On 5 Nov 2004 17:31:32 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

snip

Here, from the FCC R&O, is what that money bought us:

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio
frequencies warrant the special protection afforded
frequencies reserved for international aeronautical
and maritime safety operations. While we
recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist
in providing emergency communications," it described
typical amateur operations as "routine communications
and hobby activities."

Oh oh. We've been caught. The FCC said the dreaded "hobby" word.

Jim, it looks like your "it's an avocation, not a hobby" arguement
didn't work - they seem to have seen right through it and figured out
what Amateur Radio is anyway! Nice try, though.

#$%^&*! Professionals - they sure know their stuff! (and their own
Regs...) :)

snip

w3rv

73, Leo

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...


The parks argument is a good one. The spectum is a natural resource like
the forest and the shoreline, and like those it shouldn't be for business
use only.

Thank you for saying that, Alun. Sincere thanks.

About six years ago (or so) in here I tried to point out that there is a
good analogue between the hobby of amateur radio and the national
park service. The U.S. Park Service has a million acres (give or take)
which is reserved for ALL the citizenry to enjoy for their recreation.

Spare me . . . more snake oil . . one more of your bogus "claims to
fame" eh Sweetums?

Tsk. I don't "claim any fame" to that analogue.

Face the music (even if you are deaf), amateur radio is basically
a HOBBY. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with that
concept.

There is a lot of wrong with the political statements saying it is a
"vital need to the nation" such as for "emergency comms" as if
the time was prior to WW2 when two-way radios were scarce.

Pretending that amateur radio is "vital" is a lot of POLITICAL
bull**** and you know it.

Then four years ago you finally decided you liked the concept and
first piped up on the topic on 16 Oct 2000.

Tsk. You are getting to be the sensitive old maid like "Jim" and
want to rehash, redo, reargue old old arguments. Do you think
you might "win" one if it is endlessley repeated? (think again)

Don't fib Sweetums, you know I'm out here doing my homework.

I could care less, "Sweetums."

You are NOT interested in the subject at all, just want to FIGHT
in words. Too bad. You are already self-penalized by having
both typing hands tied behind your somewhere. Tsk.

Try living in the PRESENT, not the past and not in Google.

"Pay no attention to those archives. They'll only confuse the issue".

If you never wrote some of the things you write, you wouldn't have to
defend them. If you never claimed originality for something which you
were not the first to use, you'd not be tap dancing now, desperate to
change the subject. Geez, Leonard, fess up and have done with it.
It'll be good for your soul.

Dave K8MN

Alun wrote in message . ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote

The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies by leaning on the politicians
and the courts and now it's our turn.

Good luck on that one now!

You bet . . #@!MF*#% sumbitches . . .

Would you believe I'm a REPUBLICAN for Gawd's sake?!

. . . to a point . . "they" crossed the #@!MF*#% point with BPL . .

See you in the contest this weekend.

I don't do SS. Couldn't do it anyway, 9 + 20 neighborhood QRN here
7-29 Mhz and I don't have the room for 80/160 antennas.

Go for it and GL Hans, I'll seeya 19-20 Feb. in that bash come hell
or high water even if I gotta do it from a #@!MF*#% tent somewhere
quiet.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

I beleive that you are a Republican, but I have my doubts as to
whether George Bush is one.

It's all about getting elected no matter what. The Republicans have
learned how to do it, the Democrats have apparently forgotten:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Nov3.html

73 de Jim, N2EY
73 de Jim, N2EY


Let me explain myself. I'm not a Republican by any stretch of the
imagination,

With all due respect Alun nor is any other Brit a Republican. But
that's OK, I'll take Tony any day vs. The Clod, you folk done better
than we did.

but I think that the GOP has been hijacked by ... well, I
can''t think of any nice names for them. They seem to call themselves
compassionate conservatives. This seems to mean extreme social consrvatism
combined with a fiscally liberal policy, except that all their compassion
is directed towards the Fortune 500!

I look at it as an opportunity to be suffered thru. After four years
of their reign this country will have had an overdose of their BS and
they'll permanently bury themselves never to be heard from again. At
which time us real Republicans will move back into the scene and get
back to sane jousting with the Democrats.

w3rv

Subject: They just don't get it!
From: Dave Heil
Date: 11/8/2004 11:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

Don't fib Sweetums, you know I'm out here doing my homework.

I could care less, "Sweetums."

You are NOT interested in the subject at all, just want to FIGHT
in words. Too bad. You are already self-penalized by having
both typing hands tied behind your somewhere. Tsk.

Try living in the PRESENT, not the past and not in Google.

"Pay no attention to those archives. They'll only confuse the issue".

If you never wrote some of the things you write, you wouldn't have to
defend them. If you never claimed originality for something which you
were not the first to use, you'd not be tap dancing now, desperate to
change the subject. Geez, Leonard, fess up and have done with it.
It'll be good for your soul.

Not to mention the fact that that scumbag has dumped tons of "...back in
1953.." crap on this NG, and then has the temerity to TRY and lambaste Amateurs
over "living in the past".

And then has the EXTRA temerity to suggest anyone else is living "in the
past".

Leonard H. Anderson is a two faced putz. Period.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

The parks argument is a good one. The spectum is a natural resource like
the forest and the shoreline, and like those it shouldn't be for business
use only.

Thank you for saying that, Alun. Sincere thanks.

About six years ago (or so) in here I tried to point out that there is
a
good analogue between the hobby of amateur radio and the national
park service. The U.S. Park Service has a million acres (give or take)
which is reserved for ALL the citizenry to enjoy for their recreation.

You did?

Google up the post for us, please, Len. Your experience in computer-modem
communications should make that an easy task for you.

Spare me . . . more snake oil . . one more of your bogus "claims to
fame" eh Sweetums?

Tsk. I don't "claim any fame" to that analogue.

Then why did you mention it, Len?

Face the music (even if you are deaf), amateur radio is basically
a HOBBY. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with that
concept.

What's "wrong" is when someone denies that there are any "nonhobby" aspects to
amateur radio. Such as emergency and public service communications, education,
advancing the state of the art, etc.

There is a lot of wrong with the political statements saying it is a
"vital need to the nation" such as for "emergency comms" as if
the time was prior to WW2 when two-way radios were scarce.

Who says amateur radio is a "vital need to the nation", Len?

You seem to think that amateur radio plays no role in emergency or public
service communications, based simply on your experience watching TV after one
California earthquake. That's simply too limited a view.

For example, when the space shuttle burned up on reentry, there were groups of
volunteers out looking for debris that survived the disaster. Some groups had
communications provided by amateur radio, others depended on cell phones. The
post-operation consensus was that cell phones were not well suited for that
type of operation, and that amateur radio played a key role in the groups that
had hams providing the communications. That's all documented by people who were
there.

Were those hams participating in a HOBBY when they volunteered?

Pretending that amateur radio is "vital" is a lot of POLITICAL
bull**** and you know it.

What does it take for something to be "vital", Len?

Until relatively recently, we here in the USA got along very well without the
internet, personal computers, cell phones, cable TV, satellite TV, satellite
radio, PDAs, VCRs, flat-screen TVs, microwave ovens and a host of other things.
So none of those things are "vital" either, are they? They may have improved
our lives, but they are they "vital"?

(I personally remember when all those things, and more, did not exist or were
not available to/practical for the average middle class American. And we lived
happy and successful lives without them, so they're not "vital".)

Then four years ago you finally decided you liked the concept and
first piped up on the topic on 16 Oct 2000.

Tsk. You are getting to be the sensitive old maid like "Jim"

Whom do you refer to, Len?

Can't be me, because I'm neither old nor a maid. And my name is Jim, not "Jim".

Perhaps you are angry that W3RV pointed out your mistake. You should thank him
for the new information. Don't you like new information?

and
want to rehash, redo, reargue old old arguments. Do you think
you might "win" one if it is endlessley repeated? (think again)

Len, *you* brought up the past. You wrote:

"About six years ago (or so) in here I tried to point out...."

W3RV pointed out that the concept is much older than six years. Now you're
trying to weasel out because you've lost that point. Doesn't work.

Don't fib Sweetums, you know I'm out here doing my homework.

I could care less, "Sweetums."

Then why are you arguing, Len? Just say you were wrong and move on. Thank W3RV
for the correction and live in the present.

You are NOT interested in the subject at all, just want to FIGHT
in words. Too bad. You are already self-penalized by having
both typing hands tied behind your somewhere. Tsk.

That's a pretty good description of *you*, Len.

Try living in the PRESENT, not the past and not in Google.

Bet you can't do it. :-)

Let's see if *you* can, Len. Your mistake is now in the past. Move on. Here,
I'll start:

Whoever originated it, the park analogy has some merit. It also has a bunch of
problems.

For example, the above FCC comments weren't about the definition of amateur
radio at all. They were a way of saying why amateurs wouldn't get special
protection from BPL interference. That's a political decision, not a technical
one. In fact, it admits that interference can/will happen, but that ham radio
isn't important enough to merit special consideration.

If ham radio is promoted as a HOBBY, why should it get special protection?

Also, you say the park service has a million acres, give or take. What
percentage of the USA is that? Hams in the USA currently have access to about
3.55 MHz of HF (3-30 MHz) spectrum. That's a little more than 13% of HF, and
most of it is worldwide exclusive amateur. On VHF, UHF and above we have
similar levels of allocation.

Would you want to see those allocations reduced?

What allocations do you think hams should have, as a "hobby"?

Someone (I think it was you) mentioned the 75 MHz RC hobbyists. They got a few
channels of VHF at low power, using only approved radios. Is that sort of
allocation adequate for hams?

One main reason they got those channels was that the classic 27.255 MHz RC
channel was overrun by illegal cb use.

What's wrong with promoting amateur radio *now* as a combination of *all* its
contributions - recreation, public service, technical innovation, education,
emergency communications, and more?

How do we do this and avoid the pitfalls such as "OK, you hams get the same
spectrum percentage as the park service has land area" or "you hams get the
same channelized, low power equipment as the RC folks"?

In article , Leo
writes:

On 5 Nov 2004 17:31:32 -0800, (Brian Kelly) wrote:

snip

Here, from the FCC R&O, is what that money bought us:

"We similarly do not find that Amateur Radio
frequencies warrant the special protection afforded
frequencies reserved for international aeronautical
and maritime safety operations. While we
recognize that amateurs may on occasion assist
in providing emergency communications," it described
typical amateur operations as "routine communications
and hobby activities."

Oh oh. We've been caught. The FCC said the dreaded "hobby" word.

Then we should grab that ball and run with it!

Most of what goes over the internet is "routine communications and hobby
activities" isn't it?

Jim, it looks like your "it's an avocation, not a hobby" arguement
didn't work - they seem to have seen right through it and figured out
what Amateur Radio is anyway! Nice try, though.

I say we go forward on all fronts - hobby, avocation, public service,
education, emergency comms, tinkering, advancing SOTA, etc. If they're gonna
call us hobbyists, then make it a badge of honor, same as was done with the
title "ham operator".

And this goes beyond the BPL battle. Take CC&R struggles - would they try to
ban other "hobbies"?

I like the term "antenna-hugger" myself.

---

The phrase I object to is "*just* a hobby" - which denies the components of
public service, education, etc.


73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: They just don't get it!
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 11/9/2004 6:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Spare me . . . more snake oil . . one more of your bogus "claims to
fame" eh Sweetums?

Tsk. I don't "claim any fame" to that analogue.

Then why did you mention it, Len?

For the same reason he tried to slip in his military "service" with the
sacrifices of Army KIA's who died a full three years before he was even
inducted...To make Leonard H Anderson look better than the sum of his parts...

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
. ..
(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Alun wrote in message
.. .
(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"KØHB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Brian Kelly" wrote

The environmentalists have
beaten back the timber companies by leaning on the politicians
and the courts and now it's our turn.

Good luck on that one now!

You bet . . #@!MF*#% sumbitches . . .

Would you believe I'm a REPUBLICAN for Gawd's sake?!

. . . to a point . . "they" crossed the #@!MF*#% point with BPL .
.

See you in the contest this weekend.

I don't do SS. Couldn't do it anyway, 9 + 20 neighborhood QRN
here 7-29 Mhz and I don't have the room for 80/160 antennas.

Go for it and GL Hans, I'll seeya 19-20 Feb. in that bash come
hell or high water even if I gotta do it from a #@!MF*#% tent
somewhere quiet.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

I beleive that you are a Republican, but I have my doubts as to
whether George Bush is one.

It's all about getting elected no matter what. The Republicans have
learned how to do it, the Democrats have apparently forgotten:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Nov3.html

73 de Jim, N2EY
73 de Jim, N2EY


Let me explain myself. I'm not a Republican by any stretch of the
imagination,

With all due respect Alun nor is any other Brit a Republican. But
that's OK, I'll take Tony any day vs. The Clod, you folk done better
than we did.

but I think that the GOP has been hijacked by ... well, I
can''t think of any nice names for them. They seem to call themselves
compassionate conservatives. This seems to mean extreme social
consrvatism combined with a fiscally liberal policy, except that all
their compassion is directed towards the Fortune 500!

I look at it as an opportunity to be suffered thru. After four years
of their reign this country will have had an overdose of their BS and
they'll permanently bury themselves never to be heard from again. At
which time us real Republicans will move back into the scene and get
back to sane jousting with the Democrats.

w3rv


I hope you're right

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

If you never wrote some of the things you write, you wouldn't have to
defend them.

Tsk. You keep bringin up OLD postings of mine.

Tsk, tsk. You should have done better AT THAT TIME to defend
your own positions.

Bringing up old postings again and again is just a mental form
of bullemia. Or just plain bull.

Keep on trying, though, eventually you'll make everyone sick and
tired of you trying to win one of those "discussions."

If you never claimed originality for something which you
were not the first to use, you'd not be tap dancing now, desperate to
change the subject.

"I've never claimed originality?!?" :-)

"Dave," just because someone writes YOUR postings for you
doesn't mean everyone else does the same...

Geez, Leonard, fess up and have done with it.
It'll be good for your soul.

Yes, Holy Father, it would mean SO much to you gods of radio
to have an NCTA capitulate to your divine words.

Tell ya what, Holy Father, I'll kiss your ring but you have to kiss my
a**. :-)