Dave Heil wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:


Them olde-tymers have been stewing since 1958 when ordinary
civilians could legally use radios on HF without a morse test. A
mere 46 years ago and they've been enforcing the letter of the
unwritten law ever since. :-)


I'm not enough of an old timer to remember hams losing the 11m band. It
took place five years before I obtained my first license. I am pleased
that you've been provided a haven for your HF radio activity.

By the way, radio amateurs are "ordinary civilians" who happen to have
passed a license exam.

Dave K8MN

I have yet to meet a ham who "stewed" over loosing 11 meters. It was
hardly used, the only thing anyone might "stew" about is how it has
turned into the sewer pit of the radio spectrum by the cbers who refuse
to follow rules.

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:


Where's the "flip-flop", other than the ones you wear in the
shower?



In the computer. Millions of 'em. And not just the 74LS74's.... ;-)

JJ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:


Them olde-tymers have been stewing since 1958 when ordinary
civilians could legally use radios on HF without a morse test. A
mere 46 years ago and they've been enforcing the letter of the
unwritten law ever since. :-)



I'm not enough of an old timer to remember hams losing the 11m band. It
took place five years before I obtained my first license. I am pleased
that you've been provided a haven for your HF radio activity.

By the way, radio amateurs are "ordinary civilians" who happen to have
passed a license exam.

Dave K8MN


I have yet to meet a ham who "stewed" over loosing 11 meters. It was
hardly used, the only thing anyone might "stew" about is how it has
turned into the sewer pit of the radio spectrum by the cbers who refuse
to follow rules.


And I might add for senior citizen lenny's benefit, that is what happens
when you let civilians legally use radios on HF without a test, Morse or
otherwise.

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "Mark Little"
writes:

Tsk, tsk. Misogyny at work. It would seem that you are as 1920s are the
people you are complaining about.

Tsk, tsk, Mark, you fail to note _sarcasm_ in the posting.

With you, who can tell? You never keep your own stories
straight, Lennie...How do you expect others to do it...?!?!

Note some of the OTHER players in this zoo...emphasis on
machismo ("be a real man and learn code"...etc.).

At elast SOME of us have SOME chance of BEING "machismo",
Lennie...Unlike yourself.

Note the long-time name FISTS as an organization of code lovers
with its close emotional attachment to machismo, strength, power
and so forth embodied by "fists."

Or "fists", and in the colloquial term for a skilled hand on a
key, Lennie....?!?!

Naaaaawh. THAT would make SENSE!

Thumbing through any collection of U.S. amateur radio magazines
that have photographs of amateurs will reveal that U.S. amateurs
are overwhelmingly male and white. For at least a half century.

Here we go again...Lennie, what's up with you and sexism and
racism? Can't find any VALID arguments so you play the "race" card?

"Machismo" is a modified latino name for extreme maleness in
the traditional male role of strength, power, fighting ability, and
(to some) leadership of the tribe.

And so far YOU are the ONLY one making an issue of it, Lennie.

Me thinks you are trying to overcompensate for some other
"deficiency" in your personal life.

I should apologize for the use of a latino label since, to us in the
U.S. sunbelt (all states along the southern border), Spanish words
and phrases are somewhat common in our version of English. I
don't believe that is true in Australia or New Zealand or even the
UK where modified English is also spoken.

What you SHOULD apologize for, Lennie, is your habitual lying,
antagonism, and cruel and selfish behaviour...

The "tribe" aspect shouldn't be overlooked since there is some
extreme polarization on the issue and the fight-to-the-death
attitude of olde-tymers demanding strict and utter adherence to
to the glorious and noble ways of Their youth. Everyone MUST
do as They did or not be considered as "real" as They are.

The "must do as we did" thing has been disproven over and over,
yet you continue to try and envoke it, Lennie.

Why? Do you ENJOY being made a fool of?

Note the comment of Brian Burke in this thread. He notes that it
seems perfectly permissible for any FISTS member to denounce
NCI at any time, yet the converse is not possible. Hypocrisy
in clear evidence, the one-sided fight-to-the-death attitude in full
fury by the code lovers.

Another misdirected twisting of the truth...but hey...What's one
more amongst the hundreds of others, eh...?!?!

I find it curiously odd that the mighty male morseman legions of
FISTS be headed by Nancy Kott, clearly a female in photographs.

Clearly a female in person, too. And you'd get a chance to KNOW
that if you were a licensed, ACTIVE Amateur Radio operator,
Lennie...Ms Kott makes it to several of teh alrger events every year.

Of course, again from my geographical vantage point in the middle
of the movie mecca, Los Angeles, here there be experts in make-
up. Who knows what ever lurks behind the "front panel?"

Or who know's what evil lurks on Lanark...?!?!

WE DO... ! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

By the way, radio amateurs are "ordinary civilians" who happen to have
passed a license exam.

No. They are self-defined exceptional people who can do things in
their imagination that ordinary civilians cannot or will not.

Some radio amateurs are so self-defined as to be superior to any and
all radio professionals.

Some radio amateurs are - by public display - arrogant control freaks
who like to imagine they prey on ordinary civilians.

So far you are batting 3 for 3. Well done. Not rare.

LHA / WMD

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

By the way, radio amateurs are "ordinary civilians" who happen to have
passed a license exam.

No. They are self-defined exceptional people who can do things in
their imagination that ordinary civilians cannot or will not.

I've observed no one here defining himself in that manner. What we're
left with is YOU defining someone in that manner.

Some radio amateurs are so self-defined as to be superior to any and
all radio professionals.

I've observed no one here defining himself in that manner. What we have
is just YOU defining someone in that manner.

Some radio amateurs are - by public display - arrogant control freaks
who like to imagine they prey on ordinary civilians.

You seem to have a problem with anyone who has achieved something you
have not. You've surely memorized that N2EY of your likely actions by
now.
All hams are simply ordinary citizens who've passed an amateur radio
license exam. You aren't one of them.

So far you are batting 3 for 3. Well done. Not rare.

I submit that you don't know one end of a bat (baseball-type or the
mammal) from the other.

Dave K8MN

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Exactly what is wrong with the above dialog between the two
parties involved?

Now before answering, consider this:

1. Both parties ID'd as required by law.
2. Neither party used any type of clandestine or
secret code.
3. Both parties appear to have understood each other.

They certainly understood each other.

OK

Neither understood the concept of a repeater.

So what? Does that bother anyone?

It should.

Now, to what I understand: I understand that both of these
ops have brought their bad habits from CB radio with them.

What bad habits. I don't see any at all.

I find your statement rather sad and pathetic.

You may
not like their conversation, but there is NO aspect
of Part 97 that requires any specific use of only
"ham" approved lingo...or did I skip that chapter somehow.

I did not state anything about Part 97. Poor practice is poor practice.

Neither has
bothered to listen to other hams.

For what reason must they do so?

Must? There is no "must". There is "should". I don't subscribe to the
"get a license; buy a radio; rip the plastic bag off; mash the PTT and
talk" school.

What about their
use of the repeater as you dicribed is wrong?

Liddy is as liddy does.

These two were joined by a new YL op
the other day. She was a "do you want me to
pick up bread and milk?" type.

One of my best ham buddies is a long time Extra and his wife
chats with him on almost every homebound commute. In
some cases she gives him a "honey do" list of things to get
from the market on the way home. What's wrong with
that (i.e. what's wrong with "pick up bread & milk."

Apparently nothing....in your view.

I'll be very surprised if any of the three will be active on the
ham bands in five years.

I'll presume that should make you very pleased then.

No, what would please me is for them to operate properly and to know
what a repeater does.

Who cares about how we dialog with each other
as long as the parties involved are operating within the
law as per Part 97 rules and regs?

I do.

Based on what authority?

Sheesh, Bill. I don't need authority in order to care. You asked a
question. I provided an honest answer.

You are free to worry your
poor self about whatever you want, but thankfully you
have no authority to enforce your own standards of how
to speak on the air on anyone but yourself.

My poor self? You're starting to sound like Leonard H. Anderson. I'm
not worried. I pointed out what kind of hams we're now turning out. If
you believe that what I've described is acceptable, feel free to
exchange "four-roger's", "good numbers" and "first personals" to your
heart's delight.

We've even got a new op who can be heard moving between the several
local repeaters for a goodly part of each day saying, "This is KC8***
radio check".

And that violates what in Part 97?

Stupidity isn't covered by Part 97.

He'll sometimes pull this stunt on top of an ongoing
QSO.

That then IS a violation. I'd fully support the area hams
directing him as to the rules to NOT QRM an existing QSO.

We're all thankful for your support.

He has been informed on a number of occasions about how to make it
clear that he is seeking a contact and how not to QRM an existing
contact but he persists.

If, that is as you say, then report him to the FCC.

It'll happen.

When he does enter a QSO, he normally asks the
individuals he contacts if they have any radios they'd like to part
with.

And that violates what Part 97 rule?

I don't recall mentioning a Part 97 infraction. Do you often greet
folks on 2m with, "Do you have any radios you'd like to part with"?

He has now asked me about six times.

Maybe he has Alzheimers.

Could be though I don't know of many people in their mid-twenties who
suffer from it.

This fellow is annoying and
others--old timers and recent licensees--are beginning to avoid him.

Which is perfectly OK.

Aren't you going to ask "By whose authority"?

There is another new ham in the area who was previously a CBer. He was
licensed only this past May. He quickly became adjusted to how things
are done on the ham bands. He asks questions about antennas, modes
other than FM, bands other than 2m and about operating practices. He
aroused interest in his grandson, who is now licensed. I'm betting that
these two will stick.

Fine with me.

Glad it meets with your approval.

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Exactly what is wrong with the above dialog between the two
parties involved?

Now before answering, consider this:

1. Both parties ID'd as required by law.
2. Neither party used any type of clandestine or
secret code.
3. Both parties appear to have understood each other.

They certainly understood each other.

OK

Neither understood the concept of a repeater.

So what? Does that bother anyone?

It should.

Why? Nothing they were doing violated any aspect
of Part 97. If the lack of knowledge on the part of others
isn't creating illegal operation, then I don't care if they
forgot everything they had to learn, memorize or guess
to pass the tests to become a ham. I guess it would
really bother you too to know that I couldn't send/recieve
at 13wpm today if my life depended on it...even though
I once passed the 13 wpm test.

Now, to what I understand: I understand that both of these
ops have brought their bad habits from CB radio with them.

What bad habits. I don't see any at all.

I find your statement rather sad and pathetic.

I find your unwillingness to accept anything but "the official
way to speak on the repeater according to you" to be
pathetic too. It;s not at all different than setting up a
"ham radio politically correct" speech requirement.

You may
not like their conversation, but there is NO aspect
of Part 97 that requires any specific use of only
"ham" approved lingo...or did I skip that chapter somehow.

I did not state anything about Part 97. Poor practice is poor practice.

They violated NOTHING as to poor practice eccept
as defined by you.

Neither has
bothered to listen to other hams.

For what reason must they do so?

Must? There is no "must". There is "should". I don't subscribe to the
"get a license; buy a radio; rip the plastic bag off; mash the PTT and
talk" school.

Neither did rhe two you gave as examples. They did
everything legally required. They iolated NO operating
practices. Ib fact, please tell us what operating practices
they violated as you see it.

What about their
use of the repeater as you dicribed is wrong?

Liddy is as liddy does.

???????

These two were joined by a new YL op
the other day. She was a "do you want me to
pick up bread and milk?" type.

One of my best ham buddies is a long time Extra and his wife
chats with him on almost every homebound commute. In
some cases she gives him a "honey do" list of things to get
from the market on the way home. What's wrong with
that (i.e. what's wrong with "pick up bread & milk."

Apparently nothing....in your view.

True...but what do YOU consider there to be wrong in
such an on-the-air exchange? Would I be correct in
thinking you believe that asking hubby to pick-up bread
and milk is bad operating or, should be illegal?

I'll be very surprised if any of the three will be active on the
ham bands in five years.

I'll presume that should make you very pleased then.

No, what would please me is for them to operate properly and to know
what a repeater does.

Operate properly according to you and make you,
the self appointed knowledge police happy? You'd
better be prepared for lot of stress if what other people
legally do or don't do is that uposetting to you.

Who cares about how we dialog with each other
as long as the parties involved are operating within the
law as per Part 97 rules and regs?

I do.

Based on what authority?

Sheesh, Bill. I don't need authority in order to care. You asked a
question. I provided an honest answer.

Fair enough.

You are free to worry your
poor self about whatever you want, but thankfully you
have no authority to enforce your own standards of how
to speak on the air on anyone but yourself.

My poor self? You're starting to sound like Leonard H. Anderson. I'm
not worried. I pointed out what kind of hams we're now turning out. If
you believe that what I've described is acceptable, feel free to
exchange "four-roger's", "good numbers" and "first personals" to your
heart's delight.

I do on occasion.

We've even got a new op who can be heard moving between the several
local repeaters for a goodly part of each day saying, "This is KC8***
radio check".

And that violates what in Part 97?

Stupidity isn't covered by Part 97.

Yawn.

He'll sometimes pull this stunt on top of an ongoing
QSO.

That then IS a violation. I'd fully support the area hams
directing him as to the rules to NOT QRM an existing QSO.

We're all thankful for your support.

If all you are going to do is bitch about what he does, he'll
probably not stop.

He has been informed on a number of occasions about how to make it
clear that he is seeking a contact and how not to QRM an existing
contact but he persists.

If, that is as you say, then report him to the FCC.

It'll happen.

Which is exactly the right thing to do.

When he does enter a QSO, he normally asks the
individuals he contacts if they have any radios they'd like to part
with.

And that violates what Part 97 rule?

I don't recall mentioning a Part 97 infraction. Do you often greet
folks on 2m with, "Do you have any radios you'd like to part with"?

If it bothers you so much, don't respond to his call
when you hear him.

He has now asked me about six times.

Maybe he has Alzheimers.

Could be though I don't know of many people in their mid-twenties who
suffer from it.

Then just answer his question with a NO.

This fellow is annoying and
others--old timers and recent licensees--are beginning to avoid him.

Which is perfectly OK.

Aren't you going to ask "By whose authority"?

Not at all. No one, not you, me or anyone has any
obligation to answer him when he calls. Since there's no
mandated response to a call of CQ or XXX monitoring
in Part 97, then you could say that the FCC by default
authorizes everyone to ignore anyone they want.

There is another new ham in the area who was previously a CBer. He
was
licensed only this past May. He quickly became adjusted to how things
are done on the ham bands. He asks questions about antennas, modes
other than FM, bands other than 2m and about operating practices. He
aroused interest in his grandson, who is now licensed. I'm betting
that
these two will stick.

Fine with me.

Glad it meets with your approval.

I neither approve nor disapprove it.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Dave Heil wrote in message ...

I did not state anything about Part 97. Poor practice is poor practice.

[5 second delay, 4, 3, 2, 1...]

Kirk, "Spock, what the [expletive deleted] did he say?"

Spock, "Captain, he admitted that working out-of-band Frenchmen is
poor amateur practice."

Kirk, "That's what I thought he said, that double-standard loving son
of a [expletive deleted]."

Spock, "Captain, I find this species, Hamo Erectus var. CW, quite
amusing."

In article .net, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...

Exactly what is wrong with the above dialog between the two
parties involved?

Now before answering, consider this:

1. Both parties ID'd as required by law.
2. Neither party used any type of clandestine or
secret code.
3. Both parties appear to have understood each other.

They certainly understood each other.

OK

Neither understood the concept of a repeater.

So what? Does that bother anyone?

It should.

Why?

Because the concept of a repeater is one of the most
basic concepts of amateur radio VFH/UHF communication.
The folks involved are licensed hams - if they don't understand
the basic concept of a repeater, something is very very wrong.

Repeaters are not new technology, nor are they very "high tech"
or difficult to understand. There are plenty of questions on repeaters
in the Tech and higher written tests.

Nothing they were doing violated any aspect
of Part 97.

Not a strict violation. But neither do they project a positive
image of the technical knowledge of hams.

Are you proud of the example they set, Bill?

If the lack of knowledge on the part of others
isn't creating illegal operation, then I don't care if they
forgot everything they had to learn, memorize or guess
to pass the tests to become a ham.

I do. Amateur radio is not about seeing how little one can know.

I guess it would
really bother you too to know that I couldn't send/recieve
at 13wpm today if my life depended on it...even though
I once passed the 13 wpm test.

I would not think it was something to brag about.

Now, to what I understand: I understand that both of these
ops have brought their bad habits from CB radio with them.

What bad habits. I don't see any at all.

I do. Lots of them.

I find your statement rather sad and pathetic.

I find your unwillingness to accept anything but "the official
way to speak on the repeater according to you" to be
pathetic too. It;s not at all different than setting up a
"ham radio politically correct" speech requirement.

There are accepted practices of operation in amateur radio. They're not
arbitrary. They represent good practice.

There's a mindset that proclaims "it's just a hobby". This mindset is often
really saying "I'm not serious about this, I don't want to have to think about
what I'm doing, or consider other people's standards, traditions, methods or
enjoyment"

I don't buy that mindset for one second.

You may
not like their conversation, but there is NO aspect
of Part 97 that requires any specific use of only
"ham" approved lingo...or did I skip that chapter somehow.

I did not state anything about Part 97. Poor practice is poor practice.

They violated NOTHING as to poor practice eccept
as defined by you.

As defined by the standards and practices of amateur radio.

Of course, there are some who don't like the idea of amateur radio having
"standards and practices", let alone having to learn them or use them. These
are often the folks mentioned above who say "it's only a hobby"..

Neither has
bothered to listen to other hams.

For what reason must they do so?

Must? There is no "must". There is "should". I don't subscribe to the
"get a license; buy a radio; rip the plastic bag off; mash the PTT and
talk" school.

Neither did rhe two you gave as examples. They did
everything legally required.

And that's part of the problem.

They iolated NO operating
practices. Ib fact, please tell us what operating practices
they violated as you see it.

OK, here goes:


["KC8--- this is KC8***, come back".]

"Over" is better practice than "come back". More understandable.

["KC8*** this is KC8--- . I have a copy on you. What's yer twenty?"]

"I hear you" is better practice (simpler and clearer) than "I have a copy on
you". "Where are you" is better practice (simpler and clearer) than "What's
your twenty"

["I'm up here on the hill but you're scratchy. You must be overmodulatin
or somthing".
"Well I'm copyin' you pretty good considering the distance between us".]

Expressing ignorance of the characteristics of FM and repeaters is not a way of
supporting the basis and purposes outlined in Part 97.

["Yeah, 4-Roger. It's pretty amazin' that these little hand held radios
will talk this far from each other".]

There is no reason to say "Yeah, 4-Roger" when a simple "OK" or "Roger" will
do. Again, expressing ignorance of the characteristics of FM and repeaters is
not a way of supporting the basis and purposes outlined in Part 97.

What about their
use of the repeater as you dicribed is wrong?

Liddy is as liddy does.

???????

It means there is no reason to consider such operations acceptable.

These two were joined by a new YL op
the other day. She was a "do you want me to
pick up bread and milk?" type.

One of my best ham buddies is a long time Extra and his wife
chats with him on almost every homebound commute. In
some cases she gives him a "honey do" list of things to get
from the market on the way home. What's wrong with
that (i.e. what's wrong with "pick up bread & milk."

Apparently nothing....in your view.

True...but what do YOU consider there to be wrong in
such an on-the-air exchange? Would I be correct in
thinking you believe that asking hubby to pick-up bread
and milk is bad operating or, should be illegal?

I think such "honeydew" stuff is 100% acceptable if done in accordance with
established operating procedures.

I'll be very surprised if any of the three will be active on the
ham bands in five years.

I'll presume that should make you very pleased then.

No, what would please me is for them to operate properly and to know
what a repeater does.

Operate properly according to you and make you,
the self appointed knowledge police happy? You'd
better be prepared for lot of stress if what other people
legally do or don't do is that uposetting to you.

Who cares about how we dialog with each other
as long as the parties involved are operating within the
law as per Part 97 rules and regs?

I do.

Based on what authority?

Sheesh, Bill. I don't need authority in order to care. You asked a
question. I provided an honest answer.

Fair enough.

It's about our opinions of what amateur radio is supposed to be. Sloppy
operating and aping the antics of cb are not what amateur radio is about.

You are free to worry your
poor self about whatever you want, but thankfully you
have no authority to enforce your own standards of how
to speak on the air on anyone but yourself.

My poor self? You're starting to sound like Leonard H. Anderson.

Who?

I'm
not worried. I pointed out what kind of hams we're now turning out.

There are lots of new hams who learn the right way and do a good job on the
air. The above are more the exception than the rule, around here. And I have
found that they will often if not usually pick up the right ways after some
exposure.

For example, I once worked a newbie who told me on the first go-around that his
"personal" was Walter. I replied that my name was Jim. Did not call attention
to his poor operating practice, just demonstrated the correct way. It wasn't
long before he was using "name" all the time.

If
you believe that what I've described is acceptable, feel free to
exchange "four-roger's", "good numbers" and "first personals" to your
heart's delight.

I do on occasion.

Ugly with a capital UGH.

We've even got a new op who can be heard moving between the several
local repeaters for a goodly part of each day saying, "This is KC8***
radio check".

And that violates what in Part 97?

Stupidity isn't covered by Part 97.

Yawn.

Around here it is common to say "This is N2EY for a radio check, anyone hear
me?". Such a call has a very specific purpose: I want a quick signal report,
not a prolonged QSO. Often such a call on a repeater will result in a quick
exchange of info that lasts only 20-30 seconds. Often the replies will include
folks who went to the input to see if they could hear you there, and report on
the direct signal rather than the repeat.

He'll sometimes pull this stunt on top of an ongoing
QSO.

That then IS a violation. I'd fully support the area hams
directing him as to the rules to NOT QRM an existing QSO.

We're all thankful for your support.

If all you are going to do is bitch about what he does, he'll
probably not stop.

Most newcomers I have encountered want to do it the right way and are
receptive. A few aren't.

He has been informed on a number of occasions about how to make it
clear that he is seeking a contact and how not to QRM an existing
contact but he persists.

If, that is as you say, then report him to the FCC.

It'll happen.

Which is exactly the right thing to do.

When he does enter a QSO, he normally asks the
individuals he contacts if they have any radios they'd like to part
with.

And that violates what Part 97 rule?

I don't recall mentioning a Part 97 infraction. Do you often greet
folks on 2m with, "Do you have any radios you'd like to part with"?

If it bothers you so much, don't respond to his call
when you hear him.

I wouldn't

He has now asked me about six times.

Maybe he has Alzheimers.

Could be though I don't know of many people in their mid-twenties who
suffer from it.

Then just answer his question with a NO.

How many times?

This fellow is annoying and
others--old timers and recent licensees--are beginning to avoid him.

Which is perfectly OK.

Aren't you going to ask "By whose authority"?

Not at all. No one, not you, me or anyone has any
obligation to answer him when he calls. Since there's no
mandated response to a call of CQ or XXX monitoring
in Part 97, then you could say that the FCC by default
authorizes everyone to ignore anyone they want.

Except in an emergency.

73 de Jim, N2EY