| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#62
February 7th 04, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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, butthey 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 |
|
#63
February 7th 04, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#64
February 7th 04, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#65
February 7th 04, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#66
February 7th 04, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#67
February 7th 04, 10:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message ...
In article , (William) writes: Billy: Point taken, and I offer all appropriate apologies to Miss Clauson. However, her achievement, while a fairly notable one ***for a child,*** is no longer noteworthy for anyone over the age of, say, 10 years, and certainly a meaningless one for an adult. Larrah, at what age did you pass the Extra exam elements? Billy: I was born Oct 31, 1952. I got my Novice ticket July 21, 1981. I passed Extra Feb, 7, 1983. I reckon that made me 30 years, 4 months, 7 days old at the time. My figuring may be a bit off, as I'm somewhat bleary-eyed due to it being past my bedtime. 73 de Larry, K3LT It would appear that the young lady beat you to Extra by a couple of decades. She is a superior amateur to you. |
|
#69
February 7th 04, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#70
February 8th 04, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: . . . Move over ya newbies, ALLYA, the OF has logged in . . Hans hasn't played the game yet, tho. C'mon Hans . . . b. 05Mar37 Novice ticket, wn3yik some time or another in the 1953-54 timeframe. 16-17 years old. Novice WAS on 80. Most memorable Q: Wire blew down overnite. I "inductively coupled" my sleeping brother to the ARC-5 output and worked a guy in Pittsburgh mid-morning. General 10 months later. Give or take. First Q as a General was G5ZK. On 80 of course. Extra whenever it was in the late '60s when ya had to pass the stupid test or get booted outta the dx hot slices. 30-31 years old? w3rv CP 30 circa 1955 DXCC mixed #10k & DXCC Phone WAZ 5BDXCC #142/'72 Also known as the Big Barracuda.... bwaahaahaaa.... CHOMP! We have another OF RRAPer recently MIA, Dick Carroll wØex. I called him with the Bell thing a couple weeks ago to find out what's up, got his answering machine, left my number but have not heard from him. I think Dick predates me in ham radio. For a great bio of a *real* OF go to QRZ.com and punch in W3EAN. I got my first taste of ham radio during a '40s civil defense drill when I was assigned to him as his Cub Scout message runner while he was mobiling. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Extra class - question about the test | General | |||
| From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
| From the Extra question pool: The dipole | Policy | |||
| Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
| 1x2 Calls--automatic when upgrading to Extra? | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
