Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1412 Â September 3, 2004 | General | |||
Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuringdepends | Policy | |||
NCVEC files license resstructuring proposal | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||
NCVEC Position on Code | Policy |