In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on
1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC]

The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004.

Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment
as well as the petition itself.

Your comments include
errors of fact and
misleading information.

Such as?

Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you
want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!?

Is continued
discussion forbidden?

Only by non-amateurs. Everyone else can carry on.

How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and
otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY
DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!?

We ask you the same question.

Did you arrive at a different answer?

"They" did.

The answers are in
anonymity and special
spacing.

None shall survive who incur
the wrath of Miccolis on AOL.

LHA / WMD

"William" wrote


Numerous people wanted to join the amateur service because of the
emergency service aspect of our hobby.

That's fine with me. I welcome them with open arms.

They may have no interest in
building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers.

That's fine with me. I welcome them with open arms.

As such, the Technician exam is too complex material
for a person with such intentions.

Maybe so, which is why I've proposed a new privilege rich/reduced power
beginners permit to the FCC.

On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is
lunacy.

I absolutely agree.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:


I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you
how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new
ham 'wannabes'.


There's also an issue of the kid being at risk from someone the
parents might not know too well. Michael Jackson......

I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you
how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new
ham 'wannabes'.


Hans, where's the "wrong message" about offering a program that provides a
structured training program for those that want it?


Those who want it can find Elmers today. But I wouldn't want to make
it a required path. Kids run into many requirements as it is, like
being required to study some foriegn language selected by someone else,
or history classes that are little more than preparation for Jepordy
or trivial presuit games.

Imagine...a whole new "crop" of licensees TRAINED as they learned....No
more nets interrupted...No more autopatches initiated in the middle of a
QSO...No more 10-4 good buddy language.

Some of these mistakes would be "newbie" errors and the new ham will
likely spot the error and not do it again. And how many people
do autopatch anymore, now that cell phones are very common? I don't
have a cell phone, but I think in my 27 years of being a ham I
autopatched once or maybe twice. And
saying "10-4 good buddy" I don't see as a serious mistake.



If the new license requires manufactured rigs and low power,
it doesn't sound much different to a newcomer than getting a
CB setup. And CB doesn't require a license or supervision.
You want kids to choose that route? Actually I started in
CB back in 1976 and then decided to get the ham license as
I liked 2 way radio.

On 15 Aug 2004 17:07:51 GMT, (Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on
1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC]

The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004.

Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment
as well as the petition itself.

Your comments include
errors of fact and
misleading information.

Such as?

Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you
want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!?

Is continued
discussion forbidden?

Only by non-amateurs. Everyone else can carry on.

How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and
otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY
DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!?

We ask you the same question.

Did you arrive at a different answer?

"They" did.

The answers are in
anonymity and special
spacing.

Hmmm - 15 syllables - that one was almost Haiku! :)


None shall survive who incur
the wrath of Miccolis on AOL.

......or suffer his wisdom.....


LHA / WMD

73, Leo

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/14/2004 10:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/13/2004 6:41 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

By reducing the license tests to the point that there would be a class of
license which did not allow unsupervised operation works against those
goals.

WHO SAID "unsupervised"...?!?!..

I did.

And what is wrong with a "supervised training license", Jim?

Not "wrong", just unnecessary.

You're approaching this as if it were the ONLY way to do this.

It's a binary problem: Either a ham is allowed to be a control op of a
particular operation, or s/he isn't.

I for one never suggested that.

What we have now, and have always had in the USA, is the concept that a ham
can
operate an amateur station *unsupervised* within the limits of his/her
license privs. And nobody else can.

IOW, either you is a control operator, in charge and responsible, or you
ain't.

Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step.
A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say.

Un-necessary to YOU, Jim.

Yep. IMHO.

Imagine...a whole new "crop" of licensees TRAINED as they learned....

If they aren't trained, they haven't learned.

No more nets interrupted...No more autopatches initiated in the middle of a
QSO...No more 10-4 good buddy language.

The only way to have no more of that stuff is to outlaw it *and* to require all
hams to take the training course. If any new ham can bypass the student phase,
you cannot guarantee "no more" of the above.

Yep...I can see how you might find that untenable!~

Does it really require a training program for new hams to learn not to
interrupt a net, initiate an autopatch in the middle of a QSO, or not use 10-4
good buddy language?

The "operator only" license idea is the
very epitome of "supervised" licenses,

Which is a bad idea.

To you.

Yep.

Not to the new students.

They have all of the opportunities and resources listed by K0HB - and more!

Or they can read books and listen to other hams on the air first...

and would probably provide that
""skilled operator" a heck of a lot faster than the present "here's your
license now go learn" situation we have now!

I don't see how.

Sheeeeesh.

By not having to "relearn" everything from the git-go...From HAVING a
knowledgeable, capable mentor to direct those "dumb" questions to.

All I did was read a little and listen to how other hams did it. And I learned
stuff like how to handle CW traffic that way.

All to the Orwellian doublespeak on 11 meters is the most obvous example
of what I am trying to avoid...The misadventures of many who either "thought"
that this was "the way" things were done because "no one told me..."

11 meters isn't a ham band. It's a mess not because of lack of training but
because of lack of tradition, standards, and procedures.

There's no present need for a "student license" because someone who
wants to
learn amateur radio operating techniques "by doing" can do so without any
license at all - *as long as there is a control op*.

OK, Jim.

Isn't what I wrote true?

Sure it's "true".

It's also not very productive.

Really? It's how I and hundreds of thousands of others learned.

See my comments above. Yet another "Novice" class without some kind of
mentorship will create a whole yet another subclass of Hams trying to
reinvent
the wheel...Why not implement a REAL training-level license that REALLY
trains them...?!?!

Suppose we fastforward to a time when FCC has acted on your suggestion and
replaced the Tech with a "Student" class, and dropped the code test for General
and Extra.

Which do you think most new hams will do:

1) Get a "Student" license, and only operate when a mentor says they can

or

2) Get a General or Extra and have at it full blast, unsupervised?

And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?!

And the Tech is not the best we can do. For a whole bunch of reasons.

OK...Ante up.

I did. See "Basic" description a few posts back. Replace Tech with Basic as the
entry class.

Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of
the new ops.

Why is that needed?

To put some quality into the program.

How do we avoid bypassing the program?

When the student has met the criteria for a "solo", whatever those final
criteria may be later determined to be...Just like a CFI allowing a
Student
Pilot to take it around the patch with the right seat empty.

So would this be by mode or band or what?

Make a suggestion, Jim.

It's *your* idea, not mine.

Sure - but is that what's really best for amateur radio?

I don't know...Do you?

I think I do. I think it's not a good idea.

OK...So you make the rules Jim and the rest of us will just follow.

Sounds good! ;)

Then we will know who to blame!

We CW-loving, licensed-for-decades 1x2 Extras get blamed anyway....

The FCC get's a dozen petitions a year suggesting new license proposals
that will immeidately and undoubtedly save Amateur Radio from certain
impending failure.

I'm not saying that at all. Just that there's no reason to implement what
you suggest.

There's no reason to implement what NCVEC suggests either, but it made
it to RM status. It's a heck of a lot more dangerous to Amateur Radio than a
program that mentors trainees

THAT I agree with!!!

Do YOU have THE one failure-proof idea? I Sure don't.

It's not a question of perfect, but of better and worse ideas.

Sorry, Jim.

I don't acccept the idea of "Whelp...it's better than nothing..."

I didn't say that.

The words "operate an amateur radio station" have an exact definition
under FCC rules. It means to be in charge of the station, even is
someone else does the actual knob turning, etc.

Words written by people can be changed by people, Jim.

Even the Constitution has ammendments.

Point is, right now the term has a precise meaning.

Uh huh.

Yep.

You have yet to show me where in the Constitution it is prohibited from
changing federal regulation, or definitions within those regulations, Jim.

It doesn't. But until the definitions change, let's use what we have.

Has anyone here said the student operator idea is a good one?

Is this forum even remotely represntitive of a valid cross section of
the Amateur demograpic, Jim?

Heck no!

I forget the exact numbers, but at one time we figured out that the
"regulars" and "occassional" posters here (the one's we can verify as being
licensed, active Amateurs) was something like 0.015% of the Amateur
community.

And in my opinon, no...If someone wants to just dive right in, let'em.

I predict most folks would do just that, rather than hunt down a mentor ham
every time they want to call CQ.

They don't HAVE to "every time they want to call CQ", Jim...I didn't
have
to hunt down my CFI everytime I wanted to do some touch and go's after he
signed me off as qualified. A student Amateur wouldn't have to either.

But first you had to qualify.

And the reason for student pilot status is that an untrained person at the
controls of a plane will probably hurt or kill hisself and others, plus
property. Radio isn't that way.

When flying, you cannot simply turn off the machine and walk away. But except
in a life-and-death emergency, you can simply turn off the rig. Or just the
transmitter.

Today, and for more than a quarter century, a person who can go for Extra
"right out of the box". Would you change that?

Only that I would like to see a return to the "time-in-service"
requirement that used to be part of the Extra. The Extra SHOULD represent
evidence of more than having taken a written test. It should say "I
accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted".

On that we agree.

Whew...I was beginning to wonder.

If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors.

Are you volunteering?

Absolutely. And I already do.

Then you know about the mentor programs listed by K0HB

And kids can get around.

Depends where you live. You going to send your 9 year old daughter to a
stranger's house 25 miles away?

No, but I'd TAKE her to a stranger's house and be there...Just like I
did
when Samantha was in Brownies...Just like tens-of-thousands of other parents
take thier kids to "special activites".

Yep - but it makes it tougher to learn than simply going into the shack and
operating.

If I'd had to search for a mentor and wait around until both of us had
available free time, just to operate, I'd might never have gotten past
that
stage. Instead, I was able to get a Novice license, build a station, and
go on
the air unsupervised. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that
concept.

Were you the exception or the rule?

The rule.

Uh huh! =)

Yep. I knew very few Novices who had other hams in the family. Very few with
formal mentors. Most simply read books and got a little help here and there.

(now you can insert that old one liner: "He's a wonderful lover - he taught
himself..;-)

Shall we base ALL future expectations on how well you did...???

We should base them on what works. The reality is that reducing requirements
and pushing VHF/UHF hasn't done much.

=0

Jim...there was less than 400K Amateurs whe I got licensed...There's now
almost 700K.

There were 250K when I started. 18 years later that number had more than
doubled. 18 years after that it's only 50% greater.

There are more "coded" Amateurs now than in recent history.

Sure.

HOW can you say it hasn't done much...?!?!

The growth from 1991 to today does not match the growth for a similar time
period before 1991.

It also put's them in the MAINSTREAM of Amateur Radio by virtue of
exposure to 2 meters...The Amateurs Campfire, if you will.

In some places. In others 2 meters isn't much.

Why not set them down with a whole choice of options?

Why not?

Exactly!

And why not provide them an option that provides them with a
structured training and qualification program?

That option exists today - without a government mandate.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Robert Casey ) writes:
KØHB wrote:


I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you
how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new
ham 'wannabes'.


There's also an issue of the kid being at risk from someone the
parents might not know too well. Michael Jackson......


It's happened. Locally, there was a case from about 1991 where a teacher
went on trial for doing things he shouldn't have. The stories specifically
mentioned that he lured the boys in through computers and amateur radio.

I vaguely knew the guy, but from the details I even knew one of the victims.
And the ham who went to jail for this achieved a certain prominence due
to some articles in the ham magazines where many hams might recognize his
name.

Michael VE2BVW

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

If the new license requires manufactured rigs and low power,
it doesn't sound much different to a newcomer than getting a
CB setup. And CB doesn't require a license or supervision.
You want kids to choose that route?

WOW!

Excellent point!

End result is they pick up bad habits from cb, which then have to be unlearned.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Does it really require a training program for new hams to learn not to
interrupt a net, initiate an autopatch in the middle of a QSO, or not use 10-4
good buddy language?


Some of this would require that the newbie know what nets are and
what they "sound" like on the air, and also have some common
curetesy. Also realize that autopatching is something of a burden
on the host machine, and casual use to be avoided. But if a
traveling ham comes to town and needs to call the people he
will be visiting, I'd let him use it for a few minutes.

Hopefully the newbie will know not to "rachet-jaw" on ham
radio like some people do on CB.

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/15/2004 10:47 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: k.net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


A program that identified qualified "mentor stations" and "training
clubs"
would directly couple these folks with people who want to help and
have the
knowledge and skills to help.


Perhaps it escaped your notice, but such a nationwide program already
exists, without big-government establishing a "supervised only, store
bought rigs only" operator class.

Perhaps it escaped YOUR notice, Hans, but that is not what I suggested.

I know that askling you to go back and read what I have written and
respond accordingly would be beneath you, so we'll just let that part go.

At their web site ARRL lists all their affiliated clubs, including
services those clubs offer such as organized training programs, club
stations, etc.

They also have established a four-level mentoring program which include
ARRL Club Mentor, ARRL Mentor, Interactive Mentor and Special Interest
Mentor.

The ARRL Club Mentor will involve the participation of ARRL-affiliated
clubs in close cooperation with ARRL Headquarters staff. Affiliated
clubs will be encouraged to actively participate in this program to
"mainstream" more people, licensed and otherwise, into Amateur Radio.
The club mentor program also has the additional benefit of potentially
increasing a club's membership as well.

The ARRL Mentor program will work through ARRL Headquarters. An ARRL
mentor is a person with an interest in mentoring--or "Elmering"--new
licensees who may or may not be members of an ARRL-affiliated club. ARRL
Headquarters staff will support these mentors, who must be ARRL members.

The Interactive Mentor is intended to aid enterprising new hams via the
ARRL Web site by providing answers to basic questions and through chat
rooms, where discourse between new hams and mentors would help new hams
to get on the air.

The Special Interest Mentor is intended to match people with interests
in advanced, specialized areas of Amateur Radio technology with mentors
who are experienced in these technologies.

Thanks for your input.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/15/2004 10:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: k.net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote


So as far as Hans Brakob is concerned, anyone who WANTS some sort of
training to help them, they can get lost.


Pure fantasy, Steve.

Would it be too much to ask to ask you to please get your stories
straight, Hans...?!?!

In the post that I responded to, you specifically stated that anyone who
WANTED a structured, mentored systems was not welcome in "(YOUR)" Amateur Radio
Service.

have 'Elmered' dozens of new hams (and continue
to), am affiliated with the MNYARC ( http://www.mnyarc.org/ ), am an
ARRL registered instructor, a Handi-Hams volunteer, and am a contributor
to the Ham-Elmer yahoogroup, just for a few examples of my contributions
to the volunteer training of new hams.

Hoooray for Hans.

I've mentored folks too. This is just one other suggestion on how it
might be done.

But I don't support (in fact I vehemently oppose) the notion of
"supervised operations only" ham radio license. If that makes me a "bad
person" in your eyes, then I guess I'll just have to live with the
horrible stigma of your disapproval. Why does that not bother me?

It's not about "(my) eyes", Hans...It's about what YOU said.



QUOTE:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/14/2004 8:08 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised
license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service.

UNQUOTE.

Verbatim, Hans. You said it...anyone can follow the thread.

So...Anyone who didn't/doesn't "do it" the way YOU did is unwelcome.

It really is THAT simple.

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (Michael Black)
Date: 8/15/2004 7:34 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


Robert Casey ) writes:
KØHB wrote:


I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you
how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new
ham 'wannabes'.


There's also an issue of the kid being at risk from someone the
parents might not know too well. Michael Jackson......


It's happened. Locally, there was a case from about 1991 where a teacher
went on trial for doing things he shouldn't have. The stories specifically
mentioned that he lured the boys in through computers and amateur radio.

It's a terrible thing, and it happens all too often. And it's going to
happen wherever parents fail to supervise thier kids. Too many parents are
ready and willing to drop Johnny off at (enter name of program, place or
facility) without exercising SOME sort of oversight. This doesn't mean looking
over thier shoulder 24/7, but "unscheduled" visits are a great way for parents
to get a good idea of what's going on.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on
1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC]

The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004.

Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment
as well as the petition itself.

Your comments include
errors of fact and
misleading information.

Such as?

Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you
want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!?

Is continued
discussion forbidden?

Only by non-amateurs. Everyone else can carry on.

How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and
otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY
DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!?

We ask you the same question.

Did you arrive at a different answer?

"They" did.

The answers are in
anonymity and special
spacing.

None shall survive who incur
the wrath of Miccolis on AOL.

LHA / WMD

Yep. Jim polluted his own backyard and now has to post anon. Hi, hi!

"Jim who?" Who hah! Ho ho hi hi. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Hans, you saying, "*MY* Amateur Radio Service," just smacks of "Old
Flatulencism."

Hans is a radio amateur.

True enough.

Not enough.

His use
of the possessive is common and
proper English. Just as someone
will speak of "my church", "my
school" or "my community" even
though the speaker does not own
them.

I read it differently.
Hans emphasized "*MY*" as in ownership.

Like when taking command of a Flight, you preface
the event with the phrase, "By *MY* Command!"

Like taking command of a
newsgroup...by "Quitefine's"
heckuva haiku nonsense...

"LHA" is not a radio amateur, and
so cannot say it is "his" amateur
radio.

Len is an American. It is as much his as it could
be anyone elses.

Not enough. Must do 20 WPM
morse, love and cherish all
things old-tyme hamme.

(Sorry Hans, I CAN"T say O.F. or the Semi-Moral Minority will
cane me. Hi, hi!)

You can write whatever you wish. But
then you must allow others the same
freedom. This seems to be a problem
for you.

Jim, you just end up looking bad when you alter
the quote of other peoples posts. I'd advise
against doing that in the future. But hey,
you've already earned your reputation.

He be "renowned."

"Quitefine" ask "Jim who?"

He not know who...

Numerous people wanted to join the amateur service because of the
emergency service aspect of our hobby.

Whom? How many? Who are
these people?

They are the ones getting licensed every day.
You're the one who posts the numbers each month.
Drill down into the data to see what their
names are and their spankin' new call signs.

He know. He not say.

They may have no interest in
building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers.

Is that a problem?

Actually, it may be a problem if they do.

There are no problems.

Provided all love and cherish
morse code and worship at
Church of St. Hiram.

Amen.

As such, the Technician
exam is too complex material for a person with such intentions.

What is your solution?
Is the Technician test
so difficult that it
represents a barrier to
the entry of new hams?
Is it full of questions on
NE602 receivers and
memory keyers?

Hans and I are in agreement on a new license
class.

The only agreement is that of
agreeing with Jimmy Who.

On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is
lunacy.

Not lunacy. Simply not
a good idea, in our opinion.

OK, not lunacy. Just impossible to work properly.
A paper drill where everyone signs off but does
nothing. Except at the Dayton Hamvention Dinner
where someone get an award for signing off the
most paperwork.

Awards with certificates!

End goal of all "real" hams.

Pretty paper on the wall saying
"see? I knew it all!"

So in the end, I agree to not have such a license class. But
remember, Jim says that we need more license classes. Apparently it
doesn't matter how he gets them.

To which "Jim" do you refer?
We have read posts here recently
from AA2QA, N2EY, and at least
one other "Jim".

Jimmy Who.

Who dat who say who dere?

The only one we recall who
has recently written about the
number of license classes is
the "Jim" with the callsign N2EY.
He proposed three license classes.

That would be you.

Not Who?

So it cannot be "Jim/N2EY" to
whom you refer.

Says you, Who.

Bad disguise.

Needs class, course in
Newsgroup Makeup.

Is there another "Jim" who "wants
more license classes"?

How many?

How high?

...and for how long?

All tune in tomorrow for another session of wisdom from the
all-seeing, all-knowing "Quitefine" and those long, long, long
postings...by who...

LHA / WMD

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (Quitefine)
Date: 8/14/2004 11:35 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on
1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC]

The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004.

Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment
as well as the petition itself.

Your comments include
errors of fact and
misleading information.

Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you
want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!?

Is continued
discussion forbidden?

How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and
otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY
DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!?

We ask you the same question.

Unless it's about 1950's era rear-area Army relay stations, SINCGARS, or
why AMATEUR Radio should be run like MILITARY radio, Lennie won't have nothing
to do with it.

He can't. He doesn't have any other experience in radio operating to the
contrary.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the
new ops.

"Trail of responsibility"?????? I always kind of liked the idea of
self-responsibility, even though it's less popular in your new "me"
generation.

I'm going to type kinda slow here, Steve, so you can keep up.

E v e r y o n e h e r e i s i n f a v o r o f E l m e r
s
a n d m e n t o r s a n d A R R L S S C l u b s
h e l p i n g n e w c o m e r s ( a n d o l d c o m e r s )
w h o w a n t s o m e h e l p.

N o b o d y e x c e p t y o u s e e s a n y v a l u e
i n a l i c e n s e w h i c h R E Q U I R E S t h e
l i c e n s e e t o b e S U P E R V I S E D w h e n
t h e y o p e r a t e.

73 de Hans, K0HB

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB"
Date: 8/17/2004 12:37 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the
new ops.

"Trail of responsibility"?????? I always kind of liked the idea of
self-responsibility, even though it's less popular in your new "me"
generation.

I'm going to type kinda slow here, Steve, so you can keep up.

No need, Hans.

There are SOME people here who have thier OWN perception problems
(especially those who talk out of thier mouth one way about certain third
parties then do exactly the same thing.)

The item you quoted was also several days old...The REST of us had moved
past it.

You're a day late and a dollar short...Again.

Can't you select your insults in a bit more timely manner, Old Fella?

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...

In article ,
(William) writes:

Did you arrive at a different answer?

Yes.

Naturally.

How's your planetary predictions coming along?

He probably channeled Kepler and told him
his theories were "incorrect!" :-)

Galileo, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe,
too...if they opposed his mighty
opinions.

Error! Incorrect! All them
guys
need AMATEUR astronomer
licenses!

Polly gonna "kiss his
grits!"

LHA / WMD

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (William)
Date: 17 Aug 2004 06:12:37 -0700

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

(Quitefine) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Hans, you saying, "*MY* Amateur Radio Service," just smacks of "Old
Flatulencism."

Hans is a radio amateur.

True enough.

Not enough.

Enough for flatulence.

His use
of the possessive is common and
proper English. Just as someone
will speak of "my church", "my
school" or "my community" even
though the speaker does not own
them.

I read it differently.
Hans emphasized "*MY*" as in ownership.

Like when taking command of a Flight, you
preface
the event with the phrase, "By *MY* Command!"

Like taking command of a
newsgroup...by
"Quitefine's"
heckuva haiku nonsense...

He so smart.

"LHA" is not a radio amateur, and
so cannot say it is "his" amateur
radio.

Len is an American. It is as much his as it
could
be anyone elses.

Not enough. Must do 20 WPM
morse, love and cherish all
things old-tyme hamme.

Rusty Keys

(Sorry Hans, I CAN"T say O.F. or the Semi-Moral Minority will
cane me. Hi, hi!)

You can write whatever you wish. But
then you must allow others the same
freedom. This seems to be a problem
for you.

Jim, you just end up looking bad when you
alter
the quote of other peoples posts. I'd advise
against doing that in the future. But hey,
you've already earned your reputation.

He be "renowned."

"Quitefine" ask "Jim who?"

He not know who...

When we see altered
post, we know Who.

Numerous people wanted to join the amateur service because of the
emergency service aspect of our hobby.

Whom? How many? Who are
these people?

They are the ones getting licensed every day.

You're the one who posts the numbers each
month.
Drill down into the data to see what their
names are and their spankin' new call signs.

He know. He not say.

He silent majority.

They may have no interest in
building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers.

Is that a problem?

Actually, it may be a problem if they do.

There are no problems.

Provided all love and
cherish
morse code and worship at
Church of St. Hiram.

Amen.

Amen, Amen, Amen...

As such, the Technician
exam is too complex material for a person with such intentions.

What is your solution?
Is the Technician test
so difficult that it
represents a barrier to
the entry of new hams?
Is it full of questions on
NE602 receivers and
memory keyers?

Hans and I are in agreement on a new license
class.

The only agreement is that
of
agreeing with Jimmy Who.

Ooops? My
agreement
with Hans no good?

On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is
lunacy.

Not lunacy. Simply not
a good idea, in our opinion.

OK, not lunacy. Just impossible to work
properly.
A paper drill where everyone signs off but
does
nothing. Except at the Dayton Hamvention
Dinner
where someone get an award for signing off the

most paperwork.

Awards with certificates!

End goal of all "real" hams.

Pretty paper on the wall
saying
"see? I knew it all!"

The work's not over
til the paperworks
done.

So in the end, I agree to not have such a license class. But
remember, Jim says that we need more license classes. Apparently it
doesn't matter how he gets them.

To which "Jim" do you refer?
We have read posts here recently
from AA2QA, N2EY, and at least
one other "Jim".

Jimmy Who.

Who dat who say who dere?

Jimmy Who! Dat
Who!

The only one we recall who
has recently written about the
number of license classes is
the "Jim" with the callsign N2EY.
He proposed three license classes.

That would be you.

Not Who?

Yes, yes, dat
Who.

So it cannot be "Jim/N2EY" to
whom you refer.

Says you, Who.

Bad disguise.

Needs class, course in
Newsgroup Makeup.

He so smart.
How
we figger it
our
so fas?

Where indignant

Ole Yeller to
make
substantial
comment on
Jimmy
Who's disguise?

Is there another "Jim" who "wants
more license classes"?

How many?

How high?

...and for how long?

Code Forever!

All tune in tomorrow for another session of wisdom from the
all-seeing, all-knowing "Quitefine" and those long, long, long
postings...by who...

LHA / WMD

"Sorry Hans, Quitefine IS Jimmy Who!"

Hi, hi!

Can't wait to see nutso Steve's comments on these Quitefine anon postings.

Len, dollar says he invoke PCTA Double Standard and gib Jimmy Who da pass.

All bets
are off...

Nursie
busy "dialing,"
(the
dingaling). He
gonna
COMMIT all
his
"enemies." :-)

LHA / WMD

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the
new ops.

"Trail of responsibility"?????? I always kind of liked the idea of
self-responsibility, even though it's less popular in your new "me"
generation.

I'm going to type kinda slow here, Steve, so you can keep up.

E v e r y o n e h e r e i s i n f a v o r o f E l m e r
s
a n d m e n t o r s a n d A R R L S S C l u b s
h e l p i n g n e w c o m e r s ( a n d o l d c o m e r s )
w h o w a n t s o m e h e l p.

N o b o d y e x c e p t y o u s e e s a n y v a l u e
i n a l i c e n s e w h i c h R E Q U I R E S t h e
l i c e n s e e t o b e S U P E R V I S E D w h e n
t h e y o p e r a t e.

73 de Hans, K0HB

Why bother to have a license when
you can operate unlicensed while
supervised (by a control op)???

Subject: Quitefine Anon, was: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (William)
Date: 8/18/2004 6:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

Len, dollar says he invoke PCTA Double Standard and gib Jimmy Who da pass.

All bets
are off...

Darnit Len, it was only a dollar!!! That's merely 1/35th of an annual
membership in the American Radio Relay League.

Actually, Brainless, One dollar is only 1/39th of a League membership.

Facts, Brain...Ya gotta do the research and get the FACTS right.

(ahhhhhh....yeeeeeah...Like THAT will ever happen...)

Guess we all know how long it's been since you DID hold a League
membership, eh? I't BEEN $39 for YEARS now....


Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 7:24 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

These guys are so full of it. And "it" stinks.

In as much as you seem to have YOUR head firmly implanted in Lennie's
britches, I dare say that ANYthing you smell stinks, Brain.

Another day, another opporutnity for you to regain your self respect and
dignity...

...down the drain...

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(William) writes:

Can't wait to see nutso Steve's comments on these Quitefine anon postings.

Len, dollar says he invoke PCTA Double Standard and gib Jimmy Who da pass.


All bets
are off...

Darnit Len, it was only a dollar! I know he isn't even worth a dollar...

As I said, nursie is a day late and a dollar short...

Nursie
busy "dialing,"
the
dingaling).

He gonna get blister finger. So much dialing.

His posturing and provoking him makes him oblivious to such.

What he really needs is to get rid of such ranting and raving,
"threats" against all who talk against him.

No hope for his salvation.

He
gonna
COMMIT all
his
"enemies." :-)

Hi, hi! He got a big list. Attacks all Anon posters CEPT jimmy Who.

"CEPT?" Jimmie Who moved to Yurp? :-)

Oh...as in "except..." Ah, so. :-)

I'm still waiting for the padded wagon to show up with burly white-
suited attendants carrying a one-size-fits-all jacket. :-)

Until then, the chicken-snit posturing nursie remains just another
LYING newsgroup poster. shrug

NOT a good role model for demonstrating U.S. amateur radio...

Good for demonstrating Dump Hucks, though...

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

In article ,
(William) writes:

Can't wait to see nutso Steve's comments on these Quitefine anon postings.


Len, dollar says he invoke PCTA Double Standard and gib Jimmy Who da pass.

All bets
are off...

Darnit Len, it was only a dollar!!! That's merely 1/35th of an annual
membership in the American Radio Relay League.

Nursie be a day late and a dollar short...

Nursie
busy "dialing,"
(the
dingaling). He
gonna
COMMIT all
his
"enemies." :-)

LHA / WMD

He'll have to do triage on that dialing finger. He's picked so many
fights all over this newsgroup he'll probably even get a blister on
his fingernail (not to mention another cigar box medal).

One of nursie's more unusual empty threats was that "I'm going
to call on the authorities to come and take you away!"

He must have been on a different "high" than usual that time...

And why does he have to have a "Dialing Emergency" when he should be
getting on this Anon Quitefine character? When has he ever passed up
an opportunity to try to bust the chops of ANY anon poster?

Nursie is a hypocritical type and tries to "target" only certain folks.

She isn't into actual discussion, just in FIGHTING with others.

Not a good role model to interest others in amateur radio...

LHA / WMD

Subject: Quitefine Anon, was: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 7:03 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...

Darnit Len, it was only a dollar!!! That's merely 1/35th of an annual
membership in the American Radio Relay League.

Actually, Brainless, One dollar is only 1/39th of a League membership.

Facts, Brain...Ya gotta do the research and get the FACTS right.

(ahhhhhh....yeeeeeah...Like THAT will ever happen...)

Guess we all know how long it's been since you DID hold a League
membership, eh? I't BEEN $39 for YEARS now....

Just like Steve to argue minutia; he'll probably end up calling
someone a liar over it. The difference between 1/35 and 1/39 is
0.00293.

I seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, Brain.

I transpose the "h" and "a" in "have" and that's OK for you "address".

I point out that you make a specific error of fact, and that is "minutia"

Uh huh...

Yet I still support the ARRL regardless of the current price.

Not at $35.00, you don't.

So now that you've tried to divert the issue, are you still going to
give Jimmy Who da pass?

Who's "Jimmy Who"?

I searched Google and QRZ and find no one named "Jimmy Who". Is that a
Westernization of an Asian name?

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 7:11 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (William)
Date: 8/19/2004 7:24 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

These guys are so full of it. And "it" stinks.

In as much as you seem to have YOUR head firmly implanted in Lennie's
britches, I dare say that ANYthing you smell stinks, Brain.

Another day, another opporutnity for you to regain your self respect
and
dignity...

...down the drain...

Steve, K4YZ

Gosh, so many "opporUt_nities," so little time. You might want to
wipe that froth from the corner of your mouth.

Again trying to dodge behind a typo rather than take some definitive
action to restore some dignity to the Burke name.

Guess we know where your priorities lay, Brain.

As if we had any doubts.

Steve, K4YZ