeless shelter burnt down!

Gee, you sure have a high opinion of your fellow hams.

Well, not all of them :) These folks may be your fellow hams, but
they certainly aren't mine!

I find their appearance, behaviour and odor inappropriate for the ARS.

(Oh My God! I'm beginning to sound like that other guy!!!
AAAAAHHHHHH!)


For the USA to make the
same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were
changed.
Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible

for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the
amateur-radio-related
questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an
amateur
radio station.

...unless they can find a 7-year old to elmer them, that is. That is
some prettty tough material to master! LOL!

Would you talk that way to a 7 year old, Leo?

Why not?

How much time *do* you spend with children?

Every day!

I encourage my kids to work hard to accomplish whatever goals they
wish to achieve. What I do not do, however, is coerce them into
believing that they have accomplished something fantastic when, in
reality, they really only memorized their way through in place of
doing any real hard work.

Guess I won't be getting a job on the Editorial Committee at the ARRL
any time soon.....oh well!


btw, when I was in EE school, I wound up elmering my faculty advisor.
He was a
PhD EE but didn't know much about radio, because radio is only a small
part of EE. He knew *his* part of EE backwards and forwards, but
needed *me* to help
him figure out ham radio. I was glad to help, of course.

Yep, you're quite the guy alright!

Glad you figured that out.

You bet - I've had you figured out for quite some time now, my friend!

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:57:45 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

snip

A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of
professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the
US? With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone
who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional
qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges
when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this
arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas?

There is no such mechanism available in the United States. A U.S.
citizen licensed in Canada may not use his Canadian license when
operating from the U.S.

That's not quite what I said, Dave. If a Canadian with a Commercial
licence obtains an Amateur licence vis this program, that Amateur
licence is covered under the existing reciprocity agreement - it is a
standard Amateur licence.

Your point is interesting, however - one need only be a resident of
Canada to qualify for an amateur license - not a citizen. If a US
citizen living in Canada obtains a Canadian amateur license, how would
that be illegal to use in the US?


Dave K8MN

73, Leo

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil Ding Dong Schoolmaster
brandishing his Ruler writes:

Len Five Decades Over 21 but not acting a day over eleven wrote:

In article , Dave Heil snarly
aka "Mr. Warmth" writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

Larrah, at what age did you pass the Extra exam elements?

Mental or physical age? :-)

At which age did you pass an amateur radio license exam, Leonard?

Never tried, snarly dave.

Well, there you have it.

Have what? I don't have any amateur license. Got several others.

In the context of this newsgroup, that means just what?

Yup. You need to UPGRADE your neurons.

Hint: You made a general statement. I gave you a specific answer.

You didn't like the answer. You never do. TS. :-)

You'd better re-read it, Leona. A question reading "at which age did
you pass an amateur radio license exam?" is not a general statement. It
is a specific question. Your answer included "Got several others".
That has zip to do with an amateur radio exam. You seem to have
straight lined.

Snarly dave, I don't care about your amateur wonderfulness and
vindictiveness and bigotry to non-amateurs. I'm a pro, like it or no.

If you don't care, why are you still haunting a newsgroup dealing with
amateur radio?

Boooooo! I haunt you! :-)

Uhhhhh, I'm not a newsgroup.

Snarly dave, I said I don't care about YOUR amateur wonderfulness.

Be fair, Leonidas, you don't care about anyone's amateur wonderfulness.
It is quite apparent from your posts of these eight or so years.

YOURS, snarly dave. You are NOT U.S. amateur radio. [thank
the Lord...the League membership drive would be in hell if so...]

Oh, but I'm very much a part of U.S. amateur radio and I've been part of
amateur radio in five other countries. You aren't part of amateur radio
anywhere on the planet. You aren't a part of the ARRL. Your
connections to amateur radio are simply that you've commented to the FCC
about the service in which you do not participate and that you post
here.

It is clear that you are not a radio amateur and that
you are not, after all these years, "getting into amateur radio".

Snarly dave, it isn't in your power to demand "motivations" since
you are NOT a moderator in here, a judge, a jury, and certainly
not an executioner (although I'm sure you would relish the task
and with a side of fries to go with that).

I demanded nothing, Windy. I made a statement. Your response isn't
required, much less demanded.

I've been trying to argue the elimination of the morse code test
for ANY U.S. radio license.

Based on what--your years of experience, exposure, knowledge of?
What's it to ya, bub?

Problem is, some of you and your ilk (ilk are similar to huns but
are not, unfortunately, a vanishing species) DEMAND "motivation"
and some kind of perverse "unquestioning love of a service" that
is supposed to be a fun, recreational activity about radio. As a
result you spend hours and waste Internet bandwidth insulting all
those who do not agree with your wonderfulness, etc.

Unquestioning love? You haven't demonstrated interest enough to obtain
the most basic license available. Waste of internet bandwidth? My
total newsgroup posts over eight years wouldn't equal more than a couple
of weeks of your insulting output. Quit wasting bandwidth *snicker*,
Leonard.

Haunt
some radio professionals, using the endearing manner you've displayed
here and see how long they put up with your condesent.

It's "condescension," not "condesent" or even 'condiment' although
it must spice up your life on here.

I'll defer to you as the expert condescendent here.

I've worked with professionals in radio and electronics a long time
and they don't come across with the kind of stuff you and the
gunnery nurse and other "proud SERVICE members" do.

You've likely kept some of your insulting behavior in check when around
them then.

I worked professionally in radio and electronics.

Of course you did. In the "foreign service," right? :-)

That's right, though it is "Foreign Service"; and in broadcasting and in
the military and in industrial electronic component sales.

[NBC likes the term "fleecing of America" and that might apply? :-) ]

N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:

No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."

A number of us here have done so or do so.

Yes. And? :-)

....and did you have trouble connecting the earlier sentence with the one
below?

What sets you apart is that you are a non-amateur who
seems to get his jollies taking potshots at radio amateurs.

Only CERTAIN amateurs...such as those pretending to be radio gods
and the like. Look in a mirror to meet one.

The facts would prove that untrue. Terms like "Hum Radio", "beeping",
"Church of St. Hiram" would indicate otherwise. As to the radio god
thing, you have, in the past, said that I was a god, then that I wasn't
a god, then that I was a god, then that I wasn't a god. Why don't the
several of you inhabiting the tired old body of Leonard H. Anderson come
to some sort of concensus?

The salient point should be that I am still here!

Well, it is A salient point but I wouldn't call it THE salient point.
I prefer to think of it as an unpleasant reality.

There have been many
others participating in here that did not possess amateur licenses.

I can think of only a couple. Did they all have multiple personalities?

Most, nearly all in fact, quit, dropped out, probably in irritation at the
self-important personal wonderfulness expressed by those definitely
NOT representative-of-the-amateur-community-but-insisted-they-
ARE-amateur-radio. :-)

The more likely scenario is that either decided that they really weren't
interested in amateur radio or they have become radio amateurs. You're
the rare exception who can't seem to make up his mind :-) :-)

You can't handle persistence by others who oppose your viewpoints.

Really? I've been responding to your posts since 1996. When will it be
determined that I can't handle you?

All you can do is attempt insult and demeaning of those persons
instead of addressing the subjects.

I've done both. Insulting you and demeaning you aren't hard, take
little time (compared to the body of work you've undertaken over the
past eight years) and are richly rewarding. You are to amateur radio
what a chainsaw is to surfing.

QED most of today's mail package.

I sent no packages in the mail today.

With all those many years of amateur radio experience you could have
been doing great things for U.S. amateur radio...instead of trying to
"get" certain personalities on this newsgroup. It's counterproductive
and wastes bandwidth and others' time.

For a "PROFESSIONAL IN COMMUNICATIONS" you don't know much. There is no
wasted bandwidth. It is either there or not there. Beside that, I pay
for my access. Don't you? I've done my share for the DXing community
within amateur radio. What have you done for amateur radio in, oh,
let's say the past eight years of posting here?

You do NOT get to choose anything about what anyone is "supposed"
to say, to reply to, or anydamnthingelse. You keep thinking you do
every time you put on the SS uniform with the monocle. Try keeping
the armband off, it's so 40-ish.

Get it straight, Len. This is an open newsgroup dealing with amateur
radio. You are in no way involved with amateur radio. I am free to
choose to respond to anything posted here and shall do so as the spirit
moves me.

Get it straight, snarly dave. This is an open newsgroup, without any
moderator, accessible by anyone.

Gee, I believe I said as much.

If you get honked by anyone with an opposing view, you can't fall back
on insults and pejoratives and nastygrams against the person instead
of the subject. THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK. [obviously not...:-) ]

It wasn't worked very well for you, Leona. Is that what you meant by
"obviously not"?

Try not to "threaten" anyone. That only makes you look more like the
Waffen SS officer you seem to emulate.

Is a Waffen SS officer a part of that Prussian thing you've brought up
or is this now the "real deal" Nazi stuff? What threat has been
directed your way, Windy?

Remember something which the gunnery nurse must have forgotten:
Do as the spirit moves you, NOT as the spirits move you.

You seem to become less rational each day.

If something doesn't work, stubbornness isn't a cure. You are doing
it WRONG when no results come. CHANGE.

Wow! You're a guy who could use some material from your own play book.

Shave the head and learn to smile. That will make you more like
Colonel Klink. Lose several pounds too.

As a last resort, you can always go to your strength and bring in the
Nazi images.

Nein, Herr Robust, Wehrmacht, perhaps the military of Prussia of old,
not the "nazis." Das ist der "image" presented.

The Waffen SS is part of the military of the Prussia of old?

"That seemed to write itself." Remember that braggadoccio? :-)

Something from your Ouija Board?

Let's see. Amateur radio newsgroup. I'm a radio amateur.

Congratulations. I'll bet you have a nice license certificate suitable for
framing.

I'll bet you don't.

Now, back to
the question: What does your comment have to do with Larry's amateur
radio license and of concern is his job to you?

Back to your official position as Ding Dong Schoolmaster: Whoinheck
appointed you anything that you can DEMAND answers? :-)

I find it quite amusing that a question from someone becomes a "DEMAND"
in your mind.

Quit shaking that ruler around. You can't slap anyone's wrist for
writing anything in here. Try to realize that you are POWERLESS
in that regard.

Yes, master. I am POWERLESS. I am under your complete control.

It seems to be karma
that forces you to live up to the N2EY profile of your likely actions.

TAFKA Reverend Jim has his own problems and those are not your
concern.

How would you know?


He's just another newsgroupie but with a bad case of
thinking he has to comment on everyone's postings all the time. :-)

Ummmm, isn't that what you do here?

Actually, old boy, you have quite the attitude toward radio amateurs.

ONLY to CERTAIN ones. Tag, you're IT. :-)

Only certain folks, like those involved in "Hum Radio" and those who are
ARRL members? Only those who support morse code testing? Only those
who disagree with you on the issue of a minimum age for the amateur
radio in which you are not a participant?

The best man at my wedding is still a radio amateur. The best work
manager I ever had is still a radio amateur...

....and in all this time, you STILL aren't licensed. That must be a
pretty bitter pill.

now moved to mid-
California where my wife and I were overnight guests. I don't have any
"attitude" towards the group (or "community" as some wish to lump it),
just CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS.

The group of individuals grows ever larger.

You're insulting, rude and immature.

Self-professed gods seem to get that impression! TS. :-)

I've never made such a profession. The only person who has done so
(you), has seen fit to reverse himself a number of times. :-(

Tsk, tsk, tsk, "some things seem to write themselves," don't they?

A lot of your stuff seems to write itself.

If you're waiting for radio
amateurs to be impressed by your professional credentials, you're likely
going to be disappointed.

Oh, my, judging all others by the things YOU do? :-)

Er, I don't believe I've ever expected radio amateurs to be impressed by
my professional credentials.

Poor baby, haven't you realized that I am retired?

Oh, I've realized it, Len. Nobody but a person with lots of empty time
on his hands could produce your r.r.a.p. output.

I don't HAVE to
"impress anyone."

Lucky for you that it's so. It hasn't prevented you from trying though.

I did what I did. Now I don't have to take any
BS* from anyone on how "important" THEY are.

If, by important, you mean that they hold amateur radio licenses and you
don't, I'm afraid you're wrong. You do have to take it, and often.

Neither am I
"impressed" by complex radios or electronic systems, having been
around many such things, some far more complex than any product
of Ten-Tec. If you have one and are amazed by it, be my guest.
Just quit making out How Good You Are Because You Have One.

wHat GaVE yOu ThE idEA THat i bEliEVe ThAT I tHiNK i'M gOOd BeCAusE I
"hAvE onE"? It's more like: "I have one and it's good". You aren't
impressed with it because 1) you don't have one and 2)you don't have a
license to use one.

I got into the whole big entire world of radio because it was very
interesting, a fun job despite some obvious challenges in some
technological areas. It also paid well if a good job was done. I got
paid reasonably well. As TAFKA Rev. Jim once quoted: "It ain't
braggin' if ya done it." I did it.

But if someone else did anything, you are quite ready to prove the
validity of the N2EY profile of your likely actions. When it comes to
amateur radio, you didn't do it.

It wasn't a casual, throwaway mention and your newsgroup statements of
the past are here for a long, long time.

Like I've said many times, feel free to cut and paste everything I ever
wrote from Google archives.

Your permission isn't required. I've quoted some of your material from
time to time. So have others.

Get your own newsgroup if you like.

I'm quite content here, thanks. I am, after all, a radio amateur.

Will that cure your vindictiveness? I doubt it. You will be angry
anyway. It's your personality.

Thus sayeth, the original Grumpy Old Man.

I haven't changed my mind about you, Len.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, stubborn as they come (you should be sitting in front
of your orion when that happens).

You will NOT ever retract anything you've said, you will rationalize the
beejums out of what you said in order to make you look good to
yourself. Few give a darn. Feel self-triumphant as much as you want.
It's a free country. Except in this newsgroup where one MUST have
an amateur callsign officially bestowed on their cub scout uniforms
or claim they have one while remaining anomalous. :-)

I'll happily retract anything which I feel is in error. What statements
of your have you retracted, old boy?

You're a victim of your own inertia and braggadocio.

Nope. Just a Fatal Attraction to balloon-popping of the self-important,
the self-grandiose, the self-proclaimed god-gurus of hum radio. :-)

That's so much fun! :-)

I'm sure it is, Walter. Give my regards to the rest of the Mitty clan.

To twist a phrase: If you haven't done it, it
is most certainly bragging. You haven't obtained a license and aren't
likely to do so.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, snarly dave. Still at it. You never learn.

I have obtained licenses (note the plural) in radio. Amateur hasn't
been one of them. That includes station as well as operator.

None of the "plural" has anything to do with amateur radio. You are to
amateur radio what a butter churn is to house painting.

I may still get a hum license. I may not. Why is that a concern?

Gee, I dunno, Mister "Extra right out of the box", poster of eight years
worth of inexperienced views on how amateur radio should be regulated.

I'm still a citizen of the United States of America with all the rights
thereof. No self-important, self-officious SOB* is going to take
those rights away from me. At least one other SOB* tried but
failed (miserably).

Let's see. You have the right to be heard by your government. Check.
You have the right to post here. Check. I'm sorry, I can't find the
rights addressing freedom from disagreement, derision or laughter.
Maybe you can post them in your free time.

Amateur radio is supposed to be a fun recreational activity involving
radio and the radio arts.

You'll have to take my word for it, Leonard. It is all of those things
and more.


From the actions of a few who do NOT
adequately represent the "amateur community," it seems to be a
vindictive group of ego-honed Cassius Clay imitators who assume
the invisible mantle of gods of radio. They should get better tailors
and see what happened to Muhammed Ali in later life.

Any radio amateur is part of the amateur radio community. You are not a
part of that community. You can't even decide who is a god or not a god
within that community. I'll give you a hint. It would likely not be
someone from outside the community.

I checked up on Muhammed Ali. Like you, he never became a radio
amateur.
Unlike you, he never tried to tell radio amateurs what was good for
them.

A few in
that category think that amateur radio is a "service" like the military
and assume rank and insignia demanding respect (and salutes).
Those should be arrested for impersonating officers. :-)

What's the penalty for impersonating a radio amateur?

The ARRL does not adequately represent the "amateur community"
either since their published numbers indicate a decided member-
ship less than a quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs. They like to
think they control everything but they don't.

You tell 'em, Len. YOU CONTROL everything in amateur radio *snicker*.

The more-public access
granted by the Internet has shown the FCC that the ARRL is just a
special interest group and not really that representative.

You are to the ARRL what you are to amateur radio, not a participant.

Consider yourself stuffed.

It's after supper and I am adequately filled, thank you for your concern.



My wife is a good cook, we have a newly remodeled kitchen, a
comfortable income and life, yet she scolds me for playing with
the seven-year-olds in radio expertise in a newsgroup. She's right.
:-)

I'll bet she says that when you play with the seven-year-olds in the
neighborhood too. :-) :-)

It must be nice having the only wife who is a good cook, the only folks
with a remodeled kitchen (what was wrong the old one?), the only one
with a comfortable income and comfortable life. The rest of us are
envious, I'm sure. Tell us about your ham shack, won't you?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Entertain us with your credentials once again, won't you, Len.

How can I do it "again" when you didn't like it the first time?

I don't remember the first time. I remember many of the other times
though.

Tell the stage manager to change the lights or maybe change
the flats.

That isn't likely to improve your story.


After more than seven
years of posting your diatribes in an amateur radio newsgroup, you're no
closer to obtaining even the most basic no-code amateur radio license.

Was never my intent to GET a ham license any class.

Your boast of getting an "Extra right out of the box" was an empty one?
Your description of several decades of interest in amateur radio was a
falsehood?

After seven years you are no closer to understanding that.

The difficulty I'm having understanding it probably has something to do
with the discrepancy in your story.

You
desperately need to UPGRADE your neuron count! Download
some more from Ten-Tec. You can do it.

Nope, Ten-Tec has no neuron upgrade page. They do have one for firmware
upgrades. You do understand what firmware is, don't you?

Dave K8MN

On 07 Feb 2004 06:57:36 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:34:03 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Len Five Decades Over 21 but not acting a day over eleven wrote:

If you're waiting for radio
amateurs to be impressed by your professional credentials, you're likely
going to be disappointed.

I must admit, I've taken a shot or three at Len over exactly the same
issue - no Amateur callsign = no valid opinion on Amateur issues.

No problem to me. :-) Somebody shoots at me in the newsgroup
and I shoot back...which bothers the hokey heck out some. :-)

Me too - which is how our original - um - exchage of opinions got
started in the first place. Water under the bridge.....

snip

...consider also benevolent, grandfatherly VEs over here, such
as the ones "passing" the written exams of two six year olds about
three years (?) or so ago. :-)

Yup, we have them too - and there is a big fanfare when anyone under
the age of 16 tests for a license. Which makes sense - we are trying
to encourage young kids to get interested in the hobby, so that it
doesn't die out.

Doesn't mean that we should make the testing process so easy as to be
meaningless, though! Or deify kids who manage to memorize their way
to the top.....

snip

Actually, I'm not absolutely interested in "being qualified" by a
pretty certificate (suitable for framing) from our FCC. I got
really and truly qualified to do that a half century ago, operating
HF transmitters having RF power outputs of 1 to 40 KW. The
operating word ought to be "authorized," not qualified. Our FCC
exists to regulate U.S. civil radio and interstate communications
(NTIA oversees military and government agency communications)
and their use of licenses is as a regulatory tool.

Agreed - I see the Amateur license as an authorization, not
qualification. A license to learn, per se....not proof that the
learning has been completed.


Besides, my 'first phone got changed to a General Radiotelephone
(Commercial) license some time ago. Watch this space since the
resident gunnery nurse is going to come in on that with six-guns
blazing, cussing up a storm but getting only misfires and overcast.
:-) heh heh heh.

Over 40 years ago I joined a grass-roots campaign for a young
senator from Massachusetts wanting to become President of the
USA. J.F.K. was Catholic but I had no desire to become Catholic.
Neither did I want any political position, favor, or anything else as a
result of such voluntary work on his behalf. Kennedy won by a
narrow margin. It was a "cause" that was just personal, nothing else
to justify it.

Some of the anal-retentive olde-tyme hammes in here DEMAND a
justification for action, all but invoking a death penalty if one doesn't
live up to their demands. Good grief, those are Charley Browns that
Sparky never drew...except the maybe beagle dreaming of being a
WW1 fighter ace in his Sopwith Camel. They dream of Being In
Charge, of being some kind of "ace" in radio through their mighty
macho morsemanship. [that kind of "ace" is not spelled with a C or E but
with two Ss...:-) ] Maybe its some kind of "radio testosterone"?
Most of the time those MMMs just try to use a humiliation ploy with the
incessant "I've got a license and you ain't, nyah, nyah, nyah." Geez,
its only a HOBBY license but you would think they got promoted to
Chief of Staff of Amateur Signals with some kind of field grade rank
(colonel to general, complete with flag on front car bumper)... :-)

My only objective overall is to be one of many advocating the elimination
of the morse code test for a license. That's it. But, there's another
element that may be at work with some of the MMMs: If the morse
code test is eliminated, they will lose bragging rights to their fabled
rank, their status as guru radio operator gods in amateurism. That is
extremely hard on their personal self-esteem and they get all steamed
over such perceived blows to their boilers. They elevated themselves
(without "bootstrap" circuit) to lofty positions and had most of their
pedestals yanked away. They lost federal support for their mental
hernias. They are but mortal and their works are not that mighty after
all (to paraphrase Tenneyson). Nobody cares to admire their deeds
and doings to standards and practices of 70 years ago, a time when
they did not exist.

As far as I'm concerned, by all objective measure, there's just no need
for any government to require a morse code test for any amateur radio
license. There's no ITU requirement to "obey." Not since July of last
year. The IARU agrees, despite the spin of the ARRL trying to indicate
otherwise. The ARRL doesn't agree. PCTAs don't, indeed can't agree
since the loss of the code test as a requirement would be an ego
blow equivalent to mass destruction.

The familiar argument heard in here is to the effect that "ONLY
amateurs can discuss, direct, or implement rules and regulations
of and about amateurs." That's a base falsity. The United States
Constitution, in its First Amendment, grants the right of ALL U.S.
citizens to petition our government for the redress of grievances.
We have a number of similar rights which don't discriminate in the
favor of elitist, special interest groups. Our FCC was created by an
Act of our Congress in 1934. In all the time since then (almost 70
years) there has been absolutely NO law or condition that any
Commissioner or staff member hold any amateur radio license in
order to make, change, or enforce amateur radio regulations. None.
No such law exists...except in the imaginary posse commitatus
fantasy of a small group of would-be tyrants of opinion...some of them
in here parading around in the false patriotism of "honor and respect
and tradition for 'the service.'" BS...a food group already processed
through by male bovines.

All of the MMMs who parrot their false patriotism and elitism are
really only trying to elevate themselves to lofty but imaginary positions
of glory and gradeur that don't exist. Not a good role model for
enhancing any interest in a fun, recreational activity involving radio.
But, it satisfies them no end for, in their imaginary ego world, they
are absolute champions of whatever they have done. All others are
non-existant.

Actually, in such an environment, there is no possibility of rational,
civilized discussion. Except for one little thing.

This is (so far) an open, public newsgroup, unmoderated. There are no
guards checking credentials at any door, there are only the self-styled
Waffen SS equivalents roaming about, snarling about "qualifications."

Interesting place, this newsgroup. Kraft-Ebbing could have had a
second edition to cover it for the psychiatric professionals. Some get
oriongasms even... :-)

I suspect that Masters and Johnson would have found inspiration here
too...... :)


LHA / WMD

73, Leo

Leo wrote:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:57:45 GMT, Dave Heil
wrote:

Leo wrote:

snip

A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of
professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the
US? With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone
who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional
qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges
when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this
arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas?

There is no such mechanism available in the United States. A U.S.
citizen licensed in Canada may not use his Canadian license when
operating from the U.S.

That's not quite what I said, Dave. If a Canadian with a Commercial
licence obtains an Amateur licence vis this program, that Amateur
licence is covered under the existing reciprocity agreement - it is a
standard Amateur licence.

A Canadian with a valid Canadian amateur radio license may use the
license in the U.S. under reciprocal agreement, no matter if he receives
it by passing the exam or receives it by virtue of his professional
standing.
The only means by which someone may obtain a U.S. amateur license is by
passing the exam.

Your point is interesting, however - one need only be a resident of
Canada to qualify for an amateur license - not a citizen. If a US
citizen living in Canada obtains a Canadian amateur license, how would
that be illegal to use in the US?

....because that individual then falls under U.S., not Canadian law.

Dave K8MN