"N2EY" wrote in message
...
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.

The question is so what? How much is required of new
hams regarding repeater operation. If these folks don't
remember it, there is nothing wrong with them as individuals
or as hams. I had to memorize a bunch of dumb answers regarding
"space operations" as part of the Extra exam syllabus.
Do I remember any of it? Not on your life.

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.

Considering the Extra hams that swear, curse or otherwise
act as complete scmucks on the air, I'd suggest these folks
are great role models in comparison.

Are you proud of the example they set, Bill?

What example? One QSO between two licensed
hams. My God, you'd think this was being broadcast
on 20/20 or 60 minutes as the hot news story of the day.

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.

Amateur radio is whatever it is to each individual ham as long
as the ham operates legally. Don't expect every ham to
meet some unofficial role model of what a ham
is/should be according to Jim.

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.

Frankly I don't care who knows. I neither brag nor
hide it. It is just the way it is.

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.

Yet you offer not ONE concrete example of bad
habits according to Jim.

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.

They are NOT mandatory and as long as the two people
involved are communicating, it doesn't mean anything.
If you don't like their lingo, don't enter a QSO with them.
Pretty simple basic of life as I see it.

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.

The FCC defines ham radio as a service....BUT the FCC
has, to the best of my knowledge, never mandated a
specific "service and not a hobby" mindset for any ham.

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.

I have a weekly commute QSO with two other hams on 2m simplex
as we drive to meet for breakfast every Monday. We use phrases like
"I have the front door/backdoor/ etc. Guess we must be
real bad ham denizens of the airwaves.

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"..

I repeat, whatever works as valid communications between two hams is fine
with me. The point of standards and practices is driven not as a means to
form fit every ham into the same mold, but rather to have a common
set of practices for when it is needed...i.e. an emergency or
a contest, etc.

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.

You gotta love the doublespeak. They did everything legally required
but 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.

For you, but apparently KC8--- had no problem as to understanding.

["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"

Ditto my last. At least you didn't say they should have said
what's your QTH as many other hams do.

["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.

Give me a break...or more to the point, convince
me that it is a violation of the basis and purposes of 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.

Yawn.

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.

And who died and made you the operations standards police?

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.

Stll yawning.

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.

Yet you can't show me that anything these folks did was
a violation in the eyes of the FCC of any aspect of Part 97.
Answer this question: If the FCC had monitored the QSO under
discussion...what would the FCC have done...if at all?

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.

So where's the beef?

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.

Yawn.

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.

Perhaps that is common where you are. I have heard any
variations of a request for a signal report.

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.

Then nail those that 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

Yet another great American freedom.

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?

Why does it matter? If it eventually is a pain, then
ignore hhis call. Pretty simple choice as I see 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"?

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.

Interesting statement. Has anyone ever been cited for failure
to respond to an emergency call? More to the point,
how would anyone or the FCC know?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(William) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
"Flip-flop", Brain?

How do you get that from the post (requoted in it's entirety
here)...???

Posted with enough information that you just might get it.

The "disincentive" to which he refers is to taking a test for
which there is no REGULATORY requirement...

The Morse Exam has been a regulatory requirement since 1912. TAFKA
Rev Jim has fought to keep it a regulatory requirement while many
others have called it a disincentive (obstacle, hurdle, etc). Now
that you propose that the Morse Exam be kept for access to the lowest
100 KHz of each band, he says it's a disincentive.

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

You stay out of my shower.

Steve, K4YZ

Read it again, Steve.

bb

Selective reading?

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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, I think we should take up a collection and send Sir Scumbag
and Puppet Boy some Excederin...they've GOT to have one heck of a
headache from banging thier (diminutive) little heads on the walls
trying to score some points...And failing...

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(William) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

I highly
recommend killfiling his posts.

I read and evaluate every post he makes, and comment on those worthy of
comment.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, freethinking will get you nowhere. Killfile him NOW or western
civilization will end.

Right! Keep the low level of Independent Thought...do not let it
interfere with the strong signals of consistent tradition that keeps
the standards and practices of the 1930s forever set in concrete
in this new millennium.

CW (Conventional Wisdom) forever! :-)

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

I highly
recommend killfiling his posts.

I read and evaluate every post he makes, and comment on those worthy of
comment.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, freethinking will get you nowhere. Killfile him NOW or western
civilization will end.

Right! Keep the low level of Independent Thought...do not let it
interfere with the strong signals of consistent tradition that keeps
the standards and practices of the 1930s forever set in concrete
in this new millennium.

CW (Conventional Wisdom) forever! :-)

LHA / WMD

Concrete? CONCRETE???

Pah-leeze! Newington uses granite!

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message om...
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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, I think we should take up a collection and send Sir Scumbag
and Puppet Boy some Excederin...they've GOT to have one heck of a
headache from banging thier (diminutive) little heads on the walls
trying to score some points...And failing...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, my only goal is to keep you talking (and thereby convincing
any/every one who accidently stumbles on to one of your rants that
you're completely insane - most probably a future employer).

In article ,
(William) writes:

Right! Keep the low level of Independent Thought...do not let it
interfere with the strong signals of consistent tradition that keeps
the standards and practices of the 1930s forever set in concrete
in this new millennium.

CW (Conventional Wisdom) forever! :-)

LHA / WMD

Concrete? CONCRETE???

Pah-leeze! Newington uses granite!

I tender my apologies and admit the error. Membership monies in
action for upgrading to granite? Quarried in Maine and transported
south?

Remember the Maine! :-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

Dave, I think we should take up a collection and send Sir Scumbag
and Puppet Boy some Excederin...they've GOT to have one heck of a
headache from banging thier (diminutive) little heads on the walls
trying to score some points...And failing...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, my only goal is to keep you talking (and thereby convincing
any/every one who accidently stumbles on to one of your rants that
you're completely insane - most probably a future employer).

He seems to move around a lot and change jobs often... :-)

He only worked a few months as a purchasing agent in a mid-sized
electronics place that made set-top boxes. Must have learned all
about electronic engineering there! He said something to that effect.

He CAN quote from the Physicians' Desk Reference, though. That's
as useful in amateur radio as Kosher dietary laws, religions (outside
of the Church of St. Hiram), and s*x discussions. :-)

Wait! -

Maybe someone HAS put forth a petition in amateur radio similar to
Kosher...establishment of the Orthodox and Mode Laws to be
observed! [Thou shalt use CW on all Orthodox holidays or something
like that...]

Yeah, that's it. Kosher Kode!

Would Morris approve?

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Dave, I think we should take up a collection and send Sir Scumbag
and Puppet Boy some Excederin...they've GOT to have one heck of a
headache from banging thier (diminutive) little heads on the walls
trying to score some points...And failing...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, my only goal is to keep you talking (and thereby convincing
any/every one who accidently stumbles on to one of your rants that
you're completely insane - most probably a future employer).

He seems to move around a lot and change jobs often.

Odd, coming from somone who couldn't seem to stay in one place
more than a couple of years himself...Hmmmmmmm.

He only worked a few months as a purchasing agent in a mid-sized
electronics place that made set-top boxes. Must have learned all
about electronic engineering there! He said something to that effect.

Nope....enjoyed a break from Nursing after the death of my
daughter...but hey, you knew that...

He CAN quote from the Physicians' Desk Reference, though. That's
as useful in amateur radio as Kosher dietary laws, religions (outside
of the Church of St. Hiram), and s*x discussions.

Hmmm...wondering what "quote" from teh PDR to which yuo refer,
Lennie...I've not quoted it in this forum in any capacity.

(Not that I'd expect Lennie to be able to even understand it if
I did...Seems he makes up his own spellings and definitions as he goes
along)

Another LennieRant defused.

Steve, K4YZ

(William) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message om...
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

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, I think we should take up a collection and send Sir Scumbag
and Puppet Boy some Excederin...they've GOT to have one heck of a
headache from banging thier (diminutive) little heads on the walls
trying to score some points...And failing...

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve, my only goal is to keep you talking (and thereby convincing
any/every one who accidently stumbles on to one of your rants that
you're completely insane - most probably a future employer).

Well, Brain, as long as you keep posting obviously erroneous and
intentionally deceptive stuff, I guess I will have something to "talk"
about.

As for "proving" to any potential employer that I am "insane",
how about if I direct YOUR employer to this forum...specifically
selected passages wherein you make assertions you can't/won't back up
ALONG with YOUR expression of admiration for a person publically known
to be dishonest and deceitful...?!?!

We can further direct your employer to literally hundreds of
posts where you refer to third parties by demeaning or belittling
endearments where THEY did not lavish such endearments upon YOU.

Yeah...I got you two twerps by the tail and watching you writhe
around provides a bit of morbid entertainment. If you consider that
"insane", well, go right ahead. But you are, afterall, the source of
my "material".

Thanks.

Steve, K4YZ