| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Mode/Band Use in 1961
While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following..
In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams (membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time): HF: CW: 34.4% AM: 27.8% SSB: 23.3% RTTY: 1.5% FM/NBFM: 0.3% Other modes: 0.6% VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1% 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following.. In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams (membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time): HF: CW: 34.4% AM: 27.8% SSB: 23.3% RTTY: 1.5% FM/NBFM: 0.3% Other modes: 0.6% VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1% 73 de Jim, N2EY I believe the ARRL has a relatively recent survey on its website about the same thing. I'd dig it out but will wait till later to do so as it's time to hit the sack. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
N2EY wrote:
While perusing QST for September, 1961, I came across the following.. In 1961, ARRL's BoD conducted a survey of band/mode use of 8000 hams (membership and license class not specified). Results (operating time): HF: CW: 34.4% AM: 27.8% SSB: 23.3% A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the receiving station can make out people's voices without carrier heterodyne whistles. Also no wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear all those heterodyne whistles. RTTY: 1.5% FM/NBFM: 0.3% NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's wider bandwidth... Other modes: 0.6% VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1% Even back then, half the hams perferred voice (phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit over 1/3 perferring CW. |
In article . net, robert casey
writes: A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the receiving station can make out people's voices without carrier heterodyne whistles. Not just in a pileup, either. Also no wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear all those heterodyne whistles. I'll take your word for it ;-) The biggest reasons for SSB displacing AM on the ham bands, IMHO, a 1) Allows more simultaneous QSOs in a given amount of spectrum 2) Greater "talk power" from a given rig (all the power is in the sidebands on SSB vs. ~2/3 of it in the carrier on AM) 3) High power SSB can be less expensive to build and operate than high power AM. RTTY: 1.5% FM/NBFM: 0.3% NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's wider bandwidth... No, NBFM was even worse than AM in terms of "talk power". At the narrow deviations allowed for hams below 29 MHz, an NBFM transmitter was roughly equivalent to an AM transmitter running one-fourth the power. OTOH heterodynes were much reduced - capture effect meant you heard the strongest signal and little else. Other modes: 0.6% VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1% Even back then, half the hams perferred voice (phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit over 1/3 perferring CW. Yep - despite the fact that in those days the spectrum available for US hams to use HF 'phone was much less than today. And the rig-cost differential was much greater. No WARC bands back then, and 160 wasn't included in the survey. It should be remembered that in 1961: - only ~8 years had passed since Generals and Conditionals got access to HF 'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz - only ~7 years had passed since 'phone was allowed on 40 meters, and 15 meters was opened to hams - there were less than a quarter million US hams - VHF/UHF repeaters were almost unknown on the ham bands. RTTY meant an electromechanical teleprinter in the shack, whose cost new exceeded the cost of many hams' entire stations. It would be interesting to see how the mode and band use would break down today. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
That is almost interesting.
|
N2EY wrote:
In article . net, robert casey writes: A big reason for SSB is that, in a pile up, the receiving station can make out people's voices without carrier heterodyne whistles. Not just in a pileup, either. Also no wasted power transmitting carriers. Take a listen to a crouded CB channel sometime and hear all those heterodyne whistles. I'll take your word for it ;-) The biggest reasons for SSB displacing AM on the ham bands, IMHO, a 1) Allows more simultaneous QSOs in a given amount of spectrum 2) Greater "talk power" from a given rig (all the power is in the sidebands on SSB vs. ~2/3 of it in the carrier on AM) 3) High power SSB can be less expensive to build and operate than high power AM. RTTY: 1.5% FM/NBFM: 0.3% NBFM might have been better than SSB except it's wider bandwidth... No, NBFM was even worse than AM in terms of "talk power". At the narrow deviations allowed for hams below 29 MHz, an NBFM transmitter was roughly equivalent to an AM transmitter running one-fourth the power. OTOH heterodynes were much reduced - capture effect meant you heard the strongest signal and little else. Other modes: 0.6% VHF/UHF (all modes): 12.1% Even back then, half the hams perferred voice (phone) modes (AM, SSB, FM). Compared to a bit over 1/3 perferring CW. Yep - despite the fact that in those days the spectrum available for US hams to use HF 'phone was much less than today. And the rig-cost differential was much greater. No WARC bands back then, and 160 wasn't included in the survey. It should be remembered that in 1961: - only ~8 years had passed since Generals and Conditionals got access to HF 'phone on the ham bands between 2 and 25 MHz - only ~7 years had passed since 'phone was allowed on 40 meters, and 15 meters was opened to hams - there were less than a quarter million US hams - VHF/UHF repeaters were almost unknown on the ham bands. RTTY meant an electromechanical teleprinter in the shack, whose cost new exceeded the cost of many hams' entire stations. It would be interesting to see how the mode and band use would break down today. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Without a single poll to back me up, the following could be said to be accurate for 1911: Any Frequency: CW: 100% [on-off keying] Someone inserted a carbon telephone microphone in the feedline between the transmitter and antenna, and produced a crude form of AM. Couldn't have been much power else the mic would have burnt up. These mics vary in resistance along with the sound they hear. AM: 0% Near but not = 0 SSB: 0% RTTY: 0% FM/NBFM: 0% Other modes: 0% VHF/UHF (all modes): 0% Well, how far up did spark go? In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] :-) No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically outlawed is legal. The radio regulations came later. |
"robert casey" wrote No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically outlawed is legal. The radio regulations came later. "Everything not specifically prohibited is mandatory!" 73, Hans, K0HB |
In article . net, robert casey
writes: Someone inserted a carbon telephone microphone in the feedline between the transmitter and antenna, and produced a crude form of AM. Actually, Reginald Fessenden did a lot more than that, as early as 1900. By 1906 he had two-way transatlantic *voice* radio communications working. Couldn't have been much power else the mic would have burnt up. He got at least a kilowatt from one set. These mics vary in resistance along with the sound they hear. Which is all an AM modulator really does. Point is, there were folks using practical voice radio years before 1911. It's all well documented. Of course that early voice equipment was more expensive, less reliable and did not perform as well as its Morse code counterparts. AM: 0% Near but not = 0 Exactly! Well, how far up did spark go? Depends entirely on the design. In those days, the conventional wisdom was that longer waves = longer distance, so there was little interest in going above about 1 MHz. No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically outlawed is legal. The radio regulations came later. There was *some* radio regulation in the USA as early as 1906. In the years leading up to 1912, there were a number of bills introduced into Congress to regulate radio even more. But there was no great urgency to enact any comprehensive radio regulation until the Titanic disaster. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, robert casey
writes: Without a single poll to back me up, the following could be said to be accurate for 1911: Any Frequency: CW: 100% [on-off keying] Someone inserted a carbon telephone microphone in the feedline between the transmitter and antenna, and produced a crude form of AM. Couldn't have been much power else the mic would have burnt up. These mics vary in resistance along with the sound they hear. Yes, yes, yes, good old Reggie Fessenden did it. At least once with an audience on Christmas Eve, 1906. NOBODY followed that example. :-) AM: 0% Near but not = 0 SSB: 0% RTTY: 0% FM/NBFM: 0% Other modes: 0% VHF/UHF (all modes): 0% Well, how far up did spark go? I wasn't there with a spectrum analyzer. Ask Jim. He might have been. In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] :-) No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically outlawed is legal. Yes and no. The LAW defines what is legal and what is illegal. Without the LAW specifically covering it, it is neither legal nor illegal. By the way the Radio Club of America DID exist in 1911. The radio regulations came later. Of course. 1912. But the implication of the "1961 Poll" is rather obvious to tout CW (on-off keying). Especially considering the source of that posting. 1961 was 43 years ago. Times change. Technology changes. There was NO personal computer in 1961 except for a few with lots and lots of money. Very few. In 2003 one family in five in the USA had some kind of Internet access...that makes it roughly 60 million folks a year ago. One out of three USA citizens has a cell phone subscription now, or roughly 100 million of those. We can mumble all sorts of things about the PAST, but that is just mumbling, having little relevance to the present and future. |
In article . net, Len Over 21
writes: In article . net, robert casey writes: Without a single poll to back me up, the following could be said to be accurate for 1911: Any Frequency: CW: 100% [on-off keying] Someone inserted a carbon telephone microphone in the feedline between the transmitter and antenna, and produced a crude form of AM. Couldn't have been much power else the mic would have burnt up. These mics vary in resistance along with the sound they hear. Yes, yes, yes, good old Reggie Fessenden did it. At least once with an audience on Christmas Eve, 1906. NOBODY followed that example. :-) One correspondent, an obvious fan of Reggie, thinks that "lots of folks" were doing AM with a special carbon microphone in series with the antenna lead. The "lots of folks" were restricted to Fessenden's work group at one station, perhaps four in all. [see Thomas H. White's early radio history in the USA papers, a fascinating look at that] There's nothing in Aitkin's histories (such as "From Syntony to Spark" to the tome I mentioned earlier) to indicate that anyone was bothering to emulate Fessenden's method. Lee de Forest wrote that he was able to do some AM low-power with his "audions" which surprised some USN radiomen in the NYC area at the time. AM was first done on a large scale in WIRED telephony, specifically for the "carrier" form of multiple circuit transmission (frequency multiplexing) on a single pair of long-distance wires. The telephone people were responsible for the upsurge of interest in "wave filters" and the formulation of the first passive L-C filter theory. John E. Carson (not the "Tonight" show host) came up with the first complete mathematical description of AM and FM. Reggie Fessenden IS responsible for the predecessor to the "BFO" when he was able to increase the intelligibility of his detectors by using a very small spark generator loosely coupled to that detector. Fessenden called it a "heterodyne detector." When Ed Armstrong invented the modern "superhet" in 1918 he was mindful of Fessenden's method, so Ed called his system a super-heterodyne. That's how we got that name as well as the familiar short term of "superhet." No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically outlawed is legal. Yes and no. The LAW defines what is legal and what is illegal. Without the LAW specifically covering it, it is neither legal nor illegal. That's a philosophical viewpoint on "legality." :-) English Law recognizes that people do a LOT of things and most of those are NOT concerned with any law covering it. Attornies can make very "learned" distinctions on it, but, in the basic terms of "legal" and "illegal," something not covered by any law simply IS and is neither legal nor illegal. 1961 was 43 years ago. Times change. Technology changes. The original posting of the first message in this thread appears to be nothing more than a refined Troll. :-) Technology of ALL radio, indeed most of electronics in general has changed dramatically with the introduction of the Solid State Era. So has the operating practices over those intervening 43 years. Radio amateurs have been lagging the practices of the rest of the radio world since that time despite the protests of the most die-hard "amateurs are in the cutting edge of technology" advocates. Those of us who were IN the electronics industry at that time (and before) were all able to see that. Amateurs who had no news of the rest of the radio world's advances (except long after the fact) will protest out of some ignorant pride in their amateurism, but that is necessarily true. Evidence can be found in the early 1960s ARRL "Handbooks" compared to the industry publications of that same time. I have nothing against any hobbyist defending their "turf" in scope of hobby activities. I DO have much against those hobbyists either stating that amateur radio hobbyists are "advancing the state of the art" just by existing or that all regulations should continue to reflect the PAST in all things regarding amateur radio practices. Those who wish to constantly re-create or re-enact the past by becoming the very best morsemen (according to older, outdated standards) can do whatever they like as far as I'm concerned. The problem occurs when morsemen get too full of themselves and try to "run the show" by demanding that all newcomers to amateur radio MUST pass a telegraphy test in order to obtain an amateur radio license. These morsemen don't run any show, they are but participants in the older arts of amateur radio. They aren't role models of what is good despite their claims of "superiority" in radio. |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/16/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] And no "Len Anderson" was active in 1911, antagonizing and telling those radio enthusiasts then (who WERE legal, Lennie...sorry...) how to go about doing what they were doing. Lessee, if he was around back then........ He would probably have been a civil war vet. And he would have been a member of the Military telegraph service. Could tell all those radio Ops about real telagraphy..... hehe, I like that! - Mike KB3EIA - |
FYI: My research shows:
Before 1912, call signs were just made up by the aspiring Amateur and it wasn't until the Radio Act of 1912 that the first licenses were issued. An HTML version of Early Radio Laws 4 is on-line. Very interesting reading as it defines DE, CQ, Operating Procedures, Morse Code of the day, and many Q Signals we still use. In 1911, Hiram Percy Maxim's assumed call was SNY. In 1912, Irving Vermilya, 1ZE, 6 received Skill Certificate No. 1, thus considered as the first licensed Amateur Radio Operator. Some sources indicate the code requirement was 5 wpm (how things go around and come around - 5 wpm now in the year 2000!!!). Written exams included essay type questions -- making a diagram of transmitting and receiving apparatus and how they worked! Also of course International and US Law questions. -- Caveat Lecter "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote: Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/16/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] And no "Len Anderson" was active in 1911, antagonizing and telling those radio enthusiasts then (who WERE legal, Lennie...sorry...) how to go about doing what they were doing. Lessee, if he was around back then........ He would probably have been a civil war vet. And he would have been a member of the Military telegraph service. Could tell all those radio Ops about real telagraphy..... hehe, I like that! - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/16/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] And no "Len Anderson" was active in 1911, antagonizing and telling those radio enthusiasts then (who WERE legal, Lennie...sorry...) how to go about doing what they were doing. Lessee, if he was around back then........ He would probably have been a civil war vet. "He" was actually a Korean War veteran, serving actively from 1952 to 1956. When did Coslo ever serve in ANY military? And he would have been a member of the Military telegraph service. Could tell all those radio Ops about real telagraphy..... For its time, that would be true...but that is supposition by the Avenging Angle, the hero of "seven hostile actions" along with his lil buddy, the Amateur Balloonist. The U.S. Army Signal Corps ran the land force military telegraphy "service" plus a lot of other communications tasks in the Army. I was in the Signal Corps, United States Army. The Morse-Vail Telegraph System debuted in 1844, Baltimore to Washington DC. The U.S. Civil War did not start until 1861, seventeen years later. There was NO "radio" communications until 1896, 52 years after the first Morse- Vail Telegraph service opened. hehe, I like that! Coslo has never served in any military. In fact, he has NOT served in ANY "radio operator" capacity other than as an AMATEUR, a hobbyist, a dilletante in the communications world making big noises like he was an "operator" of high caliber. "High caliber?" No, not even shooting blanks. It's worse with the Avenging Angle, that obtuse angle (never right), who never worked any military communications and couldn't even make it to military pilot despite having (allegedly) a private pilot's license since before his military service. Wow, talk about losers! Tsk, tsk. I'm not going to tell you anything about the U.S. Civil War despite my late father-in-law's personal study of it nor my own reading of the official histories of the U.S. Army Signal Corps written by the U.S. Army Times, nor of official documents written by Signalmen of the U.S. Army in other official and recognized documents. Do not worry. Depend on the publishers at Newington to tell you ALL about "radio" (at least that much they care to tell you). You don't have to pay any attention to REAL radio operators and maintainers who were in REAL HF worldwide communications as I was a half century ago...nor of those government and private sector radio operations where I was also in the following half century. All you need to know is what Newington cares to tell you and, above all else, love honor and cherish morse code, that imaginary paragon of "radio operating skill" among AMATEURS. Keep all those wonderful skills and operating standards of amateurism alive and well long past their usefulness so that you will finally be part of an "in group" of morsemen. Be ready for that "big one" where you can brag about saving the world through morsemanship. Now, one last time, how do you "serve" your country in those "other ways" you claim? Neither you nor the Nun of the Above have answered that question challenge on your respective claims... did dit |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/16/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] And no "Len Anderson" was active in 1911, antagonizing and telling those radio enthusiasts then (who WERE legal, Lennie...sorry...) how to go about doing what they were doing. Lessee, if he was around back then........ He would probably have been a civil war vet. "He" was actually a Korean War veteran, serving actively from 1952 to 1956. When did Coslo ever serve in ANY military? Coslo has served his country for a lot longer than Lenover21 has then. And he would have been a member of the Military telegraph service. Could tell all those radio Ops about real telagraphy..... For its time, that would be true...but that is supposition by the Avenging Angle, the hero of "seven hostile actions" along with his lil buddy, the Amateur Balloonist. Yeah, supposition it is. The U.S. Army Signal Corps ran the land force military telegraphy "service" plus a lot of other communications tasks in the Army. I was in the Signal Corps, United States Army. Yeah, like I said.... The Morse-Vail Telegraph System debuted in 1844, Baltimore to Washington DC. The U.S. Civil War did not start until 1861, seventeen years later. There was NO "radio" communications until 1896, 52 years after the first Morse- Vail Telegraph service opened. Right, there ya go!...... hehe, I like that! Coslo has never served in any military. In fact, he has NOT served in ANY "radio operator" capacity other than as an AMATEUR, a hobbyist, a dilletante in the communications world making big noises like he was an "operator" of high caliber. "High caliber?" No, not even shooting blanks. Hmmm, I guess I touched a nerve. Sorry about that! It's worse with the Avenging Angle, that obtuse angle (never right), who never worked any military communications and couldn't even make it to military pilot despite having (allegedly) a private pilot's license since before his military service. Wow, talk about losers! Tsk, tsk. I'm not going to tell you anything about the U.S. Civil War despite my late father-in-law's personal study of it nor my own reading of the official histories of the U.S. Army Signal Corps written by the U.S. Army Times, nor of official documents written by Signalmen of the U.S. Army in other official and recognized documents. That's not nice, especially since I enjoy your stories! 8^( Do not worry. Depend on the publishers at Newington to tell you ALL about "radio" (at least that much they care to tell you). You don't have to pay any attention to REAL radio operators and maintainers who were in REAL HF worldwide communications as I was a half century ago...nor of those government and private sector radio operations where I was also in the following half century. All you need to know is what Newington cares to tell you and, above all else, love honor and cherish morse code, that imaginary paragon of "radio operating skill" among AMATEURS. Keep all those wonderful skills and operating standards of amateurism alive and well long past their usefulness so that you will finally be part of an "in group" of morsemen. Be ready for that "big one" where you can brag about saving the world through morsemanship. You attach too much importance to Morse code testing. Now, one last time, how do you "serve" your country in those "other ways" you claim? Neither you nor the Nun of the Above have answered that question challenge on your respective claims... Suffice it to say that I do, and that I only mention it since you find it important that I was not a member of the uniformed services. It is your gauge, not mine. - Mike KB3EIA - |
I think the U.S.A should follow the Switzerland model of compulsary
military service for all males who are fit to serve. Two years of active service followed by a lifetime of reserve service. Then everyone can tell war stories. It fits with the current theme of celebrating diversity and being inclusive. |
I looked at it again today. Whatever I saw in the information the
other day is gone. It's not the least bit interesting. bb |
bb wrote:
I looked at it again today. Whatever I saw in the information the other day is gone. It's not the least bit interesting. Brian, won't your new news reader do quotes? I'm confused! (yeah, not too hard for me to get that way) 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article .com, "bb"
writes: I think the U.S.A should follow the Switzerland model of compulsary military service for all males who are fit to serve. Two years of active service followed by a lifetime of reserve service. Then everyone can tell war stories. Sounds like a plan! :-) That way EVERYONE can be a "veteran of seven hostile actions!" Whatever they claim MUST be the truth... :-) It fits with the current theme of celebrating diversity and being inclusive. Yes, in the Latin form of "primus inter pares" (first among equals). [the only Latin oxymoron I'm aware of... :-) ] All the PCTA are better than anyone else, even among themselves. |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/16/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] And no "Len Anderson" was active in 1911, antagonizing and telling those radio enthusiasts then (who WERE legal, Lennie...sorry...) how to go about doing what they were doing. Lessee, if he was around back then........ He would probably have been a civil war vet. "He" was actually a Korean War veteran, serving actively from 1952 to 1956. When did Coslo ever serve in ANY military? Coslo has served his country for a lot longer than Lenover21 has then. In what way? :-) "Existance?" And he would have been a member of the Military telegraph service. Could tell all those radio Ops about real telagraphy..... For its time, that would be true...but that is supposition by the Avenging Angle, the hero of "seven hostile actions" along with his lil buddy, the Amateur Balloonist. Yeah, supposition it is. I'm still working on trying to find out what "telagraphy" is. :-) The U.S. Army Signal Corps ran the land force military telegraphy "service" plus a lot of other communications tasks in the Army. I was in the Signal Corps, United States Army. Yeah, like I said.... Ah, but you did NOT "say" anything remotely similar. Tsk. The Morse-Vail Telegraph System debuted in 1844, Baltimore to Washington DC. The U.S. Civil War did not start until 1861, seventeen years later. There was NO "radio" communications until 1896, 52 years after the first Morse-Vail Telegraph service opened. Right, there ya go!...... It is recorded history. Try reading about it...other than just from the press at Newington. hehe, I like that! Coslo has never served in any military. In fact, he has NOT served in ANY "radio operator" capacity other than as an AMATEUR, a hobbyist, a dilletante in the communications world making big noises like he was an "operator" of high caliber. "High caliber?" No, not even shooting blanks. Hmmm, I guess I touched a nerve. Sorry about that! You don't deny it. It's worse with the Avenging Angle, that obtuse angle (never right), who never worked any military communications and couldn't even make it to military pilot despite having (allegedly) a private pilot's license since before his military service. Wow, talk about losers! Tsk, tsk. I'm not going to tell you anything about the U.S. Civil War despite my late father-in-law's personal study of it nor my own reading of the official histories of the U.S. Army Signal Corps written by the U.S. Army Times, nor of official documents written by Signalmen of the U.S. Army in other official and recognized documents. That's not nice, especially since I enjoy your stories! 8^( I don't think you "enjoy" them at all, but are rather looking for an opportunity to "stick" any NCTA. Aggressive-compulsive behavior common to the more violent sports like hockey (or lately) basketball. Do not worry. Depend on the publishers at Newington to tell you ALL about "radio" (at least that much they care to tell you). You don't have to pay any attention to REAL radio operators and maintainers who were in REAL HF worldwide communications as I was a half century ago...nor of those government and private sector radio operations where I was also in the following half century. All you need to know is what Newington cares to tell you and, above all else, love honor and cherish morse code, that imaginary paragon of "radio operating skill" among AMATEURS. Keep all those wonderful skills and operating standards of amateurism alive and well long past their usefulness so that you will finally be part of an "in group" of morsemen. Be ready for that "big one" where you can brag about saving the world through morsemanship. You attach too much importance to Morse code testing. Not in THIS venue which is supposedly about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY, not world socio-politics as some want it. Now, one last time, how do you "serve" your country in those "other ways" you claim? Neither you nor the Nun of the Above have answered that question challenge on your respective claims... Suffice it to say that I do, and that I only mention it since you find it important that I was not a member of the uniformed services. It is your gauge, not mine. So...you CANNOT answer. Because you have NONE? No matter. Merry Christmas and good will to all men... |
I've been using google, now google beta. Yech!
I'm not sure of the suck-factor, maybe 8 on a scale of 10? |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: (Len Over 21) Date: 12/16/2004 7:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: In fact, there was NO ARRL and NONE of the amateur radio enthusiasts were legal! [NO radio regulating agency active in the USA in 1911] And no "Len Anderson" was active in 1911, antagonizing and telling those radio enthusiasts then (who WERE legal, Lennie...sorry...) how to go about doing what they were doing. Lessee, if he was around back then........ He would probably have been a civil war vet. "He" was actually a Korean War veteran, serving actively from 1952 to 1956. When did Coslo ever serve in ANY military? Coslo has served his country for a lot longer than Lenover21 has then. In what way? :-) Ahh, you told me that it was the last time you were going to ask in your last post "Existance?" Existance? And he would have been a member of the Military telegraph service. Could tell all those radio Ops about real telagraphy..... For its time, that would be true...but that is supposition by the Avenging Angle, the hero of "seven hostile actions" along with his lil buddy, the Amateur Balloonist. Yeah, supposition it is. I'm still working on trying to find out what "telagraphy" is. :-) I could user a good proofreader now and again... 8^) The U.S. Army Signal Corps ran the land force military telegraphy "service" plus a lot of other communications tasks in the Army. I was in the Signal Corps, United States Army. Yeah, like I said.... Ah, but you did NOT "say" anything remotely similar. Tsk. What I said was about you relating your stories to us... The Morse-Vail Telegraph System debuted in 1844, Baltimore to Washington DC. The U.S. Civil War did not start until 1861, seventeen years later. There was NO "radio" communications until 1896, 52 years after the first Morse-Vail Telegraph service opened. Right, there ya go!...... It is recorded history. Try reading about it...other than just from the press at Newington. hehe, I like that! Coslo has never served in any military. In fact, he has NOT served in ANY "radio operator" capacity other than as an AMATEUR, a hobbyist, a dilletante in the communications world making big noises like he was an "operator" of high caliber. "High caliber?" No, not even shooting blanks. Hmmm, I guess I touched a nerve. Sorry about that! You don't deny it. I is definitely a dilettante. It's worse with the Avenging Angle, that obtuse angle (never right), who never worked any military communications and couldn't even make it to military pilot despite having (allegedly) a private pilot's license since before his military service. Wow, talk about losers! Tsk, tsk. I'm not going to tell you anything about the U.S. Civil War despite my late father-in-law's personal study of it nor my own reading of the official histories of the U.S. Army Signal Corps written by the U.S. Army Times, nor of official documents written by Signalmen of the U.S. Army in other official and recognized documents. That's not nice, especially since I enjoy your stories! 8^( I don't think you "enjoy" them at all, but are rather looking for an opportunity to "stick" any NCTA. Incorrect. Aggressive-compulsive behavior common to the more violent sports like hockey (or lately) basketball. Won't deny that, though I restrict my more physical activity to other participants, not the fans. Do not worry. Depend on the publishers at Newington to tell you ALL about "radio" (at least that much they care to tell you). You don't have to pay any attention to REAL radio operators and maintainers who were in REAL HF worldwide communications as I was a half century ago...nor of those government and private sector radio operations where I was also in the following half century. All you need to know is what Newington cares to tell you and, above all else, love honor and cherish morse code, that imaginary paragon of "radio operating skill" among AMATEURS. Keep all those wonderful skills and operating standards of amateurism alive and well long past their usefulness so that you will finally be part of an "in group" of morsemen. Be ready for that "big one" where you can brag about saving the world through morsemanship. You attach too much importance to Morse code testing. Not in THIS venue which is supposedly about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY, not world socio-politics as some want it. Sigh, there hasn't been much talk in here about Morse lately, which is just fine with me. You really should start a moderated group, in which all participants *have* to talk about Morse code. Now, one last time, how do you "serve" your country in those "other ways" you claim? Neither you nor the Nun of the Above have answered that question challenge on your respective claims... Suffice it to say that I do, and that I only mention it since you find it important that I was not a member of the uniformed services. It is your gauge, not mine. So...you CANNOT answer. Because you have NONE? Yeah, that's right, I have none, that's the ticket! Believe that if you wish. 8^) That would be an idiotic thing to lie about. No matter. Indeed. Merry Christmas and good will to all men... Enjoy the holidays Len. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: When did Coslo ever serve in ANY military? Coslo has served his country for a lot longer than Lenover21 has then. In what way? :-) Ahh, you told me that it was the last time you were going to ask in your last post IN WHAT WAY??? You are trying to be clever and obfuscate with a non-answer. That only proves you have NO answer at all. I'm still working on trying to find out what "telagraphy" is. :-) I could user a good proofreader now and again... 8^) I'm sure you could "user" a lot of things... The U.S. Army Signal Corps ran the land force military telegraphy "service" plus a lot of other communications tasks in the Army. I was in the Signal Corps, United States Army. Yeah, like I said.... Ah, but you did NOT "say" anything remotely similar. Tsk. What I said was about you relating your stories to us... I just relate factual history, uncolored by morsemanship bias from the BoD at Newington. I don't think you "enjoy" them at all, but are rather looking for an opportunity to "stick" any NCTA. Incorrect. My OPINION is my OPINION. You cannot call it "incorrect" or "correct." By observation of your postings, you DO like to "pick on" those who do not favor any morse code test. Not in THIS venue which is supposedly about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY, not world socio-politics as some want it. Sigh, there hasn't been much talk in here about Morse lately, which is just fine with me. You really should start a moderated group, in which all participants *have* to talk about Morse code. THIS NEWSGROUP was BEGUN to take the morse code test controversy off of rec.radio.amateur.misc. You are NOT, nor ever were, any "moderator" in here. This newsgroup is an UNmoderated one and open to anyone with access to the Internet. YOU do NOT "own" anything in here just by existing here, despite your apparent territorial imperative feelings. Suffice it to say that I do, and that I only mention it since you find it important that I was not a member of the uniformed services. It is your gauge, not mine. So...you CANNOT answer. Because you have NONE? Yeah, that's right, I have none, that's the ticket! Believe that if you wish. 8^) Still a NON-answer. Are you afraid of the truth? That would be an idiotic thing to lie about. It is done all the time by the "Rambo-wannabees." In some cases by "militia" people going out and playing sojer in da woods and posturing about their "warriorhood." Ptui. Merry Christmas and good will to all men... Enjoy the holidays Len. Thank you, I always do. However, no bets on the "traditional" hypocritical posting to come before Christmas where the Avenging Angle borrows all the trite phrases to "wish everyone a happy holiday"...even to his "opponents" who he calls all kinds of names all the other days of the year. :-) So...what mode/band did Coslo use in 1961? :-) |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: When did Coslo ever serve in ANY military? Coslo has served his country for a lot longer than Lenover21 has then. In what way? :-) Ahh, you told me that it was the last time you were going to ask in your last post IN WHAT WAY??? You are trying to be clever and obfuscate with a non-answer. That only proves you have NO answer at all. I give no answer. I'm still working on trying to find out what "telagraphy" is. :-) I could user a good proofreader now and again... 8^) I'm sure you could "user" a lot of things... You betcha! The U.S. Army Signal Corps ran the land force military telegraphy "service" plus a lot of other communications tasks in the Army. I was in the Signal Corps, United States Army. Yeah, like I said.... Ah, but you did NOT "say" anything remotely similar. Tsk. What I said was about you relating your stories to us... I just relate factual history, uncolored by morsemanship bias from the BoD at Newington. All history is coming from a perspective. So it is a stretch to call it factual. I don't think you "enjoy" them at all, but are rather looking for an opportunity to "stick" any NCTA. Incorrect. My OPINION is my OPINION. You cannot call it "incorrect" or "correct." My opinion of your opinion is that your opinion is incorrect as far as my enjoyment of your stories of your experience. By observation of your postings, you DO like to "pick on" those who do not favor any morse code test. A regular old bully I am! 8^) Not in THIS venue which is supposedly about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY, not world socio-politics as some want it. Sigh, there hasn't been much talk in here about Morse lately, which is just fine with me. You really should start a moderated group, in which all participants *have* to talk about Morse code. THIS NEWSGROUP was BEGUN to take the morse code test controversy off of rec.radio.amateur.misc. You are NOT, nor ever were, any "moderator" in here. This newsgroup is an UNmoderated one and open to anyone with access to the Internet. YOU do NOT "own" anything in here just by existing here, despite your apparent territorial imperative feelings. Suffice it to say that I do, and that I only mention it since you find it important that I was not a member of the uniformed services. It is your gauge, not mine. So...you CANNOT answer. Because you have NONE? Yeah, that's right, I have none, that's the ticket! Believe that if you wish. 8^) Still a NON-answer. Are you afraid of the truth? That would be an idiotic thing to lie about. It is done all the time by the "Rambo-wannabees." In some cases by "militia" people going out and playing sojer in da woods and posturing about their "warriorhood." Ptui. Not me. I have very little concern about such things. It is one of my traits that annoys a lot of people. Merry Christmas and good will to all men... Enjoy the holidays Len. Thank you, I always do. However, no bets on the "traditional" hypocritical posting to come before Christmas where the Avenging Angle borrows all the trite phrases to "wish everyone a happy holiday"...even to his "opponents" who he calls all kinds of names all the other days of the year. :-) So...what mode/band did Coslo use in 1961? :-) I was a wee lad of 7 in 1961. I did however get a citizens band walkie-talkie in either 1964 or 1965, followed by a Lafayette HE20C two years later. I was too young to have a license, so my parents got one. KBM-8780 was the callsign. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961
From: "bb" Date: 12/19/2004 7:36 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: .com I've been using google, now google beta. Yech! I'm not sure of the suck-factor, maybe 8 on a scale of 10? OK...I realize that, in light of the last few months of exchanges, that anything I say sounds bad, however I'd have to say that your assessment is accurate and that trying to follow some of your posts is problematic since it doesn't requote ANY of whom you are responding to. And we've actually had some mutually agreeable things to say. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: Mike Coslo Date: 12/20/2004 4:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: When did Coslo ever serve in ANY military? Coslo has served his country for a lot longer than Lenover21 has then. In what way? :-) Ahh, you told me that it was the last time you were going to ask in your last post IN WHAT WAY??? Oooooooooooooooooohhhh...Mike got Lennie MAD! ! ! ! It does appear that way, Steve. But he did post: *** Now, one last time, how do you "serve" your country in those "other *** ways" you claim? Neither you nor the Nun of the Above have answered *** that question challenge on your respective claims... Lennie making D E M A N D S ! ! ! ! Of course we ASK Lennie for info, and we get reams and reams of rants and ramblings. You are trying to be clever and obfuscate with a non-answer. That only proves you have NO answer at all. I give no answer. Lennie is still seething over my refusal to re-post my USMC MOS's. Gave them to him twice...He still can't seem to wade his way through old posts and e-mail to dig them out. The U.S. Army Signal Corps ran the land force military telegraphy "service" plus a lot of other communications tasks in the Army. I was in the Signal Corps, United States Army. Yeah, like I said.... Ah, but you did NOT "say" anything remotely similar. Tsk. What I said was about you relating your stories to us... I just relate factual history, uncolored by morsemanship bias from the BoD at Newington. "Factual history" like lumping his rear-area radio mechanic Army tour in with the sacrifices of Soldiers who were KIA three years before Lennie was even inducted. Of course if anyone EXCEPT Lennie relates a tale of an event more than 48 hours old, Lennie will launch right back into another of his "standards of the 1930's" rants. I don't think you "enjoy" them at all, but are rather looking for an opportunity to "stick" any NCTA. Incorrect. My OPINION is my OPINION. You cannot call it "incorrect" or "correct." My opinion of your opinion is that your opinion is incorrect as far as my enjoyment of your stories of your experience. My "enjoyment" came several years ago when Lennie was trying to play one-upmanship over his "career"...He screwed up and dropped the name of a military facility that I had also served at. I spoke with persons I knew there who would have been in a place and circumstance to know Lennie. He did. He was less than complimentary of Lennie, Lennie's skills and knowledge. That made it all worth it! Not in THIS venue which is supposedly about AMATEUR RADIO POLICY, not world socio-politics as some want it. Sigh, there hasn't been much talk in here about Morse lately, which is just fine with me. You really should start a moderated group, in which all participants *have* to talk about Morse code. THIS NEWSGROUP was BEGUN to take the morse code test controversy off of rec.radio.amateur.misc. Ooooooppppssssss......There Lennie goes with one of his "in the past" rantings. Of course Lennie will tell us that just because somethig "was" one way decades ago, it is no basis for doing "it" that way in the present...and in that narrow regard he is right. The PROBLEM is, of course, that Lennie does NOT follow his own rhetoric. Case in point: You are NOT, nor ever were, any "moderator" in here. This newsgroup is an UNmoderated one and open to anyone with access to the Internet. Here wwe have Lennie trying to be the moderator that he claims the newsgroup does NOT have. YOU do NOT "own" anything in here just by existing here, despite your apparent territorial imperative feelings. Funny how NO ONE ever claims ANY "territorial imperitive feelings" EXCEPT Lennie...the foregoing attempt to redirect you on what HE (Lennie) perceives the SOLE topic of this NG is supposed to be. Maybe he meant tutorial imperitive? Who knows, but one thing I have found to be true over the years is that if a person has certain goals and wants to hide their motives, the fist step is to accuse others of having those same goals. I really do think he would be happy to have his own Morse code oriented newsgroup with him as the moderator. Maybe. Suffice it to say that I do, and that I only mention it since you find it important that I was not a member of the uniformed services. It is your gauge, not mine. So...you CANNOT answer. Because you have NONE? Yeah, that's right, I have none, that's the ticket! Believe that if you wish. 8^) Still a NON-answer. Are you afraid of the truth? Oh, there's someone here who's afraid of the truth, alright, and it's Leonard H Anderson! That would be an idiotic thing to lie about. It is done all the time by the "Rambo-wannabees." In some cases by "militia" people going out and playing sojer in da woods and posturing about their "warriorhood." Ptui. The ONLY person herein "posturing" about "warriorhood" is Lennie...Case in point the hundreds of posts signed with his former Army service number. Merry Christmas and good will to all men... Enjoy the holidays Len. Thank you, I always do. However, no bets on the "traditional" hypocritical posting to come before Christmas where the Avenging Angle borrows all the trite phrases to "wish everyone a happy holiday"...even to his "opponents" who he calls all kinds of names all the other days of the year. Of course Lennie has never even once, even before the flame war completely ignited, acknowledged a single holiday or "event" greeting. That's because Lennie is a creep. So...what mode/band did Coslo use in 1961? :-) I was a wee lad of 7 in 1961. I did however get a citizens band walkie-talkie in either 1964 or 1965, followed by a Lafayette HE20C two years later. I was too young to have a license, so my parents got one. KBM-8780 was the callsign. KHG-8459. Later followed by KEQ-1570, but by then I was a Commission licensee in my own right with both a station AND operator permit. Lennie doesn't hold ANY station license in ANY radio service. Pity the "radio professional" whose sole access to hobby radio is dependent upon Part's 15 and 95. Its a tangled web for sure. Here's to a happy and fun holiday season to you and the rest of the Robeson family. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"And we've actually had some mutually agreeable things to say."
Suprises the hell out of me. ;^) I still want to get back on the rewrite of Part 97 for foreign amateurs in the USA (or outside the USA yet wanting a USA callsign). I think that's what started it all. |
Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961
From: Mike Coslo Date: 12/20/2004 8:56 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote: Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: Mike Coslo Date: 12/20/2004 4:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Over 21 wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: IN WHAT WAY??? Oooooooooooooooooohhhh...Mike got Lennie MAD! ! ! ! It does appear that way, Steve. But he did post: *** Now, one last time, how do you "serve" your country in those "other *** ways" you claim? Neither you nor the Nun of the Above have answered *** that question challenge on your respective claims... Lennie has a twisted sense of what "service" means. In his mind, one brief tour in the Army was all the "service" one need do. The facts are that there are THOUSANDS of ways one may be of "service" to this Nation, not all of which include donning the uniform of the Armed Forces. Indeed, not every person should or could be a capable member of the Armed Forces, yet they can "serve" in any of those other capacities in grand style. Funny how NO ONE ever claims ANY "territorial imperitive feelings" EXCEPT Lennie...the foregoing attempt to redirect you on what HE (Lennie) perceives the SOLE topic of this NG is supposed to be. Maybe he meant tutorial imperitive? Who knows, but one thing I have found to be true over the years is that if a person has certain goals and wants to hide their motives, the fist step is to accuse others of having those same goals. I really do think he would be happy to have his own Morse code oriented newsgroup with him as the moderator. Maybe. Of course he would! And the rules would be simple...First, any discusson or depiction of persons who use, favor the use of or support the use of Morse Code MUST be depicted as knuckle dragging luddites. Secondly, anyone with less than 14 years of night school to accomplish what any other person can accomplish in a 2 year community college will be dismissed as wannabes, only peripherally interested in radio communication. And lastly, anyone who uses the word "service" in ANY capacity other than that of a one-term Army radio mechanic has NO idea of what they are talking about, and such "talk" is merely the "rantings of a person wrapped in patriotic bunting"... THAT way, EVERY "discussion" would validate his every word as the ONLY word in radio communication, thereby making him the only "authority" in radio communication...Kinda the way he already perceives himself but without the adulation he thinks he so richly deserves. Pity the "radio professional" whose sole access to hobby radio is dependent upon Part's 15 and 95. Its a tangled web for sure. Actually, I was kinda pitying the old guy for being so narrow minded and not having the initiative and motivation to accomplish what he might otherwise be so capable of doing. Here's to a happy and fun holiday season to you and the rest of the Robeson family. And to You and Yours, Sir, a very safe and fulfilling holiday! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Steve says, """Lennie has a twisted sense of what "service" means."""
I'm not so sure about that. """In his mind, one brief tour in the Army was all the "service" one need do.""" To be fair, it is far, far, far more than what the vast majority give. They don't mind taking Pell Grants, guaranteed student loans, etc, and complaining about the rising costs of education, but to put someone else before themselves, "Forget it!" Then want their degree, their 401k, and to hell with anyone else or delaying their education for 4 years. I actually heard an NPR reporter laugh yesterday when he opened a story about Rumsfeld and the problem the Army is having with recruiting. Your tax dollars at work. """The facts are that there are THOUSANDS of ways one may be of "service" to this Nation, not all of which include donning the uniform of the Armed Forces. Indeed, not every person should or could be a capable member of the Armed Forces, yet they can "serve" in any of those other capacities in grand style.""" That's debatable. And don't get me started on the "Americorps" program. |
bb wrote:
Steve says, """Lennie has a twisted sense of what "service" means.""" I'm not so sure about that. """In his mind, one brief tour in the Army was all the "service" one need do.""" To be fair, it is far, far, far more than what the vast majority give. They don't mind taking Pell Grants, guaranteed student loans, etc, and complaining about the rising costs of education, but to put someone else before themselves, "Forget it!" Then want their degree, their 401k, and to hell with anyone else or delaying their education for 4 years. Well, I worked for 2 years at a defense contractor on flight simulators for training air force pilots after graduating college. Does that count?..... |
Bob, sounds like a huge sacrifice having to put up with AF pilots.
|
bb wrote:
Bob, sounds like a huge sacrifice having to put up with AF pilots. I didn't have to make *that* sacrifice. So I guess I got off with easy duty..... Other people dealt with the pilots, I just designed the equipment. :-) |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article . net, robert casey writes: No, *all* activity on radio was legal. Anything not specifically outlawed is legal. Yes and no. The LAW defines what is legal and what is illegal. Without the LAW specifically covering it, it is neither legal nor illegal. I dunno what country you live in, Leonard. Here in the United States, anything not forbidden by law is generally legal. As a case in point, my maternal grandmother was fourteen in 1914. Her father was a well-to-do local farmer. He bought her an automobile which she drove all over this county and neighboring counties. In 1914, West Virginia did not require licensing of automobile drivers. My grandmother's driving was absolutely legal. Here's another. There is no zoning outside of municipalities here. Since I've owned this property, I've put up two radio towers, a 16 x 30' heated barn and a sauna building. They are all absolutely legal. No one can tell me to take them down and no permits were required. It appears that you know as little about what is legal as you do of amateur radio. The radio regulations came later. Of course. 1912. But the implication of the "1961 Poll" is rather obvious to tout CW (on-off keying). Especially considering the source of that posting. 1961 was 43 years ago. Times change. Technology changes. The times do change. I wasn't a radio amateur in 1961. I was a radio amateur just two years later. Some things don't change much. You weren't a radio amateur in 1961. You aren't a radio amateur now. There was NO personal computer in 1961 except for a few with lots and lots of money. Very few. "Personal computers"? You're telling us that there were a very few PC's in 1961? Unless you've redefined the term, I don't think so. In 2003 one family in five in the USA had some kind of Internet access...that makes it roughly 60 million folks a year ago. One out of three USA citizens has a cell phone subscription now, or roughly 100 million of those. So in 2003, four out of five families had no Internet access. We can mumble all sorts of things about the PAST, but that is just mumbling, having little relevance to the present and future. It is evident that you have mumbled all sorts of things about the PAST. You've mumbled some of 'em dozens of times. I take it that those things have no relevance to the present and future. Dave |
|
Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/26/2004 8:41 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: I will agree it's more like "many", but not "vast majority"...Maybe it's just the circles I run in, but MOST of the people I know are involved in SOME form of community service, whether it's CAP, Amateur Radio groups, Red Cross, EMS squads, etc. Church community action groups are a dime a dozen in this area. And for every person visibly involved, there are usually several who work behind the scenes, or who are involved by contributions of money, supplies, or facilities. I think every able bodied (and that is far more liberal these days, all things considered...) should be REQUIRED to put in 2 years of mandatory public service... I don't think *anyone* should be *required* to serve in any capacity. That's involuntary servitude AFAIC. Jim...Ain't it a kick in the butt that one of the most liberal societies in the world, specifically Switzerland, has mandatory MILITARY training for all able bodied men, yet no one considers it "involuntary servitude"...?!?! OTOH, there should be *opportunities* to serve that include nonmilitary options. As I said.... If they choose the Armed Forces, fine...but imagine the possibilites if we could focus some of that energy into the homeless issue, enviromental problems, etc... I agree 100%. Such service opportunities could be tied to funding higher education, similar to veteran's benefits. Ideally, people in any service capacity could earn credits and training that would permit them to pay for almost any degree they are smart enough to earn. There's a lot more to "service" than boot camp and cammo green! Well said! Thanks. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/27/2004 6:30 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: I think every able bodied (and that is far more liberal these days, all things considered...) should be REQUIRED to put in 2 years of mandatory public service... I don't think *anyone* should be *required* to serve in any capacity. That's involuntary servitude AFAIC. Jim...Ain't it a kick in the butt that one of the most liberal societies in the world, specifically Switzerland, has mandatory MILITARY training for all able bodied men, yet no one considers it "involuntary servitude"...?!?! Interesting observation, but consider this: - Is Switzerland really "one of the most liberal societies in the world"? I've known a Swiss expatriate or two, and the reason given for leaving was that the place was highly *conservative*. That's just hearsay, of course, and I've never been there, but the clear impression I was given was that it was a place where everybody was expected to behave in accordance with very strict and narrow customs and traditions. Ever hear of "Needle Park"...??? Steve, K4YZ |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote: Subject: Mode/Band Use in 1961 From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 12/27/2004 6:30 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4YZ) writes: I think every able bodied (and that is far more liberal these days, all things considered...) should be REQUIRED to put in 2 years of mandatory public service... I don't think *anyone* should be *required* to serve in any capacity. That's involuntary servitude AFAIC. Jim...Ain't it a kick in the butt that one of the most liberal societies in the world, specifically Switzerland, has mandatory MILITARY training for all able bodied men, yet no one considers it "involuntary servitude"...?!?! Interesting observation, but consider this: - Is Switzerland really "one of the most liberal societies in the world"? I've known a Swiss expatriate or two, and the reason given for leaving was that the place was highly *conservative*. That's just hearsay, of course, and I've never been there, but the clear impression I was given was that it was a place where everybody was expected to behave in accordance with very strict and narrow customs and traditions. Ever hear of "Needle Park"...??? No! Where is it - in Switzerland? I know that The Netherlands has very loose rules in certain districts on things like recreational drugs, but I don't know about Switzerland. -- I've been to Geneva plenty of times - Geneva New York, that is.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com