RadioBanter - What is the deal with the MARS stuff?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - What is the deal with the MARS stuff? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27548-what-deal-mars-stuff.html)

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
William wrote:

Using logic, where "IS" means "EQUAL TO," MARS is not
equal to, or the same as Amateur Radio. The statement is false.

Yoiks! Brian. We're not going to be defining "is" now are we? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

It turns out it is necessary to define "is" as it does NOT always mean
"equal to". As noted in the post I just sent, one can say "Marigolds are
flowers", which is a true statement but you cannot turn it around and say
"Flowers are marigolds" as this latter isn't always true.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
William wrote:

Using logic, where "IS" means "EQUAL TO," MARS is not
equal to, or the same as Amateur Radio. The statement is false.

Yoiks! Brian. We're not going to be defining "is" now are we? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

It turns out it is necessary to define "is" as it does NOT always mean
"equal to". As noted in the post I just sent, one can say "Marigolds are
flowers", which is a true statement but you cannot turn it around and say
"Flowers are marigolds" as this latter isn't always true.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

If MARS were amateur radio, it would have rules defining and
regulating it in Title 47 C.F.R. It does not.

If MARS were amateur radio, the Department of Defense would
not have released Directive 4650.2. They did, so that defines
MARS as a military radio service.

---

If a seventy tree falls on a florist, will he cry "Marigolds?"

LHA / WMD

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"William" wrote in message
. com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
The only thing left is to examine the statement that Steve is
continuing to get his chops busted over:

"Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio,"

Strictly speaking, One is not necessarily a member of MARS by virtue
of
having an amateur license.

However, if a person was a civilian, they might be hard pressed to be
a
member unless they had such a license.

Certainly, the amateur radio operator receiving training in the proper
traffic handling is the purpose of MARS.

So where one might want Steve to add "a part of" between "is" and
"amateur", I would remind everyone that this was in the context of a
reply to our good Hans, who has been known to engage in a bit of
hyperbole his own good self.

Actually based on the material you quoted, Steve's statement, based on the
rules of logic, is correct as it stands.

Actually, No. But you're thinking in the right direction.

Using logic, where "IS" means "EQUAL TO," MARS is not
equal to, or the same as Amateur Radio. The statement is false.

If Steve were to say that some (few, many, most, 99%, 90%, more than
80%, and/or 98%) MARS operators are also amateur radio operators, he
would have been correct. But he's switched his position on it so many
times, without ever having rejected his original statement, "Sorry
Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio," that we cannot tell where he
really stands on the subject.

A good first start to clearing up his position would be for him to
admit that MARS IS NOT Amateur Radio.

However, one must keep in mind
that under the rules of logic, a statement that is true as written, is not
necessarily true in the reverse direction.

It must be true in both directions. If it is not, then Algebra
contains only false statements. Is this the case?

In this case, the statement
"MARS is amateur radio" does NOT imply that it is the only element of
amateur radio

It does imply that. Nothing about a subset was uttered or implied.

and does NOT imply anything about the characteristics and
activities of amateur radio.

It does imply that. It implies that MARS is Amateur Radio. Even if
Steve were to have merely said that , "MARS IS _Exactly Like_
Amateur Radio," he would still have been wrong. He said that they
weren't exactly alike, he said that they were the very same thing!

That is to say, one cannot legitimately turn
the statement around to say that "amateur radio is MARS."

For the statement to be true, "turning the statement around" must also
be true. Transitive property.

Thanks, Dee, for setting the record straight.

Math rules on IS being the same as EQUALS do not apply to logic statements.

DoD didn't rule on MARS. MARS is a military radio service.

The "A" in MARS stands for affiliate, not amateur.

MARS is NOT amateur radio.

One can say that "Marigolds are flowers" yet cannot say that "Flowers are
marigolds." The statement is NOT true in both directions because it is NOT
math.

Send a Hallmark card, not flowers, next time a certifiable
WRONG statement is issued from the hospital.

Don't put your petal to the metal on defending the undefendable.

LHA / WMD

Subject: What is the deal with the MARS stuff?
From: Mike Coslo
Date: 6/1/2004 9:07 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

After listening to the MARS argument going on in here, I did a little
looking around.

Snip to...

Navy/Marine Corps MARS

Eligibility to Join NAVMARCORMARS
An applicant must:

1. be 18 years of age or older,
2. be a United States Citizen or Legal Resident Alien,
3. possess a valid amateur radio license issued by the Federal
Communications Commission or other competent U.S. authority --
Technician class or above, and
4. possess a station capable of operating on the MARS HF frequencies
(2.0 - 30 Mhz).

Source: http://navymars.org/

WHOA! Don't let Lennie the Lame know he's wrong again...He stated right
here in this forum that there was NO requirement for an Amateur license to be a
member of N/MC MARS.

The only thing left is to examine the statement that Steve is
continuing to get his chops busted over:

"Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio,"

Strictly speaking, One is not necessarily a member of MARS by virtue of

having an amateur license.

Mike, my comment was meant to be that the MARS program is the very essence
of what being an Amateur is all about, and my later statements further exemplfy
that one cannot be a part of MARS without Amateur Radio.

Of course Brain and his mentor have been trying to use a literal
definition of it, but I've tried to redirect them. Guess I've exposed thier
dirty laundry one time too many and they will hold on to any tidbit that they
think will give them an opportunity to "get back" at me.

Oh well.

Steve, K4YZ

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
William wrote:

Using logic, where "IS" means "EQUAL TO," MARS is not
equal to, or the same as Amateur Radio. The statement is false.

Yoiks! Brian. We're not going to be defining "is" now are we? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

You have to with guys like Slick Willie, err, ahh, Steve/K4CAP.

;^0

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

Using logic, where "IS" means "EQUAL TO," MARS is not
equal to, or the same as Amateur Radio. The statement is false.

Yoiks! Brian. We're not going to be defining "is" now are we? 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

It turns out it is necessary to define "is" as it does NOT always mean
"equal to".

However, it meant EQUAL TO in Steve's use of the word.

As noted in the post I just sent, one can say "Marigolds are
flowers", which is a true statement but you cannot turn it around and say
"Flowers are marigolds" as this latter isn't always true.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Welp, if we were to use a subject a little closer to the task at hand, and say,

"MARS Ops ARE Amateur Ops" it would be false, and if we were to say,

"Amateur Ops ARE MARS Ops" it would again be false.

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"William" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
The only thing left is to examine the statement that Steve is
continuing to get his chops busted over:

"Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio,"

Strictly speaking, One is not necessarily a member of MARS by virtue
of
having an amateur license.

However, if a person was a civilian, they might be hard pressed to be
a
member unless they had such a license.

Certainly, the amateur radio operator receiving training in the proper
traffic handling is the purpose of MARS.

So where one might want Steve to add "a part of" between "is" and
"amateur", I would remind everyone that this was in the context of a
reply to our good Hans, who has been known to engage in a bit of
hyperbole his own good self.

Actually based on the material you quoted, Steve's statement, based on
the
rules of logic, is correct as it stands.

Actually, No. But you're thinking in the right direction.

Using logic, where "IS" means "EQUAL TO," MARS is not
equal to, or the same as Amateur Radio. The statement is false.

If Steve were to say that some (few, many, most, 99%, 90%, more than
80%, and/or 98%) MARS operators are also amateur radio operators, he
would have been correct. But he's switched his position on it so many
times, without ever having rejected his original statement, "Sorry
Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio," that we cannot tell where he
really stands on the subject.

A good first start to clearing up his position would be for him to
admit that MARS IS NOT Amateur Radio.

However, one must keep in mind
that under the rules of logic, a statement that is true as written, is
not
necessarily true in the reverse direction.

It must be true in both directions. If it is not, then Algebra
contains only false statements. Is this the case?

In this case, the statement
"MARS is amateur radio" does NOT imply that it is the only element of
amateur radio

It does imply that. Nothing about a subset was uttered or implied.

and does NOT imply anything about the characteristics and
activities of amateur radio.

It does imply that. It implies that MARS is Amateur Radio. Even if
Steve were to have merely said that , "MARS IS _Exactly Like_
Amateur Radio," he would still have been wrong. He said that they
weren't exactly alike, he said that they were the very same thing!

That is to say, one cannot legitimately turn
the statement around to say that "amateur radio is MARS."

For the statement to be true, "turning the statement around" must also
be true. Transitive property.

Thanks, Dee, for setting the record straight.

Math rules on IS being the same as EQUALS do not apply to logic statements.

One can say that "Marigolds are flowers" yet cannot say that "Flowers are
marigolds." The statement is NOT true in both directions because it is NOT
math.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

If only that were true, your rescue of Steve would be complete.