| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#91
June 14th 04, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian Kelly" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Ryan, KC8PMX wrote: If not required by laws or rules, then it is required out of some level of operational courtesy though. Ryan KC8PMX I prefer that people simply say their callsign to me. Phonetics annoy me mostly. When they use their phonetics, are they practicing courtesy to me? - Mike KB3EIA - I find that people have a high error percentage in getting my call correct even with a clear, strong FM signal unless I give it at least once phonetically. While my call is N8UZE, the Z is frequently repeated back to me as B, C, D, G, P, T, or V. The only people who don't make that mistake are those who have known me for a while and are familiar with my call. There's an ancient quick fix for that problem. Use N 8 U Zed E. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE w3rv I am aware of that but am not used to it, not having grown up around speakers of French or people from Canada or near the Canadian border. Besides, I like to make absolutely sure that someone I've never spoken to before gets it right. Occasionally the "E" also causes problems. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#93
June 14th 04, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
(gunnery nurse trying to imitate Joe Biden) writes: Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie From: (William) Date: 6/13/2004 9:44 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len, I've always said that my /T5 logs are in storage. No, you've not, but it's your story and I am sure you think it's true. A simple 5 minute google search could have borne that out. But Steve had to make up stories. Untrue stories. They're not lost, never have been. And I know that Steve and Kelly aren't in them because I didn't work any USA stations. Then WHY haven't YOU taken five minutes to walk out to the garage, dig them out, then PROVE your assertions are truthful? How does one PROVE anything to a nursie who can't accept any evidence? :-) "Storage unit" of Brian's is NOT a "garage." DoD Directive 4650.2 exists, as does NCP 8(C), yet nursie keeps on stating that "MARS is amateur radio!" :-) (knock knock...because they are not...) Knock, knock...knock it off. Go pay your "rant," nursie. Time for nursie to take his medications...the ones prescribed by a real MD. Temper fry... LHA / WMD |
|
#94
June 14th 04, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: Able Baker Charlie From: (Len Over 21) Date: 6/13/2004 3:28 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steaming Steve der STASI Unteroffizier who has to ride the coattails of those specifically attacking personalities) scribbles: "I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue". It's rather obvious that the PCTA do NOT want to debate any morse code test issue. :-) Anyone who is the slightest against manual telegraphy gets the "rant" treatment by the PCTA. :-) From the archived mistruths and fantasies of Leonard H. Anderson, a known pathological liar and ex-test bench technician (no longer able to work regular hours because most anyone who might hire him has finally gotten the word about him...) Poor baby. Finally went over the edge totally, ey? Must be the Dr. Killgore personna writing that, with the "pathological liar" label. :-) Someone call CSI. A radio hum is ready for spontaneous combustion now that the red fire in his eyes have spread...best to get some forensic evidence before he makes an ash of himself... Beep, beep... LHA / WMD |
|
#96
June 14th 04, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#97
June 14th 04, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: Able Baker Charlie From: Mike Coslo Date: 6/13/2004 11:12 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: About two decades ago I started computer-modem communications. Those days were something by comparison. Phone cradle modems and slow as molasses. Can't say as I'm all that sorry they are gone. Me too. However, if you pay close attention, Mike, you'll see yet another LennieTroll in this exchange. Tsk, tsk, tsk. The Troll crawls from under the bridge, looks around, can see only trolls when he is alone... You see Lennie spends a great deal of time berating anone in this forum that dares to express ANY degree of "experience" in ANY communications related discipline. I do?!? Most of the time it seems to be intense return fire against the un-aiming message warriors' (of "hostile action" rep) pot-shots. Poor baby. I've had radio communications experience. Big-time stuff in the beginning. As "disciplined" as any military effort can be. Nursie never did military radio comms in the service? Tsk, tsk. He then gets off in a tangent about how anyone who discusses anything older than an hour is "archaic" and otherwise backwards. Where is nursie reading THAT? :-) In one of those mythical "rants?" [he must be ahead of himself in paying rant to his landlord...] However it's obviously not against HIS rules for HIM to do the very same thing. So, nursie wants the uneven playing field where he can say and do anything but all in opposition must be respectful, loving, and kind to all that libel stuff? :-) I haven't figgured that out yet...Seems a bit two-faced to me. "Figgured?" :-) Nursie looks in mirror, sees only himself, then describes himself as that which others are supposed to be. :-) But then nothing about pathological liars is easy to understand. Poor baby. Broke another mirror again? Got a tad off the subject into Personal Hatred, dintcha? :-) I hate almost no one. Whether you like it or not, I like you. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mike. Your words in other messages betray you... I'm sorry you feel that way. It is totally irrelevant whether anyone is "liked" or not. 100 percent correct. That doesn't change the fact that I do like you. I LOVE this, Mike! If this isn't a cut-and-dried effort by His Scumminess to dig his heels in and create yet another bloodbath in the NG, I don't know what is. "Bloodbath?!?" :-) Like "the new math" this must be the "new meaningful discussion." :-) Sir Putzy did essentially the same thing with me. No amount of "thanks for your opinion but I don't agree" satisfied him. He dug in with the Nazi epithets and cries foul when it is visited back upon him. Poor baby. Wrong size in newsgrope jackboots again? Try leaving off the socks, they might fit better, less pinching... This is computer-modem comms and the in-person social rules don't apply here. If you do not wish them to apply to you, they don't have to. You are the master of what you say and do in person or in a newsgroup. Lennie percieves himself as a MasterDebator. And no doubt, he is... This is "debate?!?" :-) Hardly. Somewhere, someplace, someone is actually discussing NATO phonetic alphabets and other phonetic alphabets. Not here. Here there be only the on-going outraged "rants" of der gunnery nurse. :-) Must be the "new amateur radio" too... :-) LHA / WMD |
|
#98
June 14th 04, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo (jumping in on the Sermon On The Antenna Mount trolling) writes: Awww...poor Mike got his ego perceived as stepped on? Absolutely not! I was complementing you on something. You are pretty good at this. Those replies "just seem to write themselves..." :-) About two decades ago I started computer-modem communications. Those days were something by comparison. Phone cradle modems and slow as molasses. Can't say as I'm all that sorry they are gone. In the beginning of BBSing, everyone was limited by modems which, in 1970 had 300 WPM as "fast" rates. Ten years later they had gotten past 1200 WPM. By 1990 modems could go better than 28,800 WPM. It was relatively easy for the computer to keep up on single-user lines. For 30 MHz clock computers, some better software and interrupt-handlers could handle two dozen callers simultaneously at BBS terminals. I got access to the RCA corporate net in 1972 and generally used the 100 WPM Model 33 TTY terminals. Good for moderate character-plot "graphics" in black on white paper. Saved lots of engineering time once one knew how to program in FORTRAN. No inkjet printers then (Sanders Associates was just beginning the first ones) so we just pasted printouts on backing paper and xerocopied them. :-) IBM's ECAP was king in 1972 for circuit analysis and it was good. Don Pedersen's group at Berkeley was thinking about the first SPICE (based on several other time-domain programs such as Ohio State's OSUCAD and more), but had not yet thunk up the acronym SPICE. RCA used LECAP, a frequency- domain-only short version of ECAP and it was terrific for the limited user storage of 256K space. :-) The first HP pocket scientific calculators were on the market (HP-35) and the programmable (!) version (HP-45) was just being packaged up. At an NADC visit in '72 I talked to an H-P rep whose territory included Bell Labs...the Labs had ordered 700 (!) to be GIVEN to staff. RCA corporate arranged a bulk order staff purchase for selected employees to buy the $395 calculator for $200. Three of us at EASD in Van Nuys (myself, Ken Adam, another in EW) got reimbursed for the difference...a relief since all three were constantly pestered by other staff wanting to "borrow" them. :-) I've seen and met lots of discussors and just dis-cussers in person via the BBS gatherings. Yeah, me too. The first BBS I joined was Lynzie Flynn's "Motherboard," in December, 1984. A social BBS, the "Motherboard" had monthly Gatherings of subscribers, usually at the popular 945h Aerosquadron (restaurant) at Van Nuys airport. "Talk Channel" BBS soon opened, followed by "KBBS" and all had fun competing for subscribers and social events. I was on "The Ledge" which sysop Joe Sheppard made into an international network (!) once the higher-speed modems got really fast. "US Pompeii" was networked with "Pompeii" in Holland and run by my Talk Channel buddy Zippy Manus (managed by husband Stan Manus). Regular Gatherings at the Manus house in Hollywood Hills and there were two large Gatherings combining the Motherboard and US Pompeii at Warner Center (300+ in attendance). One of the ten oldest BBSs in the USA was "Mog-Ur's EMS" (for Electronic Message System) run by double Emmy-winning Tom Tcimpidis. At least three amateur radio oriented BBSs existed in the northern Los Angeles region but none of them got large before the Internet went public in 1991. With the advent of the Internet, all the BBSs (all subscriber funded) had to close due to competition. Lynzie's Motherboard was sold after owner became Lynzie Flynn Zimmerman, Talk Channel's prime owner Gary died, and the KBBS sysop took his computers and subscriber funds and skipped town! :-) Three Motherboard/Pompeii competitor BBSs started up very late, notably Karen's "Modem Butterfly," all on the social themes but those could not hold up financially when the Internet grew. How folks write here is indicative of how they really feel, up close and personal. :-) You are 100 percent correct. One gets further insight by private messaging on BBSs. Users think they are absolutely private, but every terminal software written allows sysops to constantly monitor communications live. I was co-sysop on two of the BBSs. Some get VERY into their computer personna. One guy on Talk Channel had two subscriptions, one for himself and one for his "girlfriend" (non-existant) who also "wrote public messages." :-) There existed some feuds and weirdos on the BBSs which makes this newsgroup look pale by comparison. I had the displeasure of being in the group that "fired" one user who was on all known social BBSs in the immediate area, causing trouble for most other subscribers. A real closet sociopath. One was a real attorney who adopted a completely opposite personna of an outgoing, rather outrageous person named "Floyd," but done in humor, not spite. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mike. Your words in other messages betray you... I'm sorry you feel that way. It is totally irrelevant whether anyone is "liked" or not. 100 percent correct. That doesn't change the fact that I do like you. Anyone "looking for love" on either BBSs or the Internet is deluded or too imaginative. I say that from observation even though I know at least four local couples (besides sysop Lynzie) who met and got married via BBSs. It happens on the Internet, too, but with mixed results. Everyone is subject to their ability to write words for that is solely how anyone first "meets" them. The beginner at computer-modem communications tends to get lost in their personal screen which contains only the words of the other person. They want to interpret what they read into their own thoughts and expectations. Only slightly better than monotonic telegraphy, the words-on-a-screen have nothing else for normal social clues, no tone of voice, no body language, no expressions to read. Combine that with those who are intensly competititive (or want to assume superiority) and you get the Flame Wars where winning message points is the ultimate game. The time and distance displacement afforded by computer-modem comms has an inherent "safety" feature for those who want to be "ruler" (in any way). They can toss aside their social inhibitions and be as outrageous or superior or whatever in relative safety. Sometimes those slip off the edge and start getting libelous. One case that many have seen is the special angry home page done by one of those here who went beyond the bounds of propriety. :-) Some are just too righteous for words and Their words must be taken as the Ultimate Truth...regardless of the subject. Irritation (using that term very kindly) by those with such righteousness at not being respected-for-Their-existance-as-Superior will result in all kinds of nastygrams sent, regardless of the subject thread. :-) This is computer-modem comms and the in-person social rules don't apply here. If you do not wish them to apply to you, they don't have to. You are the master of what you say and do in person or in a newsgroup. Yes and no. :-) The time-and-distance separation of computer networking, plus the vast spread of the Internet internationally, can give some a sort of god-hood on their righteousness (and using themselves as role models for all of homo sap.) As I said, some fall off the edge and go totally libelous in other venues. Those who've not seen or experienced such a build-up of intense outrage will be influenced by the one-sided libel...and then the victim is unfairly judged. In most browsers, a simple Return/Enter key will skip to the next message. Some newsgroupies can't seem to find that key. :-) - Mike KB3EIA - Kiki-Bueno-3-Encarta-Insipid-Autogyro hmmm, that's beginning to sound like some of the spam I've been getting lately! 8^) :-) BTASE (But That's Another Story Entirely) but me, too. This has gotten off the subject of phonetic alphabets. Most threads do that, given enough Flame Warriors chomping on their bits ready to do message battle to the death, unable to skip a single message. :-) NATO came up with the original "international" phonetic alphabet and released it in 1955 to all members. A lot of thought and quite a bit of study and research went into that to fit a lot of the western languages of NATO members. Some communicators want-desire-need-demand "special" jargon for Their way of doing things. Human territorial imperative, their "turf." English-speaking radio hums seem to think that English as she are spoke is "international" just by using capitol city names. They don't realize that such capitol city names are NOT pro- nounced or spelled as they are in English. :-) The ICAO decided that standard international spoken language for air traffic control shall be English. That was in the mid-1950s when, coincidentally, the surviving air carriers mostly came from English-speaking countries (as well as the aircraft makers). Just the same, the ICAO adopted the NATO phonetic alphabet as part of that spoken language regulation. It works. Even if some public safety organizations use different phonetics such as "One Adam Twelve." :-) |
|
#99
June 14th 04, 08:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I prefer that people simply say their callsign to me. Phonetics annoy me mostly. When they use their phonetics, are they practicing courtesy to me? Only if the channel is low noise. On SSB HF DX, you need phonetics. Pretty sure that there is no need for phonetics on CW.... :-) |
|
#100
June 14th 04, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 17:52:22 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: I prefer that people simply say their callsign to me. Phonetics annoy me mostly. When they use their phonetics, are they practicing courtesy to me? We have an individual (respected old-timer at that) who, when he takes his turn-in-the-barrel as net control of our daily ARES/RACES check-in, gets confused over people's call signs regardless of whether phonetics are used or not, and even if one identifies with phonetics, he will acknowledge with some ad-hoc inconsistent mixture of ITU, old military, and old telco (cities) phonetics. For one, it drives me nuts even though he's a nice guy. That's probably not trouble with phonetics, but memory trouble. A lot of times during a contest (I don't compete, but just answer people who are competing) I do a QSO and after listen to a subsequent QSO or his CQ to get the call right in the log book. That way I avoid wasting their time. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
