Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuringdepends
 

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,

ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make
some
sense.

Mike,

There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry
level
license:

1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you
can't
run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't

need

to


be tested on it)

Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should


be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those
giving the tests are being overburdened?


It's not about being overburdened, but about matching the test to the
privileges. Why test for 1500 W safety if only 100 W is allowed?

Well then, why not just limit ALL classes to those low powers an
eliminate (mostly) the so called safety problem altogether. Make all
appliance equipment mandatory and pot the innards. Make new foolproof
connectors, and require all antennas to be installed by properly
licensed contractors.

There are some folks who would like to do just that!

I know answering a question with a question is bad form, but frankly,
it isn't much of a leap of imagination to rationalize our cherished
privileges right out from under our feet.

Which is what those "it's just a hobby" folks are doing, whether they
realize it or not.

Those people are a shortsighted as the people proposing the "no
homebrew" rules. Your wording "avocation" is the proper term AFAIAC. I
practive my "hamliness" that way. Is it a hobby to work with disaster
preparedness teams? If so we are the only ones classed that way in the
group. Is it a hobby to be a part of the Skywarn system? Is it a hobby
to volunteer time for public events such as the NYC or LA marathons, or
bike races or local charity events?

Of course it isn't. And that's why some people deny that hams are a significant
part of such activities.

DO some hams practice this as a hobby? Sure. But that doesn't make it a
hobby. In the overall, it is a service.

Or to put it another way, it's a nonprofit, volunteer activity.

I assume that you have been in group meetings, where the original idea
is mutated beyond recognition? I see it happen all the time. This is
only one more reason why I don't like these proposals *at all*. They
seem a bit of a Pandora's box IMO.

I know exactly what you mean. However, note that for over half a century
we've
had license classes with reduced power privileges and it hasn't led us down
the slippery slope.

But we haven't had people suggesting that we have a commercial
equipment requirement, we haven't had a commissh that we are annoying
with our so called silly concerns about BPL, and concerns for our
"safety". Cell phones and HF rigs both use RF correct? So why do hams
get to use 1.5 thousand watts of power while those poor cell phone users
have to get by on less than a watt? If RF is dangerous, it is dangerous,
....right? Even though I'm being facetious, I can garuntee that I can
sell 9 out of 10 non-ham friends I know *that* argument.

Yet we have power limits on *all* hams in certain subbands today.

Give me a good argument why Hams should need to run power over 100
Watts, 50 Watts, 5 Watts?

Because under certain circumstances those levels of power are inadequate.

Then just call them on the cell phone if you need to get through that
bad! 8^)

Actually, you have just expressed the fundamental image problem that Amateur
Radio faces in the 21st century. Many people, including some hams, don't really
"get" what Amateur Radio is all about.

Here's my definition:

Amateur Radio is fundamentally about radio as an end in itself, rather than as
a means to another end.

Otherwise, might as well use a cell phone or email.

However, this does not mean that *all* safety questions should be removed
-
just those connected with high power. And those high power questions must
then migrate to the next-higher class of license.

If high power RF is dangerous, why should it be allowed at all?

It's not dangerous if proper precautions are taken.

Bingo! Part of the preocess is education, and the tests show that
unless the applicant has cheated, they have picked up *something* in the
way of safety knowledge.

And that's why it should be in the test, and why the bad parts of the NCVEC
proposal must be opposed.

For
anyone. If we wanna start that game, that question WILL be asked. Do you
not talk all over the world with qrp power? I myself have talked to
Australia on 10 watts. No record, but just a personal best. They hear
those stories, and suddenly it looks like that might be able to protect
those self destructive hams from themselves.

The point of license testing is not to protect someone from their own
ignorance, but to protect others from it.

Mostly, but RF safety is one exception. The danegrs of high power RF
and High voltages in general is mostly a danger to the operator.

I disagree in part. The danger of RF exposure is to anyone in the RF field.

Just like cigarette smokers.

Cigarette smoking is much more hazardous than RF.

Sure, but you do know what my point is, don't you?

Not really. There's no safe nonzero exposure level to cigarette smoking.

And with the efforts to lower cell phone power going on, plenty
of non-technical regulator types will think this is a good idea, no?

Now *that's* a valid point, as verified by the Alpine tower folks...

So it makes sense that if the entry-level test gets smaller, the
next-level
test (General) must, of necessity, get bigger to contain the stuff
removed.
Does the NCVEC petiton even mention this?

Nope.

That tells ya something.

2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a
higher
class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why
bother to upgrade?)

But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power
restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that
are happy to just ve on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the
thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there
isn't anything to hold ya back.

Here's the problem:

What we have now is a VHF-UHF-centric entry level license. The privileges
are
very heavily weighted towards the bands above 30 MHz and away from
HF/MF.This
means that most new hams will start off on VHF/UHF.

And that means they will also start off with a local/regional focus, and
almost certainly with manufactured equipment.

The current Tech Q&A pool contains a wide variety of subjects - covered in
very
little depth. The wide variety of privileges granted requires all those
questions. You and I may find them trivial, but some beginners may not.
After
all, don't you know at least one "professional" who has not even obtained
an entry-level amateur license?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the entry-level license to contain a
balanced
mix of privileges, including significant HF as well as VHF/UHF privileges,
coupled
with a test that matches the privileges granted? That way, new hams can
sample more of what ham radio has to offer.

Actually, I find the differences between local/regional, (V/UHF) and
worldwide (H/MF) to be one mighty and fine incentive to upgrade.

That's you.

Of course that's me. Does it make as much sense as *protecting* the
newbies from High power RF by not allowing them high power, as compared
to the alternative of giving them the knowledge?

It makes more sense to me that new hams have a sampling of all bands (I'd give
them a lot more HF/MF than bits of 80/40/15/10) than to restrict HF and allow
full power at "meat cooking frequencies" (tip of the hat to WK3C for that
phrase)

Which do you think is more common: hams on HF or hams running high power?

In
addition, given the results of the way the Technician license evolved,
from a experimenter's license to the real entry level license, I would
have to say that many many hams are happy to stay right there. Many of
them only want the type of coverage that the Tech license gives.

Maybe. But if that's so, why aren't the repeaters busy 24/7?

Depends. Our local club repeater is pretty busy most of the time. Others
aren't so busy. I know I've been given a lecture on occasion while
traveling by some disgruntled ham when I've called that I'm listening
and he comes back with "This is a private repeater - don't use it any
more". No mention of the private repeater in the book. Who the heck is
going to use that!

Funny, I've never run into that. If someone told me a repeate was private, I'd
simply say it's not in the book and try a different freq.

I believe that the propagation differences between the VHF and up, and
HF and down make a natural and rational dividing line between
privileges.

Well, I have to disagree. I say it's an artificial division foisted upon us
by
a few people who clamored for a nocodetest license as the savior of amateur
radio. Hasn't happened.

Perhaps you don't agree with my conclusion, but the propagation
differences are pretty much demarcated between HF and VHF

All depends on the sunspot cycle. When the spots are down, bands as low as 15
become like VHF/UHF. At the peak, 6 is more like 10. A lot depends on your
operating time-of-day, too.

It also makes for less of a class system.

Go down that road far enough, and you'll have a one class system.

I don't propose that, but even THAT is better than what the NCVEC proposes.

I almost have to agree.

If the Tech has
the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy
there, then it's a great thing.

Seems to me that it would make more sense to offer a wider sampling.

Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

For example, imagine the prospective ham who wants to build kits, restore
old
gear or even homebrew from scratch. Which do you think would be a more
realistic first project - a simple HF rig or a simple VHF/UHF one? Which
do
you
think will result in more QSOs and more "reward" for the builder?

Well that isn't going to happen under some of the scenario's.

Which is why those scenarios are not good ideas.

I'd certainly like that myself.

Then let's go for it.

Yes, it's possible to work the world on VHF/UHF, but isn't it easier for a
beginner to do so on HF? Particularly with limited antennas?

That's the basic thinking behind many of the proposals. What they're
really
trying to do is to reinvent the old Novice license. The Novice concept was
to
have a very limited license to get people started, so they could
learn-by-doing, see what was what and then upgrade if they liked ham
radio.

From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle
is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans.

I think way too much is made of Element 1 and way too little of other
factors.

But consider this: Suppose FCC did just that (dropped Element 1 and let
everything else alone). And suppose we did *not* see a big sustained rise
in
the number of new hams and the number of upgrades. That would prove, once
and
for all, that Element 1 was *not* the problem at all! Some folks would be
very upset.....

comments:

We would not, yes it would, and yes they would!

Of course.

Plus if that were done, it would be years before FCC got around to another
NPRM
cycle. Remember all that "biennial review" stuff? Well, it's been just
about 4
years since the 2000 restructuring took effect...

The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a
person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal
accomplishment. "Class"
would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible.

The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the
religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to
mind! ;^)

Very bad karma!

Point is, however, that "caste" implies something that a person cannot
change.
That's simply not true of the situation we're describing.

The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are
unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an
important
part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason.

Agreed 100 percent!

This is a prime difference between the ARRL and NCVEC proposals. And it
must be
opposed. No good can come of such requirements.

And How!

They're open for comments now.


Yup,

Once you take the really bad stuff out of the NCVEC proposal, you wind up with
the ARRL proposal.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[snip to following sentence about previous Tech privilege discussion]
Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them? Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges. Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: "Dee D. Flint"
Date: 3/27/2004 8:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[snip to following sentence about previous Tech privilege discussion]
Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them? Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges. Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

BAM!

(sound of hammer hitting nail on the head!)

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

[snip to following sentence about previous Tech privilege discussion]
Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them?
Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges. Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

omigawsh, Dee, you just hit the nail and drove it straight through the board!

I agree 100%

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

How many of these petitions were actually filed by Technicians rather than
people who purport to speak for them?

None of the four current petitions.

Folks in the back of the bus aren't allowed to speak for the bus
company.

Do the filers really know whether the
Techs are happy with the current privileges.

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

Afterall those who really
wanted more privileges went ahead and upgraded.

Right. We didn't need any of those Civil Rights laws, either, did
we?

LHA / WMD

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:



N2EY wrote:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:



In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Now that the element 1 requirement is likely to go away, why do NCVEC,

ARRL, and even Hans' proposals simply set up a new caste system? There
is nothing wrong with levels of certification, but they should make
some sense.
Mike,
There are two reasons for low power/limited privileges for the entry
level license:
1) To simplify the tests needed for the entry-level license (if you
can't run more than X watts, or are not allowed on a certain band, you don't
need to be tested on it)

Sure, but I'm not even close to convinced that any tests need or should
be simplified. I wonder if anyone can provide evidence that the those
giving the tests are being overburde

It's not about being overburdened, but about matching the test to the
privileges. Why test for 1500 W safety if only 100 W is allowed?

Well then, why not just limit ALL classes to those low powers an
eliminate (mostly) the so called safety problem altogether. Make all
appliance equipment mandatory and pot the innards. Make new foolproof
connectors, and require all antennas to be installed by properly
licensed contractors.

There are some folks who would like to do just that!

I know answering a question with a question is bad form, but frankly,
it isn't much of a leap of imagination to rationalize our cherished
privileges right out from under our feet.

Which is what those "it's just a hobby" folks are doing, whether they
realize it or not.

Those people are as shortsighted as the people proposing the "no
homebrew" rules. Your wording "avocation" is the proper term AFAIAC. I
practive my "hamliness" that way. Is it a hobby to work with disaster
preparedness teams? If so we are the only ones classed that way in the
group. Is it a hobby to be a part of the Skywarn system? Is it a hobby
to volunteer time for public events such as the NYC or LA marathons, or
bike races or local charity events?


Of course it isn't. And that's why some people deny that hams are a significant
part of such activities.

I have letters attesting that those people are wrong. I have experience
with a group trying to replace us with cell phones and failing at it.
The list goes on and on!

DO some hams practice this as a hobby? Sure. But that doesn't make it a
hobby. In the overall, it is a service.


Or to put it another way, it's a nonprofit, volunteer activity.


I assume that you have been in group meetings, where the original idea
is mutated beyond recognition? I see it happen all the time. This is
only one more reason why I don't like these proposals *at all*. They
seem a bit of a Pandora's box IMO.


I know exactly what you mean. However, note that for over half a century
we've
had license classes with reduced power privileges and it hasn't led us down
the slippery slope.

But we haven't had people suggesting that we have a commercial
equipment requirement, we haven't had a commissh that we are annoying
with our so called silly concerns about BPL, and concerns for our
"safety". Cell phones and HF rigs both use RF correct? So why do hams
get to use 1.5 thousand watts of power while those poor cell phone users
have to get by on less than a watt? If RF is dangerous, it is dangerous,
....right? Even though I'm being facetious, I can garuntee that I can
sell 9 out of 10 non-ham friends I know *that* argument.


Yet we have power limits on *all* hams in certain subbands today.

Of course! if there are no limits, then we'll have a few hams trying to
use broadcast station powers.



Give me a good argument why Hams should need to run power over 100
Watts, 50 Watts, 5 Watts?



Because under certain circumstances those levels of power are inadequate.


Then just call them on the cell phone if you need to get through that
bad! 8^)


Actually, you have just expressed the fundamental image problem that Amateur
Radio faces in the 21st century. Many people, including some hams, don't really
"get" what Amateur Radio is all about.

Here's my definition:

Amateur Radio is fundamentally about radio as an end in itself, rather than as
a means to another end.

Otherwise, might as well use a cell phone or email.

However, this does not mean that *all* safety questions should be removed
just those connected with high power. And those high power questions must
then migrate to the next-higher class of license.

If high power RF is dangerous, why should it be allowed at all?

It's not dangerous if proper precautions are taken.

Bingo! Part of the preocess is education, and the tests show that
unless the applicant has cheated, they have picked up *something* in the
way of safety knowledge.


And that's why it should be in the test, and why the bad parts of the NCVEC
proposal must be opposed.


For
anyone. If we wanna start that game, that question WILL be asked. Do you
not talk all over the world with qrp power? I myself have talked to
Australia on 10 watts. No record, but just a personal best. They hear
those stories, and suddenly it looks like that might be able to protect
those self destructive hams from themselves.


The point of license testing is not to protect someone from their own
ignorance, but to protect others from it.

Mostly, but RF safety is one exception. The danegrs of high power RF
and High voltages in general is mostly a danger to the operator.

I disagree in part. The danger of RF exposure is to anyone in the RF field.

Yes, but that old inverse square law coupled with the hidh voltages
being on the equipment that the ham operates means that they are the
most likely to suffer harm.


Just like cigarette smokers.

Cigarette smoking is much more hazardous than RF.

Sure, but you do know what my point is, don't you?

Not really. There's no safe nonzero exposure level to cigarette smoking.

Wrong part to make the analogy from. A long time ago when I originally
made the analogy, I was addressing the 'guvmint's proponsity for
protecting us from ourselves.

And with the efforts to lower cell phone power going on, plenty
of non-technical regulator types will think this is a good idea, no?

Now *that's* a valid point, as verified by the Alpine tower folks...

So it makes sense that if the entry-level test gets smaller, the
next-level test (General) must, of necessity, get bigger to
contain the stuff removed.

Does the NCVEC petiton even mention this?

Nope.

That tells ya something.


2) To give an incentive (challenge) to learn more and qualify for a
higher
class license. (If the entry-level license conveys all privileges, why
bother to upgrade?)

But my idea, or non-idea does just that, without punitive power
restrictions based on what I consider bogus rationale. For those that
are happy to just be on VHF and above, the Technician ticket is just the
thing. Want HF access? Take the General test! Without Element one, there
isn't anything to hold ya back.

Here's the problem:

What we have now is a VHF-UHF-centric entry level license. The privileges
are very heavily weighted towards the bands above 30 MHz and away from
HF/MF.This means that most new hams will start off on VHF/UHF.
And that means they will also start off with a local/regional focus, and
almost certainly with manufactured equipment.

The current Tech Q&A pool contains a wide variety of subjects - covered in
very little depth. The wide variety of privileges granted requires all those
questions. You and I may find them trivial, but some beginners may not.
After all, don't you know at least one "professional" who has not even obtained
an entry-level amateur license?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the entry-level license to contain a
balanced mix of privileges, including significant HF as well as VHF/UHF
privileges, coupled with a test that matches the privileges granted?
That way, new hams can sample more of what ham radio has to offer.

Actually, I find the differences between local/regional, (V/UHF) and
worldwide (H/MF) to be one mighty and fine incentive to upgrade.

That's you.

Of course that's me. Does it make as much sense as *protecting* the
newbies from High power RF by not allowing them high power, as compared
to the alternative of giving them the knowledge?

It makes more sense to me that new hams have a sampling of all bands (I'd give
them a lot more HF/MF than bits of 80/40/15/10) than to restrict HF and allow
full power at "meat cooking frequencies" (tip of the hat to WK3C for that
phrase)

I cooked a little bit of meat on my finger one day with somewhere
around 50 watts power. People concerned with this should collect stamps.
My point is that 50 watts can hurt you, so if you are worried about
safety, you better lower it below that, and not cap it at 100.

Safety note addendum:
I just read the part of the ARRL 2003 handbook regarding RF and
electrical safety. Those who want to limit the voltages on the finals
better lower that nomber to 24 volts. Chapter 9 page 19 is my reference.

After all they only have safety in mind, gotta protect the newbies!

Which do you think is more common: hams on HF or hams running high power?

Of corse there are more hams on HF.

In
addition, given the results of the way the Technician license evolved,
from a experimenter's license to the real entry level license, I would
have to say that many many hams are happy to stay right there. Many of
them only want the type of coverage that the Tech license gives.

Maybe. But if that's so, why aren't the repeaters busy 24/7?


Depends. Our local club repeater is pretty busy most of the time. Others
aren't so busy. I know I've been given a lecture on occasion while
traveling by some disgruntled ham when I've called that I'm listening
and he comes back with "This is a private repeater - don't use it any
more". No mention of the private repeater in the book. Who the heck is
going to use that!

Funny, I've never run into that. If someone told me a repeate was private, I'd
simply say it's not in the book and try a different freq.

Sure, and that's what I did. My point is that just because you don't
hear anyone on it doesn't mean there aren't hams that "might" use it.


I believe that the propagation differences between the VHF and up, and
HF and down make a natural and rational dividing line between
privileges.

Well, I have to disagree. I say it's an artificial division foisted upon us
by a few people who clamored for a nocodetest license as the savior of amateur
radio. Hasn't happened.

Perhaps you don't agree with my conclusion, but the propagation
differences are pretty much demarcated between HF and VHF


All depends on the sunspot cycle. When the spots are down, bands as low as 15
become like VHF/UHF. At the peak, 6 is more like 10. A lot depends on your
operating time-of-day, too.


It also makes for less of a class system.

Go down that road far enough, and you'll have a one class system.

I don't propose that, but even THAT is better than what the NCVEC proposes.


I almost have to agree.

As long as it isn't the debacle they propose to foist upon the newbies!


If the Tech has
the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy
there, then it's a great thing.

Seems to me that it would make more sense to offer a wider sampling.

Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

I don't know that any of these petitions are sponsored by Technicians
or Novices. Seems to me that this started when the requirement for
Element 1 testing was made voluntary, and all the worms started crawling
out of the woodwork so to speak.

All the proposals were made by Extras, AFAIK.


For example, imagine the prospective ham who wants to build kits, restore
old gear or even homebrew from scratch. Which do you think would be a more
realistic first project - a simple HF rig or a simple VHF/UHF one? Which
do you
think will result in more QSOs and more "reward" for the builder?

Well that isn't going to happen under some of the scenario's.

Which is why those scenarios are not good ideas.

I'd certainly like that myself.

Then let's go for it.


Yes, it's possible to work the world on VHF/UHF, but isn't it easier for a
beginner to do so on HF? Particularly with limited antennas?

That's the basic thinking behind many of the proposals. What they're
really trying to do is to reinvent the old Novice license. The Novice
concept was to have a very limited license to get people started, so
they could learn-by-doing, see what was what and then upgrade if they
liked ham radio.

From what I see, simply removing Element 1 and letting the dust settle
is a better plan than either the NCVEC or ARRL plans.

I think way too much is made of Element 1 and way too little of other
factors.
But consider this: Suppose FCC did just that (dropped Element 1 and let
everything else alone). And suppose we did *not* see a big sustained rise
inthe number of new hams and the number of upgrades. That would prove,
once and for all, that Element 1 was *not* the problem at all! Some folks
would be very upset.....

comments:

We would not, yes it would, and yes they would!

Of course.


Plus if that were done, it would be years before FCC got around to another
NPRM cycle. Remember all that "biennial review" stuff? Well, it's been just
about 4 years since the 2000 restructuring took effect...

The term "caste" isn't really accurate, though. "Caste" is something a
person is born into and cannot escape, regardless of personal
accomplishment. "Class"
would be more accurate, because upward mobility is possible.

The term caste is used mainly for the class aspect, not based on the
religion aspect. Evil Extra's being reincarnated as CB'ers comes to
mind! ;^)

Very bad karma!

Point is, however, that "caste" implies something that a person cannot
change. That's simply not true of the situation we're describing.

The limitations on homebrewing and final voltage proposed by NCVEC are
unenforceable, pointless and would cut off Communicators from an
important part of amateur radio for no justifiable reason.

Agreed 100 percent!

This is a prime difference between the ARRL and NCVEC proposals. And it
must be opposed. No good can come of such requirements.

And How!

They're open for comments now.


Yup,


Once you take the really bad stuff out of the NCVEC proposal, you wind up with
the ARRL proposal.

Which still doesn't float my boat.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

What's it to you? You're some guy standing on the sidewalk, watching
the bus go by.

Dave K8MN

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Those people are as shortsighted as the people proposing the "no
homebrew" rules. Your wording "avocation" is the proper term AFAIAC. I
practive my "hamliness" that way. Is it a hobby to work with disaster
preparedness teams? If so we are the only ones classed that way in the
group. Is it a hobby to be a part of the Skywarn system? Is it a hobby
to volunteer time for public events such as the NYC or LA marathons, or
bike races or local charity events?

Of course it isn't. And that's why some people deny that hams are a
significant part of such activities.

I have letters attesting that those people are wrong. I have experience
with a group trying to replace us with cell phones and failing at it.
The list goes on and on!

Of course! But some people just don't like facts.

DO some hams practice this as a hobby? Sure. But that doesn't make it a
hobby. In the overall, it is a service.

Or to put it another way, it's a nonprofit, volunteer activity.

Yet we have power limits on *all* hams in certain subbands today.

Of course! if there are no limits, then we'll have a few hams trying to
use broadcast station powers.

"Tetrode with handles", anyone?

Actually, you have just expressed the fundamental image problem that
Amateur Radio faces in the 21st century. Many people, including some hams,
don't really "get" what Amateur Radio is all about.

Here's my definition:

Amateur Radio is fundamentally about radio as an end in itself, rather than
as a means to another end.

Otherwise, might as well use a cell phone or email.

The point of license testing is not to protect someone from their own
ignorance, but to protect others from it.

Mostly, but RF safety is one exception. The danegrs of high power RF
and High voltages in general is mostly a danger to the operator.

I disagree in part. The danger of RF exposure is to anyone in the RF field.

Yes, but that old inverse square law coupled with the hidh voltages
being on the equipment that the ham operates means that they are the
most likely to suffer harm.

In the case of RF, it's distance to the antenna. Which may be closer to a
neighbor than the ham himself. PArticularly at VHF/UHF where the gain of even a
"small" directional array can be over 10 dB. Pump, say, 500 W into a 432 MHz
array with 16 dB gain...

Just like cigarette smokers.

Cigarette smoking is much more hazardous than RF.

Sure, but you do know what my point is, don't you?

Not really. There's no safe nonzero exposure level to cigarette smoking.

Wrong part to make the analogy from. A long time ago when I originally
made the analogy, I was addressing the 'guvmint's proponsity for
protecting us from ourselves.

Oh, OK.

Is that really a bad thing, in the case of cigarettes? The data clearly shows
the health effects. And remember that those health care costs wind up being
paid by all of us, in a variety of ways. Smokers and nonsmokers don't pay
different Medicare/Medicaid taxes nor get different benefits. Etc.

OTOH, there was a report from some Eastern European country (Czech?) a while
back that touched off a bit of a scandal. Said that smoking was actually *good*
for their benefits system because, while it raised the health care costs, it
also reduced the life expectancy so much that the reduction in old-age pension
payments more than compensated. Of course their health care costs are much
lower than in the USA.

Of course that's me. Does it make as much sense as *protecting* the
newbies from High power RF by not allowing them high power, as compared
to the alternative of giving them the knowledge?

It makes more sense to me that new hams have a sampling of all bands (I'd
give them a lot more HF/MF than bits of 80/40/15/10) than to restrict HF and
allow full power at "meat cooking frequencies" (tip of the hat to WK3C for
that
phrase)

I cooked a little bit of meat on my finger one day with somewhere
around 50 watts power. People concerned with this should collect stamps.
My point is that 50 watts can hurt you, so if you are worried about
safety, you better lower it below that, and not cap it at 100.

Point is that the hazard from 1500 W is much greater.

Safety note addendum:
I just read the part of the ARRL 2003 handbook regarding RF and
electrical safety. Those who want to limit the voltages on the finals
better lower that nomber to 24 volts. Chapter 9 page 19 is my reference.

bwaahaahaa

After all they only have safety in mind, gotta protect the newbies!

Which do you think is more common: hams on HF or hams running high power?

Of corse there are more hams on HF.

There ya go!

Depends. Our local club repeater is pretty busy most of the time. Others
aren't so busy. I know I've been given a lecture on occasion while
traveling by some disgruntled ham when I've called that I'm listening
and he comes back with "This is a private repeater - don't use it any
more". No mention of the private repeater in the book. Who the heck is
going to use that!

Funny, I've never run into that. If someone told me a repeate was private,
I'd simply say it's not in the book and try a different freq.

Sure, and that's what I did. My point is that just because you don't
hear anyone on it doesn't mean there aren't hams that "might" use it.

Ah.

It also makes for less of a class system.

Go down that road far enough, and you'll have a one class system.

I don't propose that, but even THAT is better than what the NCVEC proposes.

I almost have to agree.

As long as it isn't the debacle they propose to foist upon the newbies!

Hans is just biding his time, waiting for the right moment...

If the Tech has
the power and privileges for their respective bands, and they are happy
there, then it's a great thing.

Seems to me that it would make more sense to offer a wider sampling.

Also, if they were happy with it, would there be so many petitions and
arguments?

I don't know that any of these petitions are sponsored by Technicians
or Novices. Seems to me that this started when the requirement for
Element 1 testing was made voluntary, and all the worms started crawling
out of the woodwork so to speak.

Whatever the cause, you can see the "slippery slope" effect. Remember when I
pointed out how the anticode arguments could be used against much of the
writtens? Well, here we are with a major proposal that wants to dump a
significant part of the writtens because they're allegedly "too hard"...

All the proposals were made by Extras, AFAIK.

There you have it!

Once you take the really bad stuff out of the NCVEC proposal, you wind up
with the ARRL proposal.

Which still doesn't float my boat.

Lesser of two evils?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

Again with racial epithets.

What a putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 8:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/27/2004 3:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Right. All them folks in de back o de bus be happy, singin
an dancin, eatin watermelon...

Again with racial epithets.

What a putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Weren't you the one with the little lantern guy?

Yep, I remember. It was you.

And too bad your selective memory doesn't remember WHO it was that
suggested it originally, PuppetBoy.

Sir Scummy interjected such a suggestion some months ago when he described
what the typical "ham QTH" must look like, with the aforementioned lanternboy
adorning the driveway and towers in the back yard.

Sheeeeesh. Can't you get ANYTHING right...?!?! Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 3/29/2004 2:19 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 3/28/2004 8:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Sir Scummy interjected such a suggestion some months ago when he
described
what the typical "ham QTH" must look like, with the aforementioned
lanternboy
adorning the driveway and towers in the back yard.

Sheeeeesh. Can't you get ANYTHING right...?!?! Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

There you go assuming again. I read few of Len's posts. So when I
see you using reverse psychology on Len, it just looks like your
original idea.

If you want to think that, go right ahead. You've obviously read too FEW
of "Len's" posts. Or you simply choose to ignore the one's that again make a
fool of your and he. (Which are a fair share)

I am sure it will salve your concious to NOT think that YOUR mentor was so
creepy as to have suggested it in the first place.

Sorrry for you...Sucks to be you, Brain.

Steve, K3YZ

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 3/30/2004 7:39 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

There you go assuming again. I read few of Len's posts. So when I
see you using reverse psychology on Len, it just looks like your
original idea.

If you want to think that, go right ahead.

My privelege.

I am sure you meant priviledge, but that's OK...

You've obviously read too FEW
of "Len's" posts.

How many of Len's posts am I supposed to read?

All of them, Brainless One.

Perhaps you might discover why it is that he does not warrant the
"respect" he THINKS he does.

Or you simply choose to ignore the one's that again make a
fool of your and he. (Which are a fair share)

There you go assuming again.

No "assumption", Brain. It's evidenced in your posts.

I am sure it will salve your concious to NOT think that YOUR mentor
was so
creepy as to have suggested it in the first place.

It's just wrong that what you claim is creepy is repeated by you so
often, without attributing its origin.

Had you been paying attention, you'd know.

As if you were stealing intellectual property.

Brain, there is absolutely NOTHING "intellectual" about either you OR
Lennie.

You're not right in the head.

Still waiting on you to provide for me the nature of your medical or
psychiatric education or licensure that qualifies you to make that statement in
a public forum.

I, on the otherhand, HAVE had training and education that, while not
allowing me to make a diagnosis, would allow me to determine that you are
suffering from some of your OWN mental health abberations that would warrant
medical or psychiatric intervention...even in Ohio.


Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 8:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Perhaps you might discover why it is that he does not warrant the
"respect" he THINKS he does.

I respect Len for his service, and I respect Len for his knowledge of
the art and science of radio.

Len served in the Armed Forces. Bully for him.

His "service" to the "radio profession" has yet to be established by any
source other than himself.

When Len is given the opportunity to speak about radio, I listen in
because there is something to be learned.

How can you know if he's saying anything of value if you don't read all
his posts?

I also share Len's view that the Morse Code Exam requirement has long,
long since served its usefulness to the Amateur Radio community, and
should be retired as a licensing requirement. Should have been
retired a long time ago.

Lennie's "views" are based upon some personal expression of anger and
angst AGAINST Amateur Radio.

Lennie has absolutely ZERO-POINT-SQUAT minutes of operating an Amateur
Radio Station from which to make an informed opinion.

Unfortunately, there are some here that don't value Len's service,
radio knowledge, or opinion of amateur radio licensing requirements,
or all of the above. They want to exclude Len from the discussion
based upon no amateur license. As pointed out repeatedly, those who
make and enforce the regulations are not required to hold an amateur
license. And in America, every citizen has a voice. Those who are
tyrants do not believe this, and when they try to silence Len, they
must be willing to accept any and all repercussions of holding such an
assinine view.

We "exclude" Lennie becasue Lennie only assumes himself to be "qualified"
to discuss anything related to radio since he was an alleged "professional".

Also, his irreverent use of profanity and personal insults against anything
that is "not Lennie" does little to endear him to folks here, even those who
may be predisposed to agree with his "opinion" on Morse Code testing. No one
likes to be associated with a foul-mouthed liar.

So I don't read all of Lens posts because its just some self-appointed
Sheriff and him barking at each other.

I am not "barking" at him.

I rub his nose in his frequent newsgroup errors.

Just like I do you.

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(William) writes:

How many of Len's posts am I supposed to read?

All of them, Brainless One.

Nope.

Perhaps you might discover why it is that he does not warrant the
"respect" he THINKS he does.

I respect Len for his service, and I respect Len for his knowledge of
the art and science of radio.

Thank you, Brian. I respect your military service also.

When Len is given the opportunity to speak about radio, I listen in
because there is something to be learned.

It is very rare that the technology of radio is brought up in here,
quite possibly because so few have bothered to learn about it
or practice it...everyone is all concerned with operating and the
state of the art of rank-status-privilege, their collection of old
QST magazines, and the importance of obeying everything that
the ARRL commands them to do.

There is an (unfortunate for all) spitefulness that someone who
has worked IN radio-electronics for over a half century and for
money (gasp!) can possibly comment on anything "amateur."
The spiteful are angry and outraged that anyone disturbs their
pipe dreams of honor and glory and national service of an
essentially avocational activity carried on for personal enjoyment.
They must spin tales, tails twirling, of their "national need" and
medal-worthy imagination of saving future civilization through
heroic fantasy stories about morsemanship in speculative
futures.

I also share Len's view that the Morse Code Exam requirement has long,
long since served its usefulness to the Amateur Radio community, and
should be retired as a licensing requirement. Should have been
retired a long time ago.

Irrelevant to the long-timers, the self-professed "leaders" of the
"amateur community" who wish to dictate to others that what
they enjoy must be practiced by all others...because they alone
are the imaginary spirit of amateur radio, the ones carrying the
symbolic torch of championship of the radio arts and "necessary"
communications modes. They have placed their symbolic laurel
wreaths (of expertise) on themselves, bravely defending their
alleged rights to be better than others in rank-status-privilege.
These "experts" disallow any dissent of their god-like opinions
for they are above any discussion with mere mortals like you
and me.

Meanwhile they are not cognizant that the FCC is still defining
International Morse Code to an obsolete ITU-T (not ITU-R)
document, CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984) Division B,
I. Morse Code. That was still in the very official regulations'
definitions at 94.3 (a) (27) as of 1 October 2003. They don't
know what is contained within that Recommendation because
it is only available from the ITU and for a fee...or that it has
been superseded in nomenclature and some changes (other
than the astounding and oh-so-important addition of the @
character to the standard set) by the ITU-T; the CCITT itself
has been superseded entire by the ITU-T. The CCITT
document never defined a telegraphic "word" either in size or
for rate, it only defined the relative length of dot, dash, and
spacings. [you know this because I e-mailed a direct copy
of my ITU-T document file to you as a favor] Instead, the
arguments in here have raged on solely on the basis of
"everyone knows this!" as if all law and regulations are based
on some paranormal common knowledge.

Unfortunately, there are some here that don't value Len's service,
radio knowledge, or opinion of amateur radio licensing requirements,
or all of the above. They want to exclude Len from the discussion
based upon no amateur license. As pointed out repeatedly, those who
make and enforce the regulations are not required to hold an amateur
license.

Irrelevant to the self-professed "leaders" and gods of amateurism.
Reality has no place in imaginary fantasyland imaginations of
glory and honor and national service through amateurism.

And in America, every citizen has a voice.

The First Amendment Rights have been overruled by these
self-professed "leaders." Evidence of that exists in the public
view on proceeding 98-143 for 25 January 1999.

Those who are
tyrants do not believe this, and when they try to silence Len, they
must be willing to accept any and all repercussions of holding such an
assinine view.

Independent thought is not allowed in here. All must obey the
dictates of the self-professed "leaders" of amateurism in radio.
These "leaders" are without fault...all who disagree with them
are rewarded by a barrage of personal insults instead of
addressing the subject under discussion. The "leaders" rule
by barbarian warlord tactics of neighborhood gangsterism in
messaging.

So I don't read all of Lens posts because its just some self-appointed
Sheriff and him barking at each other.

That is how it should be.

A problem for casual readers in here is that the "leaders" cannot
survive arguments on the subject which contradict their cherished
myths and fables. The end result is much wasted time of these
individual "message warlords" competeting for personal status
as newsgroup "leaders." Among these regular "leaders" it doesn't
matter whether the subject is about amateur radio, it is all
concerned with the righteousness of their personal opinion
triumphing for them in any way possible. Amateur radio policy
is far down on the list topped by their Need To Be RIGHT!.

And that is how it is.

LHA / WMD

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 3/31/2004 2:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(William) writes:

How many of Len's posts am I supposed to read?

All of them, Brainless One.

Nope.

Perhaps you might discover why it is that he does not warrant the
"respect" he THINKS he does.

I respect Len for his service, and I respect Len for his knowledge of
the art and science of radio.

Thank you, Brian. I respect your military service also.

Where did he say "military service"...???

When Len is given the opportunity to speak about radio, I listen in
because there is something to be learned.

It is very rare that the technology of radio is brought up in here,
quite possibly because so few have bothered to learn about it
or practice it...everyone is all concerned with operating and the
state of the art of rank-status-privilege, their collection of old
QST magazines, and the importance of obeying everything that
the ARRL commands them to do.

Conjecture at best.

There is an (unfortunate for all) spitefulness that someone who
has worked IN radio-electronics for over a half century and for
money (gasp!) can possibly comment on anything "amateur."
The spiteful are angry and outraged that anyone disturbs their
pipe dreams of honor and glory and national service of an
essentially avocational activity carried on for personal enjoyment.
They must spin tales, tails twirling, of their "national need" and
medal-worthy imagination of saving future civilization through
heroic fantasy stories about morsemanship in speculative
futures.

Your dissertations on the theoretical aspects of radio communications are
robust, even entertaining at times.

Your RANTINGS about Amatuer licensing, practive and programs are, in a
word, WEAK.

I also share Len's view that the Morse Code Exam requirement has long,
long since served its usefulness to the Amateur Radio community, and
should be retired as a licensing requirement. Should have been
retired a long time ago.

Irrelevant to the long-timers, the self-professed "leaders" of the
"amateur community" who wish to dictate to others that what
they enjoy must be practiced by all others...because they alone
are the imaginary spirit of amateur radio, the ones carrying the
symbolic torch of championship of the radio arts and "necessary"
communications modes. They have placed their symbolic laurel
wreaths (of expertise) on themselves, bravely defending their
alleged rights to be better than others in rank-status-privilege.
These "experts" disallow any dissent of their god-like opinions
for they are above any discussion with mere mortals like you
and me.

Rhetorical balderdash, it ate up bandwith and let you show off your
vocabulary,

Otherwise it was yet another venomous swipe at Amateur Radio....the same
kind of stugg that earns you your own rank-status-priviledge as King-of-the
Hill of mudslinging.

Meanwhile they are not cognizant that the FCC is still defining
International Morse Code to an obsolete ITU-T (not ITU-R)
document, CCITT Recommendation F.1 (1984) Division B,
I. Morse Code. That was still in the very official regulations'
definitions at 94.3 (a) (27) as of 1 October 2003. They don't
know what is contained within that Recommendation because
it is only available from the ITU and for a fee...or that it has
been superseded in nomenclature and some changes (other
than the astounding and oh-so-important addition of the @
character to the standard set) by the ITU-T; the CCITT itself
has been superseded entire by the ITU-T. The CCITT
document never defined a telegraphic "word" either in size or
for rate, it only defined the relative length of dot, dash, and
spacings. [you know this because I e-mailed a direct copy
of my ITU-T document file to you as a favor] Instead, the
arguments in here have raged on solely on the basis of
"everyone knows this!" as if all law and regulations are based
on some paranormal common knowledge.

Regardless of your interpretations of how the FCC is defining Morse Code
requirements, the fact is that it's being dealt with.

Unfortunately, there are some here that don't value Len's service,
radio knowledge, or opinion of amateur radio licensing requirements,
or all of the above. They want to exclude Len from the discussion
based upon no amateur license. As pointed out repeatedly, those who
make and enforce the regulations are not required to hold an amateur
license.

Irrelevant to the self-professed "leaders" and gods of amateurism.
Reality has no place in imaginary fantasyland imaginations of
glory and honor and national service through amateurism.

The "glory and honor (of) national service through amateurism (sic)" is
not one proffed by the Amateru community itself...It comes from countless
private and governmental agencies.

And in America, every citizen has a voice.

The First Amendment Rights have been overruled by these
self-professed "leaders." Evidence of that exists in the public
view on proceeding 98-143 for 25 January 1999.

Too bed that those 14 years of night school didn't teach you about the
Bill of Rights, Lennie.

You need to re-read them and see to whom the amendment applies. (hint:
it prevents the federal government from interfereing with the press...it does
not address private citizens.)

Those who are
tyrants do not believe this, and when they try to silence Len, they
must be willing to accept any and all repercussions of holding such an
assinine view.

Independent thought is not allowed in here. All must obey the
dictates of the self-professed "leaders" of amateurism in radio.
These "leaders" are without fault...all who disagree with them
are rewarded by a barrage of personal insults instead of
addressing the subject under discussion. The "leaders" rule
by barbarian warlord tactics of neighborhood gangsterism in
messaging.

Yeah...I see that "independent thought" with you hand up Brain's backside
to manipulate his mouth for you. Do you really try the "ventrilloquist" trick,
or do you use a tape recorder?

So I don't read all of Lens posts because its just some self-appointed
Sheriff and him barking at each other.

That is how it should be.

Actually it allows Brainless to formulate "opinions" based upon
less-than-consistent rantings from his "mentor". Unfortunately for the two of
you (and Brain moreso than Lennie), you are the only one's who can't appreciate
the humor of Brian's posts as he tries to follow in Lennie's "footsteps"...

A problem for casual readers in here is that the "leaders" cannot
survive arguments on the subject which contradict their cherished
myths and fables. The end result is much wasted time of these
individual "message warlords" competeting for personal status
as newsgroup "leaders." Among these regular "leaders" it doesn't
matter whether the subject is about amateur radio, it is all
concerned with the righteousness of their personal opinion
triumphing for them in any way possible. Amateur radio policy
is far down on the list topped by their Need To Be RIGHT!.

And that is how it is.

No, it's yet another Amateur-bashing free-for-all by a person known for
inaccuracies and intentional mistruths, embellished with an overactive
vocabulary and overly self impressed opinion of himself.

Not that Lennie leaves us much else to deal with.

Steve, K4YZ

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 8:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Perhaps you might discover why it is that he does not warrant the
"respect" he THINKS he does.

I respect Len for his service, and I respect Len for his knowledge of
the art and science of radio.

Len served in the Armed Forces. Bully for him.

Bully for you. He paved the way for your lame self.

Tsk, tsk. Steamy wasn't born yet when I fired up on HF for the
first time. Full KW output it was, too. :-)

His "service" to the "radio profession" has yet to be established by
any source other than himself.

His detractors have established his service. They fear his knowledge.

Why are they so upset?

...because the gunnery nurse didn't check out my references given
in here. :-) [Especially so when three of them are long-time
licensed radio amateurs with web addresses].

But...if I give that brief listing of employers, the gunnery nurse bitches
and moans and carries on about "'we' don't want to see your #$%^!!!
'curriculum vitae!'" :-)

He should have said 'resume' not any c.v.

When Len is given the opportunity to speak about radio, I listen in
because there is something to be learned.

How can you know if he's saying anything of value if you don't read
all his posts?

Luck of the click?

I also share Len's view that the Morse Code Exam requirement has long,
long since served its usefulness to the Amateur Radio community, and
should be retired as a licensing requirement. Should have been
retired a long time ago.

Lennie's "views" are based upon some personal expression of anger and
angst AGAINST Amateur Radio.

Some are. His view of retiring the Morse or Farnsworth Exams are not.
They are widely held views by amateurs who have passed such exams and
those who have not.

Poor steamy. He still thinks He 'represents' all of hum radio and,
therefore, anything said contrary to hisself is "anger against hams!"
:-)

You'll just have to get over it.

Don't put any bets out about it...steamy is into his rants too deep
to pull out now.

Lennie has absolutely ZERO-POINT-SQUAT minutes of operating an Amateur
Radio Station from which to make an informed opinion.

So you say the physics of amateur radio are something special and
unique.

Poor guy knows only the physics of hum radio, therefore all radios
are hum radios. Hummmmmm.

Unfortunately, there are some here that don't value Len's service,
radio knowledge, or opinion of amateur radio licensing requirements,
or all of the above. They want to exclude Len from the discussion
based upon no amateur license. As pointed out repeatedly, those who
make and enforce the regulations are not required to hold an amateur
license. And in America, every citizen has a voice. Those who are
tyrants do not believe this, and when they try to silence Len, they
must be willing to accept any and all repercussions of holding such an
assinine view.

We "exclude" Lennie becasue Lennie only assumes himself to be
"qualified"
to discuss anything related to radio since he was an alleged "professional".

See???

"Len is not an amateur, therefore Len can know nothing about amateur
radio."

Ackshully, by the steamy one's "logic," absolutely nobody could get
their first amateur radio license. "They don't know anything about it!"
They wouldn't be able to pass any tests. No get license from FCC.

Why do you insist on being wrong all of the time?

Steam-inflated ego does it for him.

Do you enjoy being that kook ex-Marine that everyone thinks has
post-traumatic stress syndrome?

I don't know what he got, but whatever it is nobody should have!

He done got a medical discharge he say. But, he say he got
a pilot license and derefour he done pass a flight physical.

But never saw combat.

Hey! He done say he got "SEVEN HOSTILE ACTIONS" in da
military! He no say where or when, but dat be "irreverent."

Also, his irreverent use of profanity

Now there is a reverent use of profanity?

It must be those ministers he hang out wid.

and personal insults against anything
that is "not Lennie" does little to endear him to folks here, even those who
may be predisposed to agree with his "opinion" on Morse Code testing. No
one
likes to be associated with a foul-mouthed liar.

You do nothing to endear yourself to folks here, either.

Understatement, Brian, understatement. :-)

You behave badly. You are an embarassment to the amateur community
and to RRAP.

Steamy one done represent ALL hum raddio amatoors. He say dat
roun' a bout.

So I don't read all of Lens posts because its just some self-appointed
Sheriff and him barking at each other.

I am not "barking" at him.

Oh, my. I guess since I'm not a dog I cannot recognize barking?

Not a Licensed Amateur Dog! To bark in this newsgrope ya gots ta
have a ARRL-approved license for amateur dogginess. Arf!.

I rub his nose in his frequent newsgroup errors.

As I rub your nose in every carpet stain that you leave here.

Just like I do you.

So you say.

Careful. With all this nose-rubbing some Eskimo may think
you two are getting it on... :-)

LHA / WMD

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 4/1/2004 9:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 3/31/2004 8:18 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Len served in the Armed Forces. Bully for him.

Bully for you. He paved the way for your lame self.

Lennie didn't "pave the way" for ANYthing I did in the Armed Forces,
Brain.

Different branches...Different motivations for serving...Different
MOS's...

His detractors have established his service. They fear his knowledge.

Let's get one thing straight, PuppetBoy...

If you and Sir Scummy pulled up in fornt of my home with an Abrams tank,
locked, loaded and at point-blank-range, I'd STILL not have anything to fear
from either of you.

Why are they so upset?

Because we don't tolerate liars and people who intentionally misrepresent
something we clearly know to be not true.

Lennie's "views" are based upon some personal expression of anger and
angst AGAINST Amateur Radio.

Some are. His view of retiring the Morse or Farnsworth Exams are not.
They are widely held views by amateurs who have passed such exams and
those who have not.

...and absolutely no practical experience in Amateur Radio on which to
determine if the opinions of others are valid or not.

You'll just have to get over it.

Get over what?

That he's talking out of the wrong orifice? Or that YOU are?

I hardly think so!

Lennie has absolutely ZERO-POINT-SQUAT minutes of operating an Amateur
Radio Station from which to make an informed opinion.

So you say the physics of amateur radio are something special and
unique.

Unfortunately, there are some here that don't value Len's service,
radio knowledge, or opinion of amateur radio licensing requirements,
or all of the above. They want to exclude Len from the discussion
based upon no amateur license. As pointed out repeatedly, those who
make and enforce the regulations are not required to hold an amateur
license. And in America, every citizen has a voice. Those who are
tyrants do not believe this, and when they try to silence Len, they
must be willing to accept any and all repercussions of holding such an
assinine view.

We "exclude" Lennie becasue Lennie only assumes himself to be
"qualified"
to discuss anything related to radio since he was an alleged
"professional".

See???

See what?

That Lennie has, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, no practical experience in Amateur
Radio?

"Len is not an amateur, therefore Len can know nothing about amateur
radio."

Why do you insist on being wrong all of the time?

I am not wrong.

Lennie knows lots-and-lots about radio THEORY.

He knows almost NOTHING of APPLICATION as it pertains to AMATEUR RADIO.

Do you enjoy being that kook ex-Marine that everyone thinks has
post-traumatic stress syndrome?

OK, Brain...

YOU made another assertion of fact.

From what source did you obtain THAT suggestion, OTHER than to make it up.

But never saw combat.

Sorry for you, Brain...Been there...Done that.

Also, his irreverent use of profanity

Now there is a reverent use of profanity?

Nope.

and personal insults against anything
that is "not Lennie" does little to endear him to folks here, even those
who
may be predisposed to agree with his "opinion" on Morse Code testing. No
one
likes to be associated with a foul-mouthed liar.

You do nothing to endear yourself to folks here, either.

But I don't lie and I don't misrepresent things that are KNOWN to be
otherwise, Brain.

That you and your scumbag "mentor" find that makes you uncomfortable is
YOUR tough luck...Not mine.

You behave badly. You are an embarassment to the amateur community
and to RRAP.

Uh huh...Right.

So I don't read all of Lens posts because its just some self-appointed
Sheriff and him barking at each other.

I am not "barking" at him.

Oh, my. I guess since I'm not a dog I cannot recognize barking?

What "barking", Brain.

Nothing of what I see here comes even close to what my Webster's defines
as "barking".

I rub his nose in his frequent newsgroup errors.

As I rub your nose in every carpet stain that you leave here.

Such as..?!?! All the stories I've told about operating illegally from
Somalia? The unfounded assertions I've made about "emergency comms"...?!?!

Just like I do you.

So you say.

So I've proved. Again.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license
restructuringdepends
From: (William)
Date: 4/2/2004 7:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

But I don't lie and I don't misrepresent things that are KNOWN to be
otherwise, Brain.

You lie to yourself. You believe your own lies. Ergo, no conflict
with lying to others.

Uh huh...Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

You lie to yourself. You believe your own lies. Ergo, no conflict
with lying to others.

Uh huh...Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Good progress! Admission is the first step towards good mental
health!

LHA / WMD