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