| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The dam is leaking...
The progress-blocking dam that the foot-draggers have erected is
leaking badly, and can not be maintained much longer. - Stewart (N0MHS) |
stewart wrote:
The progress-blocking dam that the foot-draggers have erected is leaking badly, and can not be maintained much longer. - Stewart (N0MHS) Damn! ;-) |
"stewart" wrote The progress-blocking dam that the foot-draggers have erected is leaking badly, and can not be maintained much longer. The Armenian judges gave this a 9.8 on the Olympic Troll-O-Meter, but they were over-ruled by the umpires in instant replay, who award it a 1.4. The Armenian judges lodged a formal protest! It was sufficiently trollish, of course, but way too obvious. It was poorly written, poorly executed, and was so incredibly lame as to lack the true drawing power of a really masterful troll. Maybe as high as a 1.6 for the intense stupidity of the premise, but a 9.8? Never! The Armenian judges tear their hair out, throw their balalaikas down in dismay, and perform the traditional Armenian Dismay Chant! They demand a recount! 73, de Hans, K0HB -- http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb |
Yes, I and can see a lot of 2 meter gear being sold/modified for use -
where? I personally see no need for Morse, but do have a concern about the continuing movement to reduce technical requirements. This would include grandfathering techs to general. Folks have been killed trying to erect towers. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Just my opinion ;) Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 5/31/04 |
|
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Yes, I and can see a lot of 2 meter gear being sold/modified for use - where? I personally see no need for Morse, but do have a concern about the continuing movement to reduce technical requirements. This would include grandfathering techs to general. Folks have been killed trying to erect towers. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Just my opinion ;) Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
Yes, I and can see a lot of 2 meter gear being sold/modified for use - where? I personally see no need for Morse, but do have a concern about the continuing movement to reduce technical requirements. There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. This would include grandfathering techs to general. Folks have been killed trying to erect towers. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN |
steward wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Yes, I and can see a lot of 2 meter gear being sold/modified for use - where? I personally see no need for Morse, but do have a concern about the continuing movement to reduce technical requirements. There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. I took both. You are wrong. This would include grandfathering techs to general. Folks have been killed trying to erect towers. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Technicians have towers too. And a general has taken the Technician test, so they got the info. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. Litmus tests, dams breaking? WTH, mate? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"stewart" wrote There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. Uh, don't look now, but each new recent General has to first take the enty level Technician examination. Since tower safety is a basic requirement for any class operator it is tested on the basic test. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to ask the same questions on both tests, so the General examination does not repeat the same material. Kinda puts the lie to your assertion about "virtually no difference" though, doesn't it! With all kind regards, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"stewart" wrote There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. Uh, don't look now, but each new recent General has to first take the enty level Technician examination. Since tower safety is a basic requirement for any class operator it is tested on the basic test. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to ask the same questions on both tests, so the General examination does not repeat the same material. Kinda puts the lie to your assertion about "virtually no difference" though, doesn't it! With all kind regards, de Hans, K0HB Still fighting the LOSING battle with non-logic, I see. Man! Don't you fools have ANYTHING better to do with your lives? Don't look now, but there's only a few of you left... progress WILL be made. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN |
stewart wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "stewart" wrote There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. Uh, don't look now, but each new recent General has to first take the enty level Technician examination. Since tower safety is a basic requirement for any class operator it is tested on the basic test. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to ask the same questions on both tests, so the General examination does not repeat the same material. Kinda puts the lie to your assertion about "virtually no difference" though, doesn't it! With all kind regards, de Hans, K0HB Still fighting the LOSING battle with non-logic, I see. What Hans said was not only logical, but 100 percent correct. I took a Technician's exam, then I took a General exam, then I took an Extra exam. All three were needed to get to Extra. And the tests were quite different. Man! Don't you fools have ANYTHING better to do with your lives? And yet you come in here and argue with us. Welcome to the fold. Don't look now, but there's only a few of you left... progress WILL be made. Your progress is defined as what? Progress for me is increased knowledge and improved skills, while for you it appears to be allowing Technician tested people to have what were once General tested priveliges. |
|
stewart wrote:
snip First you say: There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. snip Then you say: That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Seems different to me! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Or is it natural selection at work?
Ryan KC8PMX Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. |
Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: (stewart) Date: 6/1/2004 12:23 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: The progress-blocking dam that the foot-draggers have erected is leaking badly, and can not be maintained much longer. - Stewart (N0MHS) Only to be supplanted by idiots who think adding kiddie-channels to Amateur allocations will fix anything. Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: (stewart) Date: 6/2/2004 12:12 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: This would include grandfathering techs to general. Folks have been killed trying to erect towers. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Perhaps this is because in order to BE a General you have to take the TECHNICIAN written first, Stewart? Do you see some need to duplicate the effort? Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. Perhaps this is becasue in order to BE a General you have to take the TECHNICIAN written first, Stewart? Do you see some need to duplicate the effort? Get the point? Steve, K4YZ |
"William" wrote in message om... "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Yes, I and can see a lot of 2 meter gear being sold/modified for use - where? I personally see no need for Morse, but do have a concern about the continuing movement to reduce technical requirements. This would include grandfathering techs to general. Folks have been killed trying to erect towers. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Just my opinion ;) Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. I didn't know that the FCC exams covered driving vehicles. My concern is that people have little idea of rf safety, lightning safety (proper earth ground), conductor sizing and many other nifty items that might become somewhat important. Reminds me of the time we had to run a 115 volt , 30 amp circuit some 250 feet one way. One fool couldn't understand why we needed wire heavier than 10 gauge. "gee, 10 gauge wire will handle 30 amps). Yep, IR loss. Then there was the guy at work that took some 16 gauge wire to run a 12 volt 25 amp circuit. I tried to explain. Another knucklehead said it would work. He was lucky; the wire melted and didn't start a fire. I also don't want some idiot running 200 watts into a 5/8 wave groundplane on 2 meters next door to me. He may be ignorant, but I am not. So, back to your statement and my question: what does driving a car have to do with radio/electronics/rf/ac/dc and safety? Best regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/04 |
"stewart" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "stewart" wrote There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. Uh, don't look now, but each new recent General has to first take the enty level Technician examination. Since tower safety is a basic requirement for any class operator it is tested on the basic test. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to ask the same questions on both tests, so the General examination does not repeat the same material. Kinda puts the lie to your assertion about "virtually no difference" though, doesn't it! With all kind regards, de Hans, K0HB Still fighting the LOSING battle with non-logic, I see. Man! Don't you fools have ANYTHING better to do with your lives? Don't look now, but there's only a few of you left... progress WILL be made. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN Hello, Stewart Ok, let me pose a simple question for you. Assume you have a base and a mobile MURS station. Both have very good antennas and you have a minimum 10 mile solid range of communications. You are talking to your wife. She is 7 miles away from you. 11 miles away, another mobile MURS station comes over a hill and is now in your range. He has a base station 8 miles further away that you can't hear. He is using the same channel that you and your wife are using. He is running a 5/8 wave on his car. Oh, and he is using a modified 50 watt 2 meter rig (both at his base and in his car). Do the math. He can be on the opposite side of you from your wife in the mobile. His electric field is 5 times your wife's (and likely at least twice yours). Can we spell "capture effect"? Without extensive f layer propogation that exists on 11 meters at times, these problems won't become apparent until there are more MURS users and even then, most of the problem will be in urban areas .... but .... meanwhile, you won't be able to communicate with your wife (most likely). I darn well think that amateurs should be tested in at least basic rules and safety for an entry level class license. I tend to get nervous when I see questions about SWR and coax lengths from amateur extra class licenses. As far as the old timers wasting their time, there is one older guy around here whose repeaters won't go down easily. One is windmill powered; the other is solar powered. Then there are a *ton* of others in his system. All interconnected and cover 10 meters to 1.2 GHz. We have lives beyond both this newsgroup and Morse code ;) 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/04 |
Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/3/2004 8:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. So, back to your statement and my question: what does driving a car have to do with radio/electronics/rf/ac/dc and safety? A rhetorical question at best, isn't it, Jim...?!?! =) A skilled LennieRanter uses such diversions to redirect our attention from thier lack of substance in the exchange, Jim! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Jim Hampton wrote:
"stewart" wrote in message om... "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "stewart" wrote There is virtually no difference between the current General and Technician written exams. That's funny... there are 11 questions in the Technician question pool on TOWER SAFETY... and there are 0 questions in the General question pool. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. Apparently, recent Technicians know MORE than recent Generals, in regards to your litmus test issue of TOWER SAFETY. Uh, don't look now, but each new recent General has to first take the enty level Technician examination. Since tower safety is a basic requirement for any class operator it is tested on the basic test. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to ask the same questions on both tests, so the General examination does not repeat the same material. Kinda puts the lie to your assertion about "virtually no difference" though, doesn't it! With all kind regards, de Hans, K0HB Still fighting the LOSING battle with non-logic, I see. Man! Don't you fools have ANYTHING better to do with your lives? Don't look now, but there's only a few of you left... progress WILL be made. - Stewart http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN Hello, Stewart Ok, let me pose a simple question for you. Assume you have a base and a mobile MURS station. Both have very good antennas and you have a minimum 10 mile solid range of communications. You are talking to your wife. She is 7 miles away from you. 11 miles away, another mobile MURS station comes over a hill and is now in your range. He has a base station 8 miles further away that you can't hear. He is using the same channel that you and your wife are using. He is running a 5/8 wave on his car. Oh, and he is using a modified 50 watt 2 meter rig (both at his base and in his car). Do the math. He can be on the opposite side of you from your wife in the mobile. His electric field is 5 times your wife's (and likely at least twice yours). Can we spell "capture effect"? Without extensive f layer propogation that exists on 11 meters at times, these problems won't become apparent until there are more MURS users and even then, most of the problem will be in urban areas .... but .... meanwhile, you won't be able to communicate with your wife (most likely). My suspicion is that this is the first time that one has heard of the capture effect. Remember, nothing makes for a solid and simple argument like ignorance of the details. I darn well think that amateurs should be tested in at least basic rules and safety for an entry level class license. I tend to get nervous when I see questions about SWR and coax lengths from amateur extra class licenses. I'm not sure what can be done about that one, Jim. When the increasing Morse code speed requirements were in place, the prospective Extra was likely on the air and learning more about things as he or she went. It was simply a slowing of the process that enabled knowledge gain and practical experience in the interim. Now with 5wpm and testing, those brakes aren't there. I became an Extra "too quickly" and I know of others that got it much more too quickly than me! 8^) I've wanted to propose a waiting period between General and Extra, (2 years) but I seem to be the only person that thinks that is a good idea. As far as the old timers wasting their time, there is one older guy around here whose repeaters won't go down easily. One is windmill powered; the other is solar powered. Then there are a *ton* of others in his system. All interconnected and cover 10 meters to 1.2 GHz. Most excellent! Hey Jim, Are you going to be at the Rochester Hamfest this Saturday? i'm thinking of making it there on Saturday, then swinging down to catch the Butler fest on Sunday. - Mike KB3EIA |
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: The dam is leaking... From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/3/2004 8:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. So, back to your statement and my question: what does driving a car have to do with radio/electronics/rf/ac/dc and safety? A rhetorical question at best, isn't it, Jim...?!?! =) A skilled LennieRanter uses such diversions to redirect our attention from thier lack of substance in the exchange, Jim! 73 Steve, K4YZ The point was, "We'll never know (if they knew the material). Some of you OF's try to make it sound like getting to the FCC office for an examination was inconvenient at best, or even dangerous. So you petitioned your government to let you get a mail order license, or to have some other local ham(s) test you. Lots of hand wringing and whining. |
"William" wrote in message om... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: The dam is leaking... From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/3/2004 8:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. So, back to your statement and my question: what does driving a car have to do with radio/electronics/rf/ac/dc and safety? A rhetorical question at best, isn't it, Jim...?!?! =) A skilled LennieRanter uses such diversions to redirect our attention from thier lack of substance in the exchange, Jim! 73 Steve, K4YZ The point was, "We'll never know (if they knew the material). Some of you OF's try to make it sound like getting to the FCC office for an examination was inconvenient at best, or even dangerous. So you petitioned your government to let you get a mail order license, or to have some other local ham(s) test you. Lots of hand wringing and whining. Huh? I thought most of the OFs were trying to get the tests a bit more difficult. You can't have it both ways. Next, you'll blame the OFs because your washing machine is over-sudsing LOL! The reality is that the real flamers on both ends of the spectrum are the hold up. That mention of a trip to the FCC being dangerous had no relation to the material on the test. We could say the same thing about sending our kids to school. A very few have been killed and/or raped. That is hardly a reason for not attending school. These newsgroups get sillier every month, if not every week. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/04 |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message om... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: The dam is leaking... From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/3/2004 8:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. So, back to your statement and my question: what does driving a car have to do with radio/electronics/rf/ac/dc and safety? A rhetorical question at best, isn't it, Jim...?!?! =) A skilled LennieRanter uses such diversions to redirect our attention from thier lack of substance in the exchange, Jim! 73 Steve, K4YZ The point was, "We'll never know (if they knew the material). Some of you OF's try to make it sound like getting to the FCC office for an examination was inconvenient at best, or even dangerous. So you petitioned your government to let you get a mail order license, or to have some other local ham(s) test you. Lots of hand wringing and whining. Huh? I thought most of the OFs were trying to get the tests a bit more difficult. Yep, now that they got theirs, they're trying to make things more difficult. Can you recall when Amateur Radio got mail order upgrades and hams testing hams? You can't have it both ways. I never have. Next, you'll blame the OFs because your washing machine is over-sudsing LOL! Stay away from my washing machine. The reality is that the real flamers on both ends of the spectrum are the hold up. That mention of a trip to the FCC being dangerous had no relation to the material on the test. We could say the same thing about sending our kids to school. A very few have been killed and/or raped. That is hardly a reason for not attending school. Wow! I hope that didn't happen because of frustrated amateurs on their way to an exam. These newsgroups get sillier every month, if not every week. Actually, No. Fewer and fewer PCTA post each month, and the newsgroup is improving. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... snip Most excellent! Hey Jim, Are you going to be at the Rochester Hamfest this Saturday? i'm thinking of making it there on Saturday, then swinging down to catch the Butler fest on Sunday. - Mike KB3EIA Mike, I wish I was going to be there. I dunno, but some friends are going to be over here tomorrow so I suspect that I won't. I haven't had a chance to talk to Tim, WB2KAO and see when he may be there .... sigh .... I made it to the hamfest perhaps 4 years ago :( 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/04 |
Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/4/2004 12:45 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: The dam is leaking... From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/3/2004 8:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. So, back to your statement and my question: what does driving a car have to do with radio/electronics/rf/ac/dc and safety? A rhetorical question at best, isn't it, Jim...?!?! =) A skilled LennieRanter uses such diversions to redirect our attention from thier lack of substance in the exchange, Jim! 73 Steve, K4YZ The point was, "We'll never know (if they knew the material). Some of you OF's try to make it sound like getting to the FCC office for an examination was inconvenient at best, or even dangerous. So you petitioned your government to let you get a mail order license, or to have some other local ham(s) test you. Lots of hand wringing and whining. Huh? I thought most of the OFs were trying to get the tests a bit more difficult. You can't have it both ways. It wasn't the "OF's" who were trying to get the tests thinned out. It was the Johhny-come-lately 10-4 Good Buddy crowd that wanted NO code test and written questions that were "in the public domain". Next, you'll blame the OFs because your washing machine is over-sudsing LOL! He'll blame anyone for anything as long as it means defering any responsibility from himself. The reality is that the real flamers on both ends of the spectrum are the hold up. That mention of a trip to the FCC being dangerous had no relation to the material on the test. We could say the same thing about sending our kids to school. A very few have been killed and/or raped. That is hardly a reason for not attending school. These newsgroups get sillier every month, if not every week. I had high expectations that there would be some sort of meaningful exchanges here. Boy did I ever get my bubble broken. It's a nice place to get that "stomping in the mud puddle" thing out of your system so you can wash up and go back to "the real world". 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: The dam is leaking... From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/4/2004 12:45 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message .com... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Subject: The dam is leaking... From: "Jim Hampton" Date: 6/3/2004 8:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "William" wrote in message . com... Folks have been killed while driving to the FCC for exams. They might have known the material, and they might not have. We'll never know. So, back to your statement and my question: what does driving a car have to do with radio/electronics/rf/ac/dc and safety? A rhetorical question at best, isn't it, Jim...?!?! =) A skilled LennieRanter uses such diversions to redirect our attention from thier lack of substance in the exchange, Jim! 73 Steve, K4YZ The point was, "We'll never know (if they knew the material). Some of you OF's try to make it sound like getting to the FCC office for an examination was inconvenient at best, or even dangerous. So you petitioned your government to let you get a mail order license, or to have some other local ham(s) test you. Lots of hand wringing and whining. Huh? I thought most of the OFs were trying to get the tests a bit more difficult. You can't have it both ways. It wasn't the "OF's" who were trying to get the tests thinned out. It was the Johhny-come-lately 10-4 Good Buddy crowd that wanted NO code test and written questions that were "in the public domain". By definition, AMATEUR radio is not professional. Ergo, a HOBBY, done for personal recreation, enjoyment, without accepting any money for communications services rendered anyone. As such, the rules and regulations need only to reflect the radio environment, other radio services, and, of course, the international radio world effect (which involves some politicking). Hobbies don't need any professional guild-union-craft structure of apprentice- journeyman-master kind of hierarchy...except in the imagination of those who use an amateur license to merely show off. The public question (and answer) pool came about through other government regulations as Phil pointed out years ago. In reality, such public data has been around for over a half century beginning with the "Q&A" books that were once on the market right after WW2. The Dick Bash material came later and was not the start of such things. Bash did better marketing, combining his radio schools with the books, plus some noteriety, all added up to his being "known" better. The "Q&A" books began it with commercial radio operator licenses plus the amateur radio operator licenses. The "no code movement" existed over four decades ago and has grown in that time, finally achieving organizations (NCI is the largest to date) which emphasized that. The use of manual telegraphy has continued to decline in non-amateur radio for half a century and the hoary old maxims of "a good radio op is a good telegrapher" went out of date long, long ago...every- where but among the greying heads of old amateurs. Next, you'll blame the OFs because your washing machine is over-sudsing LOL! He'll blame anyone for anything as long as it means defering any responsibility from himself. Jim Hampton made a little remark with humor and should be taken as such. That wasn't a springboard for you to suddenly turn on fury and go on yet-another personal attack. The reality is that the real flamers on both ends of the spectrum are the hold up. That mention of a trip to the FCC being dangerous had no relation to the material on the test. We could say the same thing about sending our kids to school. A very few have been killed and/or raped. That is hardly a reason for not attending school. These newsgroups get sillier every month, if not every week. I had high expectations that there would be some sort of meaningful exchanges here. Boy did I ever get my bubble broken. Tsk, tsk, tsk, you broke it yourself. You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the communications environment with personal attacks of any kind on those who do not agree with you. "Meaningful exchanges" do not equate with capitulation to your personal ideas of what amateur radio is (fantasy or otherwise). It's a nice place to get that "stomping in the mud puddle" thing out of your system so you can wash up and go back to "the real world". That's just the opposite of what you just said about "meaningful exchanges." You DO play in lots of mud. If there isn't any mud, you hose down the ground and MAKE mud...then whine and complain that all others are being so nasty to poor little you. Poor nursie...no TLC received because of throwing all that mud. You broke the levees over five years ago along with all the other mud bulldozers in here and think you are mighty and powerful for saying what's on your mind...and then getting angrier when anyone throws the mud right back at you. Tsk, tsk, tsk. On top of that, you can't get government regulations straight or what they mean, such as "MARS is amateur radio," a statement that is incorrect. Stewart started off this thread with some rather vague generality that wasn't any "rant" but just a general comment. I really don't know, nor can I decrypt what Stewart meant (from many possible choices). I can see that the Personal Attack mode has been turned on by yourself. Again. On specifics of what certain others say so that you can claim bulldoze rights of breaking the behavior dam to add more troubled waters over calm land. |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... Yes, I and can see a lot of 2 meter gear being sold/modified for use - where? I personally see no need for Morse, but do have a concern about the continuing movement to reduce technical requirements. This would include grandfathering techs to general. Folks have been killed trying to erect towers. Perhaps everyone believes that if you have a license you actually know something. And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim??? Carl - wk3c |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... [snip] I also don't want some idiot running 200 watts into a 5/8 wave groundplane on 2 meters next door to me. He may be ignorant, but I am not. And what is to stop a tech from doing so? (as long as he/she does the RF exposure analysis ... which will probably show that it's just fine from the RF exposure standpoint ...) Jim, your class elitism/prejudice is showing - why don't you stop acting like all techs are dimwits? Many are more technically accomplished than many extras. Carl - wk3c |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... [snip] I also don't want some idiot running 200 watts into a 5/8 wave groundplane on 2 meters next door to me. He may be ignorant, but I am not. And what is to stop a tech from doing so? (as long as he/she does the RF exposure analysis ... which will probably show that it's just fine from the RF exposure standpoint ...) Jim, your class elitism/prejudice is showing - why don't you stop acting like all techs are dimwits? Many are more technically accomplished than many extras. Carl, Please read the thread from the beginning to see the context of the comments. Note the claims and tone of the person who started the thread. Jim is *supporting* the idea of meaningful written tests for all - including the entry-level license, whatever it is. He is not saying all or even some techs are "dimwits" - just that we need appropriate technical testing in place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... [snip] I also don't want some idiot running 200 watts into a 5/8 wave groundplane on 2 meters next door to me. He may be ignorant, but I am not. And what is to stop a tech from doing so? (as long as he/she does the RF exposure analysis ... which will probably show that it's just fine from the RF exposure standpoint ...) Jim, your class elitism/prejudice is showing - why don't you stop acting like all techs are dimwits? Many are more technically accomplished than many extras. I think you are pulling this out of context, Carl. The original poster said that (paraphrasing here) the people opposed to the upgrade are wrong in part because the Technician and General tests are nearly identical. Oddly enough, in a later post that same poster went on to note how many Tower questions there are on the Tech test, yet not on the General test - a seeming contradiction for nearly identical tests. I am a "new" Ham, having taken all my tests in modern times. There are significan differences between the Technician test and the General test and the Extra test. Jim was merely supporting adequate testing. As do I. Of course there is a wide gap in what people consider adequate. I know I do not consider the Technician test adequate to be classed as a General. And I doubt I'll ever apologize for thinking that knowledge is good. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: The dam is leaking...
From: (Len Over 21) Date: 6/5/2004 3:09 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the communications environment with personal attacks of any kind on those who do not agree with you. Whew.... Coming from YOU this means absolutely NOTHING. You are the epitome of newsgroup antagonist and troll. You laid waste to your own name and "character" a long time ago. You are a documented liar and deceiver. YOU "soiled the communications enviroment" when you started in with the "jackbooted thugs", "elitists" and other demeaning adjectives and then followed it up with ream after ream of cowardly, spiteful anti-Amateur rhetoric. Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim??? I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: The dam is leaking... From: (Len Over 21) Date: 6/5/2004 3:09 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: You can't have "meaningful exchanges" when you soil the communications environment with personal attacks of any kind on those who do not agree with you. Whew.... Coming from YOU this means absolutely NOTHING. Poor baby. So far, not a single "meaningful discussion." :-) Example is just following... You are the epitome of newsgroup antagonist and troll. You laid waste to your own name and "character" a long time ago. You are a documented liar and deceiver. "Liar?" In one way, to one pair of eyes, that is true I disrupt the fantasies and wish-fulfillment of someone with reality. That can be a distinct ego blow. "Deceiver?" In what way? Not following your imaginations and fantasies as "truth?" Reality can be harsh. Try to accept reality as it exists. YOU "soiled the communications enviroment" when you started in with the "jackbooted thugs", "elitists" and other demeaning adjectives and then followed it up with ream after ream of cowardly, spiteful anti-Amateur rhetoric. Your jackboots wear out? :-) If being a "ham" means living in a fantasy world of great derring-do in radio, then I'm certainly not one of those deceivers. Putz. Tsk, tsk, tsk...still into cussing and personal attacks as "meaningful discussions?" [not at all a good image of an amateur extra...] |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim??? I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the ill-concieved proposal of ARRL [and NCVEC] which would extend a "free pass" to hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by [written] examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General. Well said! That's exactly the point. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim??? I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General. The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as Generals? What problems? -or- What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides the positions of the station's bandswitches. 73, de Hans, K0HB w3rv |
Brian Kelly wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim??? I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General. The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as Generals? What problems? Hf type questions? I also have a question along these lines. I personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half the Ham population out of something they should have? Honest, Folks, knowledge is good! -or- What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides the positions of the station's bandswitches. Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues, so I'm not all that worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI problems are different between HF and VHF and above. As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants with silly questions about RF safety. - Mike KB3EIA - |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: You are the epitome of newsgroup antagonist and troll. You laid waste to your own name and "character" a long time ago. You are a documented liar and deceiver. "Liar?" In one way, to one pair of eyes, that is true I disrupt the fantasies and wish-fulfillment of someone with reality. Lennie, you really DO believe the lies and rhetoric you spew about Amateur Radio, don't you..?!?! Despite having been corrected and redirected to countless sources of data that contradicts almost everything you say, you still insist that your putrid lies are valid. Sheeeesh. That can be a distinct ego blow. There's been no blow to MY ego over anything you've "presented" in this forum. I get aggitated that someone can so overtly lie and attempt to mislead people without some sort of resounding recourse, but hey, every creep eventually ahs his day...you will too. "Deceiver?" In what way? Not following your imaginations and fantasies as "truth?" "I am going to get my "extra lite" out of the box". "I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue" "I'll send a scanned image of my FCC License to anyone who asks for it" Reality can be harsh. Try to accept reality as it exists. That's not my problem, Lennie...Accepting that mere mortal, non-engineer lay persons with an FCC license can do more with a radio than you ever THOUGHT about doing is YOURS. YOU "soiled the communications enviroment" when you started in with the "jackbooted thugs", "elitists" and other demeaning adjectives and then followed it up with ream after ream of cowardly, spiteful anti-Amateur rhetoric. Your jackboots wear out? I'll specifically buy a pair next time I visit California, then see just how much it takes to wear them down...How's that, Lennie? If being a "ham" means living in a fantasy world of great derring-do in radio, then I'm certainly not one of those deceivers. You've never been in ANY world of radio operating, Lennie...You have been around them, used them as a tool, maybe even played with one on a bench, but you're incompetent when it comes to OPERATING one. Putz. Tsk, tsk, tsk...still into cussing and personal attacks as "meaningful discussions?" [not at all a good image of an amateur extra...] It's not my image, Lennie. It's yours. You're the putz. They ought to sue you for defamation by association. Steve, K4YZ |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim??? I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General. The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as Generals? What problems? Hf type questions? Being able to correctly answer "HF type questions" gets one an upgrade? I see (??!). I also have a question along these lines. I personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half the Ham population out of something they should have? Honest, Folks, knowledge is good! -or- What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides the positions of the station's bandswitches. Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues, 'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside. I never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at 150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers. so I'm not all that worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI problems are different between HF and VHF and above. Different freqs, same ballgame, the basics are the same. Should not have anything to do with segregating the Tech/General operating priveleges. As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants with silly questions about RF safety. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
Brian Kelly wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... Brian Kelly wrote: "KØHB" wrote in message link.net... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim??? I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General. The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as Generals? What problems? Hf type questions? Being able to correctly answer "HF type questions" gets one an upgrade? I see (??!). I also have a question along these lines. I personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half the Ham population out of something they should have? Honest, Folks, knowledge is good! -or- What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides the positions of the station's bandswitches. Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues, 'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside. Nonsense? There is no doubt that an engineer can fry themselves. But that really isn't the point. There is no level of education that can insure complete safety. What the idea - and the point is - is to provide the exposure to some relevent material, and hope it sinks in. It is an excercise for the student to use or not to use. I never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at 150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers. Times change, Brian. Safety is considered important these days. so I'm not all that worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI problems are different between HF and VHF and above. Different freqs, same ballgame, the basics are the same. Should not have anything to do with segregating the Tech/General operating priveleges. As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants with silly questions about RF safety. - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com