| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
October 29th 04, 05:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes: In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , Robert Casey writes: I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-) Hnarf! Anyone can see you are. Tsk, tsk. It's true, true. The "whizzing" is almost entirely one way, nursie "whizzing" on anyone who disagrees (in the slightest) with him. [that's all archived in Google, go live in the past and see it...:-) ] All three of you do about the same amount of whizzing. You whizz on anyone who disagrees in the slightest with you. It's a plain, simple fact. Tsk, wrong again. Error. Mistake. What's the mistake? Worse yet, you use "fact" interchangeably with Your Personal Opinion. Not correct. How is it not correct? Now YOU tell us what the Titanic's sinking of 92 years ago has to do with amateur radio policy of today? Very very little. Actually, quite a bit. Wrong again. Quite wrong. Your opinion. 1912 was the year of the first U.S. radio regulating agency. No, that's not true. Radio was regulated by the US and by international treaty before 1912. The regulations were very vague and loose, but they did exist. Tsk. It's true. What agency had the official power of law in the United States prior to 1912? Depends on which law. "Loose and vague" apply to your specious "arguments" there. Not at all, Len. Was there *no* regulation of radio in the USA before 1912? That's about the only "relation" to the subject of the Titanic and a very tenuous one...if at all. :-) Wrong again, Len! No. Not "wrong" in the real world. Were you there, in the real world, in 1912? You need to sever your imaginary ties of emotion to a pet subject of yours in order to examine the bigger picture. There was NO REAL RELATION of the Titanic disaster event to U.S. amateur radio policy, regulations, or laws. Sure there was. You just won't admit it because I brought it up. If you notice the chronology, all that can be said is that the creation of the first U.S. radio regulating agency and the Titanic sinking took place in the same year, 1912. The Department of the Navy and the Department of Commerce did not exist before 1912? Because of the Titanic disaster, the existing loose regulations were tightened up and much more closely defined. Licenses were required of all transmitting stations, new procedures set up, new treaties and agreements put in place. That's an absurd mental elastomeric stress breaking point. :-) Not really. I would suggest that anyone who really cares about the very early history of radio to study Hugh G. J. Aitken's "The Continuous Wave, Technology and American Radio, 1900-1932." Princeton University Press, 1985, softcover 561 pp. At the time of writing, Aitken was a professor at Amherst College and the work was supported by the National Science Foundation. Was he there in 1912? Were you? I wasn't. There was considerably more involved in the decision of the United States to create its first radio regulating agency PRIOR to the Titanic sinking. [agencies aren't created overnight by some disaster even and the start of the first radio agency in the U.S. began considerably before the infamous sinking] There were more than a dozen "wireless" bills before Congress in the two years preceding April 1912. All failed to be enacted. There was no urgency to enacting US wireless regulation at all. Then the Titanic sinking and the resulting investigations led to quick govt. action. And it was because of the Titanic disaster that amateurs were limited to "200 meters and down" and 1 kW input to their transmitters. Those limitations caused amateurs to organize themselves into groups like ARRL (1914), to push for legislative protection, and to explore what could be done with those supposedly "useless" wavelengths. Tsk. You aren't in line with the ARRL's own bio of its creation. :-) How would you know, Len? The way the league wrote themselves up, Where? they began as a local club using their ham sets to what was essentially hacking on the services of commercial telegraph providers. "hacking on the services of commercial telegraph providers"? Nope. Amateur radio message handling of those days did not "hack" anyone else's facilities. Nor was it done for money. [see the details on the league's web site and in other published works by them] Try actually reading them yourself, Len. ARRL did not spring into national prominence until AFTER World War 1, at least 8 years AFTER the Titanic sinking. Wrong again, Len! The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before WW1. That's a documented fact. The League and amateur radio all but disappeared during WW1, then were reorganized soon after Armistice Day. Even so, the league was very busy with competition from OTHER wannabe national amateur organizations. Such as? Note: The Radio Club of America began 5 years before the creation of the little New England club, and "RCA" (as they call themselves) is still in existance. The Radio Club of America exists as a small organization today. It is not devoted entirely or even seriously to amateur radio. It's a tiny shadow of what it once was. One of the most influential of the early wireless organizations was the Wireless Association of Pennsylvania. Two of its organizers, Charles Stewart and David Rittenhouse, defended the interests of amateurs in 1910, 1911, and 1912. For example, it is because of their efforts that attempts to require the licensing of *receivers* were not successful. Had there been no Titanic or similar disaster, it's very probable that the loose state of radio regulatory affairs would have continued until the outbreak of WW1. Tsk. World War One (in Europe) began in 1914. The ARRL was created in 1914. :-) And the US did not get involved until 1917. And it's also very possible that without the Titanic disaster, amateur radio would not exist today, or even after WW1. Yes, yes, "The Old Man" Went To Washington To Save Ham Radio! AFTER the end of World War 1. Six years AFTER the Titanic sinking. You can't deal with a hypothetical situation. Perhaps that's why Len gets so worked up over mention of the Titanic. Tsk. Here begins Rev. Jim's "fire and brimstone" demonizing. :-) Noooooo. The Titanic sank in 1912. That is NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO. Why are you shouting, Len? You must be very upset. Or perhaps it's the fact that the rescue was effected by Morse Code used on radio that gets Len so upset. Tsk. Way back then (92 years ago) ANYONE using radio for communications HAD TO use on-off keying of some kind. Fessenden and his workers didn't "HAVE TO"... Reginald A. Fessenden was using amplitude-modulated voice radio almost a dozen years before the Titanic sank. By November 1906 he had two-way transatlantic *voice* radio communication working on a regular basis. Your historic references probably mention Fessenden, too. Look him up. 92 years later, hardly anyone (except for a few amateurs, a minority) use on-off keying communications modes. So what? If that fact has any significance it all, it points to the need for testing knowledge of those "on-off keying communications modes" for an amateur license. Also, repeated surveys and polls of today's radio amateurs show that, of those who operate on the HF amateur bands, a *majority* use Morse Code at least some of the time. Len laughed at the disaster when I wrote that hitting the iceberg head-on would have probably saved all aboard. And he refuses to show any respect for those who perished. Tsk. Sneaky implied pejorative. :-) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001133%40mb-m0 1.aol.com&output=gplain http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...001131%40mb-m0 1.aol.com&output=gplain I don't claim to be a mariner at all Nor do I. despite having crossed the Atlantic and Pacific twice by ship and gone sailing on a friend's 35-foot something or other (forget the class of sailboat), all as a passenger. Then why do you mention it? I WILL laugh and laugh at the thought of "expert seamanship" involving "hitting an iceberg (or anything else) head-on in order to save it"! Then you're laughing at the expert mariners who have said doing so would have saved Titanic. And you're laughing at what happened to the liner Niagara, April 11, 1912. IOW, you're laughing at reality. Ain't nobody going to get "respect" for stating such alleged "safety measures" to stay afloat at sea as "going head-on into a berg." Tell it to the experts who say it was a better choice than sinking the ship. Defies common sense. :-) So does the theory of relativity. But it's true. I don't show any "respect" for ANYONE stating that "hitting anything head-on will save a ship." In the case of Titanic, it's true. It sure seems to. You're obsessed by it. Tsk. Persistence is not obsession. You're obsessed. I'm not in here every day. :-) Nor am I. But that's not the point. I haven't gotten an amateur radio license yet. :-) That's a good thing! Why is that "good?" Because it's better that your behavior is confined here, rather than on the amateur bands. Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right out of the box". Did I do that in church? No - right here. Tsk. I've seen what Being An Extra makes of some amateurs and such is not for me. Then whay are you here? I'm of the opinion that radio and electronics is terribly fascinating, interesting, and makes an enjoyable field of both avocation and occupation. To me. So much so that I made a major shift in my formal education long ago, changing from illustration art to electronics engineering. That despite a natural talent in illustration and some prior work experience as an illustrator. How is that at all relevant to amateur radio policy? That was personally successful, not the "lackluster career" you stated. People's standards of "success" vary. I do electronics hobby work in my home workshop to please me, Me too! not some raddio kopps demanding a certain formal Way To Do Things, nor worshipping the old traditional ways as they were done long ago, trying to re-enact a past that was before I was born. The future happens right after now and I keep looking forward to new things, to enjoy them. Yet you still have an old R-70 receiver, and use software kluges like MS Paint to do PC board layouts when much newer, better methods exist. What person are you referring to, Len? Whomever. :-) Can't call people by name, I see. Note how Len avoids the question about why the code test bothers him so much. It doesn't "bother me." :-) Sure it does. Whenever anyone says anything good about the test - or even Morse Code itself - you come out swinging with shouting and insults. You've long since run out of valid arguments to retain the U.S. amateur radio regulation requiring passing a code cognition test for operating privileges in amateur bands below 30 MHz. In *your* opinion. Others (including FCC) disagree. You've resorted to the usual PCTA demonizing of any NCTA who dares to talk back to a member of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS). "Demonizing"? How? All I do is point out your mistakes and offer commentary on your behavior here. Is that not allowed? It seems that you take *any* differing opinion, or facts that you don't like, as personal insults to you. As predicted, you've gotten all emotional and upset about being (in the slightest) corrected on certain (actual) facts (not your opinions although you use fact-opinion interchangeably). Not me, Len. I'm not the one making up nicknames, shouting, etc. I leave that stuff to you. You want to keep the ARS in your version of pure, pristine, and prissy-literally What in the world does that mean? and don't (now) hesitate to pejorate others and make some mild perjerous remarks to "reinforce" your opinions (which you call "facts"). "Peforate others and make some mild perjerous remarks"? What *are* you talking about? Besides, it wouldn't matter what sort of homebrew rig I produced - Len would have lots of disparaging things to say about it. Tsk. You took your rig's photo. You put it on an AOL home page. Is that wrong? Is it somehow not allowed? One photo. There are more out there. You haven't found them yet, have you? Doesn't go into much detail. Why should it? Your reaction is predictable regardless of the detail provided. Six and a half cabinet-less chassis with lots of vacuum tubes. Six and a half chassis? Count again. And what's the obsession with cabinets? No schematics. No descriptions in detail that you claim visitors are astounded about. :-) I've already described that rig elsewhere. I've outlined its basic principle here, but you couldn't even solve the heterodyne problem, so it's pointless for me to go further. What homebrew HF radio transceivers have *you* produced since the mid 1990s, Len, using only your own time and resources? No transceivers on HF. :-) Exactly. You criticize others, but have nothing to show of your own work. As usual, you've wasted my time. How? You choose to read the postings here, and you choose to answer. |
|
#3
October 29th 04, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before WW1. That's a documented fact. The League and amateur radio all but disappeared during WW1, then were reorganized soon after Armistice Day. Jim, even you can't rewrite history well enough to lend credence to that statement. The "war to end all wars" began in the summer of 1914 (August, IIRC). The first issue of QST was published late in 1914 (December, IIRC). So much for "nationally prominent" before WW1. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#4
October 30th 04, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before WW1. That's a documented fact. The League and amateur radio all but disappeared during WW1, then were reorganized soon after Armistice Day. Jim, even you can't rewrite history well enough to lend credence to that statement. I think the statement needs correction. The "war to end all wars" began in the summer of 1914 (August, IIRC). The first issue of QST was published late in 1914 (December, IIRC). So much for "nationally prominent" before WW1. You are correct, sir! It should read: The ARRL and its magazine QST were "nationally prominent" before the USA entered WW1. That's a documented fact. The League and US amateur radio all but disappeared during our participation in WW1, then the ARRL was reorganized soon after Armistice Day. -- Thanks, Hans. The statement was way too US-centric as written. It's the same sort of mistake that people make when they say WW2 started on Dec 7, 1941. -- It should be noted that one of the provisions of the early wireless acts would have licensed both receivers and transmitters. Through the efforts of the Wireless Association of Pennsylvania (most notably David Rittenhouse and Charles Stewart) and the Radio Club of America, the licensing of receivers was not enacted. However, the WW1 shutdown involved both receiving and transmitting. Maxim and other League officials (Including Stewart) were instrumental in getting first the receiving and later the transmitting bans lifted. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#5
October 30th 04, 12:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , PAMNO (N2EY) writes: I'm not into any "whizzing contest" with the gunnery nurse. :-) Hnarf! Anyone can see you are. Tsk, tsk. The "whizzing" is almost entirely one way, nursie "whizzing" on anyone who disagrees (in the slightest) with him. [that's all archived in Google, go live in the past and see it...:-) ] I'd think you'd be wary of Google biting you again. Don't forget that all of your words are there too--the insults, the name calling--all of it. The way the league wrote themselves up, they began as a local club using their ham sets to what was essentially hacking on the services of commercial telegraph providers. [see the details on the league's web site and in other published works by them] Incorrect. ARRL did not spring into national prominence until AFTER World War 1, at least 8 years AFTER the Titanic sinking. Incorrect. The League came into being in 1914 with U.S. entry into WWI in 1917. QST resumed publication in mid-1919. The League was a national organization before the United States entered the war. Even so, the league was very busy with competition from OTHER wannabe national amateur organizations. "Wannabe" is right. None of the other amateur radio organizations were ever serious competitors of the ARRL. Note: The Radio Club of America began 5 years before the creation of the little New England club, and "RCA" (as they call themselves) is still in existance. Right. Five years before as "The Junior Wireless Club". The little New England club grew and grew. The Radio Club of America was never very big though it broadened its scope. Did you have a point? Besides, on January 19, 2000, you told us you were going for Extra "right out of the box". Did I do that in church? Laying down in the nave, forming a code key with my body and taking absolute Vows? :-) Is that the only way we could have taken you at your word? Tsk. I've seen what Being An Extra makes of some amateurs and such is not for me. I believe you meant that you've seen what it takes to become an Extra and such is not for you. I'm of the opinion that radio and electronics is terribly fascinating, interesting, and makes an enjoyable field of both avocation and occupation. To me. So much so that I made a major shift in my formal education long ago, changing from illustration art to electronics engineering. That despite a natural talent in illustration and some prior work experience as an illustrator. That was personally successful, not the "lackluster career" you stated. Shall we go over some of the things which you've written about the careers of others, you poor old fellow? I do electronics hobby work in my home workshop to please me, not some raddio kopps demanding a certain formal Way To Do Things, nor worshipping the old traditional ways as they were done long ago, trying to re-enact a past that was before I was born. Great! It sounds as if you can go right along doing those things. As usual, you've wasted my time. But...I was sitting around waiting for the big brown truck to show up as promised on the tracking info. :-) Is that some sort of regularity euphemism, Len? Dave K8MN |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS.... | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
