In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (William)
Date: 6/15/2004 9:36 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Nobody
is complaining they didn't get a QSL card from the alleged operation.

Correct. I QSL'd 100%.

It's easy to do when there's nothing to send.

Tsk, tsk. Nursie still trying to invent a stinging rebuke and his stinger
got broke so long ago that he can't even muster a good rash... :-)

"Nothing to send."

That should be the sub-title of every post nursie makes.

Nursie's big negative nothing. Less rest mass than a neutrino.

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 6/15/2004 3:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Stubborn Steve da Puppet Nursie) writes:

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Steve Robeson K4CAP)
Date: 15 Jun 2004 07:58:59 GMT

Subject: Temper Fry, Was Able Baker Charlie
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 6/14/2004 11:17 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

You are still going to claim that Brian "lost" his logs, aren't you?

As long as he keeps refusing to post some sort of "evidence" for the
claims he made, yes.

Why?

He may know just where they are.

I have no doubt that he knows just where they are!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Why do you keep on with this, then?

They may have been in a garage at one time and in a storage unit another.

Maybe...maybe not.

Now, now...neither one of you know anything for certain. Both of
you just speculate except nursie is so obsessed with painting
opponents in false black that he can't reason.

...all that wasted bandwidth just because one extra is so damn
obsessed-dumb in hatred. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

That must be the "new" amateur radio...

Temper fry...

LHA / WMD

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

There's nothing to respect or admire able about being able to tear down,
insult, and destroy - or attempt to.

Here's a classic for ya - I call it "the sphincter post":

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001001%40nso-f
p.aol.com&output=gplain

I hear tell that those air raids on Tokyo in the fifties were exercises
in sheer terror.

I dunno, I've never been to Tokyo. Not even for 30 seconds.

Remember the exchanges about how far it is from air bases in North Korea and
Vladivostok to Tokyo, Bear bombers and such? Someone was very unhappy when it
was pointed out that the distance is well over 650 miles, not "about 500
miles". And that the statement "about an hour in a Bear bomber" meant little
because that aircraft did not enter service until the late 1950s.

Pointing out the fact that any American *under* a certain age grew up with the
knowledge that hostile ICBMs could reach us in a matter of minutes sets off a
predictable response, too.

That sequence (in "34 Years Ago Today") was a classic. ;-)

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by what
appears to be a reference to the writer's multiple sphincters (in the
next to last paragraph).

Perhaps multiple ones are needed in order to handle his prodigious output ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , PAMNO
(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"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."

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been
involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly proclaims
what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Poor baby.

Why didn't you answer the question, Len?

Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Nope. That's not me at all. It does, however, describe the behavior of certain
other people who post here.

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

Who is "Rev. Jim"? The only one I know is a character on the classic comedy
series "Taxi".

This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev. Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

"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."

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet
proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point of
not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Yup, Rev. Jim, the "renowned pediatrician" has to voice an old, bitter
"cause" of his left over from 6 years ago. :-)

[see last item in my Comments on docket 98-143...which the teen
avenger was Hot and Heavy in denunciation of...(still in the ECFS
under 13 Jan 99 filing date)]

In those Reply Comments, you proposed a minumum age requirement of 14 years for
any class of US amateur license, even sthough such a requirement has never
existed in the USA. You gave no evidence of how the lack of such a requirement
has had a negative effect on amateur radio or any other radio service, yet you
wanted such a requirement (which would not affect you, of course) created.

Here's a few simple, direct questions, Len. In fact, I'll direct them to the
entire group:

1) Should there be an age requirement for an amateur license?

2) If so, what should the requirement be for the various ages?

3) If so, why should there be such an age requirement?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Who? You cannot be referring to me, because I find Morse Code radiotelegraphy
to be a relaxing experience.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then manufactures a falsehood that I "denied its
historical importance." In any other venue that would be a LIE. :-)

For something to be a lie it must be untrue.

And how do you know that the person I referred to is you?

In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past.

That's all true.

And what's also true is that the person referred to in the preceding post
denies and distorts the role Morse Code radiotelegraphy has played since those
early days. Such as its role in World War 2 radio communications. Or its role
in maritime communications well into the 1990s. Or its widespread use by radio
amateurs.

Some would call that "lying by omission". ;-)

Today, the only real use of manual
telegraphy codes is in amateur radio where its advocates go on
angry benders of denunciation of anyone who even frowns on its
"usefulness."

"benders"?

"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."

All the other radio services just dropped "morse" as
being too slow, too error-prone, and requiring comm specialists
at each end that weren't useful anymore.

Only the last reason is true. Other services wanted to dispose of the need for
and cost of skilled operators.

But amateur radio is largely *about* skilled radio operation.

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry on
a
civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the
other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class,
education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

I should "show respect" for those self-empowered paragons of pride
who insist (to the point of angry jumping up and down) that all must
respect those olde-tyme manual radio telegraphers?

How do you know the person described is you, Len?

You don't have to "respect" anyone. But someone who can discuss in a civil
manner - without name calling or ad-hominem insults - earns the respect of
almost everyone, including those who disagree.

For example, I have great respect for K2UNK, Bill Sohl, even though we disagree
on almost all amateur radio policy matters. I cannot recall a single instance
where Bill made fun of anoter's age, work, gender, license class, education,
name, ethnicity, and/or military service.

That's "civil debate".

Because
telegraphy is Their Favorite and all should honor Their favorite?

Wow, ol' Rev. Jim really got cooking on his Hellfire-And-Brimstone
denunciation of all who don't Believe in the True God of Radio, Morse!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hell Hath No Fury Like A Telegrapher Scorned! :-)

Uh, Rev. Jim, send me your TS Card. I'll punch it. Save everyone
all the time and trouble of reading your raving of madness.

You DO know what a "TS Card" is, don't you? No? Tsk, tsk, an
old military service term-phrase. You weren't IN the military, were
you? Tsk, tsk. You did NOT work any military comms or even any
civilian comms, did you? No? Tsk, tsk.

Gosh, golly, and heckanddarn, all this fuss and Fury over some
NATO phonetic alphabet that went in force in the NATO militaries
of 1955 and was the forerunner of such adoption worldwide. Even
in the ICAO...whose working air carriers were, in the majority, in
NATO-member countries back in the mid-1950s. :-)


"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."

There's a very wise bit of advice that says a person should treat others as
they wish to be treated.

Jim, Jim, Jim...

Message click
Block Sender click
Yes click

A dose of 'Troll-Be-Gone' works almost every time.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
PAMNO
(Rev. Jim puts on his Evangelistic robes for
a hellfire-and-brimstone Sermon On The Antenna Mount which is
really a nasty old Troll for his series of shouting and hollering in the
disguise of a "polite" reply) writes:

"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."

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)

Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been
involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims
what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Poor baby.

Why didn't you answer the question, Len?

Got your ego all in a dither because you aren't the
"renowned historian" and truthsayer in all things amateur?

Nope. That's not me at all. It does, however, describe the behavior of
certain
other people who post here.

Well, heck yes and gosh darn, Rev. Jim are all upset again.

Who is "Rev. Jim"? The only one I know is a character on the classic
comedy
series "Taxi".

This could be the start of REAL truthtelling in reply which would last
(probably) months and result in long, long, "refutations" that Rev.
Jim
never ever tells any untruth and speaks with the voice of the gods.

"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."

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of
children,
yet
proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the
point of
not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Yup, Rev. Jim, the "renowned pediatrician" has to voice an old, bitter
"cause" of his left over from 6 years ago. :-)

[see last item in my Comments on docket 98-143...which the teen
avenger was Hot and Heavy in denunciation of...(still in the ECFS
under 13 Jan 99 filing date)]

In those Reply Comments, you proposed a minumum age requirement of 14
years for
any class of US amateur license, even sthough such a requirement has never
existed in the USA. You gave no evidence of how the lack of such a
requirement
has had a negative effect on amateur radio or any other radio service, yet
you
wanted such a requirement (which would not affect you, of course) created.

Here's a few simple, direct questions, Len. In fact, I'll direct them to
the
entire group:

1) Should there be an age requirement for an amateur license?

2) If so, what should the requirement be for the various ages?

3) If so, why should there be such an age requirement?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly
and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Rev. Jim got his BP up over 200/100 again on manual telegraphy.

Who? You cannot be referring to me, because I find Morse Code
radiotelegraphy
to be a relaxing experience.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then manufactures a falsehood that I "denied its
historical importance." In any other venue that would be a LIE. :-)

For something to be a lie it must be untrue.

And how do you know that the person I referred to is you?

In the first days of ALL radio, the ONLY way to use it for any sort
of communication was by on-off keying telegraphy. That first demo
of radio was in 1896, in Italy and in Russia. The telegraphy codes
used were the "morse code" (presumably with some local country
variants for some characters, unknown to exact details). The first
Morse-Vail Telegraph (commercial) service was in 1844 or 52 years
before the first radio-as-communications medium demonstration.

There's no question that "morse code" has historical significance.
It does. But, the first radio demo was 108 years ago...roughly five
generations in the past.

That's all true.

And what's also true is that the person referred to in the preceding post
denies and distorts the role Morse Code radiotelegraphy has played since
those
early days. Such as its role in World War 2 radio communications. Or its
role
in maritime communications well into the 1990s. Or its widespread use by
radio
amateurs.

Some would call that "lying by omission". ;-)

Today, the only real use of manual
telegraphy codes is in amateur radio where its advocates go on
angry benders of denunciation of anyone who even frowns on its
"usefulness."

"benders"?

"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."

All the other radio services just dropped "morse" as
being too slow, too error-prone, and requiring comm specialists
at each end that weren't useful anymore.

Only the last reason is true. Other services wanted to dispose of the need
for
and cost of skilled operators.

But amateur radio is largely *about* skilled radio operation.

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not
carry on
a
civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers
to
the
other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class,
education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

I should "show respect" for those self-empowered paragons of pride
who insist (to the point of angry jumping up and down) that all must
respect those olde-tyme manual radio telegraphers?

How do you know the person described is you, Len?

You don't have to "respect" anyone. But someone who can discuss in a civil
manner - without name calling or ad-hominem insults - earns the respect of
almost everyone, including those who disagree.

For example, I have great respect for K2UNK, Bill Sohl, even though we
disagree
on almost all amateur radio policy matters. I cannot recall a single
instance
where Bill made fun of anoter's age, work, gender, license class,
education,
name, ethnicity, and/or military service.

That's "civil debate".

Because
telegraphy is Their Favorite and all should honor Their favorite?

Wow, ol' Rev. Jim really got cooking on his Hellfire-And-Brimstone
denunciation of all who don't Believe in the True God of Radio, Morse!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hell Hath No Fury Like A Telegrapher Scorned! :-)

Uh, Rev. Jim, send me your TS Card. I'll punch it. Save everyone
all the time and trouble of reading your raving of madness.

You DO know what a "TS Card" is, don't you? No? Tsk, tsk, an
old military service term-phrase. You weren't IN the military, were
you? Tsk, tsk. You did NOT work any military comms or even any
civilian comms, did you? No? Tsk, tsk.

Gosh, golly, and heckanddarn, all this fuss and Fury over some
NATO phonetic alphabet that went in force in the NATO militaries
of 1955 and was the forerunner of such adoption worldwide. Even
in the ICAO...whose working air carriers were, in the majority, in
NATO-member countries back in the mid-1950s. :-)


"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."

There's a very wise bit of advice that says a person should treat others
as
they wish to be treated.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself (though
prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say on
the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to say
as
telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can
maximize
their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results. I
personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate
communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -

Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate communication
by conveying what works for him since English is almost never his native
language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific set that other sets
cause him to "stumble" mentally.

It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need speak in a
manner that the target audience will understand. In this case the target is
the DX. You are the one trying to break through to him/her. He's not
trying to break through to you.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use hydrochloric
acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the acid is highly
corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber writes back thanking
the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric acid. The chemist tries again
using similar wording. Once again the plumber thanks the chemist for his
approval. This goes on for a couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally
the chemist breaks down and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats
the hell out of the pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience (the
plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:

In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:



After you've lived and experienced a few eras in anything, you'll
find lots and lots of "experts" in that anything, who either "know
all about (from reading a book or seeing a movie)" or are some-
how so gifted in their relative youth that they are divine
messengers sent to enlighten all the hoi polloi and the koi.
:-)


Gee, Len, that's interesting....

You mean like someone who's never held any class of amateur license, nor
been involved in radio regulation in any way, yet loudly and repeatedly
proclaims what changes should be made to the amateur radio regulations?

Or someone who has never been directly invoved in the raising of children,
yet proclaims what they can and cannot do at various ages - even to the point
of not allowing them to be amateur radio operators before a certain age?

Or someone who has never really learned or used Morse Code, yet loudly and
repeatedly denies its usefulness - even to the point of denying its
historical importance?

Or someone who claims a desire for "civil discussion", yet will not carry
on a civil discussion with someone of differing opinions, and instead refers to
the other parties by ad-hominem insults to their age, work, gender, license
class, education, name, ethnicity, and military service?

You forgot to add:

"Someone that has a main purpose here of antagonizing people into
e-battles as a master troll." And in this case, his lack of experience
in certain areas only serves as more bait.


Well, if the shoe fits...


Sorry for replies to some older posts. I've been through two weeks of
hell at work, and didn't get to respond to everything. Now I'm taking a
well deserved day off and can get back to it.

Yes, the shoe does fit.

I for one, am impressed by just how GOOD Mr. Anderson is at this!

I'm not.

There are all sorts of reasons to be involved in a newsgroup. Some of
us like to post to exchange knowledge, some to debate, and others to
have an adventure - using other posters as pro or antagonists in a sort
of text based adventure game.

With the different personalities involved, the games can get pretty
interesting and funny, or sometimes they can become boring and
repetitive. The MARS is Ham radio stuff is a good example of the latter.

If a poster is the type that is trying to antagonize others - that is
to say one that is using the group in the text adventure mode - he or
she does not want to get people so angry that they don't respond. That
would be losing the game. This player will want to be antagonistic of
course, but will want to allow other posters to stay just this side of
filtering or ignoring him or her.

Some here filter Len, but enough do not that he finds a steady stream
of willing participants in his game.

Face it, he is good at it. It may not be what you are in here for, but
he succeeds in his game.

Note this does not apply to the strange fringe postings that appear to
be personal battles, such as the one that Dave seems involved in with
some hams in his locale. That is just really wierd stuff.

You
(or anyone here) know what will happen when you rise to the bait, you
know pretty much what the resulting exchange will be, and yet it is
irresistable.

Naw, it's totally resistible. And predictable.

And yet you are now involved once more!


Whereas most antagonists eventually find no one to write to in a news
group, Len has managed to generate enough interest to make himself and
those who would spar with him into some of the leading posters.


Nothing new there, Mike.

This is no small accomplishment. I for one have to respect that.

I don't.


You don't have to, that much is true.

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself (though
prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say on
the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to say

as

telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can

maximize

their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results. I
personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate

communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -


Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate communication
by conveying what works for him since English is almost never his native
language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific set that other sets
cause him to "stumble" mentally.

When I work DX, I try to include a little bit of the other Ham's
language in the QSO, if I can. I'm no genius, but I can pick language up
fairly quickly.

My point is most Hams are fairly intelligent people. The basic language
of an exchange is English, like it or not. A ham in a small country
speaking an obscure language is going to enjoy a lot more success if he
or she pick up the language that the communication is done in.


It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need speak in a
manner that the target audience will understand. In this case the target is
the DX. You are the one trying to break through to him/her. He's not
trying to break through to you.

Well, in my version of Hamworld, we are both trying to communicate with
each other. Perhaps I am wrong.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use hydrochloric
acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the acid is highly
corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber writes back thanking
the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric acid. The chemist tries again
using similar wording. Once again the plumber thanks the chemist for his
approval. This goes on for a couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally
the chemist breaks down and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats
the hell out of the pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience (the
plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Language being what it is, does the person that is justified in
ignoring "improper" phonetics also justified if they don't like the
pronunciation? Or inflection? Should we listen and pronounce the worked
exacltly the same as they do? What if they *want* different phonetics?

Like I say, my version of being a ham is two people that *want* to
communicate with each other and will do what they can to facilitate
that. Sometimes that takes proper phonetics, sometimes that takes
several rounds of trying to get the call, when proper phonetics may be
followed by *improper ones*. Sometimes it means straight csllsigns. And
yes, I can copy callsigns in several languages.

Unfortunately, the refusal to answer "improper" phonetics or whatever
reminds me of "No Kids, No Lids, and No Space Cadets". or an exchange I
heard in a contest a few weeks ago, where one ham told (ordered is more
like it) another to stop using "Please copy" before the exchange. Told
him he sounded like a stupid idiot when he did that.

Too many hams are entirely too rigid.

- Mike

Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


[snip]
Quite possibly. I use the so called "proper" phonetics myself
(though prefering plain callsigns).

I'm just not terribly into telling people what they can or can't say
on the air as long as it is decent language.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Actually the DX station is not so much trying to tell people what to
say

as

telling them what works for him so that those calling the DX can

maximize

their chances of getting through and the DX can maximize his results.
I personally would look at it as simply trying to facilitate

communication.

Not communicating is not facilitating!


- Mike KB3EIA -


Well I have to disagree. The DX has attempted to facilitate
communication by conveying what works for him since English is almost
never his native language or he/she may be so accustomed to a specific
set that other sets cause him to "stumble" mentally.

When I work DX, I try to include a little bit of the other Ham's
language in the QSO, if I can. I'm no genius, but I can pick language
up fairly quickly.

My point is most Hams are fairly intelligent people. The basic
language
of an exchange is English, like it or not. A ham in a small country
speaking an obscure language is going to enjoy a lot more success if he
or she pick up the language that the communication is done in.


It's like they teach you in classes on giving speeches. You need
speak in a manner that the target audience will understand. In this
case the target is the DX. You are the one trying to break through to
him/her. He's not trying to break through to you.

Well, in my version of Hamworld, we are both trying to communicate
with
each other. Perhaps I am wrong.

The teacher in one of my speech classes gave the following example:

A plumber writes to a PhD chemist asking if it is OK to use
hydrochloric acid to clean pipes. The chemist writes back that the
acid is highly corrosive and its use is contraindicated. The plumber
writes back thanking the chemist for OKing the use of hydrochloric
acid. The chemist tries again using similar wording. Once again the
plumber thanks the chemist for his approval. This goes on for a
couple more rounds of letter writing. Finally the chemist breaks down
and writes "Do not use hydrochloric acid. It eats the hell out of the
pipes."

The chemist had to switch to the "language" of his target audience
(the plumber) rather than the "language" that he used in his own work.

Language being what it is, does the person that is justified in
ignoring "improper" phonetics also justified if they don't like the
pronunciation? Or inflection? Should we listen and pronounce the worked
exacltly the same as they do? What if they *want* different phonetics?

Like I say, my version of being a ham is two people that *want* to
communicate with each other and will do what they can to facilitate
that. Sometimes that takes proper phonetics, sometimes that takes
several rounds of trying to get the call, when proper phonetics may be
followed by *improper ones*. Sometimes it means straight csllsigns. And
yes, I can copy callsigns in several languages.

Unfortunately, the refusal to answer "improper" phonetics or
whatever
reminds me of "No Kids, No Lids, and No Space Cadets". or an exchange I
heard in a contest a few weeks ago, where one ham told (ordered is more
like it) another to stop using "Please copy" before the exchange. Told
him he sounded like a stupid idiot when he did that.

Too many hams are entirely too rigid.

- Mike



Where I am originally from (the UK) the international phonetics are on the
test, and I suspect that this is true elsewhere. Consequently, I had to
learn them so that I could instantly come up with the correct phonetic for
any letter and vicea versa. Many people can do that who can't even speak
English, as they had to learn it to get a licence. They weren't tested on
using Japan and Zanzibar, though.

Most of the 'Avocado, Bascule, Cumquat' variety of phonetics comes from US
hams, I imagine because it isn't on the FCC tests, and this is then dressed
up as 'freedom of choice', rather than admit that they don't know their
phonetics. Also, many people end up learning a different set or just use
any phonetics they have heard on air, but this is not conducive to being
understood. There is a useful American expression here, it's what you call
'all being on the same page', and that's where we should aim to be.

That isn't to say that you can't use altenative phonetics if the standard
ones don't succeed. I do that.

I suppose I ought to submit some questions on phonetics for the question
pools. I wonder if I could succeed in getting it tested? I beleive it
should be tested. Even the most diehard CW ops seem to use 2m FM, and there
are occasions where phonetics can be useful there too.